• 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

MC275 MK-VI vs vintage MC275 ?

ofery

Active Member
Hello all,

I have a new MC275 MK-VI but I'm not happy with the sound.
My old vintage MC240 sounds much better then the new MC275.
I wonder, if I will replace the new MC275 with a vintage MC275 (after full restoration), will I get a better sound ?

Regards /Ofer
 
Register to hide this ad
The pre is C11 after full restoration.
The speakers are JBL 250ti.
The sound is less detailed, cloudy.
 
I'm considering to replace all the tubes (4 KT88 + all the small tubes) on the new MC275 with the Genalex reissue tubes.
This might improve the sound to be the same as my old MC240.
Am I right ?
 
The pre is C11 after full restoration.
The speakers are JBL 250ti.
The sound is less detailed, cloudy.

Well the input impedance of the MC275 VI is 47,000 ohms but C11 should be used with amplifiers having input impedance of 50,000 ohms or greater according to the Owner's Manual. The input impedance of the MC240 is 250,000 ohm so no problem there.

I honestly can't say whether a mismatch that slight is contributing to the issue.
 
I'm considering to replace all the tubes (4 KT88 + all the small tubes) on the new MC275 with the Genalex reissue tubes.
This might improve the sound to be the same as my old MC240.
Am I right ?

I wouldn't start throwing money at tubes before diagnosing the problem.
 
OK, but in general, which amp should have a better sound - the old 275 or the reissue 275 ?
 
Hello all,

I have a new MC275 MK-VI but I'm not happy with the sound.
My old vintage MC240 sounds much better then the new MC275.
I wonder, if I will replace the new MC275 with a vintage MC275 (after full restoration), will I get a better sound ?

Regards /Ofer
What tubes are in the 275 now and how much listening time do you have on them?
 
OK, but in general, which amp should have a better sound - the old 275 or the reissue 275 ?

The newer model has better specs so it should outperform the older - at least in theory. But this can fast become a gray area.

The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the older version is definitely better suited for use with the C11 than the VI.
 
Why is that ?

The input impedance of the original version MC275 250K ohm.. Being that of the VI is 47,000 ohm which is below expressed McIntosh's instructions that the C11 be operated into 50,000 ohm or greater, would strongly suggest the original version MC275 is better suited with that model preamplifier.

As I said earlier, I cannot say how much this is contributing to the issue.

In any case, I doubt tubes are going to be the answer, this side of a faulty tube(s).
 
The input impedance of the original version MC275 250K ohm.. Being that of the VI is 47,000 ohm which is below expressed McIntosh's instructions that the C11 be operated into 50,000 ohm or greater, would strongly suggest the original version MC275 is better suited with that model preamplifier.
My other option is to sell the VI & to buy original 275 instead.
 
First: You say new... How many hours do you have on it?

Then: 275 = KT88 and 240 = 6l6. It may just be that you like the sound of the 6l6 more.

Many years ago I had a 240 in house for a short while. I liked it a lot more than the 275's I had/have owned (never an original one though). Last fall I got the new 275 VI and think it's the best by more than a little. It did take some hours, but it's a keeper.

What's 'best' (version or amp) is up to your ears to decide and also what speakers you use.
For the op, with what preamp?
 
The input impedance of the original version MC275 250K ohm.. Being that of the VI is 47,000 ohm which is below expressed McIntosh's instructions that the C11 be operated into 50,000 ohm or greater, would strongly suggest the original version MC275 is better suited with that model preamplifier.
So, a "better suited" means a "better sound" ?
Original 275 instead of VI with C11 means a "better sound" ?
In theory of course.
 
Last edited:
It may just be that the MC240 is a tad colored in comparison to the MC275VI ... in most cases, it’s nearly impossible to tell this as Mc gear has always been designed to sound neutral. But 5 decades separate the two ...

Or it may be that the output of the MC240 is influenced more by the speakers than is the new amp due to advances in the output transformer design.
 
If you go to the Akdatabase and look up the schematics for the C11 ( and for that matter the C22) you will see a rather complicated output filter section.

I see a inductor, a capacitor or two as well as the complicated resistances of series and paralleled resistors within and outside the Erie or Sprague RC module.

I suspect as the load impedence of the ampilfer decreases due to more modern design goals the rather high and complex output impedence of the preamp starts creating new corner frequencies and time constants for the regular output filter as well as the switchable high filter.

Toss in the complexities of some modern litz style multi strand interconnects with their typical high capacitance and I would expect some strange frequency aberrations to start showing up.

Typical interconnects from back in the day were quite predictable what with their simple coax construction with either braid or foil with braid shield construction.

What interconnects are you using?
 
The new amp requires extra current the C-11 will be compromised to supply, and is probably what you are hearing. Go back to the older amps with high input impedances. But you have to keep the hook up cables between the amp and pre-amp as short as possible, to prevent cable capacitance from compromising the signal even more.
 
Back
Top Bottom