BIG McIntosh Stereo Amplifier Comparison

Hey Tony, hoping to pick up my other MC-2600 tomorrow, so for the first time ever; both amplifiers will be in the same house!
 
not know the price

I'm pretty sure that's the company line if you sell Mac gear new. I have yet to have a dealer quote a price over the phone. They tell you to come in. It's really not that uncommon. Some manufacturers will only allow the list price to be advertised. They do this to protect the dealers. You could of called every dealer in the country and had a bidding war going on. This is one of the many reasons McIntosh has a very high resale value. Dealers are not undercutting each other.
 
Hey Tony, hoping to pick up my other MC-2600 tomorrow, so for the first time ever; both amplifiers will be in the same house!
We'll require pics of that! Really, looking at the chart, it's difficult to dispute the value the MC2600 offers. Of course, we may be a tad biased . . .
 
Updated with all corrections discussed. I don't know the current capability of the MC2300, nor do I know the published dynamic headroom of the MC2300 or MC2500 . . . so, if anyone knows any of that stuff I could add it and complete the chart. I know MC2300s have been measured at 420wpc and MC2500s have been measured at 700+ wpc . . .
 
Hey Tony, I'm not sure of the current capabilities of either either, but I recall that the autoformers were a current bottleneck, and were redesigned for the MC-2600 and from the MC-7300 forward. Somebody else would know how, but more current was allowed through both of those amplifiers- from the power supply to the outputs, through the redesigned autoformer. That's what I was told in sales trainings of the day. The MC-7270 (a great performer) had the standard autoformer, and was up to anything of the day using the correct tap.

I was speaking with my colleague several days ago, and he said the MC-2300 was a gassed up 2105, and the MC-2500 was a gassed up 2300. He said the MC-2600 was a complete redraw, with the current draw of speakers of the time in mind.

Keep in mind that I'm not signalling anyone out for their affection of any amplifier, nor am I intending to aggrandize the MC-2600 at their deficit; it's what I was told in sales conferences, and hearsay from a friend who's an historian of Mcintosh of sorts.

Oh, second MC-2600 is home, had to haul it up 12 steps out of the guys basement, into my Jeep GC, reverse at home, minus the steps. Just me; my friend is a bit frail. Photo's to come...

Updated with all corrections discussed. I don't know the current capability of the MC2300, nor do I know the published dynamic headroom of the MC2300 or MC2500 . . . so, if anyone knows any of that stuff I could add it and complete the chart. I know MC2300s have been measured at 420wpc and MC2500s have been measured at 700+ wpc . . .
 
Updated with all corrections discussed. I don't know the current capability of the MC2300, nor do I know the published dynamic headroom of the MC2300 or MC2500 . . . so, if anyone knows any of that stuff I could add it and complete the chart. I know MC2300s have been measured at 420wpc and MC2500s have been measured at 700+ wpc . . .
The MC2500 manual has a 0.02 percent distortion graph watts per 20 to 20K Hz of around 630 WPC. So 700 plus with PG seems reasonable.
 
Hey Tony, I'm not sure of the current capabilities of either either, but I recall that the autoformers were a current bottleneck, and were redesigned for the MC-2600 and from the MC-7300 forward. Somebody else would know how, but more current was allowed through both of those amplifiers- from the power supply to the outputs, through the redesigned autoformer. That's what I was told in sales trainings of the day. The MC-7270 (a great performer) had the standard autoformer, and was up to anything of the day using the correct tap.

I was speaking with my colleague several days ago, and he said the MC-2300 was a gassed up 2105, and the MC-2500 was a gassed up 2300. He said the MC-2600 was a complete redraw, with the current draw of speakers of the time in mind.

Keep in mind that I'm not signalling anyone out for their affection of any amplifier, nor am I intending to aggrandize the MC-2600 at their deficit; it's what I was told in sales conferences, and hearsay from a friend who's an historian of Mcintosh of sorts.

Oh, second MC-2600 is home, had to haul it up 12 steps out of the guys basement, into my Jeep GC, reverse at home, minus the steps. Just me; my friend is a bit frail. Photo's to come...
Very interesting stuff there sir. 90% of users would never require any of these amps to produce more than 30wpc into an easy to drive load.

So ... you gotta be excited about building a system around a pair of MC2600s huh?
 
Very interesting stuff there sir. 90% of users would never require any of these amps to produce more than 30wpc into an easy to drive load.

So ... you gotta be excited about building a system around a pair of MC2600s huh?


Heck yeah, Tony. Using an MC-2255 now, need to clean up the room. Got a pair of ESB 7/06 speakers in a too small room. but using a pair of Dynaudio 2.3's with a (sometimes) subwoofer powered by my '2600.

Oddly enough I might mind up with a pair of Joseph Audio Pulsars and a serious player's amplifier for some time- time will tell.
 
MC 2500 was a kin to the 2205 and the more tricked out 2255. The 2600 was the 7300's big brother. The 602 is related to the 402 unless it has the more advanced out put transistors. If it does then it is closer to the 452. I herd 602 driving 1K's at Audio classics and it did a great job. If I liked the speakers, which I don't. it would be all that I would ever need. If a dream were to come true and I were able to get a pair of XR 290's a 602 would have all the power I would ever need. But it would be so much more fun to have a pair of 1.2 K or 1201's with those big blue meters I could read 16 ft away. Lets see 119 db at 4 ft with 1201's. 116 db with a 602. Decisons , decisions. Currently I get 118 db at 4 ft with 200 watts. The most I ever use is 30 watts for bass and maybe 50 to 70 in the HT mode. So all I would need for a pair of 290's a bout 200+ for the 290's. I could keep my 207's then. I have two spare channels if Steve finds another pair of 290'. And with only loosing 3 db every time you double the distance I would be way ahead. Like having 800 watts if I used a point source speaker. I knew there was a reason I liked 290's or XRT 28's.
 
Last edited:
So all I would need for a pair of 290's a bout 200+ for the 290's. I could keep my 207's then. I have two spare channels if Steve finds another pair of 290'. And with only loosing 3 db every time you double the distance I would be way ahead. Like having 800 watts if I used a point source speaker. I knew there was a reason I liked 290's or XRT 28's.
200 plus into XR290s is sufficient. I actually got my thermistors cycling on and off I think listening to some Led Zeppelin and tickling the Power Guard lights with some 2KW peaks with MC1000s. It was that or just Jimmy Page Guitar so much louder than rest of music and just hearing cords and the raw power. I was actually recording it through iPad for a friend. I should go back and listen to recording. It felt like being front row and sofa was moving.
 
no 7300?

I do really like what you've put together. Nice work
As the MC2600 was the largest stereo offering when the 7300 was current, the 7300 didn't make the cut. As I said earlier, one could certainly justify such a comparison chart for 300wpc McIntosh stereo amplifiers as McIntosh made so many.
 
Back
Top Bottom