• 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 vs mc240

tuffstuff1

tuffstuff1

Super Member
I have -0- experience with tubes and would like to hear some opinions about differences in musicality between the two (MC250 VS MC240). My speakers are Yamaha NS-1000 and I have read other threads that applaud the Yammies in conjunction with MAC tubes. Also, are most Mcintosh tube amps the same soundwise? I am talking about vintage amps more or less. I understand the lesser power amps my distort if over driven, but speaker matched correctly, do the all perform basically the same. Also, what advantages and disadvantages might I expect from MAC SS to tube amps. I absolutely love the Yamaha's hooked to the twin MC250's bridged. I don't know how it can get much better. :DThanks a lot.
 
Register to hide this ad
This would be an interesting comparison. BITD, when the MC250 and MC2100 were being ushered IN as progress (as compared to the MC240 and MC275), it would have been interesting to hear the pitch from the salesman on the floor of the Mc dealer. I've never owned a MC250, but have had several MC2505s and I'd like to say that's the most powerful 50 wpc amp these ears have ever heard. That's not how I look back on MC240s that I owned. Rather, I look back on those more fondly on the SQ and how much I liked the sound when using Amperex small tubes and GE 6L6s.

MC240 "fun factor" was better than the MC2505 by a long shot. But, the MC2505 was IMHO a more practical amplifier that sounded awfully good to these ears. I still own a MC2105 and I don't think I'll ever sell it. I just think Mc nailed it on cosmetic appeal and I love the VU meters versus the Watt meters . . . but that's just me.

You seem to be one of the guys here that is OK with trying stuff for the sake of trying it and having fun. If you can find an MC240 reasonably priced, I say go for it. If nothing else, you'll have a hell of a lot of fun with it.

In the end, isn't that what this hobby is all about?
 
I think Cutlass (:D) pretty much nailed it: For a statement/conversation piece and/or sheer eye candy - nothing beats McIntosh tubes & chrome. That's 90% of what you're paying for; the other 10% is sonics - real or imagined, IMO.

I've had the metered version (MC 2505) and MC 240 for a couple weeks now and I'm still trying to determine a "winner" - which is beginning to feel more & more like an exercise in futility!
 
62caddy said:
I think Cutlass (:D) pretty much nailed it: For a statement/conversation piece and/or sheer eye candy - nothing beats McIntosh tubes & chrome. That's 90% of what you're paying for; the other 10% is sonics - real or imagined, IMO.
Click to expand...
You nailed it! Roughly $500 vs. $2000+
 
As much as I'd like to bring price into the discussion, I just can't. Look at it like this - if someone were to offer you your choice of the MC240 or MC250, which would you take?

I think I could easily say that the MC240s were five times the fun of any MC2505 I owned.
 
62caddy said:
I think Cutlass (:D) pretty much nailed it: For a statement/conversation piece and/or sheer eye candy - nothing beats McIntosh tubes & chrome. That's 90% of what you're paying for; the other 10% is sonics - real or imagined, IMO.

I've had the metered version (MC 2505) and MC 240 for a couple weeks now and I'm still trying to determine a "winner" - which is beginning to feel more & more like an exercise in futility!
Click to expand...

I'll take the 2505 for looks and the 240 for sound quality.
 
If I was choosing tubes or S/S I'd be going for the best-engineered example of S/S from at least the mid-late 1970s up. Tube amps came back after S/S was introduced in the mid-1960's for a reason and that was superior SQ.
 
Build two systems as I have with my 2105 and 225. Seems the obvious answer, no? ;). The 2105 gets used more, but I think the 225 brings me more joy.
 
P.S.to add:

P1030583_zps0e5bfb88.jpg
 
Hands down a clean Mc250 beats the Mc240. The bass is much, much, better, the sound quality, and the overall smoothness. The comparison is really the Mc250 vs. the Mc275. The Mc250 with a Mx110/C22 will be noticeably better than the 240 any day of the week.

The Mc225 is sweet, much sweeter than the Mc240 (that's why I still have the 225). Sure the Mc240 may look more romantic but the 250 will always sound better (and I have compared them, even compared Mc50s vs Mc40s and the 50s won again).
 
CountD said:
Hands down a clean Mc250 beats the Mc240. The bass is much, much, better, the sound quality, and the overall smoothness. The comparison is really the Mc250 vs. the Mc275. The Mc250 with a Mx110/C22 will be noticeably better than the 240 any day of the week.

The Mc225 is sweet, much sweeter than the Mc240 (that's why I still have the 225). Sure the Mc240 may look more romantic but the 250 will always sound better (and I have compared them, even compared Mc50s vs Mc40s and the 50s won again).
Click to expand...

Would I be correct to assume your comments regarding MC 250 would apply equally to MC 2505?
 
Would the inferior bass of a Mc240 vs a Mc250 apply to a Mc240 that has had the power supply and coupling caps updated?
 
drillher said:
Would the inferior bass of a Mc240 vs a Mc250 apply to a Mc240 that has had the power supply and coupling caps updated?
Click to expand...
I can aver that I have rebuilt one (thus far) of my pair of MC40s (pretty much the same circuit as MC240) using Jim McShane's recommended (and sourced) components (including 820uF caps on the voltage doubler, and 100uF plus a shunt on the bias supply) - and the bass is dramatically better than on the other one. Even my dog could tell the difference (ok, inside joke ...)
 
Once upon a long time ago, I did an A/B/X test with an MC240 versus a MC7270 (both level matched at 1 kHz with a DMM. I could not hear the difference between these two amplifiers from my comfy listening chair.

A/B/X tests are . . . well, let's just say humbling.
 
I plan to do the Mcshane upgrade to the power supply in my Mc240.I'm using a pair of M & K subs so the bass is good,but I think that it could be2 better from the main speakers as the amp.is now.
 
62caddy said:
Would I be correct to assume your comments regarding MC 250 would apply equally to MC 2505?
Click to expand...

Yes. The Mc250,Mc2505,and Mc50. These beat the pants off a Mc240. If you put them side-by-side to the Mc240 or Mc40, the sound is pretty drastic - at least to me. Like I said, the real test is a Mc250 vs. Mc275 - they are pretty close.

I have owned Mc30s, Mc60s, Mc40s,Mc75s, MA230s,MAC1500s, etc, etc. The only Mc tube amps I currently own are an Mc225 and MI-200(Pair). I sold everything else off and have an Mc2505, Mc2300, Mc2500, Mc2255. For me the '70s SS amps with a Mc tube pre is the way to go.
 
Last edited:
As an owner of a single MC50 that is basically at present a pretty doorstop I'm finding this thread rather fascinating.
So you would say that a pair of these things or an MC250 would be better than a more modern relatively common SS amp, like an Adcom GFA-535?
 
Last edited:
Pio1980 said:
As an owner of a single MC50 that is basically at present a pretty doorstop I'm finding this thread rather fascinating.
So you would say that a pair of these things or an MC250 would be better than a more modern relatively common SS amp, like an Adcom GFA-535?
Click to expand...

I have owned 7 Mc50s. The bass is a bit tighter with a tiniest bit more punch than a Mc250, but not much to really matter. As far as the Mc50s vs. a modern SS amp like the Adcom, I have no idea. I have never ran them against or owned an Adcom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom