McIntosh MC 2205 vs. MC 2200 Which is better sound?

Really old post, but I will play. I would opt for MA6200 and MR78. I owned a 6200, my first Mc piece and regret selling it to this day, man did that integrated sound good. Still own the MR78 and it is an excellent tuner. No experience with the MC2505 but do own an MC2105. These first gen SS amps do sound a bit different than most of there predecessors. Much more of a warm, tube like sound.
 
Of course John!! those Magic blue meters absolutely make everything sound better ;)
Pete
I started to post my favorite BB line by Bryan Cranston , but it posted with the written dialogue on the screen. Phooey. But most folks know what it is already. Mine's not here yet. But I've been waiting for the opportunity to get one for about 30 years. Time's up.
I just hope it's not full of shattered glass when it shows up. The seller's an unknown quantity. I think the dad knew what shipping that much mass around entailed, but I'm not so sure about the offspring.....
 
I'll say it again because it's important. Meters make everything sound better *cue heavy sarcasm for emphasis*

Captain-Picard-Facepalm.jpg
 
I hope I can add something to the discussion of MC amps of this vintage. I have 4 MC2255s, 2 MC2500s, 2 MC2205s, 2 MC7270s.
Tom Manley told me you can get a 1khz square wave from a MC7270 without ringing, whereas, you cannot get that out of MC2255s or MC2205s.
But, at age 73 I cannot hear the difference.
Personally I prefer the MC2205 or MC2255 over the MC7270. Not that I can hear the difference at my age, but (1) the MC7270 does not have a headphone jack, and (2) the MC2205 and the MC2255 have chrome chassis, whereas the MC7270 has a painted steel chassis.
Also, to me the escutcheons on the MC2205 and MC2255 look MUCH better than the plain front of the MC7270.
Having said that, I do not think you can go wrong with either one.
As to autoformers or not - I believe it is significant that McIntosh puts autoformers on all of their top end equipment. If direct coupled was better, why would they go to the trouble and expense of putting the autoformers on their top end units?
Thanks,
Jim
 
I hope I can add something to the discussion of MC amps of this vintage. I have 4 MC2255s, 2 MC2500s, 2 MC2205s, 2 MC7270s.
Tom Manley told me you can get a 1khz square wave from a MC7270 without ringing, whereas, you cannot get that out of MC2255s or MC2205s.
But, at age 73 I cannot hear the difference.
Personally I prefer the MC2205 or MC2255 over the MC7270. Not that I can hear the difference at my age, but (1) the MC7270 does not have a headphone jack, and (2) the MC2205 and the MC2255 have chrome chassis, whereas the MC7270 has a painted steel chassis.
Also, to me the escutcheons on the MC2205 and MC2255 look MUCH better than the plain front of the MC7270.
Having said that, I do not think you can go wrong with either one.
As to autoformers or not - I believe it is significant that McIntosh puts autoformers on all of their top end equipment. If direct coupled was better, why would they go to the trouble and expense of putting the autoformers on their top end units?
Thanks,
Jim


So, if you could only have one amp, which would it be? You obviously have lots of information for a neophyte like myself.
 
HELLO OLD POST

Id like to say that I currently have both amps and can talk about the sonic difference about 200w with and without autoformers.

Reference speakers are JBL 4311 and Urei 811b coax.

The autoformers are very noticeable.
There are tradeoffs here. Im sure there are amp differences as well as a different decade of transistors and caps in play as well from a 1973 amplifier (2205) and a 1985 amplifier (2002).

My 811b ureis are very revealing.
The 4311's are classic rock and roll studio monitors.

2205: Killer on the 4311s. You can hallucinate the rich brass overtones on everything. Never strident but simply detailed. 811b speakers had a 'tucked in' feel with a distinct autoformer punch that feels like about 50hz.

2002: Everything is more forward. I have heard a good variety of amps and hear the DC coupled output sound. Extra 'viv' on all acoustics. Everything gets more detail from 2k to 10k. Top end isnt as smooth, CD reference quality starts showing. Or is it this extra 'zip' the amp gives? Over time although it conceptually is more accurate, not as soft and pleasing as 2205. Low bass under 400hz wasnt as vibrant or jelly like. 'Drier' sounding. More forward. Tradeoff.

2205: More bass punch. Better colors all around. Smoother. More 'cinematic'. Feels 'darker'.

2002: Feels brighter. More attack and reaction on everything. Forward midrange. Still smooth but slightly tippy.


The 4311s and 811bs are studio monitors and are rather efficient speakers. Fast power amps definitely can be too much. I heard a Levinson 333 that was tearing my ears off on both of these. The Levinson sounded balanced on electrostats, however. I have a feeling part of my perceptions are that as well. The 2002 feels 'faster' sounding.

Reference listens:

There Goes Rhymin Simon - Paul Simon
A Ghost Is Born - Wilco
Rubber Soul - Beatles
Moondance - Van Morrison


I will be keeping the 2205.

Undecided if the 2002 will stick around.

Cant have it all! I choose color and bass richness over highly-nuanced treble any day. 2205 is what feels right for my JBLs. I run a 6100 integrated (70wpc) with my 811b's.

Marshall Terry
www.terryaudio.com
 
old post but so what...

Looks like the autoformer does smoother the sound, and some love it, some don't. I own the 2205 only, can't comment about other direct coupled ones, but I can listen to the 2205 all day and my ears are still feeling comfy. Did I miss a lot of details from the 2205 compared to direct coupled amps?
 
I remember reading this post when original when looking to go from my 2105 to a 2205. I always wondered what Pete got. At this stage, I can’t add much that the masters here haven’t already, except that if the 2205 hasn’t been properly rebuilt yet, then that makes a HUGE difference. My thread about rebuilding my 2205 is somewhere here but the difference before and after was simply amazing, and my ears were 63 at the time. Now, of course, it sounds “normal”, but the work was completely worth the cost, research and effort.
 
I have two M2205s, two MC7270s, as well as four MC2255s. I know the MC7270 "specs out" a little better than the 2205 or the 2255 - but for my money the MC2255 is the way to go. For vintage McIntosh fanatics, the MC2255 has (1) the last amp with a chrome chassis (later models were steel - some stainless & some painted - my 7270s have painted chassis - does not look nearly as good as the 2255, (2) the 2255 has better power guard than earlier chrome chassis units, (3) the 2255 has a computer controlled power up mechanism (which you can turn audio beeps on or off) and (4) if you want to run it in mono mode the range of output ohm ratings is VERY wide, depending on which version of mono you chose with the switch on the back..
Candidly, at age 78, I cannot hear a difference between these amps. A lot of it probably has to do with my listening preferences (Jazz quartets/quintets, Chamber Music - especially Vivaldi, etc,) If my musical tastes ran to louder music (and my ears were 60 years younger) I might hear the differences.
Currently I am using a pair of MC2500s, with KLH Model Nine Electrostatics and some 12 inch woofers (to make up for the KLH Model Nine shortfall in response under 40 HZ). I use an MEN 220 set as an active crossover running to the MC2500s, which gives 500 watts to the Model Nines and 500 watts to the 12 inch woofers for each channel (total 2000 watts in a 1200 sq ft apartment - probably overkill).
Now - with the Model Nines and the MEN 220 I can certainly tell the difference and believe I am in audio nirvana!. To my ear the clarity and definition of the Model Nines cannot be beat (even though the speakers are 50 years old).
Of course, these were not part of the OPs initial inquiry. Going back to the MC2205, MC2255, MC7270 choice (which I still have all of them) I would go with the MC2255 without hesitation for the reasons mentioned earlier.
There has been some mention of autoformer units vs direct coupled units. I know McIntosh has built several direct coupled units (and continues to make them). I have an MHT200 for my son.
With eight power amps in a single chassis it would take a forklift to move it if there were eight autoformers on one chassis. By going direct coupled McIntosh was able to keep the weight to a manageable level. But when you look at their higher end models, I believe they all have autoformers. That tells me the McIntosh believes autoformers are the better way to go if they use them in their top end units.
Thanks,
Jim
 
Last edited:
Way too late to chime in here most likely......However my MC 2205 is 42 yrs Young! Bought it new a way long time ago! Will never let this one go while I am still above ground! Serviced twice and never had one problem!.....
 
Back
Top Bottom