• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Better value: MC-250 or MAC 1900

M

marblesmike

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
I have an opportunity to purchase one or the other with my current budget. Both cost around the same amounts (under $1000).

The MC-250 was fully restored by a local hifi shop 5 years ago. No buzz or hum.

The MAC 1900 was "checked" recently by a local hifi shop and just needed a cleaning.

I have other gear so it doesn't matter that one is a receiver while the other is an amplifier. It will be driving a pair of Pioneer HPM100 speakers (the higher rated version). I have a Sansui G6000 or a NAD 7000 I could use as a pre going into the 250 if that's the better unit.

I guess my question, which is a better amplifier, then if the 250 is better, is the preamp section of the 1900 good enough to warrant choosing that one?
 
Register to hide this ad
I would definitely go for the MC250. It's the chassis-only version of the MC2505 (I own one), the very first solid-state amplifier with autoformers ever produced by McIntosh. So it's a real piece of McIntosh history.
It also sounds excellent—very tube-like—and would be a good match for your HPM-100s. Its 50 watts, without Power Guard (which was introduced with the next generation), are probably somewhat underrated and measure closer to a higher real output.
The fact that it has been fully restored (do you have any documentation of the work that was done?), rather than simply checked over, is another significant advantage.
 
wiking said:
I would definitely go for the MC250. It's the chassis-only version of the MC2505 (I own one), the very first solid-state amplifier with autoformers ever produced by McIntosh. So it's a real piece of McIntosh history.
It also sounds excellent—very tube-like—and would be a good match for your HPM-100s. Its 50 watts, without Power Guard (which was introduced with the next generation), are probably somewhat underrated and measure closer to a higher real output.
The fact that it has been fully restored (do you have any documentation of the work that was done?), rather than simply checked over, is another significant advantage.
Click to expand...
One channel was fixed and it was recapped.
 
I doubt anyone can hear the difference between an MC250 & MAC1900 assuming both operating to spec. MAC1900 is capable of ~ 90 WPC while I believe MC250/2505 taps out ~ 70 WPC. The MAC1900 incorporates excellent phono and preamp sections, not to mention a tuner. Output of the MAC1900 is reduced into 16 ohms, however, while in the 250 it remains constant but unlikely to matter with the overwhelming majority of speakers in use today.

Generally speaking, it's difficult for separates to compete with receivers of the same manufacturer, era etc. in terms of overall "value". The same holds true for McIntosh receivers which is why they sold in the quantities they did when new.

It is highly likely that McIntosh would have gone out of business decades ago had it not maintained a receiver in its product lineup.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
I doubt anyone can hear the difference between an MC250 & MAC1900 assuming both operating to spec. MAC1900 is capable of ~ 90 WPC while I believe MC250/2505 taps out ~ 70 WPC. The MAC1900 incorporates excellent phono and preamp sections, not to mention a tuner. Output of the MAC1900 is reduced into 16 ohms, however, while in the 250 it remains constant but unlikely to matter with the overwhelming majority of speakers in use today.

Generally speaking, it's difficult for separates to compete with receivers of the same manufacturer, era etc. in terms of overall "value". The same holds true for McIntosh receivers which is why they sold in the quantities they did when new.
Click to expand...

If I can afford both, would there be any value in using the 1900 pre-out with the 250, or would I be better served in waiting for a C24/26/27/28/29?
 
marblesmike said:
If I can afford both, would there be any value in using the 1900 pre-out with the 250, or would I be better served in waiting for a C24/26/27/28/29?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd use the MAC1900 whole as it was designed for, unless you wanted to add an additional power amplifier to drive another pair of speakers (with the use of a Y-splitter IC cable). If you really want to go with the MC250, the C27 or C29 would be my top choices from that list.
 
McIntosh pieces seem to multiply.. Buy one you will have at least one more. I'd buy the MC250 and a separate preamp. Great Combo.
 
Okay so here's my dilemma. I can get the restored MC250 for $900 locally, or I can get a C27 preamp shipped for $1100. The C27 wasn't restored recently, but it's being sold by a gear/studio shop whose tech tested it and otherwise looked it over. Finally, my third option is to get a C24 in working condition from someone here shipped for under $700, and although it's currently working well, has likely not been restored recently.

I currently have a NAD 7000 receiver with pre-outs/main-ins and a Sansui G6000 receiver (no pre-out/main-in but a 4ch/NR loop section). Considering the costs and restoration status of the above Macs, which would be the better buy now to use with my current equipment if I can only buy one now?

The phono stage is no concern because I'm running my VPI Classic through a Rogue Ares tube phono preamp.
 
I'd far sooner go with the C27 over the C24. Better specs, later generation with refinements for improved reliability. Direct spec comparisons between the two are misleading as the C24 is rated under the old A-weighted system making specs appear more flattering than they really are. The C27's volume control is more advanced with better reliability.

Frankly I don't see a lot of upside to be gained by integrating either a Mc preamp or power amplifier with your existing equipment. If you want "the full McIntosh experience", I'd sooner opt for the MAC1900. It would make a great experiment to compare your tube phono pre with the one built into the MAC. I gave a fully restored MAC1900 to my brother who plays vinyl almost exclusively to replace the el cheapo BPC Japanese electronics he had been using for years. He said has a "full bodied, rich and satisfying" sound compared to what he had been accustomed to. He had been rather doubtful whether it would improve his listening enjoyment but now readily admits it's a bet he would've lost resoundingly.

If and when the time comes, the MAC1900 can be always used with outboard power amplifiers if you insist upon it. But as I've indicated earlier, I highly doubt it would be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
I'd far sooner go with the C27 over the C24. Better specs, later generation with refinements for improved reliability. Direct spec comparisons between the two are misleading as the C24 is rated under the old A-weighted system making specs appear more flattering than they really are. The C27's volume control is more advanced with better reliability.

Frankly I don't see a lot of upside to be gained by integrating either a Mc preamp or power amplifier with your existing equipment. If you want "the full McIntosh experience", I'd sooner opt for the MAC1900. It would make a great experiment to compare your tube phono pre with the one built into the MAC. I gave a fully restored MAC1900 to my brother who plays vinyl almost exclusively to replace the el cheapo BPC Japanese electronics he had been using for years. He said has a "full bodied, rich and satisfying" sound compared to what he had been accustomed to. He had been rather doubtful whether it would improve his listening enjoyment but now readily admits it's a bet he would've lost resoundingly.

If and when the comes, the MAC1900 can be always used with outboard power amplifiers if you insist upon it. But as I've indicated earlier, I highly doubt it would be worth it.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

The plan would be to eventually get the other Mac piece (amp or preamp) eventually in the not so distant future (I have medical bills so most of my hobby money is going to that).

Assuming that's the plan, would I be better off going with the amp or the preamp today, or still would the Mac 1900 be the best (I have access to one of those nearby as well).

I should add that I have a Lyra MC cartridge so I'll still need my tube phono pre since it has a SUT in it.
 
FWIW I am surprised either of those would be under $1000. As long as not hiding some oncoming failure or flaw those are cheap. My rebuilt 1900 pushed around 65 watts on the bench in both channels and sounded great. My 2205 run by a tube pre (CJPV1) sounds great.

Hard to go wrong on either piece as long as you’re not buying something that will meed expensive work in near future.
 
62caddy said:
Absolutely correct. A MC cartridge would be incompatible with the MAC's phono stage so that's that.
Click to expand...
But I still would need a preamp for my headphones and other sources.

Part of me leans towards the C27 because with little kids, most of my listening is done on headphones now, then I can use the NAD to amplify to my speakers if needed until I get a better power amp. Or I could just get a MAC 1900, but looking at the future, how is it's preamp?

The other part of me leans towards the MC250 because at that price, fully restored units don't come along every day.
 
marblesmike said:
But I still would need a preamp for my headphones and other sources.

Part of me leans towards the C27 because with little kids, most of my listening is done on headphones now, then I can use the NAD to amplify to my speakers if needed until I get a better power amp. Or I could just get a MAC 1900, but looking at the future, how is it's preamp?

The other part of me leans towards the MC250 because at that price, fully restored units don't come along every day.
Click to expand...
For headphone listening, the front panel jack of the MAC would be used. Do you realize how expensive the 1900 was new? $749 in 1973 which is ~ $5,600 in today's funds. It's a serious unit built to the same rigorous standards as Mc separates and is still well regarded by modern users, including the preamp section.

Keep in mind, the C24, C26 and C27 require an external power amplifier to supply the necessary voltage to play headphones connected to the front panel headphone jack. None are capable of powering headphones on their own. These models have rear panel terminals for connecting the power amplifier. On the MAC, the headphones are powered by the MAC's power amp section. Another reason in favor of the 1900 for the "full" Mc experience.
 
62caddy said:
For headphone listening, the front panel jack of the MAC would be used. Do you realize how expensive the 1900 was new? $749 in 1973 which is ~ $5,600 in today's funds. It's a serious unit built to the same rigorous standards as Mc separates and is still well regarded by modern users, including the preamp section.

Keep in mind, the C24, C26 and C27 require an external power amplifier to supply the necessary voltage to play headphones connected to the front panel headphone jack. None are capable of powering headphones on their own. These models have rear panel terminals for connecting the power amplifier. On the MAC, the headphones are powered by the MAC's power amp section. Another reason in favor of the 1900 for the "full" Mc experience.
Click to expand...
That's huge that the C27 needs a power amp to activate the headphone jack.

Thanks for the advice! If I can swing both, I'll get both the MC250 and C27. Otherwise, looks like I'll lean towards the 1900.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom