• 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 MX121 vs MX150/151

M

michael5959

Member
Hi, I am looking at replacing my aged B&K Reference 50 processor with a used McIntosh MX121 or MX150 (with firmware update to MX151 spec). The rest of my system is an Anthem PVA7 (100 wpc) amp, Paradigm Reference Studio 60 front speakers & Matching Reference LCR center, in wall speakers for rears, Oppo BDP83SE blue ray player, Comcast cable box, and Sonos system.
My listening is about 90% video (mainly broadcast TV, Netflix & movie streaming, and an occasional DVD or Blue Ray). For music I mainly use the Sonos. Even though music play is significantly less, quality of reproduction is very important to me, so I have a few questions:
Has anyone listened to both these, and if so, was there a noticeable audible difference?
How would either McIntosh mate with the Anthem amp, is this a synergistic choice or should I really look elsewhere?
I can get the MX121 for $3200 & the upgraded MX150 for $4200, from a pure sound quality perspective is the MX150 noticably better than the MX 121 to justify the price difference?
Since I already use my Sonos for music streaming, I really don’t need the airplay, so is Roomperfect on the MX150 worth the $1000 difference, in absence of audible differences in sound quality if there are none?
For me the upside of the MX121 is the pure direct mode, allowing me to connect a future blue ray player to utilize future processing formats, while the advantage of the 150 is Roomperfect. Am I missing anything, what would you suggest?
Thanks, Mike
 
Register to hide this ad
Personally, I could not imagine shelling out that kind of coin for an outdated processor (from any manufacturer). Why not visit your local dealer and see if you can purchase an MX-122 at a discount? In the long run, that would prove to be a far wiser investment.
 
I just bought an MX122 and the audio section is fantastic. The two channel especially. According to Mcintosh, the new 122 audio section is pure Mac where the 121 is not.
 
What I liked about my MX-119 and MX-120, was they had a pure Stereo analog mode. The sound was really sweet. I haven't heard a 122 yet, but am looking forward to in my travels. Maybe in Phoenix or Denver. We have a rally this fall in Coos Bay so I may run up to Portland, Oregon for an audition. Who's the Best Mac dealer in the Houston Area????
 
damacman said:
Personally, I could not imagine shelling out that kind of coin for an outdated processor (from any manufacturer). Why not visit your local dealer and see if you can purchase an MX-122 at a discount? In the long run, that would prove to be a far wiser investment.
Click to expand...
I need one to complete the Mac Rac downstairs! :) I'd also argue that a used MX-121 will hold it's value more percentage wise than a new MX-122.
 
That's my thinking. A new processor would be great, but the 122 goes for $7K, & I just cant afford that. I can get a 121 that has the features I need now for $3200. I don't want to pay an additional $3800 for stuff I dont need now. In 5 yrs if I needed 4K, Atmos or something else, I could probably sell the 121 for $1500-1800, while the 122 would maybe fetch $3k-$3500, so i would be out $1400-1700 for the 121, & $3500-$4000 for the 122. What I am looking for is the best sounding processor I can get my hands on now, for $3-$4000. I dont need 4K, or Atmos, or even 3D. So the best sounding, bug free processor with HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 would do it for me. If I were to go new, I would probably grab an Anthem AVM60, which I still may. I really love Mac though. Have a vintage system with MC2255/C33/MR74 that just sings...

Any additional experience with the MX150 vs MX121 & sonic differences?

Thanks, Mike
 
Room perfect for an extra 1k is a steal. Yes it is worth it and you get 7 channel correction. It can free up power by eliminating power wasted to room modes. It fixes frequency as well as time domaine issues. Mx 150 or 151.
 
I see the point. But no AV processor will be worth a whole lot in ten years. I had my Integra DTR-9.1 for 15 years (used it mainly as a pre/pro). When I bought a Bluray player, I purchased one with 7.1 analog outputs and used the 9.1s multi-channel inputs to get the HD soundtracks. Only until I got the urge to upgrade to Atmos did the 9.1 become obsolete in my mind. I got my money's worth out of that unit for sure.

Today, things are different. Atmos. Auro 3D. DTS:X. To purchase a processor for that kind of money that isn't compatible with any of these formats just doesn't seem very wise to me. At the very least, it would seem that these formats all have height speakers in common. Do you need any of that stuff? Nope. Do you want any of that stuff? You better believe you will once you've heard it. Even Dolby Atmos is amazing for music - just amazing. I was grinnin' from ear to ear listing to Enrique Iglesias' song with John Paul (Enrique doesn't get played much in my home) on the Dolby Atmos demo disc. This format has promise and it will be interesting to see what engineers can do with it.

This is why I say MX122. I can't wrap my mind around the $14k price of the MX160. Even at a deal, that's just crazy talk. At least with the MX122 you get the height channels. Given that these new processors have these outputs, you can better believe that future movie and music formats will make use of them. I personally see processors with height channel outputs being relevant for at least the next 15 years as consumers warm up to the formats. So, although the MX122 by itself will depreciate faster than a shiny new 'vette, show me where it's not relevant five years from today. The MX150/MX151 are Apple Lisa computers as we speak . . .
 
Sittin here listening to London Calling on my 122 and 452.....this will keep me happy for a long time....
 
Unfortunately none of these learned responses ever addressed my original question, has anyone ever directly compared the sound quality differences between the mx121 and mx 150 or 151 processors?

Thanks, Mike
 
Caution: I am not a multi-channel videophile and don't use the room correction stuff (Audacity or Room Perfect) on either processor. I use these processors simply as analogue preamps for my turntable, tuner, TV set, LaserDisc player, and SACD/Blu-Ray player. I don't have a subwoofer....

I have a 121 and 150 side-by-side right now. I have a 5.1 system hooked up with an MT-5 turntable (with a Shure V15-Type IIIG stylus in it), an MVP-891 hooked up to the unbalanced inputs (because the DAC's etc on the MVP-891 are superior to those on either the 121 or 150 and I think that both of them do a DSD->PCM conversion when playing SACD's), an MR-88 tuner, and an MLD-720 LaserDisc Player with the optional RFD-2 AC-3 Demodulator. My amp that I fed both the 121 and 150 through using unbalanced inputs is an old McIntosh 7106 5 channel amp. My speakers in the front are a pair of 1970's vintage FMI "J" models and a McIntosh XCS200 in the center. The back speakers are a pair of LS35/A BBC speakers made by Chartwell. I don't have a subwoofer...

The phono section in "Pure-Direct" mode of the 121 is fabulous sounding and is superior to the 150 in the same mode. I have an MVP-891 Blu-Ray player hooked up to the 7.1 inputs of both processors. For SACD playback of Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo SACD's, the 121 is again better (fuller sounding, less shrill). I think (but am not sure of this) that the MX-150 always deals with analogue inputs by doing an A->D conversion and then a D->A conversion. The MX-121 in Pure-Direct mode keeps everything analogue all the way to the amp outputs. The MR88 tuner going through the one balanced input of the MX-121 in Pure-Direct mode is also superior to the same on the MX-150 on a non-compressed classical music station in Berrien Springs, MI.

The only thing that I liked better about the MX-150 was that fact that it had excellent up-conversion from S-VHS (from my McIntosh MLD-720 LaserDisc Player) to HDMI. The MX-121 lacks S-Video jacks so I had to buy a $30 up-converter unit from Amazon.

Both do a fine job on passing through 3D video from the MVP-891 (I just got done watching the 1953 3D film "Kiss Me Kate", half on the MX-121 and half on the MX-150 both were fine).

Please note again: I don't use Audacity or whatever it's called on the MX-121 or Room Perfect on the MX-150. So... don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the MX-121. I never really understood what Audacity or Room Perfect would do for me.
 
feinstei said:
Caution: I am not a multi-channel videophile and don't use the room correction stuff (Audacity or Room Perfect) on either processor. I use these processors simply as analogue preamps for my turntable, tuner, TV set, LaserDisc player, and SACD/Blu-Ray player. I don't have a subwoofer....

I have a 121 and 150 side-by-side right now. I have a 5.1 system hooked up with an MT-5 turntable (with a Shure V15-Type IIIG stylus in it), an MVP-891 hooked up to the unbalanced inputs (because the DAC's etc on the MVP-891 are superior to those on either the 121 or 150 and I think that both of them do a DSD->PCM conversion when playing SACD's), an MR-88 tuner, and an MLD-720 LaserDisc Player with the optional RFD-2 AC-3 Demodulator. My amp that I fed both the 121 and 150 through using unbalanced inputs is an old McIntosh 7106 5 channel amp. My speakers in the front are a pair of 1970's vintage FMI "J" models and a McIntosh XCS200 in the center. The back speakers are a pair of LS35/A BBC speakers made by Chartwell. I don't have a subwoofer...

The phono section in "Pure-Direct" mode of the 121 is fabulous sounding and is superior to the 150 in the same mode. I have an MVP-891 Blu-Ray player hooked up to the 7.1 inputs of both processors. For SACD playback of Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo SACD's, the 121 is again better (fuller sounding, less shrill). I think (but am not sure of this) that the MX-150 always deals with analogue inputs by doing an A->D conversion and then a D->A conversion. The MX-121 in Pure-Direct mode keeps everything analogue all the way to the amp outputs. The MR88 tuner going through the one balanced input of the MX-121 in Pure-Direct mode is also superior to the same on the MX-150 on a non-compressed classical music station in Berrien Springs, MI.

The only thing that I liked better about the MX-150 was that fact that it had excellent up-conversion from S-VHS (from my McIntosh MLD-720 LaserDisc Player) to HDMI. The MX-121 lacks S-Video jacks so I had to buy a $30 up-converter unit from Amazon.

Both do a fine job on passing through 3D video from the MVP-891 (I just got done watching the 1953 3D film "Kiss Me Kate", half on the MX-121 and half on the MX-150 both were fine).

Please note again: I don't use Audacity or whatever it's called on the MX-121 or Room Perfect on the MX-150. So... don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the MX-121. I never really understood what Audacity or Room Perfect would do for me.
Click to expand...
I can just say room Perfect nails it. The front channels mater the most. Armos there are few sources. Unless you are ready to drop 40 bucks on a special release. It is all about demos mixes. Enjoy the 5.1 or 7.1 available to the m the masses and over cable. Atmos is soon to be replaced by some other format. Room perfect gives you studio sound. MX-121 or 122 is a flash in the pan.
 
Go for the Anthem AVM60. I recently got this unit which replaced an MX150, and although the SQ is not right up on par (yet), there is the Anthem Room Correction, ARC, that I am still playing around with, which is bringing the performance at the same level as my MX150.

The AVM60 is new and already feels a lot more robust than my MX150.
 
michael5959 said:
Unfortunately none of these learned responses ever addressed my original question, has anyone ever directly compared the sound quality differences between the mx121 and mx 150 or 151 processors?

Thanks, Mike
Click to expand...

I have when I ended up purchasing mx150.

No question mx150 is far superior. There is no need for separate 2ch preamp as its great for stereo. I take it you will be leveraging the room correction, this in itself is much better in the mx150/151
 
feinstei said:
I think (but am not sure of this) that the MX-150 always deals with analogue inputs by doing an A->D conversion and then a D->A conversion. The MX-121 in Pure-Direct mode keeps everything analogue all the way to the amp outputs.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. The MX-150 digitizes all analog sources - there is no pure analog pass-through. So if a source has a digital output, it's better to use it even if that source has a better DAC than the MX-150.

Please note again: I don't use Audacity or whatever it's called on the MX-121 or Room Perfect on the MX-150. So... don't take this as a ringing endorsement of the MX-121. I never really understood what Audacity or Room Perfect would do for me.
Click to expand...

I'm in 100% agreement with you, but we are the minority. I have sound treatments in my room as I'm not a fan of any "correcting" device. Very generally (and loosely speaking), people who listen to music (stereo & multichannel) are less apt to using room equalization than people who watch movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom