Wondering what experiences people have had using a McIntosh CD player, mcd500 probably, straight to a McIntosh power amp? This could potentially work for me at least for a while. I have no analogue sources and don’t need more than the two inputs. I have a mc302 and c15 currently. My sources are a marantz bd5004 as transport through a musical fidelity v90 dac, and a bluesound node2. I could see loosing a true preamp as a loss, but I’m guessing it would be a large enough upgrade to my sources to offset this and hopefully more. Also thinking about a new preamp, but can’t do both right now. If I went with a new pre I’ve pondered a few, c42, c46, c47, c48, or maybe a C220. I lean towards the 47/48 because the dac. Anyways I look forward to all your opinions as always.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
CD player as preamp?
- Thread starter Bryland
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Thats exactly the question why we started 10 years ago with audio blind tests. I had the MCD 301 and I asked myself in these days if it is better to go direct to a power amp or via a pre amp. First of all I thought with a pre amp it is better, it sounded "louder", till somebody gave me the hint, that I have to adjust the levels when I do a comparison. After we did this, there were no audible effect between MCD 301 direct to a power amp or a pre amp.
I did this blind test with so many people and different amps, that you shouldnt worry, if the audio level is equal, than you will hear no difference at all.
Best regards
Martin
I did this blind test with so many people and different amps, that you shouldnt worry, if the audio level is equal, than you will hear no difference at all.
Best regards
Martin
frodaddi
Active Member
I’ve often thought that one of the McIntosh CD players with volume control and digital inputs would be interesting to use in just this way as a compact / basic digital front end. Of course besides the analog inputs you’d also be giving up the tone and balance controls, if you care about that. But you’d retain the remote so that’s good.
As to the other preamps you mentioned I have always liked the C48 due to the equalizer. Too bad it’s no longer available new. Personally the MDA1000 wouldn’t be my choice with the MC302 just because of the cosmetic difference.
As to the other preamps you mentioned I have always liked the C48 due to the equalizer. Too bad it’s no longer available new. Personally the MDA1000 wouldn’t be my choice with the MC302 just because of the cosmetic difference.
Interesting, could you tell me which preamps you used in the tests?
The MCD500 can be used without a preamp but I don't have much comment on preamp vs. direct to the amp except it might depend on the preamp. I assume you want the MCD500 to provide a better sounding DAC and also play SACD through that better DAC.
The MCD500 has two digital inputs, one optical and one coax, that support sampling rates up to 96 kHz / 24 bit. So you could plug your Node 2i's digital output into one of the MCD500's digital inputs and plug the Marantz's digital output into the other. You would have to set up your Node 2i to down convert any files / streams in excess of 96 / 24. Likewise with the Marantz. (I'm not sure how to do this with the Marantz and I'm not sure how the MCD500 would react to a surround-sound bit stream from the Marantz.) You cannot use the MF DAC with the MCD sans preamp as the MCD has no analog inputs.
You could then switch between sources (Marantz, Node 2i (as streamer), CD or SACD disk) and control volume on the MCD500's front panel (or remote) without a preamp.
Looks like the MDA1000 would be similar in terms of functions and supported sample rates (also limited to 96 / 24) and would provide additional digital inputs but no ability to play CD or SACD.
I've not heard the MF DAC, but the MCD500 has excellent sound and is better sounding to me than the DAC built into the Node 2i.
The MCD500 has two digital inputs, one optical and one coax, that support sampling rates up to 96 kHz / 24 bit. So you could plug your Node 2i's digital output into one of the MCD500's digital inputs and plug the Marantz's digital output into the other. You would have to set up your Node 2i to down convert any files / streams in excess of 96 / 24. Likewise with the Marantz. (I'm not sure how to do this with the Marantz and I'm not sure how the MCD500 would react to a surround-sound bit stream from the Marantz.) You cannot use the MF DAC with the MCD sans preamp as the MCD has no analog inputs.
You could then switch between sources (Marantz, Node 2i (as streamer), CD or SACD disk) and control volume on the MCD500's front panel (or remote) without a preamp.
Looks like the MDA1000 would be similar in terms of functions and supported sample rates (also limited to 96 / 24) and would provide additional digital inputs but no ability to play CD or SACD.
I've not heard the MF DAC, but the MCD500 has excellent sound and is better sounding to me than the DAC built into the Node 2i.
We used following preamps for the tests:
Mcintosh C52
Mcintosh C50
Mcintosh C45
Mcintosh C34
Mcintosh C28
Mcintosh C29
Mcintosh C2600
Mcintosh C2700
Mcintosh C22
Accuphase C290
Accuphase C2420
Acuuphase C3800
Accuphase DC 300
Sony TA-E 900 Esprit
Tests with the MCD 301 directly to power amps were done with ca. 40 different power amps.
Normally I listen the MCD 301 direct to the MC152.
Sounds wonderful and clean like the other options.
Best regards
Martin
This seems almost too good to be true. Yet believable. It seems McIntosh folk when it comes to preamps either voice there is nothing as good as the metered tube preamps, or the they all sound very similar. I suspect the full featured tubed preamps might have a marginal edge in some ways. Yet I also suspect these folks have been bitten by the McIntosh bug and visually and conceptually these full featured metered tube preamps are the Mecca. They are for me as well a bit, but even if I were to purchase one I’d be aware it was as much or more out of vanity than truly expecting a improvement in sound equal to the price. I also believe visual appearance and pride of ownership can be nearly as satisfying as the sound. At least with McIntosh.
I find myself both excited and maybe disappointed by your findings. Excited I could get at least close to these top of the line preamps with much less money, and disappointed by the lack of potential McIntosh components stacked on my rack with such a simple system. In the end pretty much all McIntosh components are very pricey to me, so more happy than sad to hear your experience.
I will say the full featured preamps do seem a wiser investment if you are a turntable user and even more so if you use mc cartridges.
Not surprised at all. This side of tone and/or other processing features, the ideal preamplifier should not audibly influence the signal in any way.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
Then why do folks insist on buying the latest tube pre-amps to get what they feel is the best sound. Personally I'm not fond of the C-2300 and C-220 I have auditioned over the years. Yet I love the C-500T. I would have one if it had tone controls. If you want a pre-amp with a mellow phono stage I prefer the C-2200. But as I prefer a faster phono stage I use a MP100, plus it gives me input flexibility and a digital out puts to feed my CD recorder and MX151. The analog out feeds the C-34.
stahle
Active Member
I find your test results hard to believe when so many of the preamps you listed as being used for your test sound different from one another. I'm not arguing that it did not sound as good or better when you connected the MCD301 direct to the amplifier, what I am pointing out is that when different preamplifiers sound different from one another, then they will each change the sound of the CD player in their own way whether for good or bad. Whether one likes the way a preamp colors the sound of the CD player is an individual thing and like others have said, other than for tone controls, a preamp technically shouldn't change the sound going through it at all, but they typically do.
MACKIE1975
Super Member
Should not challenge the test but take with a grain of salt.