• 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

MC250 and MC2100

Originally posted by jt1stcav
I've owned both the MC250 and the MC2100...great sounding amps; very tube-like in their presentation. It's all up to your ears, but IMO, all Macs sound flawless regardless of age or design.
Click to expand...
It would be so nice if I could be near a showroom like Terry's in Knoxville or Audio Classics where I could listen and compare. :mad:

I really wonder though ... do they offer as much Emotion and Balls as other Macs, or even the competition, to satisfy over the long-term?

Roving through some of the posts here on AK and on AA, there seems to be a common language in regards to vintage Mc gear: respect for their integrity and quality of build. Good engineering. OK, fine ... that's one of the reasons I'm a fan too and own Mc gear.

But ... clearly ...some tend to favour other vintage brands more on the basis of "musicality" (which is also important to me).

For example, the Fisher 400, 500C and 800C receivers or the Scott 299B, and the biggest sleepers of them all, the Sherwood 5500 and 3000s come to mind. They may not have the black and chrome or build quality of Mc, but seem to get mentioned more often than Macs when people inquire about vintage "musical" amps on the tube or vintage discussion boards. Stuff that could only be ripped out of their cold, dead fingers. (Ok, lets ignore Joe Rosen on AA for a moment - it seems he didn't like anything made by Mc)

If we put aside the C22s and MC275 and MC3500 which are real nice, but very expensive because they have become so collectible ... Ultimately, are the 250 and 2100 keepers? Do they play in the same league? Would they be satisfying over the long-term - or after a year or two - will I be longing for a Cary, a Fisher or maybe even a Bottlehead?
 
Last edited:
Well, since I own a 77/28/250/2105 setup and A Sherwood S5000II/S3000III system as well as previously having owned c20s, 22, 225, 240, 275, 30, 40, 60s, 67s and 71s I think I can discuss it a bit.

Are the early Mc ss keepers. I don't know. I've only had my 77/28/250 since new in about '71 and they've stayed while all the other Mc pieces have come and gone. The 2105 is relatively a late comer at only 3 years in the house but, it has replaced the 250 in the main system. Every time I think of downsizing my systems, etc. I start to justify in my mind getting rid of the Mc, especially since I don't listen as often as I used to. In the end, they never even get unplugged. I think if you ask my wife when she is a widow whether they were keepers, she may offer them to you though my son has his name plastered on them.

Besides the Sherwood, I have still hanging around a DYNA SCA35 and Fisher 500-C. The Fisher sits gathering dust on a shelf waiting to run into someone in the Toronto area who want one. THe DYNA I like with the Klipsch Heresy from time to time with a FM-3 and one the Smaller Advents. I connect and disconnect them from time to time. THe Sherwoods, I've had for about 15 years, the first 12 or so never turned on, having gotten them as part of a Bozak 302a system gratis. I thought they'd be so-so. I have a vintage restorer in the area who I gave them to to get running and have been running then for the past few months. They have the more authoitive souind similar to the Mc than say Scott or Marantz. Very convining and beautiful with just the right balance between resolution and musicality (I have a problem with too much resolution - not what is heard in a concert hall and loses the integration of the musicians). With the Klipsch, their design shortfall appears - AC heater and will allow ripple to be heard. The tech looked it over and brought it down to a point where at normal levels it is not noticable unless you hit dead space on the Klipsch. On the Advents, Bozaks, A/D/Cs, it is not noticable unless you put your ear right up to the speaker and have the output gain all the way up and the input attenuator all the way open also. Also, can not be heard runnign my Koss ESP-9B headphones (these operate off the speakers terminals). The tech was impressed with the filtering but, admitted it was a design compromise, especially when he hooked it up to his Lowther system (yes, he used it for his test speakers - if anything is wrong, these will yell it out). Sounds like a mixed bag? No, the system wipes out the Fisher, the Dyna, every ss receiver including the H-K 630 in the place, save maybe 2 which I need to do more comparing on. I find when I want to listen for long periods other than with the Mc, the Sherwood/Advents are put into service. Different interpretation of the music than with the Mc, though not as great as some may think and this is why I may like them so much. I think this also will be around in my estate.

As for the amount of mention on the boards, consider original production numbers and used pricing and the ownership population. I have quite a few friends with Mc system (vintage and new) and none of them would visit this board. Not snobbery, they are mostly Dorctors, Lawyers, more comfortable surfing the investment markets or spending time updating their knowledge base in areas required for their professions. They know music from atending live perfomances and buy the stuff, throw it on the shelf and don't think more about it until something goes amiss, then just pay to have it fixed. I cross the fence, enjoying time here but in a few weeks, alas, my vocation will start to take most of my time and I too will almost disappear from the group. Sherwood owners are a different lot. I find they seem to be more into music than collecting, vintage loving or reselling. Thankfully, there are quite a few of the resellers around digging these up for this group. The units don't have the collector following say Fisher, Scott, etc has but, more listeners are finding them and discovering that for a system they are excellent but need attention. They pose a problem in that the company was run by engineers and units even within production runs vary and manuals tend not to be much help in sorting them out. Hence, it takes a bit of a dedictated person to get it sorted out and have them running. Add to that the white face (I love this and think the Sherwood is the prettist of all the vintage stuff) that has yellowed or been scratched around the volume control and they are less than pretty to display so generally, they will go to only those who really want to use them, hence not a large collector market and prices aren't out of sight. If someone ever fugures out how to redo the faceplates, he could make some bucks. Anyway this group also would for the most part be users and less inclined to be on the board except it is a sourcce of keeping these babies going and finding good ones.

Buy a Mc for long term - yep. Buy a Sherwood for long term - yep. Does 1 replace the other - not in my house.
 
Listening and comparing is a good thing. All too often, one has to find someone that is willing to hook up your equipment and spend time with you. Sadly, it is all too rare.

Long term satisfaction is a tough one. Do you ever run out of power? Ever experience listener fatigue? Wish for better bass, imaging, or better highs?

To me the perfect amp adds nothing. It doesn't add musicality, or imaging, or anything alse for that matter. What it does do, it does very well. I think that in the long run, you might want to get something that is a bit lower in distortion. As far as the term musicality goes, it seems a bit vague to me. All I expect is clean, smooth sound.

As far as Sherwood, Scott, and the rest are concerned, there is a reason why those amps are cheap. They were cheap new and they are cheap now. Look at the weight of the amp. There is a reason that Mc uses big hunks of iron (for the most part) in their amps.

My feeling is that, depending on your tastes, you might want to upgrade your amp and possibly your speakers. I would look at rated distortion if you are going to stay with McIntosh. When I was looking at an amp to replace my Carver, I considered all of the options, the prices, weight, etc. I figured that the best bang for my buck was a MC2500. Enough power (maybe too much) and low distortion. One has to get into a MC2600 before you get into the next generation of Mc amp, but that is getting a bit pricey.

Tubed amps? While they look rather cool-retro, the heat and worry about maintenance is too much of a bother to me. Besides I would have to have 2 MC275 amps to drive what I want to the levels I want. My pockets just aren't that deep.

I think that I am at the level that I want to be. A friend said to me once, "When is good enough, good enough?" If you are looking for Nirvana, it isn't there. 99 and 44/100% Nirvana? Maybe.

Putting aside the issues of heat, maintenance, etc, I don't find that tubes offer any advantage over the later Mc SS amps. Do they sound different? Yes, but not to the point of wishing I had one. Well, maybe a 2102, but not for sonic reasons. (;>)

Tube preamps are another issue. My C22 has lasted a long, long time without any servicing whatsoever. I have yet to change tubes, clean pots or switches, and it gets played every day for 2 or more hours, much longer on weekends. Look at the distortion specs on the C22 and compare that to Mc's later offerings. It would be several years before those specs are bettered. The C22 has been one of those rarer pieces that has always been desirable. I remember seeing a Stereo Cost-Cutters catalog that had one for sale at a price of $1000 or more. That was several years ago. I forsee no reason why the C22 would suddenly drop in value in the future. You might want to look into a preamp with distortion specs like that or lower.

r

PS. If I win the lottery, I will buy you a MC2102 and a C22.
 
Last edited:
Rich,
Musicality is the ability to convey the feeling of the music, the resonance of the instruments, an emotion, if you will. It is there in the music as it is recorded but all too often, the electronics strip it out. It is not an additive but like other things a subtractive by the electronics when it is not conveyed. Likewise for imaging, etc. Im not aware of any ability to design to add these things while many designs don't concentrate on maintaining them throughtout the amplification process. I've heard many a good amp and they convey all of the information of a well designed unit except for this. Many of the less expensive components sound no better or worse than these components while some of the less expensive don't strip this out. For me it is the biggest part of listener's fatigue - just uninteresting.

Sherwood and Mc both strip little or none of the musicality out of a recording in the reproduction process. I would suggest that Sherwood was less expensive than Mc but, in way cheap. In fact, the company used many of the same suppliers as Mc. AS far as the iron goes, an unpotted MC225 transformer is no larger than the S5000II transformer. Potting adds weight, the illusion of quality and size. 1 purpose of potting is to minimize industrial theft of a propretary design which was what Fank had with his transformers. A milled metal knob such as used on Mc adds considerably to the cost but does no more for the sound than a plastic knob. Chrome plating while pretty is less effective in rf sheilding than copper cladding but, copper does not look expensive not maintained its lustre as does chrome. PanLocs are wonderful, not inexpensive and do nothing to increase sound quality. The list could go on but, I think I've made my point. I love my Mc but, am not blinded that the sound difference is worth the added price.

I'm not downign Mc, for I suspect I may be the longest time owner of it (or maybe continous owner and user) on the board with my first purchase being in 1966 (high school grad gift to myself) and have owned Mc ever since. Has it been worth it to me? Yes. Could I have been just as happy with a Sherwood? I suspect that given my attitude to the Sherwood pieces I have, I suspect so AND more importantly, I suspect I would have the original Sherwood had I bought them in 1966. I've owned most of the MC tube gear and sold it and have no deep desire to buy it again. In fact a Sherwood tube unit turns my head faster when I see 1.
 
Some amps are more musical than others!!
Sorry Julian Hirsch, may he rest in peace. Unfortunately, all current technical measures, other than our ears, can entirely predict what is "musical". It took me over twenty years to come to that revelation, but I know its true.

For example, I use in my home-office a NAD 7020 (essentially the same as the famed 3020). I picked one up on a whim for $40 a few years ago. Wow ... that little bugger really sounds musical! Its go IT - musicality. It does not have great distortion stats, and its power output by today's standards is laughable, it has tone controls and looks ugly, but man ... its mighty fine to listen to. If only I had known way back when, instead of those silly flirtations with Mission, Bryston, Carver, Sony's, Meridian, Kenwood, Pioneers, Sansuis, and Linn over the years. I guess many of us feel that way ... its a journey. I could have bought Mac like Brian did in '75 (when I bought my first hi-fi in high-school - I had the money then). But instead, I believed what I read in Stereo Review, and had to travel the journey. Frankly, I would rather have avoided the trip. Its not one worth taking. My ROI on this stuff is negative. I envy Brian's foresight - dare I say - our own resident Warren Buffet of Mac gear. Cripes, I remember arguing with my uncle in '73 who had Fisher tube gear ... he was willing to give it to me for free saying they were awesome... I declined the "junk" because those new SS Pioneers and Sansuis were better according to Len Feldman. Boy, was I young and stupid.

I think overall, Mac gear is really fine to listen to, there is musical integrity there I've always heard, but would venture to say some vintage Mac amps are beter than others (and ... that their current price tags don't necessarily reflect their musicality is my theory). The MC250 and 2100 do not command nowhere near the $ as an MC30, MC60, MC225, MC240 and MC275 ... but nevertheless, seem to have a following. The question is why? Certainly the tube amps have an aura just by the fact they are tube ... and because of supply and demand factors.

While I think my current MA6200 is a very fine piece, what I now long for the "air" which I hear when using my MR67 tuner. That tuner really turned my world upside down in re-awakening my love for music. I don't like the "fat" tube sound (a la old C-J), but do like the nice, effortless floating qualities that "some" vintage tube gear seems to offer. But $5K for an MC275 - I'll pass unfortunately.

So can the 250 or 2100 deliver? Power wise, for the speakers I have in mind, either would be fine. But, as I get older, I just don't have the inclination anymore to be swapping gear on eBay every month or two (as some people seem to do for sport). I'm not a lawyer or doctor, but do have the same mentaility: I want to just set it and forget it, and enjoy the music. The music is really what its all about at this point ...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the definition of musical WRT amps. In that case, I am rather sold on the Mc SS amps. Less coloration than others and imparts less to the signal, or music if you will. The potting compound actually does a few things and hiding the technology isn't one of them. The potting compound is too easily removed.

As far as the Sherwood goes, it is much like Dynaco. I remember people describing Dynaco as a poor man's McIntosh. Certainly good, but it isn't a Mc.

There is an aspect of McIntosh that can't be duplicated. Some call it the snob appeal. Anyone who has McIntosh equipment knows that they have been successful enough to afford some of the finest equipment in the world.

Music is an Art and Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. (:>)


r
 
You can not go wrong with your decision for a SS amp. Today potting is easy to remove but back in the 50s when it was begum to be used in consumer equip it had 2 primary purposes 1) to maintain dielectric consistency and 2) to thwart competition. Mc used it for the latter, not needing the former with its superb designs.

As for Dyna being a poor man's Mc; that a new one for me. Sherwood is as far from Dyna in design and execution as Radio Shack is from Mc. From the build quality and components used, I think the Sherwood (foregoing Marantz discussions here) is a poor man's Mc. Like Mc, the company was built on engineering a few excellent components rather than something for everyone. The designs were simple unlike many of the competing companies, component quality was very high and as I've said from many of the same suppliers, construction was robust, where a supplier could not make something to their standards, they made it in-house or used proprietary components outsourced, and attention was paid to detail. Sound was likewise not that distant from the Mc sound. Except for the short lived McKit, neither company produced kits realizing that to maintain quality construction had to be done in-house and that the market segment was not the hobbiest. Marantz also is in this grouping.

Dyna was based on well thought out designs targeted for a price and for kit builders. Components, boards, etc were cheap except for the 1 thing that David thought was important and that was the iron - not surprising since he was a transformer man by occupation. The line was dedicated to the audio hobbiest from the beginning unlike its main competition - Heath and EICO and while all 3 put out good components, Dyna's marketing gained it the important market share.
 
About the only thing to do is replace the big power supply caps if they don't make power with a good margin. My 250 puts out 75W before clipping - all original, no restoration necessary.
The 2100 is about the same 125 to 130W when OK, if either show more than .2% THD at rated output several other caps will help if changed out.
 
I agree with the #s which are about bang on (I've got slightly higher to reach the .2 - 78 and 142 respectively). These are basic designs with not a lot of the componentry that seems to be in vogue with later designs. Think of them as tube amps with transistors. About the only things to consider are the caps. Other things to change out (provided you don't mind mods) are the speaker terminal posts. I'm putting the 250 in for its first TLC since new and changing them out as well as the inputs. Have not made a decision about bypassing the input attenuators and stereo/mono switch which I've never used. With the C28, the attenuators are redundant.
 
mc tweaks

i read on AA that paralling the big filter caps with inexpensive small caps (say 47uf) helps the sound (the smaller caps are supposed to be "faster').

i've seen this mentioned in tube amp literature before. i think some SS manufacturers did this too (maybe vintage sansui ...)

this makes sense, but i can't vouch for it, ... i'd like to try it out on my 2100 but i recenty moved residences so everything is in a state of disarray.

cheers
 
I would never do anything to alter the sound of any of my 2100's.
I'm not into fixing things that ain't broke. Got plenty of stuff that is! :( I have 3, all original, they all sound the same, Superb! :) Why do you feel that yours aren't up to snuff?


Carl
 
Originally posted by CarlV
I would never do anything to alter the sound of any of my 2100's.
I'm not into fixing things that ain't broke. Got plenty of stuff that is! :( I have 3, all original, they all sound the same, Superb! :) Why do you feel that yours aren't up to snuff?


Carl
Click to expand...

i don't intend to imply that i find anything wrong with my (or anyone elses) mc-2100 . in fact my previous posts on this piece will indicate otherwise.

cheers :)
 
I haven't seen the post you were referring to, but I have met a a couple guys that have modded amps into junk second guessing factory engineering.
I thought that maybe you were experiencing a deffiency in your
system that you attributed to the amp.
I could be wrong but it seems to me you would lose some of the original sound doing a mod like that. I wouldn't want to give that sound up. :)

Carl
 
I have seen the same thing happen with cars. Some high school dropout figures he knows more than the engineer who makes $50k+ per year. You're a genius Gump, a damn genius! (:>)
 
Or like the kid working for our first HVAC provider who decided that the piston in the big line was not needed on the heat pump. Narurally it failed at 5 years 1 month. Since I was unemployed at the time we replaced it with a cheap Carrier. When the electric bills started going outta sight, that HVAC provider sent a guy up who said it was 2 pounds short on Freon - excuse me? - that's supposed to be a sealed system, so where did it go? The new HVAC provider showed me where the air handler was leaking Freon into the house when they were installing the Trane 1400, cut our electric bills in half and you can barely hear the outside unit running. First heat pump I have ever seen that puts out warm air, meaning that it is well above body temp.

Rob

No, Freon does not make your voice squeaky like Helium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom