|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.99.209.139
I have one on loan while my ARC SP3 is getting repaired. I searched around for the C26 and read some unflatering things about them. For whatever reason, this one is not dead or flat and does not hum, hiss or spit. It's not the ARC, but it's not bad either.The phono section is quieter than the ARC's, too, although not nearly as nice. I might buy the thing just because.
There were a number of posts talking about mods, but I never saw anything specific. The jacks have to go, and I'm assuming some of the parts could stand to be 30 years newer. What could you do to improve the treble a bit, which is my only complaint so far?
Follow Ups:
Looks like we split about 50/50. I have had it three days now, and I have to say I still like it. I want my SP3 back ASAP (cold dead hands and all), but this is not as bad as some have said. Lets just say it has none of the problems that can quickly make me want to turn something off. As someone who is blesed with tinnitus, it passes that stink test by not making grind my teeth.Maybe the rest of my system is covering the nastiness everyone else reports, or I should switch to an IPod!
Hi,I got a C26 a couple of years ago for my room-over-the-garage system, and did a few things to improve the sound. I replaced all (and there are a few!) film caps with metallized polypropylene types (nothing exotic), replaced the power supply diodes with ultra fast types, and bypassed the filter caps with film caps. I replaced a couple of PC mounted electrolytics (one of which was bad). After cleaning/deoxit treatment to the controls, it sounds quite good. Certainly it cannot be expected to perform like later McIntosh preamps or other more expensive preamps, but for the price today, I think it is a bargain. I don't do LPs so I cannot comment on the phono section. It might be worth the effort to change the existing phono preamp transistors, it might help lower noise. None of the upgrades I made were expensive.
Thanks,
The Mac integrated has a very similar circuit design IIRC. It's no world-beater (hardly), but it's a very "nice" sounding preamp. I use it in my shop when I'm fussing around with old amps or preamps and need a complementary component to connect them while fixing them.Funny, the amp section of the MA6100 is nice too, but I've never cared for the two combined. Most of the time when I'm working in the shop, I have an old modded Dynaco PAS4 preamp driving the amplifier section of the MA6100. Sounds pretty good, and covers up some of the blue language when I burn myself on the soldering iron ;-)
and all good condition C26's look the same. I am using a MA 5100, another with bad rep, in my 3rd system. Actually, I just wanted to hear it as I got it back from my sis.It sounds like a pretty strong amp, clear, clean on line level, messed up (hard to describe) on phono. Maybe there needs to be repairs. But it cannot compare to even my old stuff (see my vintage system).
I used to have a C26 and MC 2100. Too long ago, but it was precisely the demo of an ARC SP3 and also the GAS equipment that led me away from SS McIntosh in 1977. But, so long ago that I cannot remember precisely.
It's great that your experience has been better, but all the while I was listening to mine, the words "slow", "dull" etc., kept coming to mind. I felt bad about that because designer R.Russell has been a super nice guy to me. I really wanted to like the thing.After I got rid of it, not only didn't I feel guilty, I was actually relieved to listen to music on something else.
BTW, changing the jacks won't make the slightest difference in the performance. Why bother?
Otis W
Hi, Tromatic:I have never found either a McIntosh C-26 or C-28 to be as nice sounding as ANY tube preamp I have ever owned. Sure, the thing is probably dead quiet overall, but "musical" it is not.
The fact that you own an SP-3 leads me to suggest that once you have your SP-3 back and, provided that it is repaired and working to spec, you would be very hard-pressed to even begin to compare its performance and overall level of satisfying sound with one of these McIntosh solid-state preamps.
Now, if you are enraptured by the appearance of the C-26, purchase the unit in question and admire it in the dark or whatever, but it is NOT equal to an SP-3 in proper working condition.
Not even close.
My personal opinion, of course!
Richard Links
Berkeley, CA
I agree, it sure is not the SP3, and mine has been working to spec aside from the recent cap issue. Just saying it's not as nasty as the archives would have you think, unless my ears suck or this is a fine axample of a C26!
Hi, Tromatic:Thanks.
I clearly recall a situation which happened about thirty years ago.
I purchased a beautiful used McIntosh C-28 and thought at that time, that I had fallen in love with the piece. But, alas, I was very disappointed with the sound of the phono preamp section in the unit. I then brought it to a dealer-sponsored McIntosh Performance Clinic and had it thoroughly tested. The unit not only met spec, but exceeded it by a major margin. So, even with vanishingly low distortion and all, it still sounded bad to me.
I had an opportunity to purchase a nice Marantz 7 tube preamp and once I had that unit in my system, I never again operated the C-28 and the day I sold it was a day for some amount of relief and celebration.
Not to complain! About four years ago, I spotted a C-28 with a smashed front glass at a local flea market and it was priced at $10, so I purchased it. It also worked but did not sound that great to me, yet I kept it as a "flea market" souvenier!
Good luck with the SP-3 when you get it back. I also remember how nice those units not only sounded when they were new, but saw excellent results when someone brought one to yet another of the famous McIntosh Performance Clinics--in an era when they were testing anything brought in to them.
Exemplary performance, to say the least!
I've had the SP3 and C28 when both were new and for the the SP3 is in a class by itself. I think of it as what the Marantz 7C could have been if Saul had come out with a successor. That said, the C28 presented a representation closer to what I heard at the BSO and Avery Fisher Halls than the SP3 in my system and hence stayed with the C28. The SP3 had more air but at the same time seemed to have a veil that the 28 did not. As for the phono preamp, the SP3 preamp and the 28 preamp each react differently to cartridges and I found in the testing that it was not untypical that a cartridge that did nicely in 1 did not shine in the other.The 26 is not in anyway a dog but in comparison to the 28 has a higher noise level and the 28 has a higher level than the 29. Each is noticably so. However the 28 and SP3 have about the same noise levels. It really is not an issue if the preamps are set up correctly unless you are using very efficient speakers or like to lean against the speaker to listen to the rush.
Oh, the power amps used for the testing at the time were simply those I owned. Marantz 9s, ARC DUAL 51 and D75 and the Mc MC250. Speakers of course were the venerable KLH Nine.
We have a wizard/shaman/guru out here who gives it TLC when required, and it's in good shape other than being a bit on the senior side. It's going to be a sad day when he hangs up his iron. The SP3 has a very unique sound, at least to me, and I love it. I've been very fortunate to have a used audio shop nearby (Echohifi.com) that has let me hear some really unobtanium gear, and the SP3 is it for me. Not sure what that says about my taste or hearing, but I'm very happy.
As I'm sure you know & I fully believe..If it sounds good,It is good.PERIOD.. It amazes me how some of my vinatage gear just smokes my modern stuff in every way that counts to me..The music...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: