• 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

Preamp to amp compatibility?

thevinoman

Nothin' but the Blues...
Quite likely this has been covered before, but wondering if anyone has put together a listing or other data as to which preamps match best with which amps?

I am particularly interested in the earlier tube amps, MC30, MC225, MC240.

Don't really want to hear blanket statements such as Only tube preamps with tube amps, or the like. If there are solid state preamps that are worthy of those tube amps mentioned above, I would like to know that.

I have been looking at MX110Z, but also C32, C34V, C29, in no particular order, but just asking to see what other folks think. Thanks very much.
 
Register to hide this ad
Almost never an issue with newer preamplifiers driving older amplifiers; when it is the other way around should impedances be checked for compatibility.

All equipment listed above is perfectly compatible and no, tube preamplification is not necessary with tube amplifiers and visa-versa.
 
There are as many choices as pre-amps. This maybe considered heresy, but if you feel the upper midrange and lower highs are a little recessed with your combination with a MC 30, try a Marantz Model 7C. A C-20 will be more neutral, buT they like other early tube pre-amps have noisy phono sections unless the phono stage is up dated. If you really want to clean up a 30, 60, 75, a C-29, C-30 or C-33 are great choices. I never really like C-32's when new they were still noisy when being used with efficient speakers. I could say the same thing about C-26's, too. If you want a smoother sound warmer sounding phono section a C-28 is a good choice. A C-34 is similar to the sound of a 28 with improvements and those lovely tone controls and like the C-33 can sound like any preamp if you are willing to use the graphic tone controls. If you want Flexibility the 32, 33, 34 and 40 are the ones to choose. Love the record selector and the ability to move the graphic controls to the record out circuits. My experience with the 41 thru the 47 is almost nil. I have spent time with the 48, 50, 52, 2200, 2300, 2500, but only brief periods with the 2600. I have heard the C1000, ss and T, but for the money I would choose the 500T. I haven't spent anytime with the later C-22's. I was so glad to get my C-28 to replace the C-22. C-22 is not bad but the phono section of the 28 is so much better. Am I in love with my C-34, it does so many things well, routing signals, modifying signals, etc. But it wasn't until I got a MP 100 front end that I was truly happy. The MP 100 is dry no doubt about it, like my C-29, but when used with Dynavectors makes a great combination and having the digital output to feed the MX 151 to use with digital trickery can make some analog recordings in 7 channel mode sound really special. I will always question why Mac never put a MC section in the C-40, making it the ideal pre-amp. Todays C-22 III is an attempt in the right direction, but is not a winner, not having graphic tone controls or the record selector switch.

Todays tube pre-amps are not tube pre-amps, they are mostly hybrids, so if you want that old romantic sound, you want a C-11 20 and maybe an original C-22. The C-2200 would be my choice. I know it has a colored phono stage, but thats because of the tubes and thats what you are after that color. Every thing we own and everything in the recording process is about color. Some hues are very very pastel adding almost no color. Coloring can be thought of two ways adding or subtracting from a very faint hue to a down right glare. Like an artist you have to make your choices. Some of us who are on the techie side of things add numbers to quantify the hues. But numbers can't tell the whole story. They are a place to start. Each of us has our own learning experience about sound. I would recommend going to live un-amplified concerts and recitals to get a feel what true sound is all about. No-mistking a live concert can be colored. too. depending on the venue. But its place to start. But being a want a be professional starting at the age of 9 and finally taking another road at the age 25 means I have some basis to build on when listening.
 
I had owned a C30 but thought it sounded a bit dry compared to the C32 which I presently own. Of course, that is only a subjective assessment as I did not have the means of doing an instantaneous A/B comparison.

I've never experienced objectionable levels of noise from the C32 which specs identically as the C29 and slightly better than the C28 (phono) so it's difficult to understand why either of the latter should be any quieter.

In any case, I have noticed the noise levels present in the majority of listening material noticeably higher than that in the system itself which is why I place limited importance on S/N figures, except for purposes of direct comparison with other McIntosh products. YMMV.

Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree if the C40 was designed with MC phono section, but more importantly REMOTE(!) - it would be MY ultimate McIntosh pre.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom