Conundrum; What choice to make: MC30's, MC225, Scott LK-150

Greg Nal

Greg Nal

Audio Wizard Wannabe
Subscriber
Given the chance to purchase any of the above at a fair price point you could easily afford, fully restored to their glory, give me your pros/cons/thoughts on which would be at the top of your list. Rank them 1.2.3 and give me a reason to pick one over the others. Sound quality, value, rarity, aesthetics, etc.

McIntosh MC 30 dual monoblocks (30 W/CH)
McIntosh MC 225 stereo amp (25 W/CH)
HH Scott LK-150 stereo amp 60W/CH)

:lurk:
 
Register to hide this ad
I have 2 from your list - MC30s and MC225, and I love them both. I don't know the LK-150 so I cannot comment on its merits.

The 30's are so fluid and with the right upfront tubes are plenty sparkly. Glorious midrange and imaging on both the 30 and 225. Perhaps the 30's would lose in the tight bass department to the 225, but that is splitting hairs for me as one is tube rectified and the other is SS. I wouldn't put one above the other as it's a matter of taste and system/speaker combo.

Value wise the 225 & 30 are kind of getting crazy money now. Almost double in the last 2 years from what I can see.
 
Mac 60s ........and be done for the rest of your stay on earth.

Dowto1000

What follows is someone else's amp opinions, I would like to share:

" I understand the use of the various McIntosh amps.
The 225 has ZERO bass, so people favor it for “highs”.
It sounds a lot like a Marantz 9—the sorriest of all amplifiers.
It too, had zero bass. And, like the 225, it had little else also,
but the lack of bottom-end “favored” what “highs” it did have.
Fortunately, the 225 is reliable. The Marantz 9 IS NOT.

The Mc240 is right in between the Mc225 and the Mc275 in
character. It has SOME bass, and it has a FEW “highs”
(mostly none. It gets used for midband. The MC275 is markedly inferior
to a good pair of Mc60’s. In both cases, you finally get a little
bass. Wooly, warm, stunted, and slow—but a form of soggy “bass” energy.
The Mc60 is slow, stodgy, but FAR better and faster than Mc275,
which is a case of what happens when you increase output power.
You get LESS USABLE “power”.
The 275 sold, and THAT is why it was built. "

Just an experienced person's opinion, not my own. Direct experience.
 
Last edited:
Of those on the OP's list, rank for me would be:

MC30s
MC255
Anything else available

I've rebuilt both 30s and 225s. Despite the anonymous opinions posted, there's going to be little difference between MC30 and MC225s once they're fully restored and biased up properly.

Did I mention that they should be fully restored before they'll show you what they can do? I cannot emphasize this enough.

Cheers,

David
 
Yep, hear you loud and clear. MC30's were restored by Audio Classics. MC 225 by Vintage Vacuum Audio.
 
Yeah, I've noticed the skyrocketing prices on the MC30 over the past couple of years. Almost jumped on a pair about 3-4 years ago, should've done it. Not sure what has turned them into gold so suddenly after so many years.
 
dowto1000 said:
Mac 60s ........and be done for the rest of your stay on earth.

Dowto1000

What follows is someone else's amp opinions, I would like to share:

" I understand the use of the various McIntosh amps.
The 225 has ZERO bass, so people favor it for “highs”.
It sounds a lot like a Marantz 9—the sorriest of all amplifiers.
It too, had zero bass. And, like the 225, it had little else also,
but the lack of bottom-end “favored” what “highs” it did have.
Fortunately, the 225 is reliable. The Marantz 9 IS NOT.

The Mc240 is right in between the Mc225 and the Mc275 in
character. It has SOME bass, and it has a FEW “highs”
(mostly none. It gets used for midband. The MC275 is markedly inferior
to a good pair of Mc60’s. In both cases, you finally get a little
bass. Wooly, warm, stunted, and slow—but a form of soggy “bass” energy.
The Mc60 is slow, stodgy, but FAR better and faster than Mc275,
which is a case of what happens when you increase output power.
You get LESS USABLE “power”.
The 275 sold, and THAT is why it was built. "

Just an experienced person's opinion. Direct experience.
Click to expand...

Call me baffled.
 
OK folks, let's not let this get personal
Regards,
Jim
 
JeanMarie, Tell me what you know about the LK-150. It has been on my wish list but there is little chatter about it relative to its better know Scott, Sherwood, and Fisher integrated amps and classic McIntosh of the period. I have my thoughts but would like to hear what others have to say...

x3workshop said:
I do think prices are going up because there are fewer unmolested examples out there.
Click to expand...

As for prices-I believe the overseas markets have heated up on vintage American tube gear, and, since prices are rising, more of these pieces are being restored, increasing the available stock. One would expect an increase in supply would decrease prices, but I think the cachet of classic iron is reaching a new generation of audio enthusiasts, driving the frenzy to grab what comes up.

I have acquired a number of pieces in need of restoration, and am slowly getting them in shape. I've learned much from ak members, which has fueled this relatively new hobby for me. I've got a lot of ground to make up, dusting off an EE degree 30+ years in the rear view mirror and a career that has no relationship to my initial training. Of course my first job was analog signal processing since my studies focused on digital...when they offer you a job that pays off the loans, you don't question the job description!
 
Greg Nal said:
Given the chance to purchase any of the above at a fair price point you could easily afford, fully restored to their glory, give me your pros/cons/thoughts on which would be at the top of your list. Rank them 1.2.3 and give me a reason to pick one over the others. Sound quality, value, rarity, aesthetics, etc.

McIntosh MC 30 dual monoblocks (30 W/CH)
McIntosh MC 225 stereo amp (25 W/CH)
HH Scott LK-150 stereo amp 60W/CH)

:lurk:
Click to expand...

I own all 3. All restored. (Installed in 3 different systems.)

What genre of music do you listen to?

Speakers? Sensitivity rating?

Room size?

Source (i.e., LPs, CD, hi-res digital)?

Will you use a pre-amp (or connect directly to the variable output of a universal digital player)? Tone controls?

IMO, all hi-fi equipment is imperfect. Which imperfections in sound quality do you prefer? Do you like "warm rich" sound. Mellow? More lively?
 
Genre: classic jazz, classic rock, funk
Speakers: Wide range of classics (many still in need of restoration) in rotation: Altec 890B, AR 3a, 4x 5, 6, Advent NLA, KLH 5, 6 20, 22, 23, DCM Timeframe 400, Klipsch Heresy, Forte I, KG 4.2. JBL L26, L40, L100, 4312, 4401, newer Tannoy 8 NFM II, Mourdant-Short Carnival II. Top of my classic list are the Altecs, Heresy/Forte, NLA (my first pair from 1977) L100/4312. Small room, cannot accomodate larger speakers, no available corners for Khorns. The Tannoy's were purchased recently and have yet to have their turn in the listening room.
Primary listening room: 12x12
Source: hi-res digital primarily, followed by LP, radio (good local jazz, classic rock), some CD
System: amp-preamp. Have McIntosh C-20, Scott 355, Altec 445a, Marantz 24
Sound preference: warm, with brighter high frequency especially with funky horn music. No requirement for huge bass presence. I rarely listen at what most would classify as loud volume.

Great questions. I agree with your assessment about imperfections, and that "coloring" the choice of equipment. My listening apparatus (hearing) is also imperfect but its the best I've got and was significantly shaped by the Advent NLA's of my youth.
 
dowto1000 said:
Mac 60s ........and be done for the rest of your stay on earth.

Dowto1000

What follows is someone else's amp opinions, I would like to share:

" I understand the use of the various McIntosh amps.
The 225 has ZERO bass, so people favor it for “highs”.
It sounds a lot like a Marantz 9—the sorriest of all amplifiers.
It too, had zero bass. And, like the 225, it had little else also,
but the lack of bottom-end “favored” what “highs” it did have.
Fortunately, the 225 is reliable. The Marantz 9 IS NOT.

The Mc240 is right in between the Mc225 and the Mc275 in
character. It has SOME bass, and it has a FEW “highs”
(mostly none. It gets used for midband. The MC275 is markedly inferior
to a good pair of Mc60’s. In both cases, you finally get a little
bass. Wooly, warm, stunted, and slow—but a form of soggy “bass” energy.
The Mc60 is slow, stodgy, but FAR better and faster than Mc275,
which is a case of what happens when you increase output power.
You get LESS USABLE “power”.
The 275 sold, and THAT is why it was built. "

Just an experienced person's opinion, not my own. Direct experience.
Click to expand...

Well... here's my personal experience, gathered over the last three decades of working with these amps. The Marantz 5, 8 and 9 have ACCURATE bass, and it goes LOW. It doesn't have the bloated, sluggish bass (by comparison) of any of the Mc amps of that era. When the speaker is capable of producing proper bass, the Marantz amps will send it to them properly. If the speaker isn't capable- a Marantz tube amp won't compensate, by adding "fake bass" like the Mc amps frequently do (underdamped overtones)..

And, the "statement" about reliability on the Marantz amps, can't be further away from my own. Almost every original Marantz 5, 8 or 9 I've seen, in original condition (at most, replaced power supply caps and tubes) has worked pretty much flawlessly.

I speak this, as someone who personally knows the people who did the Marantz Model 9 reissues in the 1990s (Valve Amplification Company), and as someone who has seen and worked with many original amps, both as a listener and as a service tech. They are, hands down, my choice over any of the Mc amps.

IMHO, in this case- I'd probably pick the LC150 (that's a pretty special amp, by HH Scott standards), then the MC225 (at least it's not totally sluggish), and lastly, the MC30.

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Gordon, your comments always add weight and value to any thread. Thanks for chiming in.
 
The MC30s are one of my favorites for warm, rich sound.

The Scott LK150 can sound a little bright (KT88) . Treble attenuation (e.g., pre-amp tone controls) might be needed based on speakers and recording. Capable of excellent sound, and when paired with Klipsch, capable of dynamics needed for large-scale classical music. (Be aware that the 7199s are somewhat scarce.)

The MC225 is "light on its feet". This is an easy amp to listen to.

Aesthetics: MC30s, MC225, LK150 (distant third).
 
Last edited:
Well I'll be respectful and stick to the OP question.

I don't know the Scott so no opinion here, but I own most of the vintage McIntosh amps.
The latest addition was a a pair of MC30. Why?
Because I have the chance to listen to nicely rebuild pair from a fellow AK member and I immediately like the sound. So much that I bought myself a pair, not rebuild but even original this amp is a beautiful amp.

Therefore, once rebuild, the MC225 is a very good and reliable amp. Very clear sounding and not tubby, a lot of details.

The MC30 once rebuild is a little bit more lay back, but the clarity and the details are all there, but more punch.

In terms of look, no question a pair of MC30 is much more attractive then a Scott or a MC225.

So my choice is in this case would be to go with the MC30.
 
If you've been keeping score, the tally looks like this so far:
MC 30: 4 first place votes, 2 last place votes
MC 225 0 first place votes, runner up on most ballots
LK-150 2 first place votes, 3 last place votes
(Gordon and dshoaf should count double as they have more than 10k+ posts)
Honorable Mention: MC 60-one passionate write in candidate

Based on my research and the comments and opinions expressed both here and other places, I have decided to purchase BOTH the MC 225 (Miss Congeniality) as most who had experience with both said its close to equal with the MC 30's but the MC 30's get the nod aesthetically (not too important to me) AND the LK-150 (rare and different than the other two). Space considerations are part of my equation-a smaller listening room filled with home-office cabinetry on two walls, as well as my audio repair workstation (temperatures in these parts hover near 100 all summer making outside/garage work no fun).

I will compare/constrast these two with my Marantz 8b and various speaker combinations (see previous post) and report back at a later date.

This has been great fun, learning from those ahead of me on the curve, seeing the passionate responses and hearing the logical reasoning, thoughtful questioning. I have learned much from the Borg collective (Star Trek reference for the unwashed) here at AK and look forward the education ahead. Thank you all for your responses and time. Happy Father's Day.
 

Attachments

  • Home office alt view June 2018.jpg
    Home office alt view June 2018.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 48
I've owned excellent examples of the McIntosh MC30s, 240s and MC225. I no longer own any of them in favor of other options. Of these I would rank the MC225 on top for sonic transparency and soundstage reproduction. I would give the nod to the MC30s for the ready supply of high quality output tubes. I'm not familiar with the Scott but I will say that in my opinion, my Fisher 800C, has a more transparent sound than any of the McIntosh tube amps I owned. That said, in my view, the McIntosh amps are beautifully built and finished compared to Fisher and Scott's of the time nd the McIntosh products continue to rise in value making them great collectibles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom