|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.25.108.3
Which is the better setup? I've been looking for a lower powered Mac (MC225, MC30 x2, MC240), but then I started wondering what a good pre would be for these. Then I started wondering if a tube pre with a SS amp might sound as good or better. Any thoughts?
Follow Ups:
Or as close to none like a passive. I have been enjoying a recent sound test with a friend that has many McIntosh`s both tube and solid state and when he introduces any preamp to them C-22 or any other high end preamp it absolutely does not sound as good as the amp alone with just a signal strait into the amp using the gain as a control.
We have been experimenting with some high quality vintage and current preamps but nothing sounds better then a strait run into the amp.
Some amps can benefit from a preamp but so far the mac`s seem to do well without.
Anyone else notice this?
Zman makes an important point that amps with a sensitivity below 2 VRMS for full power don't need a line stage with gain.A passive control center can work well IF short, LOW capacitance, cables are used to connect it to the power amp. Passive control centers are inherently high impedance and are VULNERABLE to high frequency roll off.
I prefer a buffered level control, as it deals with both the gain and drive issues. For those using only a CDP for signal source, the DECWARE ZSLA-1 is an affordable option.
Eli D.
Attenuator CalculatorWith my systems, this occurs above 100 Khz.
The McIntosh C46 was the greatest single improvement I've ever done to my stereo system. That preamp is magic and led me to upgrade everything else. Don't ask me how.
the short story is that I became The Accidental Passive-ist a couple of years ago. What began as a $20 experiment for the office system ended up replacing my ARC preamp (at least for CD duty - which is 80% of my listening). At least I get fantastic tube life on the pre since I don't use it that much.I get wonderful results with a CDP using stepped attenuators driving the VTL amps. Also with a tube output DAC (with built in analog gain controls) driving the Threshold.
I thought that you'd just max out those Gain controls. I assume they're potentiometers that regulate the input signal. So I don't really need a preamp?
We have been messing around with nearly every Mac made and its allways sweeter without the preamp. Running speakers like Altec A5`s and 7`s..Stephens and electrovoice...But we have tried Snell`s and other sort of high end speaker we have and nothing seems to match a direct input.
It is a good room for testing but the results are definetely THERE.
...and its allways sweeter without the preamp.but you'll lose the Fiber-Optic light Diffuser Illumination to "show off" your preamp beautifully. ;)
I can use these with attenuators or a good CDP or SACDP with gain. I eventually will get them up to speed, but rely on tech guys since I am not that.
Just staying in the Mac range, I've been running my MC225s (and a friend's MC240 and some formerly owned MC30s) with the following:* MX-110: A natural since it was the pre/tuner combo offered at that time. These are relatively inexpensive for what you get but do need the regular updates done to it if its in original form.
* Mac C2200: Moving on about 40+ years, this current model tube pre has lots of input/outputs but the meters can still be calibrated for use with the MC225/240/275 series made in prior decades.
* Mac C28: I listen to the C28/MC225/Quad ESL63 combo as I write this. The impedance match is just fine and the Quads just sing. Be aware that I've completely redone the power supply and the interstage coupling caps throughout the C28. It is a fine combo, IMHO.
* Harmon-Kardon Citation I: This tube pre competed with the MX-110/C20/C22 of its day and stands up well. They're much cheaper to obtain than the Mac gear but doesn't have quite the elegant cosmetics. That aside, once updated, it will compete, sonically, with any Mac out there.
As for what will sound better, the word, 'better' is a relative thing. This report contains only preamps I have used or are using in some sort of rotation. Frankly, if I had to sell all but one of them, I would be hard-pressed to decide strictly on sonic characteristics. The C2200, however, would probably be the one due to a couple of other features:
* Volume control tracking. Old preamps may have problems with the 2 channels being tracked closely. This is a function of how much it was used and the condition of the volume pot.
* Inputs: The C2200 has lots of them in both balanced and unbalanced configurations. The older pres generally had more low level inputs for items we do not use much anymore like direct tape head inputs, ceramic cartridges, etc.
* Remote control: Yep, I'm just as lazy as the next guy.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
My experience exactly, except replace the Quads with Klispch Belles.
I finally settled on the c2200 and MC250 mk iv combo. The c2200 won over my C22, not for sonics, (both are outstanding), but rather the micro-low level volume attenuation the c2200 affords.
Peace,
TommyK, NNJ
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: