thevinoman
Nothin' but the Blues...
Matched up with MC30s or an MC240 and various Klipsch speakers, if you had to choose, which one would you keep, and why? Thanks very much.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
C29 vs C32, which one?
- Thread starter thevinoman
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
thevinoman
Nothin' but the Blues...
I guess I should have known better than to ask a general open ended question, and, I don't remember mentioning a C33? I suppose I'm just looking for an overall opinion given either one's capabilities, audio quality, etc.
The C32 was/ is a mavel of flexibility and control......5 band EQ, variable loudness, three tape switching built in headphone Etc, etc, etc. It used a differential discrete transistor phono preamp that Mac never used again......
The C29 had clunky stepped tone controls and Mac's second attempt at a opamp based phono stage but it was quieter than the C32, most likely due to the fewer stages inside the unit.
The next generation of Mac preamps, which the C33 led, reset all the parameters that Mac preamps in many cases still follow today.
A owner of a C33 I restored was pestering me yesterday, while I was teaching him how to use his tube tester, as to why the C33 ran circles around his Mx110 when driving his MC225..... Trying to answer his non empirical questions must have stuck in my mind........that's why I mentioned the C33.
The C29 had clunky stepped tone controls and Mac's second attempt at a opamp based phono stage but it was quieter than the C32, most likely due to the fewer stages inside the unit.
The next generation of Mac preamps, which the C33 led, reset all the parameters that Mac preamps in many cases still follow today.
A owner of a C33 I restored was pestering me yesterday, while I was teaching him how to use his tube tester, as to why the C33 ran circles around his Mx110 when driving his MC225..... Trying to answer his non empirical questions must have stuck in my mind........that's why I mentioned the C33.
Last edited:
thevinoman
Nothin' but the Blues...
That's awesome, thanks very much for the info and opinion, I really appreciate it.
C32/33 or C34v the 29 would be my last choice
C32 would be my choice. More flexibility and it also has a 12wpc monitor amp which sounds surprisingly good driving Klipsch speakers.
You tried it then?
Oh yes I've tried it with my 33 on my khorns with excellent results. That monitor amp is a nice sounding little amp and I've had it hooked up to the khorns for several months now.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
The C-32 does so much more than a C-29, thats why I traded in my C29 for a C-34. Now the phono stages maybe almost the same but they don't sound the same. The C-29 is a little drier where a C-32 and C-34 more remind me of the C-28. But the difference can easily be much smaller than the difference between a Grace F9E and Stanton 981 and a Shure V-15 MR. So I would take the 32 even though I loved the C-29 for over 30 years. The graphic tone controls and the record selector mean so much to me. I never liked the broad steps of the tone controls of the C-29 though I do miss being able to adjust the right separately from the left. Variable loudness is a great addition and the dynmic expansion of the C-32 is great if you don't have the ultimate DBX 3BX. I love the graphic tone controls. One thing I definitely don't like about the C-29 and 32 is neither have gold connectors. So unless you use Gold RCA connectors with split pins and sleeves that dig into the shell of the RCA chassis connector I can guarantee you are going to have intermittent connection problems down the road. I used the little power amp of the C-34 to power electrostatic headphones and at one time the rear Hersey speakers quite satisfactorily. I don't think the Phono section of the 32 was as quiet as the 29 or 34 and is one of many reasons I waited to by a 34 over a 32 or 33. I now use a MP 100 phono stage which replicates the C-29 and will accept low out put moving coils. If a C-40 would fit in the same space I would have a C-40, but it won't.
Last edited:
Searing75
Active Member
I adore my C32, and can’t imagine a quieter phone stage. The tone controls are nice, even though I mostly remove them from the signal, and the loudness comes in handy often. The sound with my MC2105 through my Klipsch Cornwalls is amazing! I recapped and re-ribboned the C32 myself.
I think that as phono stages morfed away from tube circuits to early transistor designs and then even more so as those designs continued to become even quieter, cartridge manufacturers ramped up their trend to lower output cartridge designs.......smaller moving magnetsequsl lower moving mass but also lower electical output.
So certainly the 3rd and 4th generation on Mac phono gain and RIAA EQ circuits improved. However in the late 70s, early 80s we started seeing even lower output phono cartridges like the AKG P8es and Ortofon M20super. Add to that my first experience with a High Output moving coil which was a product distributed by NAD and we found ourselves needing to ramp up the volume control to 12:00 to 1:00 vs the usual 10:00 tp 11:00 for loud demos.
This was where the quieter 5th generation C33 stood out. Bench test proved it.
Quiet phono stages are all well and good but when there's probably never been a turntable produced with rumble spec exceeding - 90 dB, the benefits of phono preamps exceeding those figures is questionable.
I know in my own case, both of my turntables are spec'd at -73 dB (A Weighted) which means it's probably even worse - is well exceeded by the C32's -80 dB (PHONO) spec (which is probably even better given Mc's conservative approach to published specs) and probably even exceeded by either the MX110 and MX113 in the other system.
Anything better than -80 dB would be wasted on me...that is...unless I was concerned about noise levels when the pickup is resting on the stand between playing records, which I'm not.
Just my ol' 2 cents' worth.
I know in my own case, both of my turntables are spec'd at -73 dB (A Weighted) which means it's probably even worse - is well exceeded by the C32's -80 dB (PHONO) spec (which is probably even better given Mc's conservative approach to published specs) and probably even exceeded by either the MX110 and MX113 in the other system.
Anything better than -80 dB would be wasted on me...that is...unless I was concerned about noise levels when the pickup is resting on the stand between playing records, which I'm not.
Just my ol' 2 cents' worth.
Last edited:
I think that most users would relate to noise as the mid to high frequency "hiss" the might hear through their efficient speakers much more than sub sonic rumble that should be filtered via a properly designed phono EQ stage and would be much more influenced by the tonearm cartridge resonance in any case.
A MC2500 driving XRT20s was never a quiet amp in and of itself compared to say a MC2255, but in the OPs case with klipsch horns I believe the phono stage S/N if important to him, would be preeminent.
A MC2500 driving XRT20s was never a quiet amp in and of itself compared to say a MC2255, but in the OPs case with klipsch horns I believe the phono stage S/N if important to him, would be preeminent.
kevzep
Its all about the Music
Very interesting, I had a refurbed C32, Terry DeWick had done it, and I have to be honest, I just wasn't that impressed it, not as much as I thought I was going to be.
It was a very good pre with great function, but the sound for me wasn't what I was looking for, it wasn't until I got the C48 that I was happy....
Same experience with the C32 here - couldn't be more pleased and its flexibility is a great asset.
With the EQ bypass switch off, C32 is designed with filters which cut off below 20 Hz and above 20kHz, thus eliminating infrasonic and ultrasonic "garbage" from interfering with the music. This is especially advantageous when playing vinyl which is almost always has some degree of warpage resulting in wasted power, excessive woofer excursion resulting in distortion. I really wish my McIntosh tuner-preamplifiers also had this feature. They do have LF filters but the 50 Hz cutoff takes too much bite out of LF content. I believe the MAC4100 was also designed with the same built-in filters, possibly the MX117 as well.
I cannot say whether the C29 has this feature but it would certainly be a consideration if I were running low power tube amplifiers.
Really cannot complain about the C32 except I wish it had remote. I love the SQ of the phono stage. Amazingly enough I think it sounds better than the C30 I had earlier. Only way I would consider replacing it is if a pristine C33 came up at the right price but I doubt that will ever happen which is just as well.
With the EQ bypass switch off, C32 is designed with filters which cut off below 20 Hz and above 20kHz, thus eliminating infrasonic and ultrasonic "garbage" from interfering with the music. This is especially advantageous when playing vinyl which is almost always has some degree of warpage resulting in wasted power, excessive woofer excursion resulting in distortion. I really wish my McIntosh tuner-preamplifiers also had this feature. They do have LF filters but the 50 Hz cutoff takes too much bite out of LF content. I believe the MAC4100 was also designed with the same built-in filters, possibly the MX117 as well.
I cannot say whether the C29 has this feature but it would certainly be a consideration if I were running low power tube amplifiers.
Really cannot complain about the C32 except I wish it had remote. I love the SQ of the phono stage. Amazingly enough I think it sounds better than the C30 I had earlier. Only way I would consider replacing it is if a pristine C33 came up at the right price but I doubt that will ever happen which is just as well.
