C200 vs C2200 Preamp

Bob Rollin

Virgin McIntosh Owner
Other than the vast price difference between these preamps, can anyone describe the difference in sound I could expect between these Mc Preamps?
The tube amp is really interesting and highly rated in the reviews. Is this just hype or can it really be more musical than the C200 with much better specs? Can the tube amp really be as quiet as the flagship C200? I intend to audition this weekend but would like to hear from the golden ears out there before I go. Thanks!
 
The big difference comes in the phono section of the preamp. Most of the time I can hear very little difference between high end preamps when using them with line level components like CD players. The test I do is to do a A/B test with the preamp inline and the cd player direct into the amp. If you cannot hear any difference under those conditions, then the preamp is a good one. YMMV!
 
I haven't heard the C200 but I have heard the C2200 and it is
magnificent sounding. I second Rich on checking it out in circuit and out. I am a bit envious. ;)
My turn will come someday. :)

Carl
 
Bob,

The C200 is a two box unit, separate pre amp section and control/power supply. The C200 is fully balanced and handles unbalanced signals as balanced.
The C2200 is not fully balanced but is very close to the S/N ratio of the C200 when using high level sources. The C200 measures around 112 dB and the C2200 around 110 or 111 dB. The phono section will be quieter on the C200 than the C2200 but they are both way beyond what phono playback can achieve, maybe 80 dB in a perfect world.
The ability of the pre amp to be transparent in or out of the circuit has a lot to do with the source. With the highest quality sources the C200 may have a slight advantage.
Ron-C
 
Pre-amp auditions

Bob,
I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts after the audition. I'm not sure you should prejudice your thinking beforehand however.
I used to think that the A-B test that Rich suggests was a good test of a pre-amp until I got my C-40. My system sounds so much better with the pre in that I won't run it any other way now. This test seemed to work well on a couple of other preamps that I had but the C-40 is soo much better that I'm no longer certain that its a valid comparison. Maybe Ron-C has some ideas about this?
Bill
 
Bill,

One of the jobs of a pre amp is impedance matching of the sources to your power amp. Most sources need to be buffered. An active pre amp can adjust volume without changing frequency response where a passive will change impedance and frequency response as the volume is changed.
Ron-C
 
Re: Pre-amp auditions

Originally posted by Bill Allan
Bob,
I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts after the audition. I'm not sure you should prejudice your thinking beforehand however.
I used to think that the A-B test that Rich suggests was a good test of a pre-amp until I got my C-40. My system sounds so much better with the pre in that I won't run it any other way now. This test seemed to work well on a couple of other preamps that I had but the C-40 is soo much better that I'm no longer certain that its a valid comparison. Maybe Ron-C has some ideas about this?
Bill

Bill,

Do you think that you could describe how the C40 sounds compared to the other preamps you tried? Do you have a theory as to why it sounds the way it does?

Ron, have you listened to the C40? Can you shed some light on what Bill is experiencing and possibly why?

r
 
PreAmps n' things

Rich,
I have 3 other preamps . One is a Transcendant Grounded Grid preamp, a Mc Mx-112 and a Mc C-35. If I bypass either of the first 2 it is apparent that neither one of them affect the sound quality of the system. The C-35 begins to hint at what the C-40 does. With the C-40 in the system everything gets noticeably better. Its a more sophisticated sound, smoother, more musical, more subtle harmonic detail and much better bass extension. Going straight to the amps is invariably a bit brighter and edgier (I run a pair of MC-250's, a pair of 754's and a 240). The 240 is the friendliest to direct input but I really don't bother doing it anymore because its harder to change the volume level without messing up the balance and if I want to turn the volume down (later in the evening) I have no loudness compensation. The C-40 was the top of the line pre-amp before the C-100/200 so I'm assuming it hints at what they can do although I've not had the chance to do a direct comparison. The chap I got the C-40 from moved to a C-2200 so presumably he felt that was a step up. Thats why I curious to see how Bob reacts to the audition.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to have a theory about why it is this way but Ron-C's explanation is the first reasonable explanation I have heard on the subject (ever) so I'll go with that. I know that this runs counter to what the 'minimal signal path, SET' guys say. Maybe its just good engineering.
Regrdz
Bill
 
I compared the McIntosh C2200 tube-preamp, which is a very fine preamp, to the C42 and C200 preamp, all driving a MC352 amp, and Dynaudio C4 speakers. The C200 was in all regards noticably better than the C2200, including dynamics, imaging and bass control. It is simply Macs best preamp, and one of the best preamps in the world. A British audiophile, the review of whom you find on audioreview.com (under the username Aston), wrote me he compared the C200 to Nagra, Krell and Audio Research preamps, and that the C200 won in all regards. Disadvantages: No tone control, and two chassis. Nevertheless, I went and bought the C200 -used- , running it with a MC402.
Audio Nirvana come true - at least soundwise. Reliability and McIntosh-service is not what I expected, but that is another story.
 
Originally posted by ron-c
Bob,

The C200 is a two box unit, separate pre amp section and control/power supply. The C200 is fully balanced and handles unbalanced signals as balanced.
The C2200 is not fully balanced but is very close to the S/N ratio of the C200 when using high level sources. The C200 measures around 112 dB and the C2200 around 110 or 111 dB. The phono section will be quieter on the C200 than the C2200 but they are both way beyond what phono playback can achieve, maybe 80 dB in a perfect world.
The ability of the pre amp to be transparent in or out of the circuit has a lot to do with the source. With the highest quality sources the C200 may have a slight advantage.
Ron-C

I can see the C200 having a slight advantage over the C2200 in the base and treble, but how about the one area where tubes are known to perform better, the midrange? Thanks
 
Last edited:
About the midrange: Both - of the C2200 and of the C200 - are magical. That the C200 is the better preamp overall, is no wonder: two chassis and therefore electronical isolation of the musical signal, better capacitors. I compared the two preamps in the mids with the usual suspects: Maria Callas, Olga Borodina, acoustical guitar, the phantastic CD of German loudspeaker-producer Manger. I completely agree with the TAS-review in that McIntosh solid state offers a roundness that you associate with tubes. So I received the magic in the mids, plus better dynamics etc.
About reliabililty and service, I will start another thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom