howiebrou
Super Member
I sense a good intentioned post here with just a touch of recessive trollness so let me be the first to stick my neck out and welcome you to the Mcfamily:thmbsp:
howie
Why would you buy a McIntosh Pre-Amp?
- Thread starter tr@nz
- Start date
I sense a good intentioned post here with just a touch of recessive trollness so let me be the first to stick my neck out and welcome you to the Mcfamily:thmbsp:
howie
Jfall
Member
When I bought my C45 I was using a pretty good digital processor as my pre-amp (Sony TAE9000ES). I was very happy with the sound until I put the C45 in. The difference was night and day, there was no coparison, the Mc put the Sony to shame. So I guess that is my answer; McIntosh pre-amps sound great.
When I got the C45 I thought I had it all figured out. Let the source do all the processing and use the 5.1 analog inputs. So now I have my MVP851 for CD (using balanced inputs) and DVD-A using one set of multi-channel inputs. The other set of multi-channel inputs is used with the Pioneer for SACD. The problem is I am using the PS3 (don't laugh) for blu ray and currently can only get 2 channels using the analog outs from the PS3.
I have been looking into the Integra or it's sister unit the Onkyo 885. This will allow direct DSD output from the PS3 (replacing the Pioneer) as well as processing all current lossless codecs.
So basically, I plan on using both.
James
When I got the C45 I thought I had it all figured out. Let the source do all the processing and use the 5.1 analog inputs. So now I have my MVP851 for CD (using balanced inputs) and DVD-A using one set of multi-channel inputs. The other set of multi-channel inputs is used with the Pioneer for SACD. The problem is I am using the PS3 (don't laugh) for blu ray and currently can only get 2 channels using the analog outs from the PS3.
I have been looking into the Integra or it's sister unit the Onkyo 885. This will allow direct DSD output from the PS3 (replacing the Pioneer) as well as processing all current lossless codecs.
So basically, I plan on using both.
James
Chad.Wagner
Active Member
Would you consider using an audio switch instead?
I have not tried one myself, but when I bought my MX-119 that was the plan.
I still only have a SACD player, but I will want to get a BlueRay player in the future.
Zektor MAS7.1: www.zektor.com/mas71/index.html
MikeSp - I wonder that too. Where should you do the processing from digital to analog, and does it really make a difference since there are only very few companies that make those D/A chips anyway?
The cost is definitely a reason I spend so much time researching and learning from the experienced. And you mention a good point in this regard; if the processing component becomes obsolete rather quickly, why spend so much on it. I am starting to really lean into the direction of keeping it all separate. Everyone seems to agree that the sound of the Mc pre- is hard to beat.
Perhaps a C45 would be a good match! And leave all the video and digital to analog process somewhere else.
I see that you enjoy the MC352s, I was looking at those.
The cost is definitely a reason I spend so much time researching and learning from the experienced. And you mention a good point in this regard; if the processing component becomes obsolete rather quickly, why spend so much on it. I am starting to really lean into the direction of keeping it all separate. Everyone seems to agree that the sound of the Mc pre- is hard to beat.
Perhaps a C45 would be a good match! And leave all the video and digital to analog process somewhere else.
I see that you enjoy the MC352s, I was looking at those.
dshoaf - A while back I actually looked at the potential for using active monitors for my audio/video listening pleasure. I wonder how many audiophiles have gone that route.
It has just always confused me why the audio recording studios go one route and the listening crowd goes another route. Active monitors vs passive speaker systems, $1000+ per ft audio cables vs Belden, balanced vs unbalanced (although this last one is probably not as big a gap anymore).
It has just always confused me why the audio recording studios go one route and the listening crowd goes another route. Active monitors vs passive speaker systems, $1000+ per ft audio cables vs Belden, balanced vs unbalanced (although this last one is probably not as big a gap anymore).
howiebrou - Much appreciated.
I was admiring the glow of the tubes in a dark room just now. Trying to get rid of a ground loop hum that was driving me nuts and almost made me yank out my remaining two hairs.
But in the end it sounded beautiful. Next stop.....the pre-amp with some properly balanced cables.
I was admiring the glow of the tubes in a dark room just now. Trying to get rid of a ground loop hum that was driving me nuts and almost made me yank out my remaining two hairs.
But in the end it sounded beautiful. Next stop.....the pre-amp with some properly balanced cables.
Jfall - Thanks for the feedback. I was actually looking at the C45 as an option and its sounds like it married well with your 704s.
Chad.Wagner and Jfall - That Zektor looked like a great option and have considered that too. Seemed to have one of the lowest signal/noise ratios of the switchers I looked into. Here again I am curious what audio recording studios or the cost-no-object crowd uses. Perhaps a pro-audio patch bay will work, or even a mixing panel. If you have to tie an SACD, a DVD-A, a blu-ray, a PS3 into one happy family there are few pre-amp options that I have seen that will allow all of them to be linked conveniently. My only worry was whether another bridge in the sound chain would degrade the signal at all.
Chad.Wagner and Jfall - That Zektor looked like a great option and have considered that too. Seemed to have one of the lowest signal/noise ratios of the switchers I looked into. Here again I am curious what audio recording studios or the cost-no-object crowd uses. Perhaps a pro-audio patch bay will work, or even a mixing panel. If you have to tie an SACD, a DVD-A, a blu-ray, a PS3 into one happy family there are few pre-amp options that I have seen that will allow all of them to be linked conveniently. My only worry was whether another bridge in the sound chain would degrade the signal at all.
Congratulations! You can probably get your hands on a used C2200 real easy right now as many are upgrading to the 2300 for its phono stage. Or, just go for the 2300
Tom Blasing
Super Member
I buy a Mc Pre-amp because I like knobs... more knobs the better. That is why I prefer the C46, C42, C34, C33 etc. Lots of knobs and I love to play with knobs.
Most of them aren't even plugged in, but the knobs get turn all the time.
LN
I pity your wife......
dshoaf
That high voltage buzz
This is almost another thread in itself. The thing about studio gear is that its produced for one major purpose and that is analytical presentation of the sonic image. Recording engineers and producers need to be able to work with them for hours and hours on end without fatigue as well as being able to hear every nuance - good and bad.
The problem with this for many folks is that they find it too analytical for enjoyment. I have restored some of the UREI studio monitors favored by many studios in the 70s and 80s. I also have KLH Model 5s and Quad ESL63s. These are pretty much polar opposites with regards to sonic presentation where the UREIs are in-your-face and you can hear the smallest change in the way a recording is made. This is especially aparent on those older Direct to Disk recordings from Sheffield where you can hear the punch ins/punch outs as the engineer switches things around between songs that were played live and in sequence as the whole LP side was made. With these, the sonic presentation appears to come in front of the speakers as one would expect.
The Quads and KLHs, OTOH, have just as good a sonic image as the UREIs but the image appears to come from behind the speakers, further a-field if you will, but just as compelling for a listener. The thing, here, is that I wouldn't want to mixdown on this arrangement any more than I'd want to paint a picture standing across the room from it.
As far as I'm concerned, McIntosh gear is usable in recording studios but there are vendors who cater specifically to that market while Mac has (wisely, IMHO) to focus on top-end consumers just as they have for the past 50+ years. There are some crossover companies like VTL and Manley but those are the exceptions, I believe.
What I'm trying to say is that it is aparent to me that there are differences in how folks listen to vs how folks make recordings.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
David
Jem666
Well-Known Member
You would be surprised to hear a CD played on Studio Monitors in the control room of a Recording Studio, but not in the way you would expect. Studio Monitors are more analytical measuring instruments than anything else used for laying down tracks and mixing them. During the mastering process, a lot is altered to the pré master mix to make it suitable for the average consumer electronics out there, or for broadcasting purposes...(see threads on "loudness wars" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ). Most consumer electronics cannot handle the raw dynamics of a Pré Master Mix. Hearing a Post Master cut, eg CD, back again in the original recording environment is ...euh...not a pleasant experience, for lack of a better description. One of the most famous examples of mastering to fit a certain audience is the original "Rumours" album by Fleetwood Mac...it sounds great on AM and FM radio...on a cost-no-object system...you be the judge.
With regard to active loudspeakers, they exist but then the fate of your amp is linked to the fate of your speaker, literally (BTW some active speakers still use passive crossovers...making them more a one enclosure amp-speaker package than a real active bi-amped speaker)...external active bi-amping would be more interesting, but is as much an art as a science and requires more amps, meaning more budget.
BTW, don't underestimate the cost of the really good studio gear (Solid State Logic, AMS-NEVE, Lexicon Pro, Soundcraft, Soundtracs)...it makes McIntosh gear look cheap... a lot of the affordable (home)studio gear available doesn't even come close to what McIntosh has to offer with regard to sound quality...been there, done that, sold the lot.
Recording Studios and Consumer Listening environments are two different beasts all together.
Hi Tr@nz,
I just want to make sure you understand the function of the mixing desk vs. a pre-amp for 2 channel listening. The difference is that a mixing desk takes audio from different sources during mixdown (tape decks, digital recording devices, effects processors, eqs, compressors, sometime microphones, etc..) on individual tracks and mixes this down to 2 channel audio (L&R). The number of tracks can vary greatly (1-100+). Again, this is just a quick explanation and in no way does this represent the actual complexities of mixing.
The mixing desk also has a section for 2 track send/playback which usually is hooked to 2 track mixdown tape decks, CD players, or digital 2 track mixdown devices. This last function acts more like the pre-amp function you refer to than anything but is usually a function of the mixing desk. This is not to say a studio can't use a dedicated pre-amp like a McIntosh for this function. It is just to say the desk also has other features on playback that may be useful to the engineer to make choices about his or her job.
The other part to address is your mention of the DA with a recording desk. This would mean you are talking about a digital mixer. This is a long and heated debate in the recording world but from my experience more engineers (me included) prefer analog desks to digital desks. Once again the conversation about how subjective audio and its gear, whether it is recording/mixing, mastering, or listening is never ending.
If you already understood the function of a mixing desk I hope I didn't waste your time.
I just want to make sure you understand the function of the mixing desk vs. a pre-amp for 2 channel listening. The difference is that a mixing desk takes audio from different sources during mixdown (tape decks, digital recording devices, effects processors, eqs, compressors, sometime microphones, etc..) on individual tracks and mixes this down to 2 channel audio (L&R). The number of tracks can vary greatly (1-100+). Again, this is just a quick explanation and in no way does this represent the actual complexities of mixing.
The mixing desk also has a section for 2 track send/playback which usually is hooked to 2 track mixdown tape decks, CD players, or digital 2 track mixdown devices. This last function acts more like the pre-amp function you refer to than anything but is usually a function of the mixing desk. This is not to say a studio can't use a dedicated pre-amp like a McIntosh for this function. It is just to say the desk also has other features on playback that may be useful to the engineer to make choices about his or her job.
The other part to address is your mention of the DA with a recording desk. This would mean you are talking about a digital mixer. This is a long and heated debate in the recording world but from my experience more engineers (me included) prefer analog desks to digital desks. Once again the conversation about how subjective audio and its gear, whether it is recording/mixing, mastering, or listening is never ending.
If you already understood the function of a mixing desk I hope I didn't waste your time.
mosttoysrsk
New Member
A car analogy
I remember in the 1980's I drove a 71 Datsun 240z and could never understand why anyone would pay the money to drive a Porsche 911. The performance between the 2 cars was close, the interior I thought looked better in the 240z but when I finally got to drive a 911 I was hooked. It became my dream to own one, since then I have owned a 82 911sc Targa and now a 95 993 cab.
I will never sell my 95 993 (last series of the air cooled cars), just like I will never sell my MC275 or C2200.:
It's not just about features and specs it is how all of the parts come together and in a McIntosh they interact together in a spectacular fashion!:thmbsp:
I remember in the 1980's I drove a 71 Datsun 240z and could never understand why anyone would pay the money to drive a Porsche 911. The performance between the 2 cars was close, the interior I thought looked better in the 240z but when I finally got to drive a 911 I was hooked. It became my dream to own one, since then I have owned a 82 911sc Targa and now a 95 993 cab.
I will never sell my 95 993 (last series of the air cooled cars), just like I will never sell my MC275 or C2200.:
It's not just about features and specs it is how all of the parts come together and in a McIntosh they interact together in a spectacular fashion!:thmbsp:
tr@nz,
The C45 is a really nice pre that has very desirable features. As you mention, it allows you to isolate multi-channels analog audio from potential digital and video signal pollution. Some of the user features that are coll are obviously bass/treble control, and remote control of the subwoofer analog output level. I use that feature to tweak the sub output level whether i am watching a movie or listening to music. You can also adjust the level of all inputs so they all are similar and you don't get blasted out of the room when switching from say, TV to a movie or music. You also seem to be getting hung up on the fact that studio gear is inherently better than home gear and that's necessarily the case. If the studio gear is universally better and studio engineers so smart and talented why then do we have so many recordings of such poor quality? Listen to the devices you are considering and pick the one(s) you like best and don't look back. Trust your ears. And if it makes you feel any better, there are many high end audio devices used in studios. B&W, Wilson, Yamaha, PMC, Tannoy, Harbeth, Dynaudio are just a few names off the top of my head, all speaker brands that can be found in homes and studios.
The C45 is a really nice pre that has very desirable features. As you mention, it allows you to isolate multi-channels analog audio from potential digital and video signal pollution. Some of the user features that are coll are obviously bass/treble control, and remote control of the subwoofer analog output level. I use that feature to tweak the sub output level whether i am watching a movie or listening to music. You can also adjust the level of all inputs so they all are similar and you don't get blasted out of the room when switching from say, TV to a movie or music. You also seem to be getting hung up on the fact that studio gear is inherently better than home gear and that's necessarily the case. If the studio gear is universally better and studio engineers so smart and talented why then do we have so many recordings of such poor quality? Listen to the devices you are considering and pick the one(s) you like best and don't look back. Trust your ears. And if it makes you feel any better, there are many high end audio devices used in studios. B&W, Wilson, Yamaha, PMC, Tannoy, Harbeth, Dynaudio are just a few names off the top of my head, all speaker brands that can be found in homes and studios.
Jfall
Member
Chad, Thanks for the suggestion, but my problem is the PS3 only outputs uncompressed multichannel audio over HDMI so I need a digital processor that in turn can deliver 5.1 analog to the C45.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the AP1000 yet. I was excited when I heard about it, but unfortunately it's not yet available and it is out of my $$$ range at this time. I don't think McIntosh has any HDMI options at this time?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the AP1000 yet. I was excited when I heard about it, but unfortunately it's not yet available and it is out of my $$$ range at this time. I don't think McIntosh has any HDMI options at this time?
David, Jem666, salm and Jackmac-
Sharing your knowledge and experience on the audio studio side was really helpful and provides peace of mind that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. Different gear for different environments. And I know how quickly even lower end DAW type gear can add up very quickly! Gents - It has been a pleasure
Sharing your knowledge and experience on the audio studio side was really helpful and provides peace of mind that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side. Different gear for different environments. And I know how quickly even lower end DAW type gear can add up very quickly! Gents - It has been a pleasure
Same dilemma. Currently have a MX 134 with a MC300 for my front LS350's and a MC7106 for my center HT4, and my two rear and side surround B&W in walls for my 7.1 surround. DVD/CD source is Sony 9000ES. Display is a Fujitsu 50" plasma fed via Direct TV HDMI to DVI with audio thru Mac with optical. Want to add a Pioneer 95 Bluray and take advantage of Dolby True HD and DTS MA. Need to feed plasma from Pioneer via HDMI/DVI to optimize at least 1080i and only have one DVI on plasma. Also if I use audio out of Pioneer to my MX 134 it only has 5.1 out and I'd lose my 7.1 setup. Am considering something like the ZEKTOR MAS 7.1. Also considering selling 134 and going with the 120, but the 120 seems dated already with 1.1 HDMI. Suggestions---Ideas
panhead
Mac owner for life.
Not another HT feature fishing expidition 
Plain & simple,if features & connections are what your after buy an Onkyo or some other throw away peice that will be outdated in 2 years or less,then buy another Onkyo so you can have version 57.9 whatever, & on & on & on:yes:.,after going through the HT feature/connection chasing merry-go-round for 10 years,come back & report just how much money you saved chasing version 46.9:tears:.
If you want build quality,the best in circuit intergration & implementation,sound quality that will EXCEED its listed specs for decades(try that with your feature loaded Onkyo),analog based tone controls which are the best tone control circuit in use of any manufacturer today,asthetics that dont look like every other peice of BPC on the market,a peice of gear that excells in sound quality when being used as a 2 channel preamp (again,try that one with the Onkyo),customer service that will follow the peice of gear decades after its release(another good one to try with the Onkyo),your Onkyo customer service rep named iskibibble over in turkshmukenstien wont even be able to find a model # or a schematic on it, let alone get the unit serviced.
We go through this with the HT guy's all the time,the fact is that HT is a secondary issue with most Mcintosh owners & is obviously not of a priority market to Mcintosh,,why on earth would any niche manufacturer like Mcintosh invest so much capital into such a small percentage of its market share, just so it can have a version of something that has been proven to become obsolete before the paint dry's on the case of the unit ?
If you know that Mcintosh does not offer the features your after why in the world are you even looking at the product line, whining about them not having what you want?,its pretty simple,find the manufacturer that has features you crave & buy from them,again & again & again.
Plain & simple,if features & connections are what your after buy an Onkyo or some other throw away peice that will be outdated in 2 years or less,then buy another Onkyo so you can have version 57.9 whatever, & on & on & on:yes:.,after going through the HT feature/connection chasing merry-go-round for 10 years,come back & report just how much money you saved chasing version 46.9:tears:.
If you want build quality,the best in circuit intergration & implementation,sound quality that will EXCEED its listed specs for decades(try that with your feature loaded Onkyo),analog based tone controls which are the best tone control circuit in use of any manufacturer today,asthetics that dont look like every other peice of BPC on the market,a peice of gear that excells in sound quality when being used as a 2 channel preamp (again,try that one with the Onkyo),customer service that will follow the peice of gear decades after its release(another good one to try with the Onkyo),your Onkyo customer service rep named iskibibble over in turkshmukenstien wont even be able to find a model # or a schematic on it, let alone get the unit serviced.
We go through this with the HT guy's all the time,the fact is that HT is a secondary issue with most Mcintosh owners & is obviously not of a priority market to Mcintosh,,why on earth would any niche manufacturer like Mcintosh invest so much capital into such a small percentage of its market share, just so it can have a version of something that has been proven to become obsolete before the paint dry's on the case of the unit ?
If you know that Mcintosh does not offer the features your after why in the world are you even looking at the product line, whining about them not having what you want?,its pretty simple,find the manufacturer that has features you crave & buy from them,again & again & again.