• 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

c-24 vs c-26 for a mc-2105

wanders

wanders

Super Member
I own a nice c-24 that I recapped a year ago. It's in excellent condition and performs flawlessly. FWIW, I don't subscribe to the idea, held by some, that the c-24, being the first Mac s/s pre, is an inferior product.

Having said that, I'm tempted by the c-26's I see for sale from time to time. I've read that my mc-2105 and the c-26 are a natural pairing; perhaps better than what I have. If I sold my c-24 and bought a comparable c-26, at current market prices, I would have to pony-up $200-$300.

Several months ago I looked seriously at a Craigslist c-28. I walked away because I found that the volume pot had issues. Research indicated that this was a common problem with that preamp. A replacement pot would run around $150, plus the time and trouble to replace the part. Wondering if the c-26 suffers from this issue.

Thoughts appreciated.
 
Register to hide this ad
wanders said:
FWIW, I don't subscribe to the idea, held by some, that the c-24, being the first Mac s/s pre, is an inferior product.
Click to expand...

The C24 may not be an inferior product, it's just my opinion that it is a visually cheap looking product for a Mcintosh.
 
Last edited:
jlovda said:
The C24 may not be an inferior product, it's just my opinion that it is a visually cheap looking product for a Mcintosh.
Click to expand...

Essentially, the same visual design as the c-22. Probably snag one of those beasts for two or three grand.

My question really bears on the technical improvements between the c-24 and c-26.
 
I think the volume pot issue is on all the preamps where the volume control doubled as the power switch. Which is a shame, because I love the looks of the c26/c28. The mechanically superior c27/c29/c3x just don't do it for me.
 
Weren’t there improvements made to the S/N in the phono section between the 26 & 28? I’m sure there are opinions on this aspect.

As for the volume pot issue, I personally would chalk that up to other aged components that typically need to be addressed in a piece of vintage gear.
Meaning, it would not deter me. I would try and find the cleanest one I could find and replace that pot while in for recap. Couple that refurbished preamp with your 2105 and you’ll have a beautiful sounding hi-fi.

I bought a new C-28 back in the day and loved it. The additional functionality over the C-26 tipped the scales for me. I owned it from '76 through ’83.
Good luck.
 
The problem with the volume pots is that they are expensive parts to replace - well over 1/3 of the value of a nice C26. The C28 was definitely the cat's meow for those that liked to adjust things to the nth degree, no doubt!
 
I have (2) C-24'S and a C-26. I had the C-24's for some time and recently obtained the C-26. I got lucky and found the pristine C-26 and the volume pot is fine. The C-24 has a separate on off, so I believe the volume the pot on the C-26 is more susceptible being integrated. The C-26 is definitely prettier with the illuminations. I can't tell any difference performance wise between the two though. I actually think they are quite the same aside from the improved looks. They are both great pre's in my opinion. Never tried a C-28 though. Maybe I should sell both C-24 and the C-26 for a C-28:scratch2: I am going to get off track a little and sorry to muddy wanders approach, but I also have a MA6100 integrated being looked at for a hum problem. Does anyone have an opinion on the pre section of the 6100 apposed to the C-24, 26 or 28? Maybe that can be an option for wanders. The 6100 can be bought for about 700.00 and you get the best of both worlds with the integrated. Just a thought.
 
As discussed, I did some research last fall when the possibility of getting a c-28 was on the horizon. From memory (which is fading fast), the volume pot problem in the c-28 stemmed from the mechanics of the knob which used detents (dont know the right word for this feature), as opposed to continuous adjustment. Apparently keeping the knob in exactly the same few positions over long periods of time encouraged deterioration in the wiring/mechanics of the component.

I read here that many users got around that problem by increasing or decreasing the gain on the amp, thereby allowing the same volume to be achieved with higher or lower preamp settings - using undamaged preamp detent positionss.

I called around and found a credible McIntosh repair facility in Tennessee. Apparently, they rebuilt the pots themselves. When available they sold for around $150. Their repair time standard was about two hours for replacement bringing the total to something over $300. I didn't try to figure out how difficult it would be to do the replacement myself. Two hours seems high, but maybe there is lots of dis-assembly required. Not sure about that.
 
Have you checked with Terry DeWick for pricing on this?
I wouldn't stop with one repair facility.

I would price a recap (unless you do that yourself) and see what the additional labor cost would be to swap out the volume pot. Certainly it would be less being that the unit is already open & on the bench.

Ps. (I am great at spending other people's money).
 
Why not step up to a C-29 or C-30 and really get a another magnitude of performance. The C-29 has a much better phono section, quieter, faster and cleaner. Precision volume controls and great flexibility. C-30 has variable head phone output which also drives the line output for a separate zone. The Head phone control like the master control are precision un its. The C-30 has electronic switching so you don't have to worry so much with dirty controls and cross-talk. I has graphic tone controls which I find much superior to the stepped controls on the C-29 where the gradation was to large between steps.
 
Based on this input! I'm not seeing a compelling reason to go with a c-26. Likely a c-28 or better would be the answer.

Thanks for the thoughts.
 
wanders said:
Based on this input! I'm not seeing a compelling reason to go with a c-26. Likely a c-28 or better would be the answer.

Thanks for the thoughts.
Click to expand...

I went through this process of deciding on pre-amps last year, and I ended up with a C32, with Terry Dewick upgrades.
Its been consistently brilliant, (apart from the voltage conversion from 117-230V, which I had a malfunction with).

If I was to do it again I would probably go with a C33 because of the 5 band EQ, but if you are not an EQ guy, and you want something basic, then the C30 is the one.
They have Volume pots which last a lot longer and dont have the problems the older ones have.
They seem to be more reliable and less prone to other grounding issues etc etc ....which the older ones have.
That is not to say the older ones are no good, they are, but they require a lot of work to bring them back to spec.....
 
The C 30 is basically the C 33 or C 34 less the built in amp, separate record/listen selectors and compander. It does have the EQ though.
 
kevzep said:
I went through this process of deciding on pre-amps last year, and I ended up with a C32, with Terry Dewick upgrades.
Its been consistently brilliant, (apart from the voltage conversion from 117-230V, which I had a malfunction with).

If I was to do it again I would probably go with a C33 because of the 5 band EQ, but if you are not an EQ guy, and you want something basic, then the C30 is the one.
They have Volume pots which last a lot longer and dont have the problems the older ones have.
They seem to be more reliable and less prone to other grounding issues etc etc ....which the older ones have.
That is not to say the older ones are no good, they are, but they require a lot of work to bring them back to spec.....
Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice, The C 32 also comes with a 5 band Eq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom