C2200 Vs C2300

[anton]

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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - one of THE biggest holes in Mac line is the lack of affordable fully balanced pre to go with 402. I had to use RCAs between 301,46 and 402 because they sounded way better than XLRs, no doubt because of not-fully balanced nature of my pre. So if I was McIntosh I would either introduce a $5000 range fully balance pre or at least an affordable powerful non-balanced power amp for the existing line of 46.2200 and 2300.

 

[MX117.MC7150]

Speaking for myself, I use a C2200 because I prefer a tube preamp. The advantages of balanced over non-balanced are so small that most will not notice and only then, in the most critical listening tests. Having used both, I am very happy with my current, non-balanced rig.

 

[j3brow]

I keep wondering why people are using 2200/2300 with 402 and 501? I mean they are not fully balanced and you're loosing the advantage of fully balanced design of you power amp. Is it just because most people can't afford the "cheapest" 500 pre?

As a long time owner of C2300 - MC402 system, all I can say is LISTEN to the combination and you will know the answer. It sounds very very good. There is no downside of this pairing. In a perfect world, I would have a C500, but the two-box solution doesnt work for me right now. Maybe someday. btw, i just recently made the switch from RCA to XLR between my MCD500 - C2300 - MC402 and the sound is better -----> diminishing returns given the large investment required to make the jump with Transparent but better none the less ----> blacker backgrounds, increased gain, bass Oh my the bass!!, microdynamic detail brought to the forefront. Yes, these improvements are apparent even though the C2300 is not fully balanced. Of course, with a fully balanced pre- with dual mono power supplies, circuitry, etc the channel separation, imaging, etc will be enhanced but Im willing to betcha that once again ---> diminishing returns, i.e. better still but not a monumental change. The C2300 is a killer preamp as is, do I wish they could get the current level of performance at the 6K price point with a fully balanced one box design, sure but it aint happening!! The XLR I/O are there for a reason on the unbalanced C2300 - one still can reap the improvements detailed above. I dont know if McIntosh would take the C2300 to a industry show but if they did i wouldnt be the least bit surprised if they hooked it up with balanced cables. My .02 .

 

[ron-c]

Yes, McIntosh uses balanced cables in their show setups.

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

[MX117.MC7150]

Yes, McIntosh uses balanced cables in their show setups. Thanks, Ron-C

How about it Ron? Is a 1-box fully balanced C2300 (C2500?) in the cards? Like j3brow states, a 1-box solution would be of interest where the 2-box is not.

BTW - What ICs does McIntosh use at the various shows?

 

[ron-c]

C2300 will be with us for a while and is the most popular McIntosh preamp.

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

[drbryant]

C2300 will be with us for a while and is the most popular McIntosh preamp.

Thanks,
Ron-C

I am 90% of the way to adding a shelf and getting a C500C/T to pair up with my MC2000. I have a deal to trade in my C220. Anything anyone can say to push me over the edge?

 

[ron-c]

Life is short, enjoy!

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

[MX117.MC7150]

Life is short, enjoy!

Thanks,
Ron-C

:lmao::lmao::lmao:
Absolutely. Only go around once.

 

[drbryant]

Life is short, enjoy!

Thanks,
Ron-C

I think that's the philosophical impetus that I was looking for.