eedork
Super Member
I picked it up yesterday afternoon, installed it in the rack last night, and have been listening to it all morning.
I upgraded from an MA6600/D100 which I was very happy with. My goal was to gain a little more flexibility, add a simple EQ, and pick up some of the new features that have been added to the C52. I'll be running it with a restored MC502 for the next week or so, and then with an MC7100 that I picked up on the auction site last night. I'll use the 7100 (which I've had and enjoyed in the past) until I have enough funds set aside to purchase a new, matching amp like the MC152 or maybe an MC302/MC452.
More thoughts to come later, but here is some initial feedback on the C52:
* It looks amazing and sounds great out of the box.
* The HR085 remote is a massive step up from the sticky plastic remote that came with the MA6600/D100. The HR085 looks like it belongs with a $7k preamp.
* I love the input naming flexibility of the C52. I really wish the MA6600/D100 had this feature.
* The EQ is great! I debated long and hard about the C52 vs. the C2600. Many people prefer the C2600, but I have a challenging room and have been itching to add a basic EQ to my system for a while just to cut a few peaks. I opted to go with the C52 for this reason (much second guessing here), and after some quick and dirty measurements and tweaks this morning, the 1kHz peak has been tamed and my in room response is much flatter now. A C2600 with the 8 band EQ would be the best of both worlds .. not sure why McIntosh does not build this.
Another big reason I upgraded was to add HT passthrough. I do not have an HT system now, but would like to experiment with 3.1 so that I can boost the vocals when watching movies. I have a MAC3 that I'm planning to use for this purpose and at some point I'll wire it all up and give it a try. The MA6600 did not have HT passthrough, which was a real bummer.
-Matt
I upgraded from an MA6600/D100 which I was very happy with. My goal was to gain a little more flexibility, add a simple EQ, and pick up some of the new features that have been added to the C52. I'll be running it with a restored MC502 for the next week or so, and then with an MC7100 that I picked up on the auction site last night. I'll use the 7100 (which I've had and enjoyed in the past) until I have enough funds set aside to purchase a new, matching amp like the MC152 or maybe an MC302/MC452.
More thoughts to come later, but here is some initial feedback on the C52:
* It looks amazing and sounds great out of the box.
* The HR085 remote is a massive step up from the sticky plastic remote that came with the MA6600/D100. The HR085 looks like it belongs with a $7k preamp.
* I love the input naming flexibility of the C52. I really wish the MA6600/D100 had this feature.
* The EQ is great! I debated long and hard about the C52 vs. the C2600. Many people prefer the C2600, but I have a challenging room and have been itching to add a basic EQ to my system for a while just to cut a few peaks. I opted to go with the C52 for this reason (much second guessing here), and after some quick and dirty measurements and tweaks this morning, the 1kHz peak has been tamed and my in room response is much flatter now. A C2600 with the 8 band EQ would be the best of both worlds .. not sure why McIntosh does not build this.
Another big reason I upgraded was to add HT passthrough. I do not have an HT system now, but would like to experiment with 3.1 so that I can boost the vocals when watching movies. I have a MAC3 that I'm planning to use for this purpose and at some point I'll wire it all up and give it a try. The MA6600 did not have HT passthrough, which was a real bummer.
-Matt
Last edited: