• 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

Classe vs. McIntosh

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdonda

Member
My experience shopping for a great amp:

I was able to demo the classe CA-2200 (couldn't demo the CA-5200 which was what I was interested in) and the McIntosh MC207 amps at my house for a couple of weeks. I love the built quality of the Mac and after initially having to get used to the vintage look, it has grown on me quite a bit. It makes complete sense to have all graphics behind the glass panel and the meters are absolutely beautifull. The classe look is very modern, but you can tell right off the bat that the Mac has it beat in quality. I have found that the sound of the two amplifiers is completely different.
1. The Mac is very warm, excelling in the mids, great for vocals (female especially) and seems to emphasize the higher frequencies. The sound also seemed clean, like it was able to filter some of the fuzz out of old recordings. The soundstage, especially the vocals, were right in front.
2. The classe is very balanced as it doesn't seem to favor any frequency range in particular. The sound has a very "full" feel to it...feels like there is some authority behind it and you could almost feel the power, while the Mac didn't give me the impression of power, even though it it has plenty. The bass was also more pronounced with the classe and really made a difference with the music I tend to listen to more. The soundstage was also nice but not as forward.

I also had the opportunity to listen to the 501's and M400 on some B&W 802d's and had that very same impression of the 2 systems.

In conclusion...I chose the classe due to the more balanced, transparent sound, and synergy with B&W. I really wanted to like the Mac (preferred its build quality, heritage, looks), but I just had to go with what sounded better to me. It was an increadibly tough choice.
 
Register to hide this ad
In the end the only thing that matters is what it sounds like to you. Both companies make great product. Both sound outstanding but no one has your music, room, ears and musical taste so if the Classe sounds good to you, well then it is good! Enjoy the music!
 
MX117.MC7150 said:
Post these types of reviews in the Classe forum and not the McIntosh forum.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with these types of reviews being posted on this forum since the OP compared a product to a McIntosh product and gave good reasons for his/her decision.:thmbsp:
 
Classe and Mcintosh both make great products. I chose Mcintosh because I felt the Classe had more "grain" and I did not like that. It's pretty universally agreed that the Classe amps are now and have been traditionally a bit rolled off on the top end by both end user reviews and well as professional reviews.It's not new. Many companies roll off the top end because grain is enough without having the amp sound bright on top of that. The Classe is more transparent. The Mcintosh is, because of it's like of grain, able to have extended highs, at least with the latest designs. I am not familiar with the older amplifiers but many also accuse the older designs of being rolled off. No comment from me as I just do not know. Another reason I chose Mcintosh was because the amps were better looking to my eyes, and appear to retain their value far longer. 10 year old Classe stuff really takes a beating. Mcintosh seems to fair much much better in that regard. Also at the time, Mcintosh beat every published spec from Classe vs the MC501s by quite a margin. The newer amps are much improved in this regard and appear to match Mcintosh specs. I really need to see what Classe has done. To me in the end it is like a vanilla lover extolling it's virtues to a chocolate lover. Neither is wrong. It just a matter of preference.
 
I do miss the lack of grain, but the brightness bothered me. I think my ears may be sensitive to the high frequencies and it contributed to some listening fatigue. I agree about McIntosh making some of the nicest looking products on the market.
 
mdonda said:
I do miss the lack of grain, but the brightness bothered me. I think my ears may be sensitive to the high frequencies and it contributed to some listening fatigue.
Click to expand...

Let's see...Mcintosh specs on almost every amp are 20 Hz to 20 KHz +/- 0.25 dB. That's pretty close to a straight line to me. And I'll bet the Classe amp specs are quite similar. Did the Mcintosh amp you listened to have a defect causing a bump in the high end response?
 
I would also recommend that anyone considering a Classe multi-channel amplifier look at this review http://hometheatermag.com/preamppro...d_processor_and_ct-5300_amplifier/index5.html . The CT-5300 which has the same electronics as the CA-5300 really "lies down" when presented with a 4ohm load. It's fine with 8ohm loads and produces around 300 watts. However, when presented with a 4ohm load the power DROPS TO ONLY 190 WATTS. That would be a deal breaker for me. I would certainly not want an amp that delivered less power into lower impedance. You can be sure that any Mcintosh amp rated for 300 watts would produce that at a minimum and NEVER buckle and actually produce less power. Mcintosh amps are conservatively rated. There should be a sticker on the Classe amp box stating that it reduces power into 4ohm speakers to protect the amp. Bear in mind that this is a NINE THOUSAND DOLLAR amplifier with this kind of specification. It might be acceptable in a lower price amplifier. I can not fathom how Classe could design an amplifier at this price point that reduces power into 4ohm loads. Usually AV receivers do this or cheaper amplifiers.
 
Last edited:
mdonda said:
I do miss the lack of grain, but the brightness bothered me. I think my ears may be sensitive to the high frequencies and it contributed to some listening fatigue. I agree about McIntosh making some of the nicest looking products on the market.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons that Mcintosh amps have traditionally been used with B&W speakers is because many found that before the diamond tweeter, that brand was notoriously glaring in the highs. The diamond tweeter put an end to all that. I think it is one of the best tweeters on the market. The B&W speakers that use it are superb. I am however wondering if the non-diamond tweeter on the model that you are using is not the actual source of your brightness complaint.
 
Take a look at the measurements of the B&W 683. I believe that is the model you are using? While the nominal impedance is 8ohm, it drops to 3.5ohms at 100hz. From 78hz up to about 900hz it is 6ohms. Normally with amps like the multi-channel Classe with wimpy low impedance performance, you can help it out by crossing over at 80hz as most of the low impedance load will be down there. Crossing over above 100hz,where the Classe is weakest might be a better idea. http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content/bw-683-surround-speaker-system-measurements
 
Kevin M. said:
I would also recommend that anyone considering a Classe multi-channel amplifier look at this review http://hometheatermag.com/preamppro...d_processor_and_ct-5300_amplifier/index5.html . The CT-5300 which has the same electronics as the CA-5300 really "lies down" when presented with a 4ohm load. It's fine with 8ohm loads and produces around 300 watts. However, when presented with a 4ohm load the power DROPS TO ONLY 190 WATTS. That would be a deal breaker for me. I would certainly not want an amp that delivered less power into lower impedance. You can be sure that any Mcintosh amp rated for 300 watts would produce that at a minimum and NEVER buckle and actually produce less power. Mcintosh amps are conservatively rated. There should be a sticker on the Classe amp box stating that it reduces power into 4ohm speakers to protect the amp. Bear in mind that this is a NINE THOUSAND DOLLAR amplifier with this kind of specification. It might be acceptable in a lower price amplifier. I can not fathom how Classe could design an amplifier at this price point that reduces power into 4ohm loads. Usually AV receivers do this or cheaper amplifiers.
Click to expand...

The sound is my main consideration. When I had the Mac amp, no matter how hard I would drive it, I wouldn't even exceed 20 Watts. What's the most power you've seen your amp output while listening to music?
 
Kevin M. said:
Take a look at the measurements of the B&W 683. I believe that is the model you are using? While the nominal impedance is 8ohm, it drops to 3.5ohms at 100hz. From 78hz up to about 900hz it is 6ohms. Normally with amps like the multi-channel Classe with wimpy low impedance performance, you can help it out by crossing over at 80hz as most of the low impedance load will be down there. Crossing over above 100hz,where the Classe is weakest might be a better idea. http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content/bw-683-surround-speaker-system-measurements
Click to expand...

The low end is where I found the Mac to be lacking. I tried to run a sub with the Mac, but it never quite sounded right to me. Another point to consider is that Mac filters the sound quite a bit to get the smooth continuous sound it's known for. Although all recordings sound good, you really don't benefit as much from upgrading to a great preamp or great source material. What's the point of upgrading the other equipment if you won't be able to hear the true benefit that it could ultimately provide?
 
mdonda said:
Another point to consider is that Mac filters the sound quite a bit to get the smooth continuous sound it's known for. Although all recordings sound good, you really don't benefit as much from upgrading to a great preamp or great source material. What's the point of upgrading the other equipment if you won't be able to hear the true benefit that it could ultimately provide?
Click to expand...
Am wondering where you get the idea that McIntosh "filters" the sound? First I've heard of their doing so.
 
I'm confused.

What amp did you actually buy? 2200, 5200 or 5300?

You demo'd a 300wpc 2-ch amp, which doubles down at 4 ohms, against a 200 wpc 7-ch amp, which has a tricky impedance matching circuit (DPM) to give it 200 wpc into 4 ohm loads. This doesn't seem like apples to apples, especially in the bass department. The 7-ch amp has to be at a huge disadvantage.

The 2200 should be compared to a new MC-302, no? I think the cost is $5500 for both. If you do that, I think you'll find the autoformers completely take care of the brightness problem, and the bass will be fine as well.
 
Negotiableterms said:
I'm confused.

What amp did you actually buy? 2200, 5200 or 5300?

You demo'd a 300wpc 2-ch amp, which doubles down at 4 ohms, against a 200 wpc 7-ch amp, which has a tricky impedance matching circuit (DPM) to give it 200 wpc into 4 ohm loads. This doesn't seem like apples to apples, especially in the bass department. The 7-ch amp has to be at a huge disadvantage.

The 2200 should be compared to a new MC-302, no? I think the cost is $5500 for both. If you do that, I think you'll find the autoformers completely take care of the brightness problem, and the bass will be fine as well.
Click to expand...

I got the 3200. I demo's the 200 watt 2200. I did quite a bit of listening to the 501's, but in a different setup in a store. I also listened to the 400 watt monoblocks from classe. I really love the Mac sound, but there is a brightness there that i'm a bit sensitive to...it's probably just the way I hear...I would correlate the sound to klipsch speakers and how bright sounding they are. It could also be the B&W's paired with the mac. I found the diamond tweeter a bit harsh.
 
mdonda said:
...I really love the Mac sound, but there is a brightness there that i'm a bit sensitive to...it's probably just the way I hear...I would correlate the sound to klipsch speakers and how bright sounding they are. It could also be the B&W's paired with the mac. I found the diamond tweeter a bit harsh.
Click to expand...


I think you're only getting a reaction here because Mc does not have a reputation for brightness; in fact, somewhat the opposite. Mc gear is quite commonly criticized for being too polite, and rolling off the highs.

No matter, you hear what you hear, and you're the only one that has to like it!
 
Negotiableterms said:
I'm confused.

What amp did you actually buy? 2200, 5200 or 5300?

You demo'd a 300wpc 2-ch amp, which doubles down at 4 ohms, against a 200 wpc 7-ch amp, which has a tricky impedance matching circuit (DPM) to give it 200 wpc into 4 ohm loads. This doesn't seem like apples to apples, especially in the bass department. The 7-ch amp has to be at a huge disadvantage.

The 2200 should be compared to a new MC-302, no? I think the cost is $5500 for both. If you do that, I think you'll find the autoformers completely take care of the brightness problem, and the bass will be fine as well.
Click to expand...

The salesman insisted that there would be no audible difference in sound between the MC207 and any of the autoformer amps with the B&W 683s or 804d. He claimed that unless I listened to organ music or something very dynamic there would be no noticeable difference.
 
Some fun

I have a Classe' 15 laying around, and a friend wanted to take it home and try it out, so I dusted it off (literally!), fired it up, and put it up against the 2301's with the rest of the chain being the same as in my signature. The Classe' is a great sounding amp, it really is, with deep punchy bass and very likeable sonic signature. It is a fun amp. It is, by comparison, very rolled off, almost dark on the high end. The McIntosh wins in detail and midrange liquidity, hands down.

Is it fair to compare a 20 year old Classe' design to a modern 300WPC tube amp? Of course not! But it was fun, for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom