Not to get off topic here, but if you haven't looked at KAB's mods, you should. You simply cannot beat it for the money. Couple it to an isolation platform and you have a hell of a turntable.
Of course, the MT10 does call to me................:yes:
MCD-500 First Impression
- Thread starter Stillone
- Start date
Not to get off topic here, but if you haven't looked at KAB's mods, you should. You simply cannot beat it for the money. Couple it to an isolation platform and you have a hell of a turntable.
Of course, the MT10 does call to me................:yes:
Well, since my wife has been out of town this week, I have been able to spend more time getting familiar with the MCD-500. For the most part I have been using it as a DAC for the MS300 and I am very impressed with these DAC's. They make everything sound so much better with a lot more in the low end. That is as compared with the DAC's in the server and also against the Musical Fidelity Tri Vista DAC I had been using. As a CD player it is at least as musical as my Esoteric X03-se was, though not as solid or well built.
Now the question for those of you with MDA1000's or other units that you might use by by-passing your pre-amp. Tonight for the first time, I hooked the 500 directly to my 501's, bypassing my C-200. I am not sure of the result.
The soundstage became taller and wider and more force-full or in your face. Some of the in the middle imaging I get with the c-200 was lost. In addition, it seems like the C-200 may have been smoothing the digital a little. So here I sit and am a bit confused. It sounds more impressive this way, but is it a little more fatiguing? Not sure yet.
Those of you who have done something similar, could you let me know what you think.
Also one other point. Duh, although I remembered to turn the volume down before I switched to the direct connect, I forgot to switch to the variable output XLR's and WOW my MBL's go loud with those 501's. Not Very Smart.
Jim
Now the question for those of you with MDA1000's or other units that you might use by by-passing your pre-amp. Tonight for the first time, I hooked the 500 directly to my 501's, bypassing my C-200. I am not sure of the result.
The soundstage became taller and wider and more force-full or in your face. Some of the in the middle imaging I get with the c-200 was lost. In addition, it seems like the C-200 may have been smoothing the digital a little. So here I sit and am a bit confused. It sounds more impressive this way, but is it a little more fatiguing? Not sure yet.
Those of you who have done something similar, could you let me know what you think.
Also one other point. Duh, although I remembered to turn the volume down before I switched to the direct connect, I forgot to switch to the variable output XLR's and WOW my MBL's go loud with those 501's. Not Very Smart.
Jim
Putting another set of interconnects, switches, and electronics in the signal path adds artifacts and distortion - no question about it - but many may find the artifacts and distortions more pleasing to the ear than a more brutally honest signal.
A visual analogy might be the way that softer focus (and perhaps some airbrushing) can make some pictures more pleasant to look at.
While I admired the way my MDA1000 sounded going directly to the MC252, I must say that I prefer the sound with a C220 in between. But I would not be surprised if for every person who likes an pre-amp in the path, there's one who prefers the purer signal path and sound.
Alberto
Victor
Super Member
I would say I had similar results with my MDA1000 with and without C1000T. I did not loose any center imaging with the MDA1000, other than that I had the same results as you.
My local shop got the MCD500 in yesterday.
Unless someone gets it first, I'll be taking it home this weekend to compare it with my MDA1000.david10024
Active Member
I sometimes run my computer server (Lynx pro sound card) direct to my 402's and sometimes through my c712 pre. My results are similar to yours. I get a little more warmth and smoothness through the pre, but not as much resolution. I occasionally change from one to the other just for variety. Direct is clearly closer to what the mixing engineers have chosen, but it is more satisfying to be your own mixing engineer. Purists would prefer direct since the smoothness added by the pre isn't necessary more like live music. In fact, live music in a real space can be fatiguing. In the end, I am a subjectiveist.
My local shop got the MCD500 in yesterday.
I am looking forward to your comparison of the 500 and 1000.
Jim
Sounds like most people hear the same thing. I am going to leave it direct for the weekend to see what I think after a few days.
I am glad someone else feels the same way. Live music can be quite fatiguing (e.g. especially brass instruments for me), but it's mean to be taken in small doses (e.g. a 2hr concert). For long term or all-day listening fatigue becomes a more important concern.
Alberto
Good plan. If you can't get enough of the music and hate the thought of turning the system off to go to bed/dinner/etc., that's a very good sign. If, on the other hand, you feel like lowering the volume, or taking a break, that's a sign that the sound is fatiguing.
Actual listening time and desire to continue listening is my #1 criteria for evaluation of a system.
Alberto
david10024
Active Member
To me the hall and your particular seat in the hall is the major variable. The season plays a role too: eg is the audence holding their winter coats during the concert.Some halls are warm and smooth, like analogue, Carnegie Hall. Others are more like digital, clear and sharp, Avery Fisher hall. Sometimes, I find certain violin notes momentarily irritating at Avery Fisher. The clarity is unparalleled though. This is why I am a fan of DSP. Sometimes a slight bit of compression helps; sometimes a touch of equalization or upsampling. This is primarily a gear head forum. Still I would love to see McIntosh produce a studio quality (AISO compatable), high end DSP plug in.
vintage_tube
Vacuum Tube Passion
Well, have been A/B'ing the MCD500 and my Esoteric this evening and right out of the box, the MCD500 is more detailed across the freq band than the Esoteric. For instance, crispness or detail of voices is there – Eva Cassidy, Field of Gold – her opening “wooing” which replicates several times, is like “waves” and you can actually sense the waviness of her voice as it trails off as she begins. The detail extends all around IMO. This is with a unit that has maybe 90 minutes on it so far. I also believe the lower end is tighter - and instruments seem to have a correct timbre about them.:thmbsp::thmbsp:
Oh, the unit is whisper quiet -- there is no noise whatsoever coming from the transport & the tray is very, very smoothe. The unit is front center heavy (transport) and lighter in the rear.
Load time for redbook is around 12 seconds verses 7 for the Esoteric.
Remote control operation is a disappointment -- the C2300 remote won't control zippo on the MCD500 (what a PITA) and the MCD500 remote has no mute switch (the preamp does -- but there is a button on the face plate of the MCD500 & nothing corresponding on the remote).
Also, I did not receive the two insert diagrams with the manual (MC1a and MC1b). Did anyone else who received a MCD500 received those inserts?
Will do SACD comparisons prior to the NHRA Nationals at Lowes Motor Speedway this week (Go Go, Matt Smith, 2007 Pro Stock Motorcycle World Champion -- that's a plug for the tickets).
http://www.nhra.com/stats/psm_top50_08.html
Oh, the unit is whisper quiet -- there is no noise whatsoever coming from the transport & the tray is very, very smoothe. The unit is front center heavy (transport) and lighter in the rear.
Load time for redbook is around 12 seconds verses 7 for the Esoteric.
Remote control operation is a disappointment -- the C2300 remote won't control zippo on the MCD500 (what a PITA) and the MCD500 remote has no mute switch (the preamp does -- but there is a button on the face plate of the MCD500 & nothing corresponding on the remote).
Also, I did not receive the two insert diagrams with the manual (MC1a and MC1b). Did anyone else who received a MCD500 received those inserts?
Will do SACD comparisons prior to the NHRA Nationals at Lowes Motor Speedway this week (Go Go, Matt Smith, 2007 Pro Stock Motorcycle World Champion -- that's a plug for the tickets).
http://www.nhra.com/stats/psm_top50_08.html
I am glad someone else feels the same about that Eva Cassidy CD (and track). What an angelic voice ...
Alberto
Ditto that, Alberto. I was listening to her Wonderful World CD just yesterday. I wish she was still with us. That voice is from an angel.
I agree that they tray is quiet, but the mechanism is not near as robust as the X03-se. Of course that unit weight about 50lbs.
On remotes I agree, to do everything if my pre-amp is in the loop I need all three Mac remotes C-200,MS300 and MCD-500 to have complete control. :thumbsdn:
No, I also did not receive the inserts that were noted in the manual.
Jim
I know I may be stretching the analogy thing quite a bit, but to me, Eva Cassidy's voice sounds a lot like of the way McIntosh sounds - very clean, pure, undistorted, 100% musical and without any edge, fully relaxed and in complete control - the kind of voice/system that you can listen to for hours.
McIntosh lovers, if you have heard Eva Cassidy, I think you would agree. If you haven't, I suggest to pick one of her CDs and see how great she sounds on a Mc.
Alberto
jmajma
Well-Known Member
Yes Alberto, I bought 3 Eva Cassidy's CDs last year during my trip in the USA: a great MADAME. And I totally agree with your point of view on analog/digital ways/waits of listening.I too am a big vinyle fan, this bug took me again 3 years ago.
The MCD 500 seems to be a winner; well thought product, great features. Would love to have one if I didn't have the MDA/MCD1000, which doesn't have SACD capability, nor MP3.
The MCD 500 seems to be a winner; well thought product, great features. Would love to have one if I didn't have the MDA/MCD1000, which doesn't have SACD capability, nor MP3.
Ivan
I understand that there are programable remotes out there, I use them in my other systems. Since my 2-channel system is very simple, one of the Mac remotes should have been able to handle the chore. It's not a big deal.
Jim
I'm sure your using data cables between them right?