To add an MC152 amplifier to my MA5200, replacing the amplifier section of the MA5200 with the MC152. Is this ill advised GAS or a material upgrade? Thanks!
MC152 .. to add or not to add
- Thread starter charne@sprin
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
twiiii
Lunatic Member
Its a nice sounding version of the larger MC 311. It puts over 200 watts per channel and even more for peaks. But that is only 3 db more than what you have already When we up graded people we told them you need at least 5 to 6db to get a really noticeable difference. O f course the first question is can your speakers remain linear and distortion free with out failure with that kind of power. increase to 200, 300 or 400 watts. And remember Mac amps are famous for putting more than 30% above their power rating. So I might be looking for a MC 311 if the speakers can handle close to 400 watts with out self destructing. Very few can. Now if its about peak reproduction then self destruction isn't to often the case. Don't tell anyone; But, a MA 9000 might be the perfect life time upgrade that has been pre-owned for around $8900. IT has graphic tone controls which are a big improvement over conventional tone controls.
Last edited:
After giving this entire project a lot of thought, I've decided I really do not need anything the size or weight (or power) of the MC312 or MA9000. The MC152 is a great choice for this system -- sits in a corner of the room I use for an office, driving smallish Canton floor speakers pointed at my desk.
I actually had experimented earlier this year with replacing the speakers with Q Acoustics 3050 models (on super-sale at Amazon) -- but the Qs were just too big and deep for my space.
We got to make the best with what we've got. For me that MC152 seems to hit the sweet spot.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
A friend of mine uses a 152 to power his XRT 28's. I use MC 830's that are rated at 480 watts across 4 ohms with close to 600 watt peaks. I don't go much over 120 watts peak. My friend has learned at his advanced age to back off the levels so he is no longer running his 152 into the power guard. So like me for serious listening 30 watts w is the max most of the time with 3 watts as normal mezzo-forte levels.
I have no issues with the 152s size or power.
My issues are with the lack of knobs, quality RCA connections, and polished stainless steel for the price.
It would be nice if the next version could receive those. Additionally I feel every McIntosh amp should have the nicer 1.25KW feet.
We’re not talking cheap components here. If it was any other brand at this price point it would have those things. I just feel some of those decisions are made because they happen to be entry level for McIntosh.
My issues are with the lack of knobs, quality RCA connections, and polished stainless steel for the price.
It would be nice if the next version could receive those. Additionally I feel every McIntosh amp should have the nicer 1.25KW feet.
We’re not talking cheap components here. If it was any other brand at this price point it would have those things. I just feel some of those decisions are made because they happen to be entry level for McIntosh.
Last edited:
damacman
Resident Psycho
MC312 and MC462 don't even have RCA inputs ... XLR only. Each adds XLR outputs which is silly as 99% of folks would never use 'em.
Incorrect. They both have the higher quality RCA inputs and outputs.
damacman
Resident Psycho
McIntosh doesn’t seem to have any consistent policy about which unbalanced inputs to spec on their amplifiers. Some big heavy amps have what appear to be the same inputs as the MC152, other have what appear to be heavier duty inputs. Those inputs do not get heavy use. Once the cables are in they tend to stay in. So comparing the unbalanced inputs would be low ranked factors on my own decision list.
The $5,500 152 and even more expensive HT amplifiers or even the $12,500 MC303 don’t have the upgraded RCA connectors.
A silly complaint? Sure. But still valid IMO. They don’t only look better, but they offer more support to the connector on the board, so there is a technical reason they are better.
When other companies with much cheaper components can accomplish this, I’m not sure why a company that sells only premium priced components can’t do the same thing across the board. Including the “entry” preamplifiers that costs thousands of dollars.
Same goes for plastic feet that cost a few cents each. Does any of this make the products sound better? No, probably not, but for me, it’s just respect, not for just customers, but the brand itself.
I know I’m being critical, but I love the product. I’m not making these comments because I’m looking for reasons to pick on McIntosh. I too have looked at the 152 on more than one occasion. The reasons above are why I haven’t purchased one.
Baby steps? Upgraded RCA connections across the board, then we can talk about the cheap feet
A silly complaint? Sure. But still valid IMO. They don’t only look better, but they offer more support to the connector on the board, so there is a technical reason they are better.
When other companies with much cheaper components can accomplish this, I’m not sure why a company that sells only premium priced components can’t do the same thing across the board. Including the “entry” preamplifiers that costs thousands of dollars.
Same goes for plastic feet that cost a few cents each. Does any of this make the products sound better? No, probably not, but for me, it’s just respect, not for just customers, but the brand itself.
I know I’m being critical, but I love the product. I’m not making these comments because I’m looking for reasons to pick on McIntosh. I too have looked at the 152 on more than one occasion. The reasons above are why I haven’t purchased one.
Baby steps? Upgraded RCA connections across the board, then we can talk about the cheap feet
Cheap feet? I tend to place my components onto hockey pucks for a little extra clearance and ventilation space.
