Vintage Asylum

Classic gear from yesteryear; vintage audio standing the test of time.

Return to Vintage Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

McIntosh preamp question

24.4.254.216
Posted on March 16, 2001 at 00:33:38
hogy


 
I've decided to go with a pair of MC30s as poweramps for my system. I'm not a vintage McIntosh expert. What Mac preamp would you consider the best match for the MC30s? What's the "historically correct" Mac preamp? How about using other brands, such as a Fisher 400C? Will two Mac C8s work for a stereo setup? What's the best vintage preamp (any brand) for phono?
Lots of questions, I know, but I appreciate any input. I'm learning a lot here. This is a great forum. Thanks,Hogy

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 09:59:15
Dave V


 
You can really use any tube preamp with the MC30's. Historically correct may not be valid here. Maybe "time line" correct? The MC30's were made for a while so the choice of Mac Preamps may have been C108,C-8,C8S,C20,C11,C22. Then who's to say you have to use a Mac preamp? Everyone that purchased MC30's new did not have a Mac Preamp.
C8's would be OK but they take their B+ supply from the MC30 unless you get the separate supplies for them. That sort of drags the B+ on the MC30's down. There was a C-8S that had a dual volume pot to convert to stereo. Made it easier to ajust volume with one knob rather than two. The Fisher 400C would be fine and in my opinion be better than C8's. Especially the 400CX.

Dave

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 13:21:46
Steve Hoffman


 
I use a McIntosh C-20. Correct time-frame, and it sounds pretty darn good, esp. with some good new old stock tubes in it. Since most Mac collectors only want the later C-22, the C-20's can sometimes be had for a song....

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 13:45:47
Ross


 
2 x c-8 will work for stereo. But it would be better to get a C-8 and a C-8s, which had additional features to facilitate usage for stereo. This is your least costly option. If you have a collection of pre RIAA recordings, the C-8 series has the proper phono eq circuitry for correct reproduction.

C-11 is ok and reletively cheap. Most prefer sound of C-20/22 (real dif is cosmetics). Marantz 7c has better phono stage. Fisher 400cx said to sound 98% as good as C-2 or 7c @ less than 1/2 price. For a bit more than a good 400cx, you can have a pair of Fisher 80 Mono preamps. These are reputed to be among the best sounding of all vintage preamps.

I would have no qualms whatsoever about useing a non Mac pre with a pair of MC-30. I am currently using a Conrad Johsnon PV-5 with mine.

Don't forget that alot of the opinions expressed by experts are in part based upon "collectability" rather than sound. Also important to realize that if you are listening to completely stock equipment, with original 40-50yr old parts, you are not hearing the equipment at its best. Signal path components fail over time and degrade the signal while doing so.

Best,

Ross

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 14:24:29
belyin


 
What do you think of the Citation 1 in comparison to the other vintage pre-amps mentioned in your post? Ask I said in the post below, I have a Citation 1 that needs work, and I am wondering how much effort and money I should put into it.

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 17:27:52
bean_counter


 
I recall you were asking about tuner/pre combinations in a prior post.... I'm using a Scott 355 tuner/pre; maybe not quite as refined as a C-20, but from the correct era and it looks great. Excellent phono section with Mullard 12AX7's, IMHO.

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 16, 2001 at 17:54:24
TheRecordCollector


 
I use a McIntosh C-22 & a Marantz 7c. Both original issue.

Both sound very nice, however, the C-22 has a loudness countour switch that the Marantz doesn't have, but not a nescessity.

The Marantz seem's to have a sweeter soundstage; more "air".

It has been my personal experience, that a McIntosh amp sounds best with a McIntosh preamp.

Same for the Marantz. I run the Marantz 7c into a Marantz 8b pwr amp.

Good Luck!

TRC

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 20, 2001 at 12:33:23
Ross


 
My opinion is that the Cit-1 is not one of the better sounding vintage preamps. Others differ. If it is in good working/ cosmetic condition, I would sell it and use the proceeds for something else.

Heck, for what a good Cit-1 is worth on Ebay, you can buy a Pas-3 and have enough left over for a good rebuild, or you can get an early Conrad Johnson.

Best,

Ross

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 23, 2001 at 14:24:42
johng


 
I have a MC-20 in my "collection" - and have used it on and off for several years. I like it, but it does show its' age. It is a bit "tubby" in the bass, and the highs are a touch hard to me. It is a beautiful piece, I like the loudness contour, and quality tubes help.

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on March 25, 2001 at 21:59:27
Brian Levy


 
As for the tuner/preamp, my vote is the MX110 McIntosh hands down. The company produced a series of this combination including ss that for the $ surpassed in every way their integrated amps, and receivers where there was an overlap. The company saw the tuner/pramp as the entry into McIntosh separates while the other combos were for the less affluent crowd who were probably not as serious minded about audio but did know quality and good sound but, were not hung up on a big system. Actually, the tuner/preamp makes good sense. I wonder why so few companies stayed with the arrangement, especially after the advent of stereo?

 

Re: McIntosh preamp question, posted on May 3, 2001 at 13:19:54
pyfite


 
Hey there,
I'd say, if you can afford it, get a vintage C22. I've been pushing my MC30's with one for the last few years and I love it. Before the C22 I had an MX110 and a C11. I prefered the C11 and would encourage anyone to get one as they are an even better bargain nowadays than the MX110. I'd say the C11 is more "historically correct" since I dont think the MC30 was being manufactured when the C22 was introduced.
Take your time shopping around for a C20 if that's what you want - I've heard some nice and some terrible sounding units. Anyone who thinks the difference between a C20 and a C22 is purely cosmetic is, well, silly.
Oh, and one more thing, if you are considering using the phono stage (I do) then the C22 wins hands down.

 

Page processed in 0.019 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]