MA230 Integrated

[Number 9]

Does anyone have solid experience with the MA230?

Looking at some posts on AudioAsylum, it is not considered one Mac's high points, largely due to a first-generation preamp stage.

The tube Amp section is supposedly pretty good.

McIntosh did not seem to take integrateds very seriously till about the 6200 model, preferring to put more effort on the MX tuner-preamp combos.

[Russellc]

You are correct, but it is still a quality piece. The amp section (power) is a great one. While this amp is quality, it is different from say a MC225, Which also uses the 7591 output tube and has a similar output power. The MC225 is a true "unity coupled" or whatever mcintosh calls it design. It's output transformers are very complex, basically have two sets of windings that are intregal to the power amps design. The MA230 has some windings in the transformer that are utilized in the cathode circuit, but there is none of the fancier "unity coupled" stuff going on. I have used a scratch built amp for years that uses the MA230's front end and output transformers, same feedback, but upped B+ to 600 volts or so and uses 6550/KT88/KT90 output tubes. It also uses regulation not implimented in the MA230 on the front end and output tube screens, but no regulation of the B+. This project was outlined in a 1990 issue of glass audio "70 watts of Mcintosh power" and if I don't say so myself, is superb.
The pre amp section I can't speak to. Mcintosh doesn't seem to use there full panopoly of tricks on the integrated amps. Seems like I remeber some of the solid state ones didn't use the autoformers like their big brother solid state amps did. Still yet, any Mcintosh is a quality piece and worth restoration/collection.

Russellc

[dewickt]

The 230 got a bad rap because of the SS preamp, personally I dont find much fault in it except for the SNR in the phono section, a bit hissy.
It also has a slight mechanical problem when the bottom has been removed, the chassis is 2 pieces and loves to flex and pop off bits of the black paint, when servicing one I take care to support it well when moving it.
The MC230 is an unsung gem, prices are still reasonable, and I feel it outclasses the Fishers and Scotts.

Terry :) :)

[Number 9]

Oooh... interesting stuff. Thanks Russell and Terry.

Regarding the preamp section in the 230 ...
The criticisms I've read related to the fact that 1st generation solid-state gear (mid-to-late '60s) by Mac, Fisher and Scott really was a big step back from the tube stuff. V1.0 syndrome.

They were still learning, and Mac did not start to come out with good SS designs until the early '70s. So supposedly a lot of basic no-nos were done in the design, which really stand out like a sore thumb today.

The other criticism I've read is that Mac SS preamps were their weakest design area ... very good in amps and tuners, but not preamps. I really have my doubts about this one ... my 6200 is based on the C32 and I think its quite good. And the tubed C22 and C11, well ... they ain't chicken liver.

If I don't plan to use the phono in the preamp section, is this something that can be gutted and tweaked, or not worth the effort?

The subsequent 5100 and 6200 did not use autoformers. The autoformers later came back in the 6900 and 6400.

[Brian]

My experiences with the 230 again finds a weakness in the preamp. Here's the big BUT. It came out after Fisher and Scotts 1st gen ss equipment and in comparison to their stuff the preamp is better. Its failure is in comparison to the tube preamps. If you like early ss preamps and there seems to be quite a few who do, then the 230 should be on the must look into list. It is essentially the same design that went into the 1700 and front end of the 5100 and really was a workhorse circuit. I've seen a few of these that have been converted to power amps and they do very well. Not as good as the MC225 but IMHO better in sound than the MC275 and 240.

[Number 9]

Originally posted by Brian

If you like early ss preamps and there seems to be quite a few who do ...

OK ... is there a pariticular "sound" of early solid-state preamps?
What can I expect?

If some people seem to like it, obviously it can't be the cold-grainy stuff we usually associate with poor SS preamps, right? I've heard some SAE preamps from the mid-70s, and did not like them at all: dark, cold, congested and grainy. Blech.

[Brian]

You've come close to describing the early ss preamps in general. The preamps seemed to have more detail, be more neutral, have extended response ranges than the tube counterparts. They were in fact delivering less resolution, were grainer, could not deliver the nuances of the music. Stringed instruments, piano, all sounded hard. Many manufacturers marketed these changes as being more true to life - with many of the marketeers falling by the wayside fast. Scott, Fisher and Mc all tried to voice the ss designs to sound more like the tube counterparts with varying degrees of success. Later better designs helped in degrees to bring ss up to (or nearly up to ) tube quality. As for mid-fi, for the most part until the design costs were brought down this niche suffered longer.

This generation of design quickly became consigned to the used equipment shelves as new designs came out to correct the early problems. Some people do like the sound and that is a good thing since it will keep the period alive. As for the Mc, the C24 which was the first gen design was not considered worthy of the name, the second generation C26 became the baseline for minimal quality and the 28 as the worthy successor to the C22. The integrated amps, the 230 had as a saving grace the tube amp which masked the preamp to some degree, the 5100 which was so-so and no better than many integrated amps of the same period. With the 6100, the distance started to spread between Mc and others but it seems that only with the 68xx series did Mc establish itself in the integrated amp field as a serious contender.