MC275 MkV - How does single-ended sound compared to balanced?

[minimus]

I have heard that the MC275 sounds better run balanced than single-ended. Is this true? If so, how big a difference is the sound quality between balanced and single-ended? How does the sound quality change?

The reason I am asking is that I am currently using a solid state DAC with volume control (the PS Audio Perfect Wave DAC) plugged directly into my MC275 using balanced cables, with no preamp. I would like to add a tube preamp, as the DAC sounds a bit dry and analytical plugged directly into the MC275. I have a tight constraint on the maximum weight of the preamp since my AV cabinet shelf won't support a preamp that weighs more than about 20 pounds. Most affordable tube preamps that meet this weight constraint are single-ended, not balanced (e.g. RWA Isabella, Dodd, Manley Shrimp.) This means I would have to switch from a balanced to a single-ended setup. Before I go this route, I want to have some confidence that the MC275 still will sound good single-ended. By the way, I am using NOS Telefunkens and Siemens tubes in the MC275.

Any thoughts or recommendations would be highly appreciated.

 

[dshoaf]

I think this will likely become a matter of your own preference. What I'd recommend you do is to purchase - or make - a couple of XLR to RCA adaptors and then run your current setup using the '275's RCA inputs. You'll then be able to switch back and forth and determine what you'll be getting into. From the '275s perspective, all you're really doing is adding the first 12AX7 into the audio chain as it is. If you've been running a Tele in that position but using the balanced inputs, it hasn't been doing anything for you - outside of burning hours off of it.

For that matter, if you're using only one input, why consider spending all that $$ on a tube preamp anyway?

Right now, I'm running a Presonus FireStudio's XLR outputs into my MC-225 doing exactly what you're asking. It is a nice arrangement, frankly, although I'm not sure what you mean by 'dry sounding'.

Cheers,

David

 

[minimus]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'dry sounding'.

The Perfect Wave DAC plugged directly into the MC275 sounds analytical and really lacks dynamics, especially with digital sources besides the Perfect Wave Transport (e.g., DVD player, computer, cable box.) The top end also gets a bit fatiguing during extended listening, although this might be corrected by switching NOS tubes from Telefunken/Siemens to Mullards (?).

In any case, other owners of the Perfect Wave DAC have commented on PS Audio's forum pages that they greatly prefer the sound of their setups with a preamp in the audio chain to an amp-direct setup. Hence, I am considering following their lead and buying a preamp. I am just trying to learn whether switching to single-ended operation will result in substantial lost ground right off the bat.

In any case, thanks for your good advice. I will see how the sound quality of the MC275 changes if I use some single-ended adaptors on my balanced cables.

 

[MX117.MC7150]

Used the MC275V with a BAT VK-30 tube preamp which has both XLR and single-ended outputs. ICs were 1m Wasatch 105-U XLR and single-ended as well as Kubala-Sosna Fascination XLR. To my ears, the single-ended hook-up worked best and provided the best sound I've owned. Plan to eventually get back to that system.

 

[Rick58]

The C220 also has single ended and balanced connections (input and output) altho it isn't actually a fully-balanced preamp. It might meet the weight requirement (but has many inputs you might not use). The phono section is mighty fine, for occasional/casual use especially (it's certainly excellent and the only one I will ever need). The remote volume, fine balance control and input gain trim available from the remote really add to the appeal of this fine pre (IMO).

I have seen other systems (via sig files on this forum) and comments where the C220 seems to be the 'weakest link' at first glance, but it must sound pretty good to be kept in systems having a pair of MC501s, for example.

As you said, these folks preferred the sonics with the C220 or other active pre in the chain. I hope to get a Mc amp with both inputs one of these days to try myself!

 

[Rick58]

Maybe I am not getting something, but from the manual: "The PWD has two types of analog outputs, balanced XLR or single ended RCA. You may use one or both outputs at the same time."

Does the dry, analytical sound occur with both of the DAC's outputs into the MC275 (one at a time, of course!) ??? I would think that would be the way to tell about the character of the MC275's inputs ... if they both sound the same with the Perfect Wave DAC, I would think using either type of preamp wouldn't make a difference as far as the MC275's sound is concerned.

Of course, some preamps sound better from their balanced outputs, if they have them.

OK, I see now you are going to try XLR -> RCA adaptors. That should tell the tale ...

 

[markc2]

The C220 also has single ended and balanced connections (input and output) altho it isn't actually a fully-balanced preamp. It might meet the weight requirement (but has many inputs you might not use). The phono section is mighty fine, for occasional/casual use especially (it's certainly excellent and the only one I will ever need). The remote volume, fine balance control and input gain trim available from the remote really add to the appeal of this fine pre (IMO).

I have seen other systems (via sig files on this forum) and comments where the C220 seems to be the 'weakest link' at first glance, but it must sound pretty good to be kept in systems having a pair of MC501s, for example.

As you said, these folks preferred the sonics with the C220 or other active pre in the chain. I hope to get a Mc amp with both inputs one of these days to try myself!

With me I have found out that if I have 2x275's the C220 is pretty damn impressive, with one 275 not so. When I compared it to an EAR 864, which might fit in his weight class, the lower registers of people voices and piano's came fully into play when listening to music. Also the treble seemed more "free" and not pinched.

I also got to hear 501's with a C220 with the Quad ESL's, one of the reasons I got the Quads. Oddly enough I feel defensive about this :scratch2:

I think the 275 single ended let the trailing end of notes last just a little bit longer than XLR's, which to me was nice. I just like the extra bit of quiet afforded by the xlr's.

A lot of good pre-amps out there to choose, good luck!

nothing to me as horrible as dry sounding strings :tears:

Mark

 

[Rick58]

With me I have found out that if I have 2x275's the C220 is pretty damn impressive, with one 275 not so. When I compared it to an EAR 864, which might fit in his weight class, the lower registers of people voices and piano's came fully into play when listening to music. Also the treble seemed more "free" and not pinched.

I think the 275 single ended let the trailing end of notes last just a little bit longer than XLR's, which to me was nice. I just like the extra bit of quiet afforded by the xlr's.

A lot of good pre-amps out there to choose, good luck!

nothing to me as horrible as dry sounding strings :tears:

Mark

ACK !!! NOW I have to save up for TWO MC275s !!! :tears: I know, I can get one, then save for #2 ...

The OP may be compelled to do the same ...!

To clarify: do you think the C220 sounded as good or better than the EAR 864 (with 2x275s) ??? I cannot get away with changing preamps now, but am simply curious!
:scratch2:

Ah, I think I get it: the 864 sounded better ...? [Edit: well, maybe, maybe not? but the 864 might work better in his system weight-wise] ... no matter, in my system the C220 will have to do! (such a sacrifice, I know!)

 

[markc2]

ACK !!! NOW I have to save up for TWO MC275s !!! :tears: I know, I can get one, then save for #2 ...

The OP may be compelled to do the same ...!

To clarify: do you think the C220 sounded as good or better than the EAR 864 (with 2x275s) ??? I cannot get away with changing preamps now, but am simply curious!
:scratch2:

Ah, I think I get it: the 864 sounded better ...? no matter, in my system the C220 will have to do! (such a sacrifice, I know!)

That would be interesting to see how the 864 would sound with 2x275's.

Ok, on my system I preferred the EAR 864 to my C220. Where the EAR 864 to my ears really did a bit better was the lower midrange, especially with voices and lower piano notes. Norah Jones, " I don't miss you at all" the piano with the EAR was even harmonically richer than the C220 and it was more dynamic.

After hearing what 2x275's sound like though thru a C220/C2300 I was floored by how different it was on my friends system. ECM "Being there"

http://www.amazon.com/Being-There-Tord-Gustavsen-Trio/dp/B000NVL4EM

the piano with 2x275's picked up a marvelous weight that went all the way up the keyboard, the Ayre QB9 I was listening to before was good but the 2nd 275 brought out all that the Ayre qb9 was capable of in that particular system and it really was amazing.

The ear864 get's you closer in some aspects to the sound of 2x275's your on the road there. The phono stage is worth it too, even if you just starting in Vinyl.

The reason I didn't get the EAR 864 is that I really do like the look of the C220 and it was one of the first new Mcintosh pieces I have ever bought. Emotional baggage I guess.. But I am trolling audiogon....did I mention the 868 :drool:

Good Luck !!

Mark

 

[minimus]

Thanks for all the helpful replies so far. It sounds like the MC275 may actually sound as good if not better run single-ended vs. balanced, depending on cables used and preamp. Nice also to know that the EAR preamp might be a good match for the MC275.

 

[wolfcub]

Hi, it would seem a shame to add another pre-amp to the chain since the PS Audio unit seems to be a DAC and pre-amp in one - and a very good one from the look of it.

I was going to suggest you try the RCA out of your DAC in case the balancing arrangement on the PS audio unit was not of good quality (you often see a bolt-on balancing op-amp doing this job) - but looking at the PS Audio web site it appears to be a fully balanced unit so it would be a shame not to take advantage of the balanced connnect - if purely from the lower noise and distortion offered.

I wonder if the 'dry' sound you don't like may be down to the recordings you are listening to -maybe your set up is very revealling of the source recording quality - more revealling possible than what it replaced ?

Few modern recordings sound truly 'liquid' particularly on female vocals - and the 275 can certainly do lifelike female vocals excellently providing the source quality is up to it - try something on Capitol from the late 50's to hear liquid vocals - something like Peggy Lee 'Things are Swingin/ Jump for Joy' would do the job very well - if it still sounds dry then something is wrong !

Have you also considered your speakers - it is more likely that they (or perhaps their positioning) would have a strong effect - possibly their set-up was ok with your previous machine.

I had a Shanling CD player with a valve output stage (and way too much second harmonic distortion) everything sounded just 'lovely' through the 275.

I changed it to an ARC CD3 and thought it sounded 'dry' just like you are describing - it turned out that it was just much more revealling of the source quality - when it shone it really shone, but it took me a while to hear what it could do...

When I changed CD player, the speaker toe-in also needed adjusting to change their HF response - again changing the CD player caused them to sound 'bright and dry' compared to the previous machine - looking at a graph of off axis response it was clear that less toe-in would give a smoother HF response.

Needless to say, I no longer have a dry or bright sounding system.......

Hope this is of some use.

 

[minimus]

Well, I did some experimenting with the MC275 tonight, prompted by suggestions in this thread.

I remembered this afternoon that my cheap headphone amp, a Blue Circle HPT, also has preamp functionality and that I also have two decent sets of RCA interconnects. These are not as good as my balanced Gabriel Gold Revelation ICs, but decent nonetheless. The Blue Circle HPT preamp functionality is sort of an afterthought (I think), the amp is solid state, and not high end (it cost me $550).

In any case, when I set up this Blue Cirlce as a preamp between the Perfect Wave DAC and the MC275 using my RCA interconnects, the dynamics improved quite a bit. The listening experience was just more engaging. My wife said it sounded "clearer". The only shortcoming was that bass sounded a bit "thumpy". However, as a headphone amp, the Blue Circle's weak spot is lean bass reproduction, so that might be the main explanation for the less accurate bass response.

When I reverted to my original setup (Perfect Wave DAC directly into the MC275 using my expensive balanced ICs), the macrodynamics were a lot worse. Detail (microdynamics?) was better but macrodynamics were flat. The listening experience became analytical (wow, listen to all that detail) rather than immersive (tap your toes.)

So that is a short summary of an experiment I did today, prompted by the helpful responses here. This is a helpful, welcoming forum community! Thanks.

Now the mission is to find a good preamp that will meet my constraints on weight and space.

 

[j3brow]

As the saying goes, YMMV.
I tried listening direct MCD500 to MC402 via single ended
it sounded too dry and analytical for my tastes, my ears
I MUCH prefer the sound of the signal passed thru the C2300
I also preferred the sound of singled ended connectors to XLR in the long run,
although I can see where the xlr has it's benefits. I feel in my system the rca's just sounded 'warmer' and easier on the ears over long listening sessions. I have to admit I was impressed with the perception of Increased detail with xlr. I may someday revisit xlr's in my system. But for now I'm SE.

 

[Rick58]

Now the mission is to find a good preamp that will meet my constraints on weight and space.

Seems (to me) that the EAR unit MarkC2 was discussing might be just the ticket! (but for me, and maybe him, the C220's looks, convenience features, etc., tipped the scales in its direction ... at least for the time being!).

Let us know what you decide (and how it turns out!)

 

[Butchthetiger]

Well, I did some experimenting with the MC275 tonight, prompted by suggestions in this thread.

I remembered this afternoon that my cheap headphone amp, a Blue Circle HPT, also has preamp functionality and that I also have two decent sets of RCA interconnects. These are not as good as my balanced Gabriel Gold Revelation ICs, but decent nonetheless. The Blue Circle HPT preamp functionality is sort of an afterthought (I think), the amp is solid state, and not high end (it cost me $550).

In any case, when I set up this Blue Cirlce as a preamp between the Perfect Wave DAC and the MC275 using my RCA interconnects, the dynamics improved quite a bit. The listening experience was just more engaging. My wife said it sounded "clearer". The only shortcoming was that bass sounded a bit "thumpy". However, as a headphone amp, the Blue Circle's weak spot is lean bass reproduction, so that might be the main explanation for the less accurate bass response.

When I reverted to my original setup (Perfect Wave DAC directly into the MC275 using my expensive balanced ICs), the macrodynamics were a lot worse. Detail (microdynamics?) was better but macrodynamics were flat. The listening experience became analytical (wow, listen to all that detail) rather than immersive (tap your toes.)

So that is a short summary of an experiment I did today, prompted by the helpful responses here. This is a helpful, welcoming forum community! Thanks.

Now the mission is to find a good preamp that will meet my constraints on weight and space.

Interesting! I have been using a Benchmark USB DAC for the past year & a half with my MC-275. Both micro and macro dynamics are great. Warm detailed sound with the Benchmark, in fact I preferred the sound direct from my DAC over my C220 when it was in my system. Have now gone to a Benchmark HDR so that I could plug my MR-71 tuner into my system. I have found that a different tube combination is required when going with a DAC direct to amp. Removed the Mullard 12AT7's and put in Jan/Philips 12AT7WA's. Perhaps you could try this too?

Butch

 

[harry33]

I dont know what's fully balanced and partially balanced. Could someone explain please

 

[wolfcub]

Hi,

'Fully balanced' is when the circuit accepts a balanced signal on the XLR input, handles it in balanced form (which involves 'mirror image' circuitry so maintaining its common-mode noise rejection), and outputs it in balanced form.

Equipment that is not 'fully balanced' may nevertheless have XLR inputs and outputs and will have unbalanced to balanced conversion on the inputs (typically using an Op-Amp or less often a transformer) - handle the signal in unbalanced form - then perform a further unbalanced to balanced conversion for the output (again usually with an Op-Amp or transformer).

These additional two stages of conversion may detrimental to sound quality if not engineered correctly and there is no common-mode noise rejection in the unbalanced portion of the circuit.

Fully balanced equipment (such as some Audio Research line stages for example) can usually output balanced and single ended outputs from a balanced input signal by utilising only one half of the output signal relative to earth for the unbalanced output and may be able to offer unbalanced to balanced conversion without either an Op-Amp or transformer - the Audio Research LS25 for example does this by strapping the unused balanced line to earth and internally generating the missing 'half' of the signal needed for balanced outputs.

 

[adg57]

Just curious - did you try connecting your dac to the MC275 using RCA cables. Its worth a try - if your system is anything like mine you may prefer the sound.

 

[harry33]

Hi,

'Fully balanced' is when the circuit accepts a balanced signal on the XLR input, handles it in balanced form (which involves 'mirror image' circuitry so maintaining its common-mode noise rejection), and outputs it in balanced form.

Equipment that is not 'fully balanced' may nevertheless have XLR inputs and outputs and will have unbalanced to balanced conversion on the inputs (typically using an Op-Amp or less often a transformer) - handle the signal in unbalanced form - then perform a further unbalanced to balanced conversion for the output (again usually with an Op-Amp or transformer).

These additional two stages of conversion may detrimental to sound quality if not engineered correctly and there is no common-mode noise rejection in the unbalanced portion of the circuit.

Fully balanced equipment (such as some Audio Research line stages for example) can usually output balanced and single ended outputs from a balanced input signal by utilising only one half of the output signal relative to earth for the unbalanced output and may be able to offer unbalanced to balanced conversion without either an Op-Amp or transformer - the Audio Research LS25 for example does this by strapping the unused balanced line to earth and internally generating the missing 'half' of the signal needed for balanced outputs.

Hi Wolfcub,

Thank you for the detailed answer.My MVP871 is connected to C45 with XLR cables and the C45 to my power amp(MC402) also with XLR cable.Do I have a fully balanced.I've been told that only the Mc402 is fully balanced. In the user manuals of those gears is not mentioned if they are balanced or not.How could we know if our gears are fully balanced or not.
Thank u in advance

Harry

 

[wolfcub]

Hi Harry, I am sorry but I don't know the answer, maybe someone with a better knowledge of the particular McIntosh gear knows the answer ?

I wouldn't get too hung up over whether something is 'fully' balanced or not so long as it is well-designed. Poorly designed kit trying to jump on the 'balanced' bandwagon is what you have to be more wary of when you would probably get a better sound using the RCA output than a poorly implemented balanced output.