• 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

Marantz 2230 + MC250 or 1700 receiver

Two Steps

Two Steps

Active Member
Hey all,

I am going to attempt to get into the McIntosh world soon and am looking for some wisdom. I currently run a refurbished Marantz 2230 as my daily driver in a larger sized living room. I don't need crazy power as I use some mint Klipsch Quartets.

I have narrowed things down to an eventual c24/26 pre with the MC250 power or go with a receiver such as the 1700.

I don't have enough funds at the moment to buy both separates so I would have to buy either the 1700 and be good or buy the MC250 and run it with my 2230 as the pre - until I get enough to buy a c24/c26.

I know most people find the 4100 to be a better receiver but quite frankly I don't like the looks.

Does anyone have any insight into potential problems or sound differences? I do like the looks of the big ol' McIntosh separates.

I have a line on a MC250 for ~$800 which has been completely refurbished and a 1700 for $775 which has also been maintained.

Thanks for your time,
Craig in Sacramento
 
Register to hide this ad
Though I never owned one I was a big fan of the 1900 if you want a receiver. I had a smooth sound and we used them in our sound rooms to demonstrate all but the power hungry speakers. 1900's were even able to drive ML-1c and ML-10 c Mcintosh speakers and they were very inefficient. 87 db as I remember. I thought the 1900 was smoother than the previous units . I have a 2505 that still meets specs. Its had its power supply rebuilt and lamps replaced , but other wise is all original. I use it to drive my Stax electrostatic head phones and remote speakers, and it does a nice job. I would choose the C-26 over the C-24. Better switches, controls and more flexibility with lower distortion and more signal to noise ratio.
 
I'd opt to combo with the 250, it's the one amplifier in Mcintosh's lineup that's overlooked in sound, so can be had for unusually good prices.

The 1700 is cool, but too old in both tech and time to run as a daily driver, IMO.

I've got both, and like the 250 quite a bit more.

Receiver-wise, I'd look for a 4100, 4200, or 4300v, but that's not your query.

Your idea of a Marantz as pre would be fine, my 250 is connected directly to my computer.
 
twiiii said:
Though I never owned one I was a big fan of the 1900 if you want a receiver. I had a smooth sound and we used them in our sound rooms to demonstrate all but the power hungry speakers. 1900's were even able to drive ML-1c and ML-10 c Mcintosh speakers and they were very inefficient. 87 db as I remember. I thought the 1900 was smoother than the previous units . I have a 2505 that still meets specs. Its had its power supply rebuilt and lamps replaced , but other wise is all original. I use it to drive my Stax electrostatic head phones and remote speakers, and it does a nice job. I would choose the C-26 over the C-24. Better switches, controls and more flexibility with lower distortion and more signal to noise ratio.
Click to expand...
Agree....Had a 4100, 6100, C32...I still have the 1900...Sexier sounding to my ears.
 
Thanks for the input guys. I actually feel the same way about the 1700/1900 being 'old'. I know a lot of stuff we do on here falls into the vintage category, but having 'old' stuff kind of creates other issues. The cool thing about the older separates I guess is that 'power amps' never change much.

I think I am going to start piecing a Mac system together starting with that MC250 or MC2505 and go from there...

I know the 4100 would also be the way to go but that is alot of money for something that I don't love the looks of. And I do find the black brick separates kind of cool and beautiful in their own right.
 
I am using an mx114 with an mc250, and love the sound. You may find that the mx tuner/preamps are cheaper than the standalone preamps, and a good way to acquire a mc pre for an affordable price.
 
mnmmt said:
I am using an mx114 with an mc250, and love the sound. You may find that the mx tuner/preamps are cheaper than the standalone preamps, and a good way to acquire a mc pre for an affordable price.
Click to expand...

Ya! I've have heard a lot of good things about the MX series...

First things first though, as I will potentially only have enough money for a power amp. I'm going to try and move a big Concept 11.0 now, and hopefully buy a restored MC250 from SteroAdvisor here in Sacramento.
 
I have a MC250 and adore it. It's been fully redone and just sings. They are nice to look at to boot. I also have a pair of the MC60's but truth be told I use the MC250 about 10x as much because I just typically don't have time to sit down for an hour + to enjoy the tubes. Presently I'm pairing with a Carver C1 preamp but I have a MX110Z on the way.

There is something special about Mac BUTTTTTTTTT that 2230 is a damn fine piece of ace too.... I have a 1060, which is the same as the 2230, minus the tuner. I love that piece and will NEVER EVER let it go. I don't think you can go wrong with using the 2230 as a preamp until you find another dedicated separate.
 
I use a 1700 for about 5-6 hours on a daily basis and can find no fault with it. Mine has only had a very light refreshing, with only a handful of caps replaced.
It has a nice small footprint and has sounded great with any speakers I have thrown at it. Very smooth and still ballsy at the same time.
I have no experience with the MC250 and don't doubt that it may be better, just at a higher price point.
 
I love the looks of the MC250, would pair well with my MC40 mono's.
Endervox, keep us updated on how you like your tube preamp, particularly with the MC60's. Currently I'm using my MC40's with a Carver C11 pre and I love it.

BillWojo
 
@BillWojo I definitely will. I bought from someone on Barter Town. She's not pretty but will clean up ok. I'm going to send to bktheking for him to go through it with a fine tooth comb. I won't have it until New Years when I pick it up stateside from my family (I'm in Canada). Concerning the cosmetics, the face is very nice, the chrome chassis is rough. I'm hoping to get the chrome cleaned up a bit but I will eventually get a wood case for it.
 
Just an update guys! I went ahead and picked up the mc250. I am really excited as this is my first McIntosh piece. I feel I got it for a great price and it was bought from a highly respected shop here in Sacramento so I know it's functioning at proper specs. Whoop.

IMG_2064.JPG IMG_2067.JPG IMG_2066.JPG IMG_2068.JPG
 
Definitely appears to be one of the nicest MC250s I've seen in a while.

An MX113 (essentially MR74 + C26) would be the perfect compliment.
 
Now I just have to figure out where to put the damn thing. My wife walked in, said 'nope', and walked back out. She likes the JVC and Marantz in their pretty brushed aluminum, but took one look at the industrial (albeit totally awesome) looking black and chrome brick and was not a fan. I may try to buy a short table from hobby lobby or something, and perch the Mac on the right side of the buffet table thing.

And now I'm jonesing for a dedicated preamp...but that is a loooong way off.

Lastly, the 250 doesn't like sharing a plug with the other gear; specifically when I have a dimmable lamp on. Big time DC hum from the transformer. Whatevs, I'll just listen without the lamp on.
 
Go find an MC2505 or 2105 for greater WAF! The MC2505 is identical to the 250 but has the groovy glass face and big meters.
 
Two Steps said:
Now I just have to figure out where to put the damn thing. My wife walked in, said 'nope', and walked back out.
Click to expand...
Just like mine, probably born from the same assembly line.
Nice amp, what s the serial number? I would have already gotten this over the summer if my Carver had not broke. Scratch 2
 
For a time when audio installations were designed (and expected) to be as inconspicuous as possible, it was not uncommon for amplifiers to be hidden away in a closet or buried in an equipment console with only "front end" electronics visible where access to controls is necessary.

Maybe something similar could be done if the good lady objects to the aesthetics of the MC250 (as mind-boggling as that may be). Let's hope she doesn't feel the same about the signature black glass fronted Mc equipment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom