MX 160 or MX122 or nothing?

Wvnyc@Ct

Active Member
Hi friends,

I am seriously considering breaking down and going 7.1 surround sound in the cave. As a Mcintosh collector and given my devotion to this brand, these above are my first choice. However, HT processors go obsolete pretty quick and thus lose their value much more than the Mc core amp, preamp products. If it were you, would you go for a different processor or take the plunge? I kind of get bothered by polluting my precious Mac rack but.....if you would go Mac, is the 160 worth the serious extra money?
 
I went with the MX151 and I am more than happy with it for both 2 channel and 7.1 surround. I have seen a few used MX150's and MX151's so that could be an option to go with.

Doug
 
If I was going 5.1, I wouldn't use a pre, I'd just use my DVD player as my input source and volume control. That would work for me because I only use digital inputs and my Oppo has an excellent DAC. Also I don't care about 7.2 or 11.2 since new music is recorded in 5.1 and computers create the other channels. Honestly, the processed sound of all the computer enhancements, like equalization, Dolby DTS, NEO, etc., don't make the music sound any clearer to me, just the opposite, really.

There sure are a lot of "obsolete" Mac MX units out there selling for a fraction of their original cost!
 
Mc is my brand. I can't say enough good about it. Unfortunately, the depreciation on these MX units is staggering and the technology outdated in too short a time. If you've gotta' have a Mc, wouldn't it make more sense to buy a used MX120 or MX150 and buy something like an Oppo BDP-105 as the source? If you've gotta have Atmos or DTS:X then your choices are few ...
 
Mc is my brand. I can't say enough good about it. Unfortunately, the depreciation on these MX units is staggering and the technology outdated in too short a time. If you've gotta' have a Mc, wouldn't it make more sense to buy a used MX120 or MX150 and buy something like an Oppo BDP-105 as the source? If you've gotta have Atmos or DTS:X then your choices are few ...
This is exactly my dilemma....
 
I have not done my due diligence for over a decade........how many movies do the rental companies even have available in these new formats? I know they can be special ordered and purchased but don't most rent?
 
I have said it before, but this latest generation of processors is really not a step forward unless you have an ideal listening space with controlled acoustics, speakers with very controlled dispersion and the ability to add the ceiling speakers while integrating them properly. I agree owning a MX-150 if you want room perfect or a MX-121 if you want Odessey processing is the way to go. And use the latest player you can find to do the decoding feeding your external inputs, sending signal to the display directly for the video. If you are going to be down loading your 4k video, which is even more demanding to be fully realized, in a home environment, you still don't need the 160 or 122, just drive the display directly. The cost of your processor is just the beginning. Getting everything else up to snuff is easily going to be much more costly. So sit back and enjoy good 5.1 , set up properly it can be quite enjoyable.

Its like the days of old when CD-4, SQ and QS were the latest gimmick. For music I'll stick with 2.0 or 3.0
 
I must be getting old as I used to like all the latest and greatest. I've now "stopped" at 5.1 and TrueHD and am more than happy. Still, if I had the money, and the required man cave, then I'd probably be all over the 160...

I'd like a 121 purely for aesthetic reasons (I'd have a complete rack of Mac), but I still think they are too expensive. Once the successor to the 122 is released, then the 121 might be at my price point.
 
Depends. Would the MX be replacing a 2 Chanel preamp or in addition to?

I have the MX121 routing though that pass thorough input on my C2500 and I believe this is an ideal setup. Not a fan of the analogue section of the 121 or 160. Of course, if the room is a theater only setup then that a different story. The 121 is based on a Marantz processor and will be more reliable specially on the video side. The MX160 is for hardcore videophiles but is a bit fussier and temperamental.

I know what you mean about messing up the rack with mixed equipment. I tried it a few times and always went back to all Mc.
 
Depends. Would the MX be replacing a 2 Chanel preamp or in addition to?

I have the MX121 routing though that pass thorough input on my C2500 and I believe this is an ideal setup. Not a fan of the analogue section of the 121 or 160. Of course, if the room is a theater only setup then that a different story. The 121 is based on a Marantz processor and will be more reliable specially on the video side. The MX160 is for hardcore videophiles but is a bit fussier and temperamental.

I know what you mean about messing up the rack with mixed equipment. I tried it a few times and always went back to all Mc.

It would be replacing. My MC207 is currently pulling multi zone duty servicing other rooms and I want change that and refocus its use for HT dedicated. The room would then be theatre but of course I would listen there too running two channel at times through my Cornwalls which would be HT front R & L .
 
I heard from a McIntosh engineer on the project that the analogue section of the MX160 is remarkable. It also benefits from all balanced connections which would be nice with an MC207.

I would start with a Mc processor and if you find yourself doing a significant amount of 2 Chanel listening, add a McIntosh preamp with home theater passthrough into the mix. It's the only no compromise solution.

If you'd like to have a listen let me know as I've got both a 121 and 160 on hand in norther NJ
 
If you want the latest video formats like 4K video/Ultra DVD you must have preamp processor that will pass these signals. Since we are also dealing with new HDCP copy protection and new HDMI 2.0 these require a compliant pre/pro to pass the 4K video. The addition of Dolby Atmos, Auro 3D and the soon to be released DTS-X 3D audio formats will also require a processor that can decode these.
This is the largest amount of changes we have ever had in the home theater arena.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
ron - do you see consumers embracing these formats? I've personally never experienced any of the new surround formats in a theater, showroom, etc. Is there any easy way to tell which movies are being released with these new soundtracks whether in the theater or via Bluray?
 
Yes we do. Certainly the migration to 4K video displays is a driving factor as is the explosion of video streaming much of which is also in 4K. High end home theater is alive and well and will probably outpace high end 2 channel, industry wide, this year.

thanks,
Ron-C
 
Last edited:
Ron,
How is the two channel performance of the MX122 using the internal DACs for cds and Hi-resolution audio? I am curious your thoughts vs the C2500/C52/C50.

Thanks
 
I've said this before numerous times...let the DVD player do the heavy lifting. I just don't see where the investment in the latest processor is worth the expense and the short shelf life. My MX-119 sounds fantastic in 5.1 mode and great in 2 channel. When is enough enough?
 
Well, I decided. I am going with a new MX122. I further lost my mind and am getting a MC452 to drive my front mains with my legacy 207 driving the surrounds with the extra two channels driving some stuff upstairs so 7.1. I am also going to open up the wall and turn my rack out into the room so everyone can see it. Attached is what it will look like
 

Attachments

  • 2016-02-07 09.55.07.jpg
    2016-02-07 09.55.07.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 58
I am considering one also but would love to hear some feedback on the two channel performance.

Waiting for some feedback from RonC. (hint hint)

Thinking of moving the C2500 to a dedicated two channel area but will still listen to music in the home theater room. I need a processor that excels as a preamp as much as decoding the latest surround sound codecs (also need 4k support). I evaluated the Marantz 8802a in this capacity and it was fair but not great, especially in comparison to my C2500
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom