stormin Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Do amps have to be large and heavy in order to produce 'good' sound? Yes. Yes they do. Hogwash! And I know for a FACT that is Hogwash! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 "I'm not sure I understand." Oh, you're back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 "In my case I did think about a sandwich. The one you will find squashed on the bottom of an American Airline lunch bag if you're travelling in cattle class. Some seems to enjoy though." Ah, okay. You've taken care of the food comparison for me. Cheers. I remember back in the Horus days it was enjoyable communicating with you at times. There was some common ground shared for awhile. Good luck in your new job, enjoy Perth. Be careful of Nancy's and the little one's eyes when chowing down that Kung pow while flinging those Metheny records at the wall. Better yet, use the energy and make yourself another pair of Horus twins. I remember many times where you indicated you wished you hadn't sold your last pair. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 And speaking of Metheny: We were just talking the other day how it all sounds the same, now. I got his solo album One Quiet Night, which has some good tracks and is recorded well, but the rest with the band seems to follow the same formula hung with slighly different ornamentation. The guts are the same, though, and kind of boring, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Max: "Yamaha MX-D1." That's supposed to be a good amp. You've had it for awhile now, right? Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Erik, I hate to interrupt your conversation with yourself, but . . . Max, your amp looks like a bathroom scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackpod Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I was under the impression that the MC250 sounded better than the MC2100. Yes I understand the power difference. Would you consider two MC250's mono vs the MC2100? It depends on the vintage of the MC250, a few years into the line they totally revamped the MC250, which they didn't do with the MC2100. I would have to dig thru some paperwork to see if I could find the differences. I have listened to strapped 250's vs a 2100. The strapped 250's rocked. I still own a 250, 2100 and 5 of the mono MC50's (they only made the MC50 for 2 or 3 years). A pair of the MC50's knock the socks of an MC250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Well......there's chimp amps and chip amps but if you are going to evalutate the breed it is only fair to look at decent examples: Yamaha MX-D1. In conjuntion with a nice tube pre-amp (I am using the Klimo) this produces a sound I do not think anyone could identify as being digital. It also does not suffer from inadequate power as some of the quoted models do - nor does it have any problems with impedance falls down to 2 ohms in the loudspeaker it is driving. They say the sound quality does not change from 16 to 2 ohms which would make this rather a unique amp IME. Will happily drive any speaker in my experience to date. How expensive is it? I had LEOK's Tripath amp for about 2 years before I sold it back to him. It was pleasant to listen to at low levels in my 14 X 20 room. Bass weight, attack and soundstage were lacking compared to my tubes but my tubes are very good.[8-|] (I have not had a self indulgent comment in a few days) Lets say any chip amp that is less than 400 usd would be a decent experiment to try. If you like Rock or loud orchestra an correctly updated vintage tube integrated would be a better investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 They are a bit more expensive than $400 - by a factor of 10 in fact. For a chip amp that is outrageous of course - but for a 500 wpc amp that will happily burble at one wpc or less it is not unreasonable. Yes Eric - on and off I have known this amp for a while now. Tony got it 2 years ago or more and it has visited my house several times prior to coming here for the longer haul (been a couple of months now I would guess). Sonically I would say it has quite a soft, rounded sound - in other words the exact opposite of what I was expecting from a digtial amp, although that might be more related to the pre-amp. Whatever impedance load it shows to the pre-amp my ZTPRE doesn't like it - so care may be needed in matching upstream components. The Klimo loves it - but again this is not a cheap component. Basically I would never have spent the money on this combo - but for free till Tony finds them a paying home - I could not resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 I was under the impression that the MC250 sounded better than the MC2100. Yes I understand the power difference. Would you consider two MC250's mono vs the MC2100? It depends on the vintage of the MC250, a few years into the line they totally revamped the MC250, which they didn't do with the MC2100. I would have to dig thru some paperwork to see if I could find the differences. I have listened to strapped 250's vs a 2100. The strapped 250's rocked. I still own a 250, 2100 and 5 of the mono MC50's (they only made the MC50 for 2 or 3 years). A pair of the MC50's knock the socks of an MC250 Now this is great info. When you say "strapped", I assume you refer to running the MC250 mono. I have seen the MC50 come up on Ebay from time to time. Hard to find any personal input on them since not that many were made. Nice to hear you vote of confidence in them. Terry DeWick has my MC250 about to send it back to me after he did an "update" on it. I think mine is a late 60's model. If you find out the year/time they "revamped" the MC250, please let us know. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 "Sonically I would say it has quite a soft, rounded sound - in other words the exact opposite of what I was expecting from a digtial amp, although that might be more related to the pre-amp." Max: That makes sense. I have found something similar with using my tube preamp with the Teac in our Heresy two-channel system. The Teac does seem to have slight upward tilt compared to my tube amplifers, but the balance is really very nice with 6SN7s in front of it. The Lexicon has features, too, that permit a certain amount of top-to-bottom balance, but I would say the Teac and tube pre combination is a little more organic sounding. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painful Reality Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Be careful of Nancy's and the little one's eyes when chowing down that Kung pow while flinging those Metheny records at the wall. Better yet, use the energy and make yourself another pair of Horus twins. I remember many times where you indicated you wished you hadn't sold your last pair. Erik Chinese food? You're so yesterday! Think Italian man! BTW ain't it spelled Kung Pao? I'll ask Craig. I still have a close relative of the Horus right now if it can make you happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackpod Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 The MC50 mono was only made 1969-1970. They are a great little amp. I wish I had 5 more. The MC250 was made from 1967-1979 and the 2100 was made from 1969 to 1977. And yes "strapped" is running them in mono. I have to find the boxes with my service info for the design change info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Hi again, Jeff. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 And Dave: My apologies for the totally unrelated 'things' that found their way into this thread. Erik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audio Flynn Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 They are a bit more expensive than $400 - by a factor of 10 in fact. For a chip amp that is outrageous of course - but for a 500 wpc amp that will happily burble at one wpc or less it is not unreasonable. Yes Eric - on and off I have known this amp for a while now. Tony got it 2 years ago or more and it has visited my house several times prior to coming here for the longer haul (been a couple of months now I would guess). Sonically I would say it has quite a soft, rounded sound - in other words the exact opposite of what I was expecting from a digtial amp, although that might be more related to the pre-amp. Whatever impedance load it shows to the pre-amp my ZTPRE doesn't like it - so care may be needed in matching upstream components. The Klimo loves it - but again this is not a cheap component. Basically I would never have spent the money on this combo - but for free till Tony finds them a paying home - I could not resist. Thanks Max! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Boy, is jackpod spot-on concerning the MC250...it's still my favorite SS amp, even in its original form like my '72 was (I can only imagine how a tuned-up to today's spec'd MC250 by Terry would sound). If I had never bought my SET amp, I'd still be very greatful today to be driving my old Cornwalls (or my soon-to-arrive RB-75s) and just my present-day Cambridge Audio 640C disc player through my trusty MC250 (no stinkin' preamp needed)![] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 And my other brother did use two MC250s "strapped" back in '03, using his Yamaha AV receiver as a pre for two-channel SACD/CD listening. The Mac on the left was mine and the right Mac he won on eBay (both in near-mint original condition) driving his Acoustic Energy Aegis Two towers. He had a '76(?) MC2100 that he let me borrow for the meantime... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 My bro's all-original MC2100 was another excellent near-mint example of McIntosh's next-generation SS amplifier. As beautiful as it was, we also noticed how both our MC250s seemed to have a warmer, more rounded "tube"-like sound (both models used Autoformers). I could also live with the MC2100 today had I not gone the ways of SET (sorry, Paul), but if given a choice, I'd still prefer the 50+ watts of the '250 over the 100+ watts of the '2100 (especially with Klipsch)! YMMV, and all that jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted December 14, 2006 Author Share Posted December 14, 2006 Jim, I haven't had much time to look, but I just picked up a Mac 1900 receiver that is rated at 55 wpc. The cans look to be slightly smaller than the ones on the MC250, but it would make sense that McIntosh just dropped the amp guts into a receiver platform. Is this what they did, or is the amp design for the 1900 different, if you know? Thx... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.