|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.177.186.91
What do you guys think about the venerable Mc C-20 sonically, with upgrades but no mods? How does it compare to vintage tube preamps of it's era? I have owned an HK Citation 1 (not so good sounding), Marantz 7 tube (been a long time but it was very smooth), and a Fisher 400 (kind of dark and too syrupy)
Or how might the Mc compare to a more modern tube pre, like a Quicksilver?
I do not play records.
I use a Marantz 8B reissue or a Bedini 25 with a pair of Quad 57's. I would not be able to hear the Mc in my system is why I am curious.
Thanks.
Follow Ups:
Jim
I just noticed where didn't like the Citation one..When those preamps are rebuilt and upgraded,they are out of this world.Everything about them is brilliant from the phono section to the stepped tone switching which are not actual tone controls that cause phase shift..They can match literally any phono cart and while they are an anode follower type preamp,they lean heavily on correctness and ultra low distortion.I don't think yours was rebuilt and if it was,you would have loved it on the quads.That is if it wasn't just a cheap ma and pa recap.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Edits: 03/14/14
Mike,
It was a long time ago and it was stock.I used it with a stock HK Citation 2 with a pair of Speakerlab K horns I built myself. I think what was happening to make the whole system sound lousy was the speakers. Apparently, Speakerlab published an incorrect throat size for the woofer slot. It made the speakers sound dull and lifeless. I attributed the sound to the HK electronics but in all probability it was the horns.I wish I had kept the HK and Marantz tube gear I had when I was younger as well as the AR SP3A1 you spectacularly rebuilt for me but, as you pointed out, I like to try different pieces of gear and generally have to finance this through sales of gear I own.
The H/K Cit. 2, unlike MOST tube amps, can over damp some horn speakers. Over damped drivers sound bad. The "Deuce" has an extraordinarily high damping factor, for a tube amp. That high damping factor, along with substantial power O/P, is why the Cit. 2 works well with AR3 speakers.
Eli D.
Eli
Now Jim has quads ESL57s tho and the ideal amp for those is a Mcshaned Cit 5 or a McShaned Mac Mc240.Remember,electrostatic speakers are honest in nature with ultra low distortion with tons of speed to assist in that accuracy.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
1 - 5 (best)
Marantz 8B Reissue...4.9
Bedini 25/25.........4.8
McIntosh 225.........4.5
HK Cit 2 McShane.....4.5
Pilot 260............4.3
Pilot 232............4.0
Quad 909.............4.0
Fisher SA 300........3.5
Mike, if you recall, I bought the HK 2 from Bill Cobb. I sort of tired of it after a while, for some reason. Maybe a lack of synergy with the balance of the system but it was a super amp, to be sure. The Marantz and Bedini sound very similar, with the Marantz a slight nod.
If you want to try something that really makes them sing and swing get a set of the original QUAD IIs and go through them. It seems Peter just got the paring right when he developed the ESLs but then again he voiced the ESL with the QUAD IIs. I used a pair with the 22 preamp. Like most makers, the company did not quite get the magic into the preamp but it is quite competent with newer components and wiring. I liked the Marantz 7 and ARC SP-3a1 better with the IIs as well as the Mattes and Acoustech ss preamps.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
Jim
I remember and some prefer the citation 5 to the two because it's a bit more euphonic in the sense that it uses the simpler mullard circuit and that said,some prefer it.
As you said,it's all about synergy..I use the modern Martin Logan CLXs which are a multi-panel design and I'm running the Cit 2s in parallel,and that doubles the power and lowers the impedance.I'm using them from 50cps on up and the Martin Logan Decent powered subs from 50hz on down to about 17hz.
The thing about the Citation 2 is,you really need to crank up the volume because that's where they show their incredible bandwidth and detail.Martin Logans have depth out to street and you can hear every little element in the music,and it's like you can actually see it being created..I run my Citation 2s only on ESLs or full range ribbons and that is where the amps really shine.
The reason I think you would love the McShaned citation 5 is,you can run Kt66s in it and that is the tube that Peter Walker thought sounded best with his speakers at the time.You might also like the Heathkit W5ms.You can't really crank a citation 2 up on an ESL57 because they are only 25 watt speakers as I recall. The Cit 5 with KT66s might be just the ticket but can't be sure but you can crank them up without fearing damage to your speakers being they are less power than the Deuce.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Edits: 03/16/14
I have rebuilt three C-20 preamps. They are fantastic when rebuilt. I used the gold point stepped attenuators in them. Although clearly I have tin ears, because a rebuilt Citation I preamp will rival anything out there, and is the best vintage phono stage I have ever heard.... but clearly we disagree. You have to rebuild them though and get rid of all the old bumblebee caps, the ceramic discs in the phono stage hamper it. You put good film caps in there with a few oil caps, do the McShane power supply and redo the riaa caps and resistors and put a good volume pot in and they are amazing. If yours wasn't rebuilt then you never heard what it could do. I do at least 8-10 Citation I preamps a year for customers. They all love them.
cheers,
Don
Don
Are you talking about 250 dollar pot they have? I never put one in because I didn't want to move the filter cap on top.You are absolutely right on the rebuild and I do the McSHane as well with the ground scheme but I went with the film cap supply because they give the C20 some of the wonderful Citation one characteristics as well..
Jim had a nice SP3a I rebuilt for him about 7 years ago and he liked that but like many of us,he likes to try different pieces.
I concur on the citation 1 phono stage as that's what runs my Micro Seki TT and Koetsu rosewood on the big system.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Edits: 03/14/14
Yeah Mikey, I had to use those $249 Gold Points because both customers had volume pots that were totally shot. I called Mac and they said no replacements. Online I couldn't find any. So we had to use the Gold points. They sound amazing though. Yes, you have to move one can underneath. I put a plate over the hole from underneath and rebuilt the PS with a pair of nice F and T axials from Jim. I enlarged the other can hole very slightly and then fit one of the taller new reproduction cans up through the hole and put the clamp below. Worked great and looked good. Bypassed with small film caps. Of course redid the whole filament supply and added some resistance to get it down to 6.3. Many K40 caps and some matsushitas. Replaced the whole RIAA, the works. Everything new, all plate loads were new. Both preamps were stunning when done. Although I would still give the nod to the Citation I for the phono section. Line stage on the Mac is colored, much more than Citation, but it is a really nice color and just right. So I think the line stage just depends on taste. Citation I is just totally honest, like the Citation II. Mac C20 has a lovely, dynamic sound. Not quite as honest as the Citation, but you could listen to it forever.....Both customers loved their C20 preamps. My 2 cents....
Jim
The C20 can be a hell of a preamp..I know because I frequently use mine.
They do need upgrading in a sort of big way but they are incredible when they are done.
The big thing I do is tack on four 35uf poly film caps in the power supply for the first two filtering stages in the power supply..They normally use a pair of 40uf electrolytics after the 3.3k resistor off the 6x4,I put in 70uf of polys in the next two sections and I mount two more single section polys on top where the two multi section cans went.Basically it's 100% film cap power supply in the high voltage B+.
The next thing you want to do is rebuild the DC filment supply with a pair of Schottkeys and a pair of 4700uf Nichicon Golds in place of the 1000uf caps that were in there.
Then you want to use a combo of k40s and Teflon caps for couplers and you want you want to change the grid to ground resistors to a good metal film or bulk film type.This is my old one I did and I put all silver micas on the top side in place of the old ceramic caps..Notice how I mounted these caps underneath with tie straps..I removed the straps for this photo when I took the picture but they are back on..When you upgrade this way,you can always put it back to original with no ramifications.
The improvement in this preamp as far as signal to noise and dynamic range and accuracy is nothing short of phenomenal.I also put in coaxial silver stranded wire on top in the critical parts of the signal path.
I have rebuilt 9 C20 preamps for people and the last four I've rebuilt I did this way, and people just loved them.Both of my C20s I have done like this and I sold the first one I rebuilt a year ago for a nice sum to a guy in Chicago that was too good to pass up.
Now I have one but I guess I didn't need two anyway lol.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
I had one 20 years ago. The later version with an all glass front panel and potted transformer. I thought it looked like spaghetti inside and mine had tons of ceramic caps in phenolic tag boards that were warped with age.I found mine sounded nice but very noisy. No amount of contact cleaner really did anything to get rid of the static in the volume control. I then learned this is a common ailment. The pots used by McIntosh are standard quarter watt CTS carbon types. They don't last very long.
The Marantz 7 on the other hand, is the Rolls Royce of vintage tube preamps. Built to last with 2 watt mil spec pots that are dead quiet after half a century. All parts are over specified with voltage ratings way above the actual voltage going thru them. Wiring is also exemplary. The careful wiring layout is the key to the low noise of the unit. A much simpler circuit as well.
I would steer clear of the C20 or even the C11/C22 for that matter. Unfortunately the Marantz 7 is very expensive. But it is the perfect synergistic match with the 8B power amp.
My two cents...
Edits: 03/14/14
The C20 did have that pot issue on some but the MG chemicals was able to clean it up well on everyone I rebuilt including my own and you really need change the coupling caps to the volume control because they leak DC at 2 to 8 volts when they get old and that makes it act like a bad volume pot..I was able to fix one that was real bad and I had to do it by taking apart old surplus pots I had and installing new wafers in the bad section of the pot.
The C11/C22 didn't have the issue very much but they now make a modern pot for the C20 but you have to move the filter cap on top which isn't a problem but it's a PITA.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: