Mc250 vs mc240

[Pio1980]

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.

Frankly I dunno what I will do with one MC50 as I'd like to hear a properly working pair before I sell it or keep it to use, it was originally configured as a PA amp and tho' cosmetically presentable it has some extra holes for the mic xformer and octal socket and a bit of rust patching on the xformer cases. If I could get another in similar presentable tho' non-original cdx cheap I'd probably refurb both and give them some serious ear time against my main amps and one of the Adcoms I keep for back-up and loaners..

 

[tuffstuff1]

Interesting. I hear all this hoopla about the MCtube amps. I am really happy with the pair of 250's and think it sounds great. I don't want to go drop another 6K just for the ambiance of tubes if there is not a notable difference. I would think that Mcintosh would have done a pretty good job of reproducing the tube sound when they decided to develop SS. The were probably actually scared that the customer would complain that it's just not Mcintosh sound. I wish I could find a loaner just to see. Hey, 62 caddy has one already gift wrapped . Maybe he's nice enough to put it in the trunk of his boat and deliver. Hahaha! Good Stuff!

 

[kelsa]

I did not find much difference between my MC250 and pair of MC60's. There was a lot of difference between my MC250 and MC754. The 754 had a much more solid state sound with tighter bass and sharper highs. MC250 sounded more like tubes.

 

[CountD]

I did not find much difference between my MC250 and pair of MC60's. There was a lot of difference between my MC250 and MC754. The 754 had a much more solid state sound with tighter bass and sharper highs. MC250 sounded more like tubes.

Yes.:thmbsp:

 

[Pio1980]

I did not find much difference between my MC250 and pair of MC60's. There was a lot of difference between my MC250 and MC754. The 754 had a much more solid state sound with tighter bass and sharper highs. MC250 sounded more like tubes.

The Adcom GFA 535 I mentioned is also adjudged a tube-ish sounding SS amp, with a solid state bottom end. Power is same class as a pair of MC75.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[bart1]

The Adcom GFA 535 I mentioned is also adjudged a tube-ish sounding SS amp, with a solid state bottom end. Power is same class as a pair of MC75.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I don't think I agree with that. I had a 555ii and a 5300. The 555 was a little harsher on the highs. My 2105 sounds more natural (tubey?) than either and the bass has more presence (maybe just "looser"?).

 

[Pio1980]

I don't think I agree with that. I had a 555ii and a 5300. The 555 was a little harsher on the highs. My 2105 sounds more natural (tubey?) than either and the bass has more presence (maybe just "looser"?).

Quite right for the 5#5-II et al. Tho the -II looks better on paper, most listeners and their designer, Nelson Pass, prefer the originals. The 'little' 535 is considered the SQ stand-out value in that line.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Pio1980]

Anybody on the best sounding of the lower powered sand-state Mac amps?
Still curious MC50/MC? vs GFA-535.

 

[silverface80]

I know this is very long time ago, but I am going to try a MC250 after my experience with my MC225 for 5 years. I have done some tube rolling on it so it is much better than stock (especially the Tesla stuff-which I also put into my MX110). Will see if what they say is true for the MC250 (being very close to the MC275).

 

[Pio1980]

I know this is very long time ago, but I am going to try a MC250 after my experience with my MC225 for 5 years. I have done some tube rolling on it so it is much better than stock (especially the Tesla stuff-which I also put into my MX110). Will see if what they say is true for the MC250 (being very close to the MC275).

Iirc, the MC250 is 1st gen solid state, two M50s on on chassis sharing one ps in the style of the later classic slope panel home chassis naked Mac tube amps.
Perhaps you are thinking of the MC240 it replaced?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[twiiii]

A 2505 fresh from the factory typically puts out over 70 watts vs a 240 55 watts before clipping. The 2505 has about a 1/3 distortion at the extremes of the audible frequencies, but the amps are pretty close to each other in the midrange and early highs. The 2505 is a little quieter and with both having a damping factor that is low the bass sounds almost the same. Where amps that came along later with mush higher damping factors sound faster and more accurate, to me anyway. There is just a little edge to the 2000 series amps that the tube units didn't portray from about 2500 to 6000 hz I would guess. On my Stax headphones the 2505 is definitely a bit drier than the older tube amps, but I like the sound and the combo works real well. There is a difference in the sound of tube amps just like there is with different models of SS amps. The difference between a 240, and Marantz 8B is notice able but close, where a Dynaco ST70 is a totally different beast. Scott and Fisher basic amps sound different from each other, as well as the other amps mentioned. Eico amps were not on my favorites list. Heathkit, Gromes and British amps of the time were not to my liking. Sherwood amps for some reason sounded great to me in a euphonic way, but the Macs and Marantz were more accurate. I guess now that I think about it the Marantz units could be just a bit more forward than the 240. The 3500 tube amp was the definite winner during that period of time. It had everything you could ask from a tube amp. Great power reserve , low distortion, the ability to run all day at full power without stress and it sounded great with horn or direct radiating cone speaker systems. The laid back sound of the 240 could be enjoyed with all speakers, where speakers with peaky high ends didn't match well with 2505. If you had Altec VoTT, Carmels, or Capistranos, I thought the 2505 did a better job, though, tube lovers would say the 240. Its a preference thing. I preferred the 752 or 754, to tighten up the bass. If you owned a JBL Harkness or Paragon, because of the ring radiator tweeter I preferred either the 240 better yet the 225.

 

[drillher]

Does the Mc275 have better bass than the Mc240?Are the amps that you are listening to restored or all original?

 

[strat10]

This is a very interesting subject I would love to hear more of your opinions and why and how long did you own a 240 and what were you comparing it against and was it restored or stock. thanks

 

[L-82]

I too like this thread, especially that I have a 2505, make me feel good too hear all the great comments about it.

 

[tuffstuff1]

I have not tried any tubes yet but if I do it will be a tube pre first. Its is my understanding that the pre will give my MC-250's the warmer sound before the amps will. Sortof on the hunt but business and summer time have kept me from enjoying my gear lately.

 

[Pio1980]

Does the Mc275 have better bass than the Mc240?Are the amps that you are listening to restored or all original?

Depends on the speaker and situation, but the 275 has more drive power potential with known good tubes.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[KentTeffeteller]

The McIntosh MC 250/MC 2505 is the closest thing to a MC 240 you can get sonically and build wise without tubes. Very similar sounding to each other. A tossup. All of the above excellent.

 

[Pio1980]

The MC2100 seems more common and probably the most relatively reasonably priced for Mac power.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[twiiii]

I always thought the 275 sounded better from the upper mids through the highs to extreme highs being just a little truer to the sound. The bass was very similar to me. But when driving AR-3a's the increase power of the 275 was apparent. 95 watts vs 55 watts. A 240 just ran out of steam with Bozak Grands and Symphonies. Altec Carmels and JBL paragons liked the 275, too. EV model 6 and some Klipsch models were just happy with the 240 and a 275 was just too much. The upper mids started to glare and what accuracy left was swamped. The same speakers didn't care for 3500's either, and I thought all speakers should sound good with a 3500. But old La Scalas, Belles, along with Georgans and Ev -6 didn't like the big amps. EV's got along well with SS Marantz amps however. So, more power wasn't always the answer.

 

[twiiii]

As others have said early 2000 series amps sound as close to tubes as you are going to find in SS amps. That was a battle we had to fight at the time. Marantz and other SS amp companies embraced the SS sound and wish to move past the tube sound. Where McIntoshSS amps that sounded close to their tube amps. The problem was the true believer didn't think the SS units were really an equal to tubes in producing accurate sound and never moved on. This made selling some folks SS amps particularly difficult. And when Davie had to tell folks their amps couldn't be brought back into specs because of inferior tubes I really felt sorry for those owners. I heard what the 240 and 275 owners were having to deal with at home. So when current tube owners talk about rolling tubes, I think back to times when inferior tubes really colored the sound and always in a negative way and how can unproven tubes be expected to positively improve the sound of todays ultra sophisticated amps. So go with SS all the way.