• 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

McIntosh C24 phono stage quality

Riv66

Riv66

New Member
I recently purchased a Clear Audio Concept turntable (Hannah EH cart) to pair with my MC C24 and MC240. I’ve only ever used the C24 phono stage for my turntables. The salesperson insisted It would improve the clarity and overall sound if I purchased a separate phono stage (Heed Questar). Is this information accurate? What is the opinion of the C24 phono stage? Thanks for your input!
 
Register to hide this ad
I'd suspect that there are a number of separate modern phono stages/preamps that would outperform an internal one from the 1960's. Ask your dealer if you could demo one in your system. Your turntable and cartridge could definitely benefit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. I did in fact bring it home, but after inserting it into the chain, I now have to chase the loud hum and try to isolate the issue. Doesn’t happen when I use the C24 without it.
 
Riv66 said:
Thanks for the reply. I did in fact bring it home, but after inserting it into the chain, I now have to chase the loud hum and try to isolate the issue. Doesn’t happen when I use the C24 without it.
Click to expand...
You might get some tips from other owners of the C24 and separate phono stages on the McIntosh forum. :thumbsup:
 
Thanks. For the replies. I guess I answered my own question when I A/B’d the Heed and the C24 phono stages. The Heed was less harsh on the top end. Considerably so. Thanks!
 
I believe preamp section of the MAC1500 and C24 designs are somewhat similar- or at least that's what factory literature implies. For whatever it's worth, I think it performs beautifully. Theoretically, the C24 should perform even better. I never placed much trust in sales pitches from hi fi salesmen, a number of whom I've found to be sorely lacking in audio knowledge. What you already have is probably 95% the way to as good as it's gets.
 
Riv66 said:
Agreed. I think it’s more about how technology has advanced as far as phono stages are concerned since my 1965 unit was produced.
Click to expand...
And you're doing your due diligence by trying something else. You're the ONLY one who can determine what sounds best to you. I'm a McIntosh fan/owner and believe that their modern stuff is better than their old stuff, which was pretty damn good at the time. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
I used a C24 phono stage for years. It sounded good, way better than you'd expect for 1964. I can't say for sure if a new one will make you happier or not. Sounds like your AB comparison favored the newcomer. There's a fine line between detailed and harsh, or between smooth and boring, could be the new one is simply a better match for your cartridge and speakers.
 
I was surprised when I heard a C-24 for the first time playing Command Pop and Classical LP's. , . It wiped a C-22 both using either Ortofon MC, Stanton, or Shure cartridges. . The bass was more extended, more dynamic and seemed cleaner. Especially when Using an Ortofon with their SUT's. MC coil pre-amps were very very rare back then.

Compared to todays phono sections I know it will come up short. Especially if the unit has not been restored and thoroughly checked out. The slide switches became notorious after 4 or 5 years. They needed cleaning in our dusty climate in the desert south west annually. .
 
Last edited:
My C-28 preamps sound good for their day like the C-24, just a small amount of background noise that really isn't all that bad. How good do you need it? The section was good enough for me to appreciate many recordings played through a pair of the original Quad ESLs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom