Replace MX110 and pair a modern preamp with an MC240?

[mdm7eb]

Hi all,

Am I crazy to think about replacing/augmenting my MX110 in my system?

I have an older MX110 M series unit paired with an MC240. Both units have been restored by Audio Classics. The remainder of my system is comprised of: Klipsch Forte III speakers, Sonos connect, and a Rega Planar 6.

Why would I consider the sacrilege of breaking up the sacred pairing between the MX110 and MC240? Truth be told, the 60+ years on the MX110 are showing (I inherited the unit from my Dad who told me it has moved around the country a few times between a several different owners -- so that might be part of it). Since it's restoration in 2015, it has made a few of return trips to Audio Classics (one for phono section, another for turner realignment, and yet another for dirty volume pot/switches). I have now become very acquainted with Deoxit and I do understand this is the nature of older equipment and the price of admission for the honor of hosting classic gear in a system. Needless to say, Audio Classics has been/is awesome.

Yet, I still long for the rock solid reliability of a more modern unit. By comparison, the MC240 has given me no issue -- I only have needed to change the output tubes periodically. I am confident with the 2018 Audio Classics overhaul, that the MC240 has a few more trouble free miles on the odometer.

What do you say? Would a modern preamp (thinking solid state) be a wise move? Besides reliability factors, would the increase in S/N ratio be noticeable improvement? How about overall sound quality? It seems the MX110's S/N ratio of 80db is the limiting factor in my setup? The MC240 has S/N of 90db (and my cheap Schiit dac is over 110db S/N). Would a more modern phono stage sound better or just different?

I love the MX110's turner and would likely keep the unit around for this function.

I will admit, there are days I wonder if I want to be married to both a 60+ year old tube pre-amp/amp combo and a beautiful women. The thought of a modern integrated amp crosses my mind every once in awhile. Indeed, before sending my MX110 back to Audio Classics for a repair in 2017, I asked them about a trade-in for a more modern McIntosh integrated amp (after my frustration lowered, I came to my senses).

I will also note, I listen to music 3-4 hours a day (at least) everyday and wonder if tube gear is suited for such high volume use/listening.

Another part of the equation is I would like to build/upgrade a system that ages with me. I am a relatively young man, at 37, and hope to have my gear a lifetime and make equipment selections that allow for flexibility in the future. I think I started off on the right foot with the MX110 and MC240. But pondering my possible next move...

What are folks suggestions for possible McIntosh preamps to track down?

 

[SaturationPt]

I’ll be blunt, and my opinion will likely not be the popular one.

McIntosh makes, and has always made excellent amplifiers. McIntosh has also always made excellent preamps, tuners, integrated, and receivers.

However, I stopped using vintage Mc preamps years ago. I still like the vintage amps, but things like volume-pot tracking, power switches on the volume, ribbon cables, etc. has more detrimental effect on the easy use and enjoyment of my audio equipment than annual tube checking/changing in amplifiers. That, the lack of remote capability, and the desire for digital capabilities has taken me out of the vintage preamp market.

I have been using modern preamps on all of my audio systems for a few years now, and the MC240 is paired with an Emotiva DAC/preamp, and a digital music server. I love how it sounds, clean and quiet, and don’t feel that it gives up any “warmth” over my vintage McIntosh preamps. The warmth and musicality is in the amplifiers and speakers, only noise is added by vintage preamps.

Remember also that each component adds noise, the noise that comes out of the preamp is then subject to the additional noise of the amplifier so S/N ratio is contributory / additional in each component.

My opinion and personal experience.

 

[62caddy]

Few appreciate the fact that the noise levels present in recorded material are often higher than playback equipment that - on paper - appears to be only modestly spec'd. Even much of the latest digitally mastered material contains audible hiss when, for example, the CD track has begun just before the music actually begins - and it will be audible whether every component in the system is - 80 dB or - 130 dB. No matter how good someone thinks his/her hearing is, noise as high as -50 dB is extremely difficult to hear when music is playing on all but the quietest of passages. For playing back for records, S/N below -50 dB is pretty much impossible due to the physical limitations inherent in the medium.

The bottom line is that S/N values better than 80 dB will result in little to no audible improvement unless you're in the habit of listening to the system at idle without playing any signal because that's just about the only time benefits would be heard. Whatever hurdles there are to genuine audible improvements in a given system, excessive noise is typically the least of one's worries.

 

[WhiteSE]

I had an Mc240, Mc30 and Mc275 driven by David Berning's TF-10 hybrid preamp and the subsequent TF-12....great sound!

 

[twiiii]

HOW ABOUT THE PRE-OWNED MA 2275 AUDIO CLASSICS JUST LISTED! 240'S and MX-110's are always in demand. If you want tubes a C-2200, if you want something with a DAC and a MC input, C-2300, 2500, 2600 or 2700. I would use one of the C-50 series SS pre-amps. Or a C-47, 48 or 49. Older, how about a C-33 or 34? I think Mac should make a smaller version of the MA 12000 with a conventional chassis. I know there is a MA 252 and 352. How about an updated MA 2275. with tubes for the amp section? There is always the MK III version of the C-22 which is pretty basic.

 

[mdm7eb]

Thanks for all the advice so far.

I hear everyone on S/N. I suspected one could not detect an audible a difference on that front. My opinion generally has been that devices like preamps and amps are akin to appliances. At a certain point, the technology is solved and if you are willing to spend enough money, you get state of the art (which has not changed dramatically for amps and preamps in awhile?). So, new gear gets your more reliability, the latest tech (digital for example) and confidence your gear is in fact on the bleeding age of SOTA.

From a day to day use perspective, I suspect I would appreciate and enjoy a more modern preamp/gear. There is nothing more frustrating than needing to fiddle with old gear after you finally put the baby to bed and you have a moment to listen to music.

The MA2275 Audio Classics just listed is a sweet. Because of sentimental attachments, it is hard for me to fathom (but I am starting too) parting with both the MX110 and MC240. Hence the thought of pursing a solid state preamp like a C-47 or C-50 series. I am sure at some point, even the MC240 will become obsolete? I really like the MX110 and MC240, but I also know they are not the end all be all -- if you value no fuss over history/legacy.

Part of my question/interest is out of curiosity. I never really experienced modern gear in my system. As a kid, I had a Scott 299c. And when I purchased my first stereo, I scored a 1980s era NAD 7020 from Goodwill for $10. I then was gifted the MX110 and MC240 from my Dad (who did not have a use for them).

I will say, I have heard all the latest modern McIntosh gear. When I lived in New York, I took my Dad to the World of McIntosh row home in SoHo and listened to all the product offerings. It was a fun experience, and surprisingly, it do not leave me feeling that the MX110 and MC240 where lacking.

 

[62caddy]

Dependability is an entirely valid reason to consider later (solid state) equipment. The MC240 will never really become obsolete since it's not an overly complex unit to deal with but another matter for the MX110 which likely need regular servicing mainly to keep the tuner section up to spec. Tuner service involves a whole 'nother field of expertise than preamps/amplifiers.

 

[sberger]

I moved from a restored C20 to C34V for the exact reasons that the OP is considering it. Worried about reliability and lacking a good tube specialist tech in the local area. Couldn't be happier with the 34V, but I do miss what the C20 brought to the table. Especially because I recently acquired a MC2300 and would love to hear a vintage tube preamp with it. The C20 sounded great with my MC2105, and I'm sure it would be the same with the 2300. For that reason, I'm seriously considering obtaining a C22 that's become available locally. It was restored over the last 10 years, and it sounds fantastic. But if I do I will hold onto the C34V at least long enough to do some comparisons.

So that would be my advice to the OP if he can afford it. Keep the 110 so that you can compare it to whatever modern pre you end up with, then make a decision as to what is best for you.

 

[twiiii]

For sure the C-20 had the classic old tube sound. Just like MC 60 and 30's. Some speakers reveal the sound more than others I have to agree. The best tube sound I ever heard was a pair of MC 3500's. Not the more mellow sound of the early amps, but not the overly bright and thinner faster low bass of the newer tube amps. It was very easy to listen to and could flap your pant legs. 35 watts from a 3500 sounded like so much more than any other amp from the 70's and 80's. 35 watts indicated watts to a Klipschorn and it was gracefully loud to the extreme. 350 watts to two big Altec A2 systems with out the wings was just amazing. Bi-amping was another step up the ladder to nirvana. Yes there wasn't much below 40 HZ or above 14,000 hz in a big field house but Peter Paul and Mary, Ray Charles, and Neil Diamond with 12000 spectators was like listening with all your friends over in your living room. 110 db 4 ft 1 watt. thats 130 db with 100 watts and another 100 watts yet to come for each speaker.

 

[SaturationPt]

If you like the sound from the MC240, and it is able to deliver all of the power that you need, I agree with your original thought: why change it?

I have two systems with very efficient speakers, and the MC240 pairs with them, with power to spare (55watts actual @ spec when last tested). For other speakers however, I do need to use other amplifiers with more power.

I think you should try a modern preamp with the features that you want, with the MC240 and see how you like it. I think you'll be happy.

 

[mdm7eb]

Thanks again for all the great advice.

I noticed Audio Classics just received a McIntosh C41. Giving the folks over there a call to further discuss.

We keep you all posted if I make a purchase and if I get a new (to me) unit, how it compares to the MX110.

 

[mdm7eb]

Received my new C41 from Audio Classics today.

Initial Impressions (collaborated with my wife):
*The C41 sounds very good, immediately can tell it is a different technology than the MX-110
*There is something missing with the C41 compared to the MX-110, likely picking up on the euphonic characteristics of a the MX-110? I reserve judgement if it is better, I would say it is different, and depending on the format (see phono comments below) and mood I could see missing "it" or being completely okay with "it' gone.
*I thought the MX-110's phono stage has more magic and more noise (I like the magic, dislike the noise). The C41's phono sounds more like digital, while the MX-110 sounds for lack of a better word, more analog. Need to try more styles of music/pressings.
*Generally, the C41 sounds sharper, more defined, and images better. Bass is tighter. Overall everything is more crisp.
*I like having a remote

In the very limited time I have had the C41, I am pleased with the decision. The C41 is spotless and feels very modern compared to the MX-110.

Tomorrow, I will A/B and take a deeper dive in making comparisons/observations. I don't have the capability to do a double blind test or even a blind test. I also don't have the patience to design an experiment and conduct the number of trails necessary over a sufficient length of time that will make any thing I say scientifically valid or give me confidence in drawing firm "evidence" based conclusions. But, I am sure it will be fun.

 

[sberger]

Congratulations! Love getting new stuff.

And fantastic room!

Since I posted on Tuesday I did acquire the C22 and have the sound I really did miss after selling the C20. No going back to a solid state pre for me.

If you like the 41 but miss aspects of the 110(like the phono) you can always just go tape out on the 110 into the 41 and use it's phono, and tuner. Assuming you can and want to hold onto both of them.

 

[mdm7eb]

Congrats on landing the C22 and tubes re-entering your life.

We are in Washington D.C and our fortunate to have a Rock Creek Park view.

That's a great idea! And I think that's the next stage of listening -- comparing the phono sections between the two units. I also really like the MX-110's turner and have a few radio shows I like to catch each week on the airwaves (I know I could just stream, but there is something about FM for me). I recently moved from Brooklyn, NY and one big loss is not being able listen to WMFU, WKCR and WBGO on the airwaves.

 

[sberger]

Thanks! Christmas came early.

Haven't listened to WBGO, but have been a huge fan of both 'FMU and 'KCR for decades. Lived in NY/NJ in the 80's and got turned onto both stations. Have to stream them both now, but luckily in the SF/Bay Area we have some terrific FM programming which I listen through on the MR78. I've been toying with the idea of getting a tube tuner. Have had several over the years, including on an early 110 that I had, and a MAC1700. We'll see.

I'll be interested in your preferences for the phono. For me I really prefer a good tube phono. I have 3 tables that I keep in regular rotation, so two are now running through the C22, and another is using a Shure M65 tube phono. I do think tubes really make a positive difference for vinyl, and and the added noise that might come with them is a fair tradeoff for me.

 

[mdm7eb]

We have spent the morning comparing the MX-110 vs the C41 via the tape outs. We compared the tuner vs internet stream via Sonos and both phono sections. The C41 wins hands down and its not close. The music on the C41 seems more vibrant and present (as like if it was set against an inky black silent background). The MX-110 was not as present and the music did not sound as focused, detailed and defined. I will say the MX-110 has an ethereal essence that's hard to pin down or describe. Another way I would describe the sonic differences is the C41 sounds more grounded/solid (e.g. solid state) and the MX-110 is more airy (tube like?). I go to a lot of live shows (or used to, thanks Covid-19) and I recall live music having a more rooted/grounded feel and sound and hence my preference for the C41 in the early going.

Another observation I will make, the C41 seems to reveal the dynamics of the music better. Lower listening volumes are now more intriguing and interesting. The MX-110 comes alive above 75db, and while it sounds nice at lower volumes, it does not excel to the same extent as the C41. I wonder if that's why those of us that have an affinity for Klipsch speakers also like tubes? At least for me, my Klipsch Forte III's start to really sing at 75db+, but the C41 seems to be balancing this out.

I think pairing the C41 with the MC240 is making a lot of sense. The MC240 is still brings all the tube(y) goodness to the stage and the C41 is harnessing it. Maybe the MX-110 and the MC240, to my ears, was to much of a good thing?

Anyways, having a lot of fun.

Thanks again to everyone that provided helpful suggestions and engaged in the conversation as I made my decision. Again, a big shoutout to Audio Classics, the C41 looks and performs as new.

 

[SaturationPt]

I can say that I have found many speakers that sound good at that 75dB+ point that you mention, but few that sound good at lower volume/SPLs. In the same thought though, some speakers sound great at very high SPLs, can drink power from a firehose without breakup and other artifacts, where others cannot.

The trick is finding the ones that sound great at your levels, and ignoring the rest.

 

[sberger]

Ultimately I prefer a tube/ss mix as well for the reasons that you have articulated. Mine of course is ss amp and tube preamp, because that makes more sense with the speakers that I prefer. I've gone the tube, high efficiency speaker road before and it was very enjoyable. In fact, had a pair of original Forte's that were paired up with tube amps from Heathkit, Dynaco, Fisher, and more. Not Mc. Couldn't afford them in restored condition at the time. Anyway, they are great speakers, and I would agree that they do sound best louder. Cornwalls I could actually listen to and really enjoy at lower levels.

Sounds like you're in for a lot of listening pleasure. Enjoy!

 

[mdm7eb]

Ultimately I prefer a tube/ss mix as well for the reasons that you have articulated. Mine of course is ss amp and tube preamp, because that makes more sense with the speakers that I prefer. I've gone the tube, high efficiency speaker road before and it was very enjoyable. In fact, had a pair of original Forte's that were paired up with tube amps from Heathkit, Dynaco, Fisher, and more. Not Mc. Couldn't afford them in restored condition at the time. Anyway, they are great speakers, and I would agree that they do sound best louder. Cornwalls I could actually listen to and really enjoy at lower levels.

Sounds like you're in for a lot of listening pleasure. Enjoy!

I am finding the SS pre allows for more enjoyment at lower listening levels than the full tube set up. With all tubes, my system just begged to be cranked. Lower listening volume is a good thing!

My next speakers will likely be Cornwalls. I will like the dynamics and liveliness that heritage Klipsch have. I also really like the MC240 which keeps me in the high efficiency speaker camp. I floated the idea by my partner of parting with the MC240 for a new MC275 or MC152 and that idea was shot down strongly -- for good reason. The C41 + MC240 is a very nice pairing. I am digging the vintage with the modern (albeit slightly dated). Hard to beat a completely analog McIntosh electronics.

I never heard the Heathkit/Dynaco era equipment. My dad had it around the house, but it needed work (which I don't think he ever got to). He does have a working Dynaco tube tuner that I may ask to try out (if/when I part with the MX-110). My first stereo was run by an 1970s era Pioneer receiver until my dad gave me a Scott tube integrated (which he took back and still uses, when he realized how much he liked the sound).

 

[sberger]

I am finding the SS pre allows for more enjoyment at lower listening levels than the full tube set up. With all tubes, my system just begged to be cranked. Lower listening volume is a good thing!

My next speakers will likely be Cornwalls. I will like the dynamics and liveliness that heritage Klipsch have. I also really like the MC240 which keeps me in the high efficiency speaker camp. I floated the idea by my partner of parting with the MC240 for a new MC275 or MC152 and that idea was shot down strongly -- for good reason. The C41 + MC240 is a very nice pairing. I am digging the vintage with the modern (albeit slightly dated). Hard to beat a completely analog McIntosh electronics.

I never heard the Heathkit/Dynaco era equipment. My dad had it around the house, but it needed work (which I don't think he ever got to). He does have a working Dynaco tube tuner that I may ask to try out (if/when I part with the MX-110). My first stereo was run by an 1970s era Pioneer receiver until my dad gave me a Scott tube integrated (which he took back and still uses, when he realized how much he liked the sound).

Yes on the lower volume. When you live with somebody it's one of the first requirement of a successful system. I have a combine 400+ watts between the 2 amps I'm running in my system, and even during the day when I'm working from home and she's out of the house I tend to keep the levels modest by most measures. But it's nice to have the headroom.

Cornwalls are a big jump up from Forte's, in my experience. Yes the dynamics are better, and yes I found them to be much better at lower levels then Forte's.

I also could shove them into corners unlike Forte's which did better pulled out into the room. So even though they are a lot bigger they seemingly took up less floor space.