• 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 using MAC6700 preamp?

charne@sprin

charne@sprin

Fell in love with music, then hiked the tech trail
Subscriber
I've been pretty happy with my MAC6700, especially the TU-2 FMHD tuner module I got with it -- but have been curious about how running a tube amp would add to the system. If I purchased an MC275, could I use the preamp section of the MAC6700 to drive the amp? Has anyone done this or anything similar? Can't say I'm in a rush on this -- would be patient for the right opportunity on the amp. But it would afford me the ability to hold onto the FMHD tuner, and move to a tube amp. Thanks!
 
Register to hide this ad
sure, you'd pull the jumpers and connect the MAC6700 output 1 to the MC275 input. or you possibly could try passively bi-amp your speakers using the secondary output to the tube amp for highs and leave the jumpers in place so the MAC6700 internal amp runs your low frequencies.

yeah yeah, bi-amping "should" be done with active crossovers for active bi-amping blah blah blah
 
charne@sprin said:
Any elaboration on this? More context? Please continue. (I trust but am verifying.)
Click to expand...

A leap backwards in output power, a chunk of money outgoing for sonic benefits that are dubious at best. Additionally, using the MC275 in a biamp config and the system will be effectively restricted to the maximum output of the smaller amp. Would have more power by using the MAC6700 alone.

If genuine sonic improvement is the goal, better to put the money towards different/better speakers than swapping out one high-end late-model amplifier for another high-end late-model amplifier. Or even look into room acoustics/treatments/environmental EQ.

Just throwing money at a rig is not the way to go...IMHO.
 
No offense guys, but some of us (including you?) just like buying and trying, and it's usually an addition to the collection not really a replacement.

I see no reason not to try the MC275 if you have fairly efficient speakers, many people find them to sound quite pleasant.
 
SaturationPt said:
No offense guys, but some of us (including you?) just like buying and trying, and it's usually an addition to the collection not really a replacement.

I see no reason not to try the MC275 if you have fairly efficient speakers, many people find them to sound quite pleasant.
Click to expand...
The OP is free to do as he likes. Our opinions in regard to his question are just that, opinions.
 
That's all I asked for, opinions, and more opinions always appreciated. We all know with an opinion, that and a token, it gets you on the subway. The MAC6700 does sound good -- it was an upgrade to a MA5200 integrated amp, itself.
 
If you have efficient speakers then a pair of MC 30's or a MC 225 is all you really need. Yes I would prefer a MC 502 without autoformers and it being SS. But big power isn't necessary with efficient speakers. Its like buying a car with 1000 HP, why when you can't drive over 80 mph? A big Tesla with electric motors will get you to 80 MPH faster and the fuel milage is much better. Oh I know a 462 and its cousin 452 are fantastic amps. But If I'm going after that much power give me a pair of 1201's or 1.2 K. I don't like the drink holder on top of the MC 1.25K.
 
SaturationPt said:
... because my opinion is that everyone should have at least one MC462.
Click to expand...
I couldn't lift it! When I purchased my MAC7200, now installed in my office system and not the subject of this discussion, I briefly considered an MA9000 but passed after I realized there was no way I'd ever be able to move it; and if it ever needed service, I'd be sunk.
 
charne@sprin said:
I've been pretty happy with my MAC6700, especially the TU-2 FMHD tuner module I got with it -- but have been curious about how running a tube amp would add to the system. If I purchased an MC275, could I use the preamp section of the MAC6700 to drive the amp? Has anyone done this or anything similar? Can't say I'm in a rush on this -- would be patient for the right opportunity on the amp. But it would afford me the ability to hold onto the FMHD tuner, and move to a tube amp. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yes you can do this no problem but I don't think it will improve anything. My experience is that Mc SS and Mc Tube amps are pretty equally good in sound quality. You might (mayby) get a slightly softer sound with the MC275 but a bunch less power.

charne@sprin said:
Any elaboration on this? More context? Please continue. (I trust but am verifying.)
Click to expand...

You need to understand what you are doing for passive bi-amping. It only works if your speakers are designed to allow it (or if you hack your speakers). I have been told by Ron C. (of McIntosh) that using a tube amp (specifically an MC 275) for a tweeter amp in a passive bi-amp situation is tantamount to running the tube amp with no load below the crossover frequency (where most of the power is) which will cause the amp to not work or sound well and waste power.

Are your speakers designed for passive bi-amping?
 
KentTeffeteller said:
You mean tuner/preamp section of your MAC 7200, which is a receiver. MA is integrated, C is preamplifier. Yes, go ahead and try it and use it.
Click to expand...
No -- tuner-preamp section of my MAC6700; the MAC7200 is installed in a different system which is not the subject of this discussion. But I figure the advice is the same.
 
TSmith8605 said:
Yes you can do this no problem but I don't think it will improve anything. My experience is that Mc SS and Mc Tube amps are pretty equally good in sound quality. You might (mayby) get a slightly softer sound with the MC275 but a bunch less power.



You need to understand what you are doing for passive bi-amping. It only works if your speakers are designed to allow it (or if you hack your speakers). I have been told by Ron C. (of McIntosh) that using a tube amp (specifically an MC 275) for a tweeter amp in a passive bi-amp situation is tantamount to running the tube amp with no load below the crossover frequency (where most of the power is) which will cause the amp to not work or sound well and waste power.

Are your speakers designed for passive bi-amping?
Click to expand...
My plan here would be to bypass the amp section of the MAC6700 in favor of the MC275. But there seems to be a strong body of opinion that there's no audio upside in doing that.
 
charne@sprin said:
My plan here would be to bypass the amp section of the MAC6700 in favor of the MC275. But there seems to be a strong body of opinion that there's no audio upside in doing that.
Click to expand...

Remember the word opinion in that.

Tubes have some strong supporters, which is one reason why McIntosh brought back their tube products. Whether this sound is for you or not is completely a matter of taste. I've heard the term "tube snob", where some feel that the sound is so much better that they only listen to tubes, and you certainly can spend $50k+ on new tube gear if you really want to, some of it quite powerful (ex: new Carver amps). I auditioned plenty of them at AXPONA and it seems that around half of the higher-end rooms had at least some tube gear.

Tubes (aka: valves) have a softer clipping than SS, less likely to damage tweeters in clipping. They also typically have even-order harmonic distortion vs odd-order hd which is considered pleasant and more musical, and thus seem to have more power than the same-rating SS gear (because driving it to the fringe of clipping doesn't immediately sound horrible.

Anyway, I like many of us here have both, and listen to each on different occasions or as part of our hobby. I wouldn't say that either has a solid advantage in subjective SQ. If you need more power from McIntosh, you need to go SS, if not you can go tube, if not McIntosh you can get into bigger power new.

Find one you can listen to, it's part of the hobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom