Scottsmrnyc
Scottsmrnyc
I am not sure what you mean by Chalk and Cheese or Swiss or gouda? Does that mean that they are the same? This is what I take it to mean. Thanks Scottsmrnyc
C2200 Vs C2300
- Thread starter cvanro1
- Start date
Daytripper
Active Member
Scottsmrnyc
Welcome to AK ! I have a c2300 but do not know what a Mx136 sounds like, but I have to say "Like chalk and cheese my friend!" brought a
to my face.
Very descriptive Howiebrou!
Robert
Welcome to AK ! I have a c2300 but do not know what a Mx136 sounds like, but I have to say "Like chalk and cheese my friend!" brought a
to my face.Very descriptive Howiebrou!
Robert
Daytripper
Active Member
My guess is if you ate chalk then cheese you would not enjoy both equally!
Robert
Robert
Scottsmrnyc.......our new Mac friend, take your sun glasses off and read those posts again. What is being said is, there is a definate difference. Yes, the MX136 is a fine performer doing what it was designed to do. If you are looking for superb, top level two channel performace, then the MX136 would only be a comfortable foot stool for the C2300 to rest its feet on.
Sorry, couldn't help the new metaphor, but I think you've got it now.
Sorry, couldn't help the new metaphor, but I think you've got it now.
howiebrou
Super Member
Shane
Active Member
Just thought I would add that I have been using the C2300 for 6 weeks now and it is an amazing piece of equipment.
First it plays music very well, streets ahead of the C46 and c2220, is transparent to the source and most importantly it is even handed with its musical delivery from bass to treble.
2nd, the MC stage is very very good. I sold my Pass xono and have not missed it one bit - impedance setting on the fly is awesome
3rd - it is very very quiet both in line stage and phono and switching from one source to another is silent.
4th - bass and treble adjustment on the fly is just AWESOME. I don't use it much, but it is great to have it. As I have said previously - All MAC pre amps should have tone controls and YOU can choose whether you use the or not
Can I now have LED's my 2 xs MC2102's????
First it plays music very well, streets ahead of the C46 and c2220, is transparent to the source and most importantly it is even handed with its musical delivery from bass to treble.
2nd, the MC stage is very very good. I sold my Pass xono and have not missed it one bit - impedance setting on the fly is awesome
3rd - it is very very quiet both in line stage and phono and switching from one source to another is silent.
4th - bass and treble adjustment on the fly is just AWESOME. I don't use it much, but it is great to have it. As I have said previously - All MAC pre amps should have tone controls and YOU can choose whether you use the or not
Can I now have LED's my 2 xs MC2102's????
MarSanZ
Simple Pleasures...
Shane,
I am not having this issue, I purchased my C2300 in September. How do you find out the production date of your unit? I am sure it's a newer unit, but it makes sense to find out. I guess I could just call Mac directly.
Thanks.
m
C2200
From what I understand Sidney Corderman designed the tube circuits on the C2200 but did no design on the other two. I would think that the fact that i have the MC275, and he designed that amp, that he may have had that in mind when working on the C2200. Many like the C2200 better than any of the others. I have not heard the C2200 but would like to. Many have told me it is better than the C220 and may be worth taking a couple of steps backward.
From what I understand Sidney Corderman designed the tube circuits on the C2200 but did no design on the other two. I would think that the fact that i have the MC275, and he designed that amp, that he may have had that in mind when working on the C2200. Many like the C2200 better than any of the others. I have not heard the C2200 but would like to. Many have told me it is better than the C220 and may be worth taking a couple of steps backward.
Stockholm
Stockholm headed the design but Corderman designed the tube circuit and it is a tube preamp so that would be one of the critical areas as far as the design is concerned. Corderman was a huge part of the engineering at Mcintosh and if he was involved enough that his name is mentioned in the design, I am on board with that.
Stockholm headed the design but Corderman designed the tube circuit and it is a tube preamp so that would be one of the critical areas as far as the design is concerned. Corderman was a huge part of the engineering at Mcintosh and if he was involved enough that his name is mentioned in the design, I am on board with that.
W9TR
Super Member
I've owned both preamps and the MM section of the C2300 sounds slightly better to me than the one the C2200. It is a more open, dynamic sound. But they are very close.
I'd also give the edge to the 2300 because I can easily set the correct load capacitance for my cartridge with a test record. This makes way more difference than the differences in the phono stages themselves.
I'd also give the edge to the 2300 because I can easily set the correct load capacitance for my cartridge with a test record. This makes way more difference than the differences in the phono stages themselves.
tjnif
Active Member
I've owned both TOGETHER....In my system and my ears (and everyone else who listened) the C2300 trumps the C2200. Just because a legendary engineer like Sydney designed it...doesnt mean that someone else cant come up w/ something better....My 02 cents....
MX117.MC7150
Listener
Am guessing you also prefer the MC2102 to the MC275. Having owned both, I prefer the MC275. So, it is up you and your ears. However, all are wonderful pieces of gear and really don't think you can wrong with any of them.
Last edited:
drbryant
Member
Because of the two-box design the C500 is $12,000, isn't it? That's a huge leap from the 2200/2300. From my perspective, I am not sure I want to do without tone controls because of fact that I listen under less than ideal conditions and I am not sure that I want to add another shelf to my unit.
