• 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 MC2100

javajam12

javajam12

Active Member
Hi - I am mainly a Marantz user but have been lusting after some Mac's of late
- in particular, the solid state MC250 and MC2100. My new favorite Marantz is
the 250 power amp. How would an MC2100 compare, soundwise to the 250
Marantz? I have never heard any McIntosh amps but always hear about how
nice they sound. Some folks say the these Mac amps are ugly but I find them
pretty nice to look at. I would like some tubes but can't really afford them at
present. Any people able to make a comparison between the Marantz and
the McIntosh? To tell you more detail, I use Paradigm speakers, currently a
Marantz 3600 preamp (buying a Perreaux SM2 preamp), Cambridge Audio CDP
and listen to all kinds of rock, independent music, jazz, folk, etc. Not much
in the line of classical. Any opinions? Thanks - Jon
 
Register to hide this ad
skippy_ps said:
Mc amps are always better than Marantz amps. :smoke:

Murray
Click to expand...

Intresting comment. I have an MC 275 MKIV and a Marantz 300DC. I look at some of the specs:

Rated Powr Band = 20Hz to 20,000Hz both for the 275 and the 300DC

Total Harmonic Distortion = 0.5% for the 275 and 0.03% for the 300DC at 8 Ohms (isn't lower number better?)

Frequncy response = +0, -0.5 dB for the 275 and +/-0.2 for the 300DC (both for the 20Hz to 20,000Hz frequency range). Again, isn't lower number better?

Sensitivity = 1.2 Volts Unbalanced inputs and 2.5 Volts Balancd inputs for the 275, 1.5 volts for the 300DC

Damping factor = Greater than 14 (?) for th 275 and 60 (8ohms, 20 Hz) for the 300DC (isn't bigger number better here.)

Mc275 = approx $3500, the 300DC $600-$800 on e-bay (one just went for $620)

I can bet this thread will cause a s#!@ storm of responses, but I'd love to be educated how the MC 275 is better than the 300DC on the basis of hard data (I agree we all hear these things differently)

As I said, I have both and I can't hear a D@#& worth of difference. Now, I did ruin my hearing going to all those rock concerts in the 70s, but are we saying MC is better because after dropping big bucks on getting such gear we feel compelled to say so?

Now, this is JUST MY OPINION, and I fully respect everyone else's opinion.

Thanks, Richard
 
exracer said:
I think if you cant tell the difference sell the mc to someone who can???:scratch2:
Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking of getting the 220 preamp to see if the sound improves, then I might donate one of the system to my local goodwill. My sonic journey has just only begun. But thanks for the suggestion.
 
:lurk:

Umm.... actually I was looking for something more concrete than "because I
said so" answers here. I have the Marantz and know what it sounds like.
Perhaps someone else could give some other experienced indicators of what I
might like about McIntosh.
 
thisOne said:
Intresting comment. I have an MC 275 MKIV and a Marantz 300DC. I look at some of the specs:
Click to expand...
I have not heard any Marantz amps, so I can't comment on sound comparisons.

What I can tell you is that when you get into high end audio, specs are not a good way to do comparisons. For years I bought audio equipment by the spec sheet and more often than not I was disappointed with the results.

McIntosh has always under rated their specs, in fact for many years they guarantied their equipment would perform at rated specs or better or they would replace or repair the equipment. Look at the McIntosh tube preamp specs for the C220, C2200 and C2300. They are almost identical, does that mean they all sound the same? No.

Some specs are needed, for example: making sure an amp has enough power for your needs. But for the most part, when you get equipment this good your best bet is to listen to it. This was an expensive lesson for me to learn.

Victor
 
thisOne said:
I'm actually thinking of getting the 220 preamp to see if the sound improves.
Click to expand...
.....imo, you're now considering the correct move to hone in on differences....get that McIntosh 220 pre-amp and then A-B the amps....listen for differences concerning realism in the upper-mids and highs....I would venture an estimate of 75% of the McIntosh Magic comes from their pre-amps.....
 
thisOne said:
Intresting comment. I have an MC 275 MKIV and a Marantz 300DC. I look at some of the specs:



I can bet this thread will cause a s#!@ storm of responses, but I'd love to be educated how the MC 275 is better than the 300DC on the basis of hard data (I agree we all hear these things differently)

As I said, I have both and I can't hear a D@#& worth of difference. Now, I did ruin my hearing going to all those rock concerts in the 70s, but are we saying MC is better because after dropping big bucks on getting such gear we feel compelled to say so?

Now, this is JUST MY OPINION, and I fully respect everyone else's opinion.

Thanks, Richard
Click to expand...

The 300DC is SS while the 275 is tube. Don't think this is a fair comparison even just with spec. Most of the "difference" isn't all about spec... some amp are more musical, more warmth than others while the spec can be the same or better or worst.

What kind of speakers are you using? May be that is why you are not hearing the difference.

What kind of source you are feeding these amps? What kind of Pre-amp you are using? May be that is why you are not hearing the difference.

Kind of like using cheap gas in a Formula one car isn't going to get much performance out of it...

LN
 
I have had both Marantz and McIntosh gear. I would have a very difficult time telling the difference in a blind test on SS units.

However, I prefer the McIntosh gear over the Marantz gear for looks, durability, build quality, parts availability, customer service, resale value, and several other factors.

John
 
Total Harmonic Distortion = 0.5% for the 275 and 0.03% for the 300DC at 8 Ohms (isn't lower number better?)

On the subject of amplifier distortion, those numbers are really meaningless, the sound you hear comes from the speakers, meaning the speaker produced distortion sets the total distortion of the system.
Now comes the catch, most high end speaker manufacturers do not give speaker distortion specs for the full audio bandwidth simply because it will look just awful, what they normally publish is a spec for limited bandwidth that definitely excludes the very low frequencies where the distortion is enormous.
It is not at all uncommon to measure 4 to 6% distortion at the extreme low end of the very best speakers when driven to their maximum power handling limit.

Vahe
 
Johncan said:
I have had both Marantz and McIntosh gear. I would have a very difficult time telling the difference in a blind test on SS units.

However, I prefer the McIntosh gear over the Marantz gear for looks, durability, build quality, parts availability, customer service, resale value, and several other factors.

John
Click to expand...
What John said. :yes:

Murray
 
Compare the MC275 to Model 9 Marantz tube amps. Compare the 300DC to something like the MC2102..
Apples to apples.


Thanks,
Ron-C
 
I bought my MC275 to explore the quality of the Macintosh sound that I have heard extolled here as well in other forums. Now, it's obvious that I don't have the full MC gear complement to make the comparison (I only have the amp and I tried it with my Marantz 3650 Preamp into a set of JBL 4312 speakers, playing vinyl off of Marantz 6379Q TT or a reel to reel out of Pioneer RT909).

So I did say that I can't hear the difference, which does not mean that either my Marantz setup is better or that (for me) the MC amp is now better. It is clear to me that when I get the 220 preamp I might reconsider my opinion (right now the music sounds just as good through the 300DC as it does through the MC275). Once I get the 220 I’ll connect the 300DC to it (just for kicks, maybe) to see whether it sounds different or better in that combo (yeah!, I know…, blasphemy)

My earlier post focused on the specs and was a response to an unequivocal statement that "MC amps are always better than Marantz amps". With what I have..., I can't hear it. With where I hope to go, who knows?

However, the point remains that each manufacturer made ass kicking gear which sounds great to lots of different people, and each manufacturer worked to push the specs to their level of perfection. So on the basis of specs (and again, I agree that specs are not the best or a scientific measure of sound quality, perception and listening pleasure), but a debate could be had whether one is better, worse or about the same if their published specs are about equal.

So I agree with a lot of you, my comparison cannot be fair because it is not complete. But I find that the pursuit of the best sound out of great gear is somewhat like playing golf. I feel that in this hobby, just like in golf there are too many variables to take unequivocal positions. It's like saying that my set of Calloway clubs is always better than someone's set of Pings, till a play with a guy and he kicks my butt with his Pings.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions,

Richard
 
Whoever said trust your ears is who I agree with. Specs are great for designing and debate. If specs indicated actual sound you hear then there would not be the single ended camp that is very much present these days, they would all be tossed into dumpsters and WE300B tubes would be made into Xmas ornaments.
So I guess there is not much I have to contribute here. :)


Carl
 
Indeed. Some folks are looking for the "right answer" and there just isn't one, well, except for the gear that I'm using. ;)

Murray
 
thisOne said:
... or a reel to reel out of Pioneer RT909)....



Richard
Click to expand...

Hey... I have one of those in one of my system (don't really know why other than neat watching something moving). It is a neat machine and all... but personally, I would not consider that as a ref source device assuming the rest of the equipment is to par. The 909 would be the weakest link.

I am sure with the RT909 attached to MasterLu ref system will make it sounds like a $5 transistor radio... well, may be not that bad... :scratch2:

LN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom