-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
MC 452/462
- Thread starter stereo111
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
I see where on P24 of the MC452 Owner's Manual it talks about the PT being 20a, not sure whether the transformer changed. Looking at the service manuals for both, the MC462 is listed as being 5# heavier than the MC452, sure doesn't seem like a smaller transformer would yield a heavier amplifier (115# vs 110#). The MC452 Service Manual does not have the Power Transformer P/N, so no way of knowing. FWIW the photo used in both owner's manuals is the same one, and both are said to weigh 30# so likely just a difference in how they rated it / advertised it.
The biggest change that McIntosh advertised between the MC452 and MC462 was the power supply, they increased the filter capacitor quantity/capacitance and touted the additional energy for greater headroom. If the MC452 transformer was oversized for the necessary continuous power, ... and storage was able to increase the dynamic/peak power for the MC462 it certainly is reasonable to believe that the transformer could be reduced at the same time. I've had both, and wouldn't be able to tell the difference if not for the numbers on the glass. Still, I doubt that they changed the transformer as the 462 was barely different from the 452 and I can't see the logic in creating / testing a smaller design for the same continuous power rated amplifier.
The biggest change that McIntosh advertised between the MC452 and MC462 was the power supply, they increased the filter capacitor quantity/capacitance and touted the additional energy for greater headroom. If the MC452 transformer was oversized for the necessary continuous power, ... and storage was able to increase the dynamic/peak power for the MC462 it certainly is reasonable to believe that the transformer could be reduced at the same time. I've had both, and wouldn't be able to tell the difference if not for the numbers on the glass. Still, I doubt that they changed the transformer as the 462 was barely different from the 452 and I can't see the logic in creating / testing a smaller design for the same continuous power rated amplifier.
Last edited:
Personal opinion, buy whichever one you get an opportunity to buy and you’ll be happy. When I first looked I could demo the MC462 at the dealer but there were none available (long order times) and I found a 452 in-stock used. Later the 462s became available again when I “needed” another. They are not mono capable so there was no need to match them exactly anyway. If you were choosing between the MC462 and a pair of 1.2KWs OTOH, there might be enough difference to start auditioning.
If you look at part lists, the MC462 does have a new P/N on the output transistors, among other parts, which is likely due to the rapid obsolescence these days in semiconductors of this type not to any design / performance improvement. The big thing that McIntosh was touting over the 452 was just the headroom, ... dynamic or momentary power that can be had while rapidly discharging the (now larger) filter capacitor bank. The 452 already had a lot of headroom so unless you really need more than 1800wpc of momentary power, ... I don’t really think it matters. Continuous/RMS rated power is the same on both models.
If you look at part lists, the MC462 does have a new P/N on the output transistors, among other parts, which is likely due to the rapid obsolescence these days in semiconductors of this type not to any design / performance improvement. The big thing that McIntosh was touting over the 452 was just the headroom, ... dynamic or momentary power that can be had while rapidly discharging the (now larger) filter capacitor bank. The 452 already had a lot of headroom so unless you really need more than 1800wpc of momentary power, ... I don’t really think it matters. Continuous/RMS rated power is the same on both models.
I bought my '452, as production of it was ceasing, so I acquired it, for a 'closeout' price!
I'll never need another amp!
I'll never need another amp!
damacman
Resident Psycho
A friend has an MC452 and a few 2300s. I asked him, "Why do you keep the 2300s around?" His answer, "The 452 is so clean that it never sounds very loud. I like my rock'n'roll loud and dirty." Fair enough . . .
when did production end?
I'm glad I got one... 452... for quality ,sound, and well dare I say it , bragging rights.
I’ve had both (now the 462) and like you, I couldn’t tell the difference.
Good to know, makes my choice easier to keep the 452 or move up to the 462 (keep the 452)
An unusual situation. Keep what you have now, quality just as good, and you save money too. Deserves a mention in your diary.
I wish that I still had my 2300's, but they did finance the '452. I miss the bottom end, that those two strapped Mc2300 amps, provided!
BTW, the first Mcintosh amp that I ever coveted, was the Mc275. My (long departed) Dynaco MkIII's was my 'poor man's' attempt, to capture that sound.
Last edited:
Someday, I hope to see a bench test on these pages, of the '452, and '462!
I bought mine, in 2018, so those were the waning days..
So would you pick the 2300's or the 452 if that was the only choice? I guess that might be a tough one. I had a chance to buy a pair of refurbished 2300's but chose to keep the 452 (could not afford all of them)I wish that I still had my 2300's, but they did finance the '452. I miss the bottom end, that those two strapped Mc2300 amps, provided!
BTW, the first Mcintosh amp that I ever coveted, was the Mc275. My (long departed) Dynaco MkIII's was my 'poor man's' attempt, to capture that sound.
damacman
Resident Psycho
Very often in this hobby, if you let something sit idle long enough, it's like sliding on a pair of your most comfortable shoes when you revisit it. For that reason, my 2300s are chilling for the moment.
Someone in these pages called the Mc2300, the 'Dirty Harry', of Mcintosh amps. It has 'muscular' bottom end, but it can be an unforgiving amp. I blew out a JBL 2245 compression driver, running just a single '2300, @ top volume.
The Mc452, is as smooth as silk, and dead quiet. - A 'Liquid' soundstage, if you will. Having an Mc2300 as a Sub, could be an interesting combination, but I am happy with the '452, running standalone!
However, If a '2300 fell into my lap at a bargain price, I'd be all over it!
Last edited:
twiiii
Lunatic Member
I installed a lot of discos with 2300 driving Altec speakers mostly. But they would tear up Klipsch professional speakers quite easily. It wasn't till Power Gard came along that Commercial Klipsch and JBL speakers were safe to use with Mac amps. I loved the 2120, 2200, 2150 and 2250 7300 and 7150 and 7270. For professional installations if some one was being serious it was 2500's and 2600's, That 2600 was a great amp. I only had one 2500 fail on me but that was because of filth sucked in by the fans. I cleaned out the amp and the heat sinks and the 2500 was back in business. 2600's never failed. 2255's were almost as bad as 2300's when it came to failing. But at least the Power Guard kept the amp from destroying drivers or woofers. One DJ tampered with an electronic crossover and blew 6 Altec 291- 16 B and 12 MR 902 16 HF tweeter diaphragms being pushed by a 2255. The disco owner locked up the DJ's record collection until he paid for the diaphragms and the labor to replace them. Close to $1000 or maybe more as I remember. The speakers were 18 feet in the air. Fortunately they had an electric lift basket. Still took two us all day back in the 70's.
So the mc 2300 did not have power guard? I always wanted one or two but hard to find and would probably need expensive replacement parts.
In another thread I asked about 2300"s vs 452 and replies were mostly leaning in favor to the 452.
