Picked up an Mc500

quartersaw

Super Member
Called Ernie @ Audio Classics today, and bought a 'C1' Mc500 for the home office. I've yet to sell my remaining Mc2300, but I do have a month old verbal commitment from the gentleman who bought the other '2300.
Picking the '500 up on Columbus day!...:rockon:
 
I really wanted to pull the trigger on an Mc602, but this one is half the price, and bang for the buck is important to me.
If I REALLY like what I hear, I'll buy another Mc500, and run both of them bridged.
 
They share a lot of design cues with MC1000 and heat sinks. Just not quad balanced and stainless chassis I bet they would be great bridged. Enjoy.
 
A MC 500 is quite a unit, but its not a 462. A 452 should be smoother over the long haul and more revealing, but that would depend on the speakers. Austere speakers would reveal the sound right away. But speakers that are more neutral with out complex impedance curves the amps should be closer in comparison. I only heard the MC 500 once or twice seriously, and I preferred 501's. I even prefer 501's most 0f the time over 601's.

Everyone knows I love 1.2 K's and 1201's for testing speakers. Do they sound better than lower powered models, not always I would say, but they are a known commodity to me and if I hear something strange I know its not the amps.

I hate comparing things without a reference. It would be like listening to a Pair of M6's for the first time pushed with 611's/ C-52/ MCD 600. If I didn't like the sound I wouldn't know where to place the blame. And 95% of the time I don't like what I hear when auditioning something new. Its a terrible thing to admit, but that's me. If it sounds bad I am out of the room or turn the volume down in the first 30 seconds. Doesn't give you time to find faults. Apogee speakers were the first to do that to me with Threshold amps and pre-amp. The main problem was the Sony 101 CD player. I found out later. But even with different electronics and a more advance pioneer CD player, the Apogees were a lost cause as far as I was concerned. Every time I hear the current line of Mac speakers I have to get up and run to turn down the 10 K graphic control to 9:00 o'clock. -If the sound is still bad I keep looking . Most of the time its the recording but if thats not it its usually the tube pre-amp. I will say I love the C500T, however. But a 2300 and a 220 like MAC speakers run me right out of the room. I think the cause is higher freq. IM distortion, but its just a feeling on my part. I don't have access to test equipment any more to give me the answers.

Back in the 60's when everything was tube I never had the feeling I had to leave a room immediately . Even when SS came along I would hear something uncomfortable, but I didn't run. But when early digital came along I started running for either the exit or to turn the volume off. Wonder why. that is? Recording to closely miked do the same thing to me now. Be they analog or Digital. I know my hearing is changing and that overly emphasized highs above 4500 hz bother me, and especially above 6300 HZ. Something to ponder!
 
Well the MC500 is quite a bit more capable than the MC452 when it comes to driving difficult loads - with 50% more output current available (112A/ch vs 75A/ch of the MC452). So this would be a great choice to run Kappa 9s, etc.

I sill think the MC500 is the most pleasing to the eye of all Mc stereo power amplifiers.
 
It will be interesting to compare the 500 with the 452. I think I know which amp will be the 'winner', but I am looking to modernize, (well, somewhat) and at the same time, let go of the Mc2300's while the market value of them is relatively high.
Bridged Mc500's just might be really interesting, but that will happen down the road, if at all. Getting one @ $3K> is still a lot of BANG.
 
Last edited:
A MC 500 is quite a unit, but its not a 462. A 452 should be smoother over the long haul
I hate comparing things without a reference. I Something to ponder!
Twiiii, what do you think about the Mcintosh claim that they achieved a dramatic increase in headroom (1.8 - 3.1?Db) with an upgrade in 'Filtration'?
(6 27,500uF caps vs. 4 in the Mc452)
Might there be more to this upgrade than simple storage capability?
 
A bridged MC 500 would be a MC 1000? And like I said with smooth impedance curves they are pretty close. But I will admit for demanding Infinities you need all the current you can find. Maybe a MC 1.25K
 
A bridged MC 500 would be a MC 1000? And like I said with smooth impedance curves they are pretty close. But I will admit for demanding Infinities you need all the current you can find. Maybe a MC 1.25K
I was curious about your thoughts on the Mc452, vs. Mc462 as far as the gains in dynamic headroom?
 
I haven't time or the opportunity to speak with friends about the difference, but I'm planning on heading East before Snow and hope to audition the 462, I have heard the 452 many times. I also hope to compare a SME 15A against a Clear Audio Innovation, see Steves HRX if its still around. Though I think the SME will be my first choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom