• 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

Stereophile's Review of C-220

J

jdmeyers

Active Member
Sam Tellig clearly has a real fondness for Mac, its tradition, its people and its products. But sadly, I feel his current review of the C-220 was unfortunate and rather silly. Read it for yourselves and be the judge.

My take, however, is that he chose the true "entry level" preamp in the Mac line -- one that isn't necessarily intended to match the sonics of either the C2200 or C2300 at its price point -- and compares it to a CJ preamp that is similarly priced but better sounding due to the fact that it has no bells or whistles. He ends by asking would one rather have 50+ buttons (the Mac) or no remote but superior sound?

Yes, he had nice things to say about our beloved Mac as a company. But he also made it sound like owning Mac is more of a status thing than I suspect it is for most of us who love Mac for its reliability, signature sound, and functionality. I could care less what movie stars own Mac gear!

In essence, I think he (perhaps unwittingly) perpetuated the unjust reputation of Mac as a relative lightweight when compared to the bare-bones audiophile grade gear. I'm not sure he did Mac any favors, if you catch my drift!
 
Register to hide this ad
I haven't read that review but I think it's time that all audio reviews were done by a listening panel so we get a range of opinions. Why should one persons bias be allowed to cast aspersions on great products.
 
While Tellig's writing is more like a one-way conversation in a den, I seriously derate _all_ equipment reviews due to ego.

Cheers,

David
 
Who would buy a new high-end preamp without a remote control?

A hermit with no phone calls maybe.
 
I wouldn't call the piece an actual review, more of an essay.
I think the overall tone is positive, and got the impression that he favored the colorations of the CJ to the unaltered sound of the C220.
 
The review is somewhat what you read into it. The part Sam got right is the C220 is very transparent and has some of the lowest residual noise of any preamp, tube or transistor. There are two camps with preamps. One wants the preamp to get out of the way of the music and do its job while the other is wanting the preamp to modify the sound somehow.
I don't have any problem with manipulating the sound but this is what signal processing, EQ or room correction is for. If a preamp changes the sound how will that change be proper for each system in every room? At the end of the day the coloration is always there, you will identify it and be relived when it is gone.

thanks,
Ron-C
 
Good point, Ron! I guess that's why I think the Mac preamps (in my case the C2200) have it right! They don't add a "bloom" or the like -- just pass along the signal cleanly. :yes:
 
I think Sam nailed the difference between Mac pre amps and cj pre amps.

" The C220 was very good a passing signals, but less impressive at enhancing signals.
Comparing the C220 to the cj Clasic pre amp - The C220 was quieter, however the cj had a way of enhancing whatever line level material I fed into it. It not only passed the signal, it somehow transformed it, the way the very finest pre amps do. I heard more body, more bloom, more tonal color, more dimensionality"

I own both Mac and cj pre amps, so I have no axe to grind. My C2300 is certainly more transparent to the input signal, however the ART is plain more enjoyable to listen to.

You make your choices.

JD, how is comparing a more expensive pre amp (Mac) to a cheaper cj pre amp unfair to the Mac pre amp?
As you go up the cj price range you get less of , but still more magic than most brands.

I would say Sam is spot on. cj make magnificent sounding pre amps.
 
ron-c said:
The review is somewhat what you read into it. The part Sam got right is the C220 is very transparent and has some of the lowest residual noise of any preamp, tube or transistor. There are two camps with preamps. One wants the preamp to get out of the way of the music and do its job while the other is wanting the preamp to modify the sound somehow.
I don't have any problem with manipulating the sound but this is what signal processing, EQ or room correction is for. If a preamp changes the sound how will that change be proper for each system in every room? At the end of the day the coloration is always there, you will identify it and be relived when it is gone.

thanks,
Ron-C
Click to expand...

Had a C220 for 2 years but sold it when I became dissatisfied with the high frequency distortion. Perhaps McIntosh tubes were the problem. Should have tried different tubes perhaps? Now feed my MC-275 direct from my Benchmark dac. Much cleaner sound without the C220. This is the only McIntosh product (aside from a MR-80 tuner) that I have not been happy with since I started with a McIntosh system in the early 60's. Love my MC-275. If classical programming was more readily available I would get a MR-88 tuner for my system. Have considered a C-45 preamp with tuner as well but have not been able to audition one.

Butch
 
Butchthetiger said:
Had a C220 for 2 years but sold it when I became dissatisfied with the high frequency distortion. Perhaps McIntosh tubes were the problem. Should have tried different tubes perhaps? Now feed my MC-275 direct from my Benchmark dac. Much cleaner sound without the C220. This is the only McIntosh product (aside from a MR-80 tuner) that I have not been happy with since I started with a McIntosh system in the early 60's. Love my MC-275. If classical programming was more readily available I would get a MR-88 tuner for my system. Have considered a C-45 preamp with tuner as well but have not been able to audition one.

Butch
Click to expand...

I've been considering the C220. This has me worried now. Did you have problems with both the phono and line stage?
 
Last edited:
Distortion? I have no distortion on either the line stage or phono section of my C220....I did, however, change the tubes in both stages......
 
I read that review, and I agree it was, as JDMeyers said, ".. unfortunate and rather silly."

I have listened to the 220, and think my 2200 sounds better, but to each his own.

Go listen, and judge for yourself. Let your ears make your buying decisions.
 
C220 has the same high performance as the C2200. If you hear something have it checked out on a test bench.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
como se dise en Espaniol: boob?

jdmeyers said:
I think he (perhaps unwittingly) perpetuated the unjust reputation of Mac as a relative lightweight when compared to the bare-bones audiophile grade gear.
Click to expand...
The only unjust reputation revealed by that review, is the cred too freely afforded Mr. Tellig :thumbsdn:
ron-c said:
. . . . . the C220 is very transparent and has some of the lowest residual noise of any preamp, tube or transistor. There are two camps with preamps. One wants the preamp to get out of the way of the music and do its job while the other is wanting the preamp to modify the sound somehow. . . . . . . If a preamp changes the sound how will that change be proper for each system in every room?
Click to expand...
And you might add, "for every recording?"
At the end of the day the coloration is always there, you will identify it and be relived when it is gone. thanks, Ron-C
Click to expand...
Exactly! Which is why no one who attends live performances would EVER go up to the conductor, the chorus master, or the lead guitarist, and say, "Could you warm the sound up just a little, please? We enjoy it more that way. . . . "

If the engineers have put 'truth' on the recorded medium (often not the case, unfortunately) our equipment should pass that through to us. Otherwise, as Ron correctly suggests, we have every right to EQ it into listenability; or better yet, put the damn thing on eBay :yes: or give it away as a bridge prize :D
 
I did not mean to dump on CJ. Everyone should buy and use the gear they like. As far engineering philosophy, less noise, less distortion and the most accurate response possible, is the McIntosh way. That does not mean there can not be other paths that you may find work for your needs.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
I think coloration is a good thing and that's where the art is. All live performance (except for classical music) is colored - they go through microphones, processor, and speakers - and tuned to the taste of the engineers. All recording are colored or manipulated, too. They are all relative. The fun of being an audiophile is finding the right equipment and combination to find YOUR perfect sound. The preference in sound is personal just like food. Don't get too influenced by magazines, trust your ear.
 
T-3G said:
I think coloration is a good thing and that's where the art is. All live performance (except for classical music) is colored - they go through microphones, processor, and speakers - and tuned to the taste of the engineers. All recording are colored or manipulated, too. They are all relative. The fun of being an audiophile is finding the right equipment and combination to find YOUR perfect sound. The preference in sound is personal just like food. Don't get too influenced by magazines, trust your ear.
Click to expand...
I think you've got "coloration" confused with "production". Recording production is indeed an artform; the best known example probably Phil Spector's 'wall of sound'. My point (and I think Ron's) is that the equipment should first be able to reproduce a reasonable approximation of whatever it is the producers/engineers wanted you to hear - as a sort of baseline - before anyone messes with their creation. Then, if you want to stir in your own colors, that's what tone controls and equalizers are for.
 
I TOTALLY get that :) But even the same mixing/mastering engineer will produce different sound on a different day. They use compressors, EQ, and digital effects to engineer their sound. Their sound is not absolute; even the same albums that were remastered have different sounds. There is no such thing as "uncolored" recording or audio equipment. The definition of "uncolored" is also relative and differ between manufacturers. All speakers are severely colored also so all in all I think the argument of "colored vs. uncolored" is, while interesting, yields no conclusion.

Since I believe the definition of "colored" is subjective and relative, I'd say that "uncolored" sound to me is the sound that I listened to growing up, the sound that I'm most used to. Any deviation from that is perceived as "colored." Just my personal take :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom