tjnif
Active Member
The Tron ( by the way I have the "reference version) has more detail and depth when compared with the C2300. I can honestly say that its not huge difference but noticeable....
Mcintosh C2200 vs C2300
- Thread starter siqbal
- Start date
The Tron ( by the way I have the "reference version) has more detail and depth when compared with the C2300. I can honestly say that its not huge difference but noticeable....
"The c2300 is light years ahead of the c2200 - go for it."
When I was itching to trade in my C2200 (that I bought new from my hugely respected Mac dealer) for the C2300 -- a transaction that would have made his shop a tidy profit and him a nice commission -- he refused to allow me. "Nifty phono option in the C2300," he wrote, "but the 2200 is better sounding by consensus of every sales guy here."
Clearly, the C2300 sounds fantastic. But many of us believe we made the right choice sticking with the 2200.
When I was itching to trade in my C2200 (that I bought new from my hugely respected Mac dealer) for the C2300 -- a transaction that would have made his shop a tidy profit and him a nice commission -- he refused to allow me. "Nifty phono option in the C2300," he wrote, "but the 2200 is better sounding by consensus of every sales guy here."
Clearly, the C2300 sounds fantastic. But many of us believe we made the right choice sticking with the 2200.
Interesting
Interesting comment. I have a C2300, purchased used. When I was looking to replace my C46, there were those who advised that the C2200's line stage sounded better than the C2300's. I don't listen to phono - so I might have been better off saving some money with a C2200!
Interesting comment. I have a C2300, purchased used. When I was looking to replace my C46, there were those who advised that the C2200's line stage sounded better than the C2300's. I don't listen to phono - so I might have been better off saving some money with a C2200!
Mr. Orange
Flat speakers rule!
While I can't add much to the 2200 vs 2300 debate I can say that the 2200 is a killer preamp. I just moved from a MA6500 / Cary SLI80 combo and it is in a different league altogether. :yes:
Thank you everyone for your thoughts and advice. In the end I've decided to stay with the C2200. While I understand that the C2300 may well be a better component than the C2200 (as the majority of replies to my original post appear to suggest) I have since recalled that I don't listen to a component, I listen to a system. And the fact is that right now my system sounds pretty darn good. Ergo, if it ain't broke, I ain't going to fix it. So, as of now I am officially jumping off the upgrade merry-go-round. Of course I shall continue to tinker and tweak with a cable here and a cone there and perhaps a cartridge or three (what woud be the fun otherwise 
) but for the forseeable future I'm going to be spending my hard-earned money on CDs and LPs. Music!
) but for the forseeable future I'm going to be spending my hard-earned money on CDs and LPs. Music!At first I like the C2300 but after much listening decided that I prefer the C2200. They sound different. I find the C2300 smoother but think the C2200 is more transparent. You would have to hear them both to decide. I think I rather naively assumed that one just was an improvement of the other. However, I think they sound quite a bit different and that you will have a clear preference for one or the other. A friend who auditioned both and never owned either,recently chose the C2200 over the C2300. The C2300 is the better looking of the two if that matters.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
The 2200 doesn't have a MC input if thats a problem. Its phono stage is pure tube. Where the 2300 phono stage is a hybrid. I would want the previous C-22 to the current model as I would want a mode selector switch. You might want a more advanced 2000 series tube pre-amp with a Dac input if you are into streaming. Personally I would rather have the C-22 with a separate DAC that you can change as technology advances. I am definitely not a tube guy; but if I were, I would keep the 2200. My best friend in the Hifi business was Frank Gow and his dad was the president of Mcintosh. I respected Frank very much and his opinions. When I went to visit Frank for the last time before he passed on I auditioned some Mac tube pre-amps with him and I preferred the 2200. He was using a High output Dynavector cartridge for the LP demo portion. Thats was one reason I use a High out put Dynavector with my C-34 via a MP100 and another feeding my MX 151. When I heard the C-220 and the C2300 I was very disappointed. The 2500 didn't impress me either. If I had the room I would have a C-40 , but thats me. I might have a C-2200 some day if I win the lottery but it would have Frank's name on the face plate. That version is only sold by Audio Classics.
If my 2200 is eventually not restorable or I get tired of running tubes then I would look at a 52 or 53 as a replacement. But until then the 2200 mated with a MC302 is doing us supremely well. And while the 2200 is considered the most 'tube like' preamp of the series, it is not an old school tube sound. It is a modern sound and to my ears is just perfect. Yah, it doesn't have a MC phono and some think it's a bit inferior phone-wise from the 2300, but I just use a SUT and external DAC. Also note it uses a mix of AT7's and AX7's while the 2300 uses all AX7's if that makes a difference? Personally I like the tonal options that matching in a good tubes can do to the overall SQ. In any case, good luck whichever way you go.