• 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

Mac4100 compared to MC2505/MX110z

Alfmonster

Alfmonster

Active Member
I’ve been recently obsessing over the MC2505/250 for one reason or another. For those who have heard both - I’ve been very curious to know how restored to spec Mac4100 would compare to a restored to spec MC2505 or MC250 paired with a MX110z.

Is there a difference between the sound quality by the receiver vs the separates — does one sound do something special that the other one does not or vice versa?
 
Register to hide this ad
Depends on weather practicality or nostalgia is the goal. From a technical standpoint the Mac 4100 is more advanced with better specifications and greater flexibility than the earlier combination of separates.

Reliability will also be better especially whereas the MX 110 is concerned with lower maintenance costs. The 4100’s problem area is the RCA jacks that can become intermittent with age and use. Replacement of jacks can be costly and should be checked before purchase. But once repaired should never be a problem again.

Unless equipped and able to deal with repairs yourself the Mac 4100 would be the wiser choice.
 
62caddy said:
Depends on weather practicality or nostalgia is the goal. From a technical standpoint the Mac 4100 is more advanced with better specifications and greater flexibility than the earlier combination of separates.

Reliability will also be better especially whereas the MX 110 is concerned with lower maintenance costs. The 4100’s problem area is the RCA jacks that can become intermittent with age and use. Replacement of jacks can be costly and should be checked before purchase. But once repaired should never be a problem again.

Unless equipped and able to deal with repairs yourself the Mac 4100 would be the wiser choice.
Click to expand...

thanks @62caddy ! You’ve never led me wrong - I think I’ve just gotten an obsession for the 2505 or 250 for one reason or another. And I think this often happens when one of my amps are away on service. Dangerous time.

You’re also right on the MX110z reliability. Do you know why it’s so finicky? It’s about to go back to AudioClassics bc the selector switch and tuner is acting up. This is the 2nd time since getting it - the sound really beautiful though. Do you know if the c20 is worse or better? I guess I’m worried about when my Warranty runs out.

also, thanks for the heads up on the 4100 rca jacks - mine is currently at AC getting worked on — I’ll call them ASAP and ask about the RCA.

btw, finally made a trip to AudioClassics. What an incredible place with the best people.
 
62caddy said:
Have to look at antique tube equipment much as ownership of a classic car- great to look at, enjoy and take pride in but for pure utility there are better alternatives.
Click to expand...

That’s a really great point. Certainly didn’t get into this for utility sake! I guess it’s just the nature of the beast - but it sure is wonderful when it works.
 
I couldn’t agree more with that. And the tuner of the MX 113 is much better. Still the 4100 gives you about 30% more power, Precision tracking volume control, continuously variable loudness, power guard, FET input selector (for tuner and phono) Five band equalizer and twice as many inputs. Just a far more flexible & advanced unit all around and costs about the same as an MC 2505 alone.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
I couldn’t agree more with that. And the tuner of the MX 113 is much better. Still the 4100 gives you about 30% more power, Precision tracking volume control, continuously variable loudness, power guard, FET input selector (for tuner and phono) Five band equalizer and twice as many inputs. Just a far more flexible unit all around and costs about the same as an MC 2505 alone.
Click to expand...

However, the MX 113 FM tuner is better, and more maintainable of the two, and the MC 2505 also has autoformers. Your points are all good ones.
 
62caddy said:
I couldn’t agree more with that. And the tuner of the MX 113 is much better. Still the 4100 gives you about 30% more power, Precision tracking volume control, continuously variable loudness, power guard, FET input selector (for tuner and phono) Five band equalizer and twice as many inputs. Just a far more flexible & advanced unit all around and costs about the same as an MC 2505 alone.
Click to expand...

I keep reading people talking about the 5-band EQ on some of the vintage Mc gear as if it is a feature frequently used.

Do you use it to tweak things as you change sources? Volume? Types of music or is it a set-and-forget compensation for your setup?

Just curious really whether it's a feature people like to have or one that is actually used.
 
SaturationPt said:
I keep reading people talking about the 5-band EQ on some of the vintage Mc gear as if it is a feature frequently used.

Do you use it to tweak things as you change sources? Volume? Types of music or is it a set-and-forget compensation for your setup?

Just curious really whether it's a feature people like to have or one that is actually used.
Click to expand...

In my case, absolutely indispensable due to the widely varying EQ in material. Being a tinnitus sufferer makes it that much more necessary.
 
SaturationPt said:
I keep reading people talking about the 5-band EQ on some of the vintage Mc gear as if it is a feature frequently used.

Do you use it to tweak things as you change sources? Volume? Types of music or is it a set-and-forget compensation for your setup?

Just curious really whether it's a feature people like to have or one that is actually used.
Click to expand...
I went from a MX-113 to a MX-117. I much prefer the variable loudness and 3 band EQ of the 117 over the 113’s on/off loudness and 2 band EQ. Depending on the recording, source, and volume I’m listening at, I do tweak EQ and loudness settings. I find I can dial in my preferred sound better and faster with the 117 vs 113. I also prefer the 117’s power button vs the 113’s volume/on-off dial.

I often found the 113’s loudness to be too booming, even with bass at 0, so would then also engage the LF cut to control that... which would cut it too much so I would add bass on the eq dial. If it still didn’t sound quite right, then I would disengage LF cut and loudness and try to just add more bass, and wonder if it then sounded too bloated... and on and on. Depending on the recording and desired volume, with the 113 it was a constant dance that sorta annoyed me. I don’t go through that fidgety fiddling with the 117. The 117’s variable loudness is so handy to me. I find adjusting that pretty much solves most all of my sound adjustment desires. And my EQ stays fairly constant, with only minor tweaks.

edit: after reading @damacman’s comment above, I too suffer from tinnitus, and know that is definitely a driving force in my adjustments.
 
Couldn't agree more with the MX113's loudness circuit. Same curve used on MAC1700, MAC1900, MX112/114 and MX115. It affects LF only and not in a good way. MAC1500 had the sweetest loudness circuit of all time and they murdered it. What they were thinking I have no idea.

I half entertained the idea of having it modified on my MX113 because I otherwise love the understated appearance of the MX113/MC2505 combo but I the regular bass/treble controls cannot help with the tinnitus issue.

What's strange is the MX117 "separate" cost almost as much as the 4100 only has 3 band EQ and no FET input switching. In my case, the MAC was the logical choice since it covers so many bases.

My secondary setup- can switch between either receiver with either pair of speakers, and even switch between two different antennas!

138795612_452098439141267_9060711158068451783_o.jpg


139523050_452098855807892_4145611546068380857_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
I do agree the MX-113 is an extremely handsome unit. Has more of a classy Cadillac look, vs a more scientific look of other McIntosh gear. The 117’s looks have definitely grown on me, but the 113 is indeed aesthetically pleasing. Probably why I can’t seem to let go of mine, despite it not being used at the moment.
 
I’m running an MX115 into a pair of MC50’s and it sounds glorious. Both brought up to spec by Audio Classics, I couldn’t be happier. For now.
 
isotopesope said:
I do agree the MX-113 is an extremely handsome unit. Has more of a classy Cadillac look, vs a more scientific look of other McIntosh gear. The 117’s looks have definitely grown on me, but the 113 is indeed aesthetically pleasing. Probably why I can’t seem to let go of mine, despite it not being used at the moment.
Click to expand...

I keep my C28 around for the same reason, hasn't been plugged in for years but I always loved the symmetry of it and its "face".
 
SaturationPt said:
That 4100 is such a hansome receiver.

So the L/R tone controls on the 1500 vs 5-band EQ on the 4100, do you ever wish the 5-band were L/R also or do you not miss that feature?
Click to expand...

Nah- I never bothered much with the L/R although the bass is slightly more pronounced on the left speaker due to being closer (but not in) the corner of the room.

Silly as it is, the misaligned control markings bothered me more than the slight imbalance of the bass - which is really only noticeable when using the balance control to shut off one speaker or the other.

With the loudness circuit of the MAC1500, I rarely miss the EQ - which is only on material with the strongest mid-freq content in which case I'll go back to the 4100 to provide relief.
 
beautiful 4100, 62caddy!
In the picture, the volume is up, the mode is FM, the #1 speakers are on, but the meters are not lighting up.
Did you take the picture when the broadcast was silent?
I love my 4100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom