Amp shootout - Teac chimp amp vs. McIntosh MC 250

[sheltie dave]

I've been running the little Teac digital amp with a Merlin preamp, and DeanG modded RF-7s on the home theater setup in our family room for over a year now, and was pleasantly satisfied with the level of performance a dirt cheap small digital could deliver. I could never really get the Teac to gallop much, as it is about as painful an amp can be when driven to clipping.

I got a new garage sale MC250 back from Alpha Audio this week, with a couple new caps installed, and the amp specced out at .15% THD at 63 wpc. Hooked it up to the Merlin, and threw a fav of my wife's in...The Sound of Music. Cued up the wedding procession, let 'er rip, and watched our sheltie flee into the back bedroom as the lowest register of the organ blatted out at about 25 wpc, clear and authoritative.

Wanted to hear a little thumb popping base, so I dug out Schooldays by Stanley Clarke. A big smile hit me, and I let pup outside so I could get down to business. Rolled through some Kraut electronica from the 70s, Randy Pie, Kraftwork, Omega, and Nektar representing. I threw a couple Pavlov's Dog songs on, and the Mac handled some incredibly difficult vocals with aplomb. "Natchez Trace" is a song not for the faint of heart, nor a balky and twitchy amp.

After two hours, I was ready to compare the Teac, but decided it's time for a new home. Now I can't wait to hear a MC2100, reputedly a marked improvement on the MC250. The 250 is like a slab of prime rib after the Teac, with lots of fixins on the side, and a big hunk of cheesecake. It is a much more robust, thick sound than the Teac, with just a slight skin of SS grain. The Teac was tipped well toward the top end, and accentuated by the very live room. I liked the Teac for its effortless presentation, but it would not get loud until a certain point, and suddenly it was too loud. The Mac has a much more linear volume progression.

[Parrot]

The TEAC has two fatal flaws to it. One, it is a digital amp. Two, it doesn't have enough power.

Nobody here should be satisfied with a "good enough" amp. Let the general public have those. Audiophiles should go for, as you put it, amps that help in the pursuit of The Sound of Music.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

The TEAC has two fatal flaws to it. One, it is a digital amp. Two, it doesn't have enough power.

Nobody here should be satisfied with a "good enough" amp. Let the general public have those. Audiophiles should go for, as you put it, amps that help in the pursuit of The Sound of Music.

Getting bored with picking on SET's and need to move on to digital amps?

[Colin]

Thanks for the comparison; tell us more!

I heard the tiny $35 Sonic Impact 5066 and the $450 Red Wine Clari T class T analogue input digital amplifier with battery power on Stax electroset headphones, La Scalas and the mighty Klipsch classic corner horns. Along with a few other tube amplifiers and the amazing Pass X250. These are all better amplifiers that the typical off-the-shelf solid-state receivers, which will soon migrate to analogue to digital circuitry like the class T ones.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In my experience, digital and other amplifiers suffer NOT from their class topology, but from their low power THD and lack of impedance control. If, like the Pass X250, they could double their power ratings into low impedance loads, they could provide much of the bass and power required by big ole horns. If a ddigital amplifier could provide twice as much wattage into 4-ohms as it does into 8, I feel that would have the power to drive big ole horns.

I no longer believe that the best solution must be only tube or by only solid-state. In fact, I believe the best solution is a combination of both worlds: using massive solid-state amplifiers to drive the bass and using delicate tube amplifiers to drive the mid and upper ranges.

[whell]

There are some on this forum who seem favorably impressed with the QSC pro amps. Their PLX series of amps, which also use a variant of the digital amplification technology, are rated for 4 ohm operation, as well as 2 ohm operation, though the THD does seem to take a hit at 2 ohms. Sonically they are apparenlty quite enjoyable to listen to. I may have to check one out sometime.

SPECIFICATIONS

PLX1202

PLX1602

PLX2402

PLX3002

PLX3402

STEREO MODE, Both Channels Driven

8 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.03% THD)

200 W

300 W

425 W

550 W

700 W

4 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.05% THD)

325 W

500 W

700 W

900 W

1100 W

2 ohms (1 kHz 1% THD)

600 W

800 W

1200 W

1500 W

1700 W

[NOSValves]

There are some on this forum who seem favorably impressed with the QSC pro amps. Their PLX series of amps, which also use a variant of the digital amplification technology, are rated for 4 ohm operation, as well as 2 ohm operation, though the THD does seem to take a hit at 2 ohms. Sonically they are apparenlty quite enjoyable to listen to. I may have to check one out sometime.

SPECIFICATIONS

PLX1202

PLX1602

PLX2402

PLX3002

PLX3402

STEREO MODE, Both Channels Driven

8 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.03% THD)

200 W

300 W

425 W

550 W

700 W

4 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.05% THD)

325 W

500 W

700 W

900 W

1100 W

2 ohms (1 kHz 1% THD)

600 W

800 W

1200 W

1500 W

1700 W

Whell,

The 700W version has to be the only way to go for a guy like me. I have been torturing my ears for years listening at painful levels so I need more and more power [] In fact I'm currently looking for a way to strap my Lascalas right to my ears like headphones....I just have to work out some type of cart to have them ride on as I move about [6][]

[Parrot]

The TEAC has two fatal flaws to it. One, it is a digital amp. Two, it doesn't have enough power.

Nobody here should be satisfied with a "good enough" amp. Let the general public have those. Audiophiles should go for, as you put it, amps that help in the pursuit of The Sound of Music.

Getting bored with picking on SET's and need to move on to digital amps?

No, not at all. I've always been against chip amps. My one word description of them is "uninvolving."

[Erik Mandaville]

"My one word description of them is "uninvolving."

My one word response: So?

[Audio Flynn]

Teac chimp amp vs. McIntosh MC 250

=============

I am holding out for the Gorrilla amp.

[Parrot]

"My one word description of them is "uninvolving."

My one word response: So?

I hadn't forgotten that you like uninvolving amps. But the post wasn't written for you.

[Deang]

I don't like chimp amps either, chip amps are the way to go.

Read the TEAC manual. It doesn't do well with things that drop much below 6 ohms. With a minimum impedance of 2.8 ohms, the RF-7 isn't the best candidate for that amplifer. The TEAC also needs a good preamp. If you run it stand alone using the really awful attenuators in the back then performance is certainly less than stellar. Personally, I thought mine sounded great with the Peach. However, mine had been modded by Al, who removed the board with the crappy attenuators and hard wired everything to a nice barrier strip. It's like any other piece of gear, you need to work with it and find something that it has some synergy with. These amps also hit a brick wall pretty fast on the power end of things.

Paul, I think you had a generation 1 Sony receiver or something. Something like the TEAC or SI Super-T actually sound pretty nice in smaller settings, or in situations where they aren't driven too hard. They are kind of like another kind of amp you don't like.

[NOSValves]

Dean,

The chip amps would not run out a steam if you would just do as I describe above. I'm almost have all the planning done for the Lascala head phone implementation[]

Craig

[tigerwoodKhorns]

There are some on this forum who seem favorably impressed with the QSC pro amps. Their PLX series of amps, which also use a variant of the digital amplification technology, are rated for 4 ohm operation, as well as 2 ohm operation, though the THD does seem to take a hit at 2 ohms. Sonically they are apparenlty quite enjoyable to listen to. I may have to check one out sometime.

SPECIFICATIONS

PLX1202

PLX1602

PLX2402

PLX3002

PLX3402

STEREO MODE, Both Channels Driven

8 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.03% THD)

200 W

300 W

425 W

550 W

700 W

4 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.05% THD)

325 W

500 W

700 W

900 W

1100 W

2 ohms (1 kHz 1% THD)

600 W

800 W

1200 W

1500 W

1700 W

Whell,

The 700W version has to be the only way to go for a guy like me. I have been torturing my ears for years listening at painful levels so I need more and more power [] In fact I'm currently looking for a way to strap my Lascalas right to my ears like headphones....I just have to work out some type of cart to have them ride on as I move about [6][]

I actually had one of the 3402's in my house for a month. I returned it because I had already bought Bryston mono's, but would have kept it otherwise. It is a great amp (and really powerful). My speakers weigh about 225 lbs each so I didn't strap them to my ears.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

There are some on this forum who seem favorably impressed with the QSC pro amps. Their PLX series of amps, which also use a variant of the digital amplification technology, are rated for 4 ohm operation, as well as 2 ohm operation, though the THD does seem to take a hit at 2 ohms. Sonically they are apparenlty quite enjoyable to listen to. I may have to check one out sometime.

SPECIFICATIONS

PLX1202

PLX1602

PLX2402

PLX3002

PLX3402

STEREO MODE, Both Channels Driven

8 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.03% THD)

200 W

300 W

425 W

550 W

700 W

4 ohms (20 Hz-20 kHz 0.05% THD)

325 W

500 W

700 W

900 W

1100 W

2 ohms (1 kHz 1% THD)

600 W

800 W

1200 W

1500 W

1700 W

Whell,

The 700W version has to be the only way to go for a guy like me. I have been torturing my ears for years listening at painful levels so I need more and more power [] In fact I'm currently looking for a way to strap my Lascalas right to my ears like headphones....I just have to work out some type of cart to have them ride on as I move about [6][]

I actually had one of the 3402's in my house for a month. I returned it because I had already bought Bryston mono's, but would have kept it otherwise. It is a great amp (and really powerful). My speakers weigh about 225 lbs each so I didn't strap them to my ears.

[Deang]

LOL, well, yeah -- but I think I'm already doing that. It's why I can get away with using those things.

[sheltie dave]

Dean., that makes sense. It is like the Teac is pushing a huge load up a hill, hits level ground and runs well for a little bit, and then hits hits the brick wall HARD.

I've read the Mac 250 has a damping factor in the 50-100 range, so it should make hay with the RF7s, and it certainly sounds like they enjoy each other.

[richieb]

I too thought I would evaluate a so-called 'chip amp" or "gain clone".

In this case the Audio Zone Amp 1, what I would call an audiophile chip

amp. Dual mono, dual volume pots and 45wpc. Runs very, very close with

my Melody Valve 2a3. Not quite as meaty or full, doesn't image as well

but very close, this piece is in another world as compared to the Teac

but at its price, should be. In my opinion, completely killed my Mac

2505/C26 combo, I mean KILLED them. Very smooth, zero grain and an

absolute pleasure to listen. Gain clones done correctly will give ANY

SS amp a run for its money along with many tubes. Think of the Amp 1 as

an inch thick dry aged KC Strip complete with scallop potatoes and

asperagus; the Melody, substitute a filet and add a bottle of Cabernet.

[Erik Mandaville]

Has the Teac sometimes been referred to in the past as a 'Toy' because of its light weight? The reference was usually made in a sort of derogatory tone, as if in this case the diminutive weight alone made it unworthy of consideration.

Do amps have to be large and heavy in order to produce 'good' sound? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that such a requirement would depend on the nature of the particular design of the amplifier, no? The Teac doesn't need cumbersome power and output transformers, the latter of which often being viewed by OTL designers and users as a possible source of sound degradation and distortion.

Maybe the weight/performance concern in this case has a certain psychological component? Is it possible that digital amplification (design dependent) may actually be presenting a more faithful reproduction of the recorded information? Maybe some of us have become so used to the euphonic signal colorations imposed by output transformers and other circuit components that what might ultimately be the more accurate representation sounds......bad?

We should use what sounds best to each of us, period. Viewing something as a 'Toy' based on physical attributes alone seems to me to be an ineffective means of evaluating a component.

Erik

[NOSValves]

Half a pound to 10 pounds a watt depending on topology any thing under that is a girlie amp []

[Parrot]

Paul, . . . Something like the TEAC or SI Super-T actually sound pretty nice in smaller settings, or in situations where they aren't driven too hard. They are kind of like another kind of amp you don't like.

Exactly! Those amps of the other kind are also uninvolving. In a battle of uninvolving amps, I guess I'd go for the cheapy chippies.