|
Amp/Preamp Asylum Looking for a new Amp or Preamp? If you're after tubes, post over here. |
|
|
|
Amp/Preamp Asylum Looking for a new Amp or Preamp? If you're after tubes, post over here. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Mcintosh C2200 / Impressions? / Criticisms? posted by Vladimir Dorta on June 21, 2003 at 07:22:35:
See Sam Tellig's by-line in (gasp) Stereophile some months ago. As I recall, he was smitten by the pre-amp except for the phono stage. He seemed to suggest (I think) that he loved it so much that he'd be willing to buy it AND an outboard phono stage in order to have the C2200 itself. I have not heard or even seen the pre-amp (except for photos & specs) myself, but I have a theory about why he may have found the phono stage inadequate, and I search for a theory because it seems to me difficult to muck up a well executed tubed pre-amp in the ordinary course.My experience derives from long use of a C22 and the serendipitous fact that for a number of years, my very best friend was also the most talented engineer I've ever met (also a great basso profundo). He shared my taste in music, and we frequently listened lengthily at eachothers' houses, also sampling borrowed equipment from time to time. While he was alive, he was the only person I allowed to look inside my Macs or do anything to them. Upon hearing my C22 and Mc 275s, he felt sure there was something funny through the phono stage (mind you, we listened most frequently to LPs), and he asked to see the schematic; upon examining it, he said that this was a classic and excellent design, much the same as many others electrically, affording no glimpse as to what gave its particular character. He asked if he could take it home to see what it did on his test bench. In the end he found the following which he at first fixed free of charge but since I wanted more of what he gave me, he ended up charging me his "best-friend rate" = $6/hr to at least give nod to the number of days the whiole operation took out of his life.
Here was the situation: McIntosh, as you know, makes sexy-looking front panels with many conveniences on them. When my friend opened the chassis, he found that much of the internal wiring had been laid out to accommodate that front panel, with little heed given to signal paths. The result was that a stock C22, though it ought to have worked beautifully based on spec, actually measured poorly in terms of separation and cross-talk because of stray capacitance (capacitive coupling) occurring because the wiring was laid out with cosmetics more than sonics in mind. My friend found that in its stock form, the C22 (and, I expect, the C11, C20, etc.) gave as little as 6 dB [sic!] of separation at some frequencies and some settings of the volume control. (It measured much better, of course -- quite up to modern standards -- if viewed only at 1 khz and one setting of the volume control Though one can excuse Mac a bit , given that the C22 was designed only shortly into the stereo age, surely such practice wouldn't be acceptable today?
Short of gutting the chassis and starting over again, the only available fix was to solder in strips of shielding everywhere one could measure the effect. My friend dealt with the most eggregious cases first and then returned the unit to me -- he wanted to be sure that I could hear a difference before he spent more hours on the project. Here's the thing: when I got it back, it sounded not only as if it had vastly more separation, but also as if the top end had "opened up" -- there was much more sense of liveness, air, space around the instruments. I was so knocked out that I asked him for more, to the point of bleeding edge. Laboriously, over a couple of weeks, my friend measured, cut, soldered, measured again, etc. until he told me that he just had no more of his life that he was prepared to devote to a single unit. The amount of time he spent will be clear to you from the fact that his bill to me was a few hundred bucks! I now have a C22 that sounds better than any other C22 ever built (though it's probably worth less as a collector's item).
When I first read Tellig's paeon about the C2200, I was struck by the extent he seemed to be reacting to something like what was deficient in a stock C22 (by comparison to what I now know is possible from the identical circuit) when he described his reaction to the C2200's phono stage. I had been salivating over the thought of bringing my operation into the modern age. I got in touch with McIntosh about the possibility that they had once again neglected this very critical aspect of circuit lay-out. The McIntosh people are always very responsive, but this time they took a few days to get back to me; when they did, they gave me the impression (or I inferred it) that separation/cross-talk accross the audio band is not something they check for with rigor. My Mac correspondent said that he had checked with someone (inferrably) more closely involved in the design and manufacture of the new device and that they felt reasonably certain that the separation never drops below 45 db, but there was a certain vagueness in the response that left me wondering; were they asserting this at solely 1 khz? It is certainly not one of the "guaranteed" McIntosh specs. In any event, my "modified" C22 does well better than that (now) at all settings of the volume control, and accross the audio band. From my experience, I believe that neurotic attention to this issue can yield remarkable sonic results.
Be aware that I do not KNOW that what I am describing in my C22 when stock is what bothered Tellig about the C2200, nor even whether it is an issue with the new device or, if so, to what extent. Its just that what he wrote caused me to think about my own situation and to remember.
My friend told me that many many audio devices do not perform as one might expect them to from merely reading schematics. The physical incarnation can be considerably different from the theoretical electronics. He declined to fault McIntosh (a company whose amps (like my 275s) he regarded as the best ever built); it was just that there is always room for improvement, and in this case he could see exactly where it might be audible, though he did not know whether it would be to me. That I found such an extravagant improvement after the first iteration delighted him -- subjective reactions according with theory -- and for a while he willingly wrought more and more of it.
If the C2200 suffers, in its phono stage, from some of the same effects, a potential buyer can rest assured that with a competent technician and a lot of patience, the matter can be addressed. If the C2200 really is "world class" otherwise, then it is a potentially world-class pre-amp, with the usual Mac attributes of beautiful appearance and extraordinary durability, as well as peerles custome service.
As a consumer (not a dealer) I have been uniquely able, because of relationships with store owners, to compare MANY products in my own home system: no pre-amp has sonically surpassed my "modified" C22 to date, though I do not doubt that there could be others, if tubed, well designed, and WELL LAID OUT, that might equal it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Mcintosh C2200 / Impressions? / Criticisms? -- Long - goldenthal 06/21/0310:31:57 06/21/03 (1)
- Re: Mcintosh C2200 / Impressions? / Criticisms? -- Long and great - Raanan 12:11:27 06/21/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
