MC162 vs MF X80

[mckid]

I finally got the chance to audition a Mcintosh MC162 amp at my place. I was looking to replace my Musical Fidelity X80 integrated amp (80watts @ 4ohms) with the MC162 which was available for home audition from a mc dealer.

It was an awesome sight! I love the cool blue lights and look of the Mc! We performed AB testing with different genres of music (jazz vocals, blues, rock) and it was apparent that the MC162 was edged out in the areas of detail, soundstage, bass punch (tightness) and overall performance by the X80. Although I must admit that it sounded smoother, but the presentation was not very musical (even the mac dealer was surprised by the performance of the MF X80 amp!). The mc sounded muddy and the bass was flat and boomy.

I wonder what went wrong? Could it be due to the fact that we tested the MC162 connected directly into the CD player (MCD7009) without the use of a preamp?

Hope experienced users of the MC162 could shed some light on this.

Thanks.

Mckid

 

[Macs!]

Hmmm...that's a good one.
Short of a head injury, I can't think of anything that would cause the little X80 to give the appearance of outperforming the MC-162.
Maybe a little more info would help - how, exactly, can bass be both flat *and* boomy?

 

[mckid]

apologies for not using the correct words to describe the sound.

The bass sounds loose. It did not sound as if it contains definition. For example, when listening to tracks from the group FourPlay "Best of Four Play" album, the usual bass guitar should sound defined and textured. When running the same tracks through the MC162, the bass notes loses that definition. Sounds like its clumped together (difficult to hear the separation of bass notes) The kick drum loses the tightness as well.

Understand that this post will invite disbelieve from hardcore mc users but all I am sharing was what happened during our audition.

I like Mc equipment and already got myself the MCD7009 cd player which I enjoy and love very much. I am just taken aback by the performance of the MC162, or perhaps its just this particular unit that I tested could be faulty?

With the X80, I was using straightwire maestros interconnects and with the MC162, I was using some sonic link balanced cables supplied by the dealer.

Speaker cables used are the Straightwires as well with German Elac floorstanding speakers (4 ohms, 89db sensitivity)

Hope the information helps.

 

[Victor]

Welcome Mckid,

I have been using a MC162 for the last year. I bought a dealer demo at a price that was too good to pass up. But even when I bought it I was planning to replace it with MC501s when I could save up for them(1-2 more years). My impression of the MC162 is it is a good amp that will not hurt a good system but it also will not show it off. I am using the C2200 McIntosh preamp and Avalon Eclipse speakers so I feel the MC162 is out classed in my system but as I said the MC162 does not hurt things. I have done AB comparisons with the new MC252 which was a significant improvement over the MC162 in the areas you mentioned: detail, soundstage and bass control. You may be better off saving for a little longer and getting a MC252, it is at least worth a listen.

As far as using the MC162 without a preamp I have done this with poor results. My system definitely sounded better with the C2200 preamp in it. With the preamp in, it seemed like there was more music there. The echo and cymbals lasted a little longer and the sound stage was larger and more focused.

I find the preamp is more important than the amp. If the X80 has preamp in jacks you may get a bigger improvement by starting with a good preamp and using the X80 for your amp.

The MC162 was McIntoshes last amp without autoformers and many people (including me) think that is where the Mac magic is. I have been happy with my MC162 but as I said for me the MC162 is just in my system untill (if ever) I can buy a pair of MC501s. The new MC275 is also great and may end up in my system.

Hope this helps.

Victor

 

[Victor]

With the X80, I was using straightwire maestros interconnects and with the MC162, I was using some sonic link balanced cables supplied by the dealer.

I find my MC162 to sound better threw the RCA unbalanced jacks as long as your cable runs are short (6 foot or less). Give it a try and see what you think.

Victor

 

[mckid]

Yeah the 501s and 252s are SWEET! Heard them in the showroom and sure enough they sounded much better than the MC162.

Thanks for confirming what I've heard so far with the 162. I will definitely save up for the 252s which I feel is in a different league against the 162. Of coz the 501s are the ultimate!(but that's alot of dough to cough up)

By the way, which model do you think will be a better investment in the long run? The MC252 or the MC275?

Thanks

 

[Victor]

Yeah the 501s and 252s are SWEET! Heard them in the showroom and sure enough they sounded much better than the MC162.

By the way, which model do you think will be a better investment in the long run? The MC252 or the MC275?

Thanks

As I said I am a big fan of the MC252. I was just about to buy one then I took home the MC501s to demo and long story short I am now saving up for the MC501s.

I have thought about which amp would be worth more in the future MC275IV or MC252 and it seems like a no brainer the McIntosh tube amps have a long history of gaining value. That being said I also think it would be easier to live with a MC252 for a long time, that thing is built like a tank.

Victor

 

[mckid]

Hey Vic, thanks for the information!

Heard from someone that the MC275s bridged mono sounds extremely sweet too.

Looks like I will need to save my pennies for those babies! Either a 252 or 275.

 

[JRG1]

The "Autoformers" are the Magic?

Welcome Mckid,




The MC162 was McIntoshes last amp without autoformers and many people (including me) think that is where the Mac magic is.

Hope this helps.

Victor

Hello Victor,

I assume that the amps with "Autoformers" are thought to have the special " Mac Magic" as compared to the models without??? (MC-162, MC-7200........)

Thank you for clarifiying.

Take care,

John

 

[Victor]

Hello Victor,

I assume that the amps with "Autoformers" are thought to have the special " Mac Magic" as compared to the models without??? (MC-162, MC-7200........)

Thank you for clarifiying.

Take care,

John

Yes that is right. I like the McIntosh amps with Autoformers . The easy way to see if McIntosh amps have Autoformers is they have multiple speaker taps, usually 2, 4 and 8 ohms. Or you could check www.roger-russell.com a great site for McIntosh info.

Victor

 

[ron-c]

The MC162 is designed as a 500 watt mono amp so it is a little weak in stereo use especially with 8 ohm speakers. If you have a 2 ohm speaker then it rocks. The MC7200 is way overbuilt and is a big power amp. The 7200 was designed to drive the Infinities and Apogees of the day so it is very special.

Ron-C

 

[Victor]

I have been tempted to get a second MC162 to go with mine and run them mono. Once there was a MC162 on ebay with a serial number 20 away from mine but I let it get away. :sigh:

Victor

 

[JRG1]

Yes that is right. I like the McIntosh amps with Autoformers . The easy way to see if McIntosh amps have Autoformers is they have multiple speaker taps, usually 2, 4 and 8 ohms. Or you could check www.roger-russell.com a great site for McIntosh info.

Victor

Thanks, Victor!

 

[JRG1]

MC-202 design

The MC162 is designed as a 500 watt mono amp so it is a little weak in stereo use especially with 8 ohm speakers. If you have a 2 ohm speaker then it rocks. The MC7200 is way overbuilt and is a big power amp. The 7200 was designed to drive the Infinities and Apogees of the day so it is very special.

Ron-C

Hello Ron,

I am getting a MC-202 this Friday.

I have been thinking in terms of the MC-202 being the MC-162's "big brother" with autoformers. (200 watts using any tap)

If the MC-162 was designed as a 500 watt mono amp, what was the MC-202 originally designed as?

Thank you,

John

 

[ron-c]

The MC202 uses the same output section as the MC162 but is autoformer coupled. In this case this allows the output stage to be engineered for lowest heat and maximum output, the most linear point in the transistors operating point, so no compromise is made to speaker impedance or performance. Notice this also allows the 202 to be rated at 200 rather than 160 per channel. Both amps actually do more of course but the MC202 is more flexible into a variety of loads.
The MC162 in mono will deliver about 700 watts into a 4 ohm load. This is its' sweet spot.

Ron-C

 

[JRG1]

Thank you, Ron! I appreciate your expertise.........you MUST have worked, or are currently working for McIntosh.

It arrived Thursday.......a day earlier than FedEx had projected!

I've GOT to get out there and open the box!

Take care,

John