Which one to buy? MC2255, 7270 or 7300?

d16rr702

d16rr702

Active Member
picture.php


long story short...the 2255 I bought to go with my MR78 and C32 was returned and now - I'm without an amp. :(

I chose the 2255 because I liked;

- the "look"
- good reviews
- digital count-up w/beep power guard
- big multi-function meters
- full glass panel (not like 7270)
- speaker on/off switch
- headphone jack (no mini DAC here...)


Now that I'm ready to buy another 2255, but wondering if I should I consider the 7300 or 7270 instead?

I will be running L300 Summits.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
I don't think you'd go wrong with any of those models. I currently own a 7270 that I purchased used and I like it very much. I have heard it criticized as being one of the "least musical" of the McIntosh amplifiers, but it absolutely sings when driving my Dahlquist DQ-10s.

The one thing that I find less than desirable in the appearance department is the split glass-upper/medal-lower faceplate. Like you, I prefer the all-glass faceplates. However, I recall the 7300 having an all-glass faceplate. Is this not correct?! The 7300 is also the newest of the three.

Although the 7300 sounds nice, I never cared for the boxy appearance of the amp. I like how the autoformers and power transformer are readily visible on both the 2255 and the 7270. Kinda makes you wonder why McIntosh placed these components inside the box. Did they try to downside the tranformers on the 7300?

On the whole, I'd buy the 7270 again, but all three have the McIntosh sound.
 
If were me it would be an MC275 or other McIntosh tube amp(s) for those wonderful L300s. If staying with solid-state, the MC2125 would be my next choice. If purchasing something older, have it shipped to Terry DeWick for a cleaning, recap and check-up on its way to LA. Of the three you've mentioned, the MC2255 is definitely the 'collector' item and also likely the best match with the L300s, followed by the MC7270.

Too bad about the MC2255. It could have gone to Terry for a new faceplate and the other work and still be a wonderful amp if the other cosmetics were good.
 
Stay with the 2255. You could have probably kept the one you got depending on the damage. If it was just the face I would have negotiated and got a new one as it would have saved you the trouble of buying and shipping another (as I see you are in the Philippines) , and plus you would have a new glass face (looks like the 2255 you had had paint separation at the top).

Remember that they only made 4,699 Mc2255s, and it is still considered the jewel of the era and the last of the chrome chassis. Ask anyone who knows Mc, and it is amazing to me that 8 out of 10 people mention the 2255. That includes Tom Manley at McIntosh Audio and the owner of Audioclassics. It is the very pinnacle of the Ron Evans design from that era and was a no-expense spared amplifier. I have one that I am completely restoring. Never mind that it is a 'collector' piece, it is an amazing amp with the quality and sound that I have come to love.
 
Thanks guys, Good info.

we share very similar opinions.

I read up on the Dahlquist DQ-10, very interesting.
 
CountD said:
Stay with the 2255. You could have probably kept the one you got depending on the damage. If it was just the face I would have negotiated and got a new one as it would have saved you the trouble of buying and shipping another (as I see you are in the Philippines) , and plus you would have a new glass face (looks like the 2255 you had had paint separation at the top).

Remember that they only made 4,699 Mc2255s, and it is still considered the jewel of the era and the last of the chrome chassis. Ask anyone who knows Mc, and it is amazing to me that 8 out of 10 people mention the 2255. That includes Tom Manley at McIntosh Audio and the owner of Audioclassics. It is the very pinnacle of the Ron Evans design from that era and was a no-expense spared amplifier. I have one that I am completely restoring. Never mind that it is a 'collector' piece, it is an amazing amp with the quality and sound that I have come to love.
Click to expand...

Excellent points!

I didn't know they made only 4,699. What a shame for the other 6 billion people on this planet.
 
d16rr702 said:
Thanks guys, Good info.

we share very similar opinions.

I read up on the Dahlquist DQ-10, very interesting.
Click to expand...

I have found the Dahlquist DQ-10s to be an excellent match for my 7270, which seems to bring out the best in both the speakers and the amp. Great synergy!

The DQ-10s are power hogs and really need some significant power to sound their best. I suspect this is also the reason they sound so good with the 7270: the 7270 gives them all the power they need, and the DQ-10s load the amp a bit, requiring it to operate higher up in its operating curve. What ever the reason, they sing beautifully together!

Of course, DQ-10s aren't everyone's cup of tea. They are fantastic imagers, but are not a "punchy" speaker and lack base response without a subwoofer. But with the right style of music and quality upstream gear, they are truly magical!
 
thunderroad said:
I have found the Dahlquist DQ-10s to be an excellent match for my 7270, which seems to bring out the best in both the speakers and the amp. Great synergy!

The DQ-10s are power hogs and really need some significant power to sound their best. I suspect this is also the reason they sound so good with the 7270: the 7270 gives them all the power they need, and the DQ-10s load the amp a bit, requiring it to operate higher up in its operating curve. What ever the reason, they sing beautifully together!

Of course, DQ-10s aren't everyone's cup of tea. They are fantastic imagers, but are not a "punchy" speaker and lack base response without a subwoofer. But with the right style of music and quality upstream gear, they are truly magical!
Click to expand...

well said, love the passion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom