• 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

MCD550 vs other Mcintosh digital solutions

M

MonstaChuck

Member
Questions first then a little background. Does the new MCD550 have a better dac and preamp section than the D100? And am I wrong to assume the MCD550 should sound better than the MCD500 when running direct to McTubes?

I currently have a MDA1000 in my living room but I keep thinking I want a small system in my office - a D100 or MCD direct to a MC275. I've been eyeing the D100, but after comparing it direct to a solid state MC452 and through a C2300 the pre route won. It might have just been the tubes of the pre or maybe the D100 really needs some help attenuating.

SACD is less important, since most of my music runs direct from my computer. I'm a little disappointed the McDacs don't handle DSD from the digital inputs, so although having SACD is nice, it might not be worth the cash for me if the rest of the MCD550 bones equal the D100. It's mostly up to the dac and preamp quality.

Thanks to all in advance, love this site.
 
Register to hide this ad
Better? McIntosh quality is consistent throughout their product line, you should know that with the system you have. Implementation and features can be different based on intended application.

The MCD1100 and MCD550 use the ESS Saber 32 bit 8-channel 9018 reference chip. The D100 also uses 32 bit 8-channel but the 9016 Ultra chip. Does one sound better than the other, only the golden ears can answer that.

There is quite a bit of information and reviews on the web describing each of the three products.
 
Thanks William, knowing which dacs are in each are certainly helpful, though not easy to find. I found some other hearsay stating the C48 and C50 preamps have the older 32/192 Burr Brown dacs, and my hunch is the C2500 has the D100 9016 ESS dac because it came out around the same time. I could be completely wrond there though.

After quite a bit of reading I came across this Ron-C quote: "As far as the actual DAC chips, Burr Brown, ESS or whatever is used, their performance is only as good as the total circuit they are placed in." Which leaves me back at square one. Do I go for a cd&dac first / preamp second (MCD550)? Or a preamp first dac second (C48 or C2500)?. I just want the best sound from a usb source possible when running direct to either a MC275 or MC2301s.

The MCD550 is new enough that there aren't many - if any- comparisons and the MCD1100 vs Cxx dac comparisons are also lacking.
 
FWIW, everything I've read from peoples' experience shows that a DAC->pre->amps is a "better" sounding solution than DAC->amp. I have both a D100 and MCD500, but as of yet I haven't run either directly into my MC252. There's no point as I have a C2300 and need to switch multiple sources anyway. Many also say that using a USB to SPDIF converter like the Berkeley Alpha is an improvement in sound quality over USB directly into a DAC.

The C2500 is probably the route I would go if I was in your shoes. I've not read very many favorable things about the C48/C50 DAC, but I have no actual experience with either piece.
 
Chuck, here is my personal take, others will come from a different direction.

Unless one wants a turntable or plans on having multiple sources or applications, e.g., home theater, I like players like the MCD550 because you can power an amplifier, play CD's/SACD's and stream from your computer. This cuts down on the need for more power cords and interconnects.

Further, if one only wants to stream from a computer or use a server, then the D100 would be my choice. And if you already own an older McIntosh CD/SACD player, e.g., MCD301, which you like the D100 is the obvious choice.

With a full McIntosh system I do not believe (nor would I expect) one would hear any differences between the various units or if the CD/SACD or DAC is connected directly to the amplifier.

McIntosh's current line of preamplifiers, CD/SACD players, and DAC compliment each other and provide very satisfying sound quality. It is just a matter of how you want to 'build-out' a system. I like to keep mine as simple as possible (electronic components, cables, and cords are potential sources of noise and distortion).
 
Last edited:
Max77 said:
FWIW, everything I've read from peoples' experience shows that a DAC->pre->amps is a "better" sounding solution than DAC->amp. I have both a D100 and MCD500, but as of yet I haven't run either directly into my MC252. There's no point as I have a C2300 and need to switch multiple sources anyway. Many also say that using a USB to SPDIF converter like the Berkeley Alpha is an improvement in sound quality over USB directly into a DAC.

The C2500 is probably the route I would go if I was in your shoes. I've not read very many favorable things about the C48/C50 DAC, but I have no actual experience with either piece.
Click to expand...

I agree that even with it being counter-intuitive that a long signal path would sound better that a preamp just improves things, at least to my ears. That being said, the OP might as well start with the D100 and add the preamp later if he still feels something is missing.
 
Thanks to both William and Max here. I'm still undecided, and I have no doubt I'll be happy with whichever route I go. All are great options. I'll just add a couple of opinions & data points here for anyone who stumbles across this thread.

From Mcintosh Spec list:
MCD550: although utilizes 32/192 PCM/DSD chip the USB can 'only' handle 24/192.
D100, MCD1100, and C2500 can all handle 32/192.
32 is extremely rare at this point, but if you're buying for mostly dac purposes and future proofing, it's something to consider.

my own observations:
In line with Max's comments, a D100 direct to a MC452 improved greatly when adding a C2300. Any harshness was gone, and the sound was simply fuller. I've read the D100 pairs great direct to the MC275, so it may just need a little tube love. Sidenote: The 16ohm taps on the 275 are great for adding a little weight. Perfect for listening to New Orleans Jazz.
The same day I tried the D100 I tried the MCD1100 where I did the same with/without a C2300 and the MC452. The difference was marginal and not worth the extra dough if keeping it digital (William's point).
Similarly I have used my MDA1000 with / without a C2300 and 501s and was content moving my MDA1000 to power an amp in a different room.

I'm still not sure if the preamp section of the MCD550 is closer to the D100 or the MCD1100, but I think if paired with the right amp you can go direct no problem.

Merry Christmas everyone!
 
How’s this for dorky. After many hours of searching there just aren’t any direct comparisons between the MCD550 as a preamp and a C2500 as a dac and all the combinations thereof. So I decided to make a ranking with confidence interval from good to great.
All rankings assume a usb digital source front end and amp backend
USB Digital Source MC2301s or single MC275
[--D100--]
__________________[--D100->C2300--]
__________________________[----C2500-----]
____________[----------MCD550-----------]
___________________________[-MCD550->C2500-]

So I'm very confident adding a C2300 to a D100 is better, and mildly confident a C2500 is better than the D100&C2300, with some saying the dac is the same and the analog provides modest improvement. Where it gets tricky is whether the C2500 preamp more than compensates for the assumed not-as-goid dac in the C2500 compared to MCD550. The MCD550 dac -> C2500 is probably the best, but, the onebox 2500 might best it.

What I really need is to compare the MCD550 direct, C2500, and MCD550->C2500.
 
Max77 said:
FWIW, everything I've read from peoples' experience shows that a DAC->pre->amps is a "better" sounding solution than DAC->amp. I have both a D100 and MCD500, but as of yet I haven't run either directly into my MC252. There's no point as I have a C2300 and need to switch multiple sources anyway. Many also say that using a USB to SPDIF converter like the Berkeley Alpha is an improvement in sound quality over USB directly into a DAC.

The C2500 is probably the route I would go if I was in your shoes. I've not read very many favorable things about the C48/C50 DAC, but I have no actual experience with either piece.
Click to expand...

I am always surprised that the DAC from the C50 doesn´t get so much appreciation. I own the C50 now since threee years, compared it a lot to other preamps and so far it is the cleanest and best preamp which I know.
And the DAC works and sounds perfect.

Best regards

Martin
 
barsur said:
I am always surprised that the DAC from the C50 doesn´t get so much appreciation. I own the C50 now since threee years, compared it a lot to other preamps and so far it is the cleanest and best preamp which I know.
And the DAC works and sounds perfect.

Best regards

Martin
Click to expand...


I would add that the C48 and C50 also provide multi-band tone controls to help adjust the digital sound to your taste.
 
Better than Mc…..

I think there are better players/transports for the money. I think a used Esoteric machine is a better value.

Note, this opinion coming from an "ALL Mc" guy. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom