C47 vs C52 ... Features aside, is ultimate performance the same ?

I might be a little early asking about these, but even though these preamps are not fully balanced, I'd love the C47 if the performance is the same between them. Inexpensive entry and wonderful McIntosh sound is too hard to resist.
 
I notice the S/N is 110 Vs 100. Would that be noticed or affect the sound in any way? I am in the same position. On the fence between the C47 and D150. Features aside, is there a sonic difference to consider?
 
I notice the S/N is 110 Vs 100. Would that be noticed or affect the sound in any way? I am in the same position. On the fence between the C47 and D150. Features aside, is there a sonic difference to consider?

I'd figured the difference between the C47 and C52 amounted to cosmetics and inputs. I'm not sure how the human brain actually perceives a SNR 100 vs. 110, but if that figure is different I'd say the differences go deeper then I thought.

Note having gone from a D100 (said to be the same as the D150 save for DSD) to a C47 that's night and day. The digital preamps are great but don't compare to the "real preamps".
 
I consider the C52's 'cosmetics' of an 8 band equalizer and the 2 meters to be a large improvement.
 
I'd figured the difference between the C47 and C52 amounted to cosmetics and inputs. I'm not sure how the human brain actually perceives a SNR 100 vs. 110, but if that figure is different I'd say the differences go deeper then I thought.

Note having gone from a D100 (said to be the same as the D150 save for DSD) to a C47 that's night and day. The digital preamps are great but don't compare to the "real preamps".

I wonder why the S/N would be different given they have the same DAC's. Do the additional connections and tone controls add noise? Or is it just for marketing differentiation?
 
What about a C48 or C50? I'm partial to the C48 because of the equalizers, but may not pass the "big blue meters" test everybody seems to crave ....
 
I upgraded from an MA6600 + D100 to a new C52 + second hand MC7100 (which will be used until funds are in place for a new amp).

I was very happy with my old setup but am really enjoying the C52. The upgrade was motivated by me wanting some of the new features that the C52 had to offer, including HT bypass, an excellent built-in equalizer, the ability to actually rename inputs, and more component flexibility down the road. I've also grown to love the new remote - it's a big improvement over the old style that came with the MA6600 and D100.

I debated for a quite a while between the C47, C52, and C2600. The deciding factor was the equalizer, and I have not been disappointed. I've used it to tweak and flatten my room response and the results have been very good.

The C48 looks like a great preamp. There's nothing else in the line up quite like it - it is small, it has a built in equalizer and DAC, and does not have meters (if that's your preference). I think it is a future classic.

-Matt
 
I picked up a nice used C47 today. Swapping out my old C200. It's awesome. Much brighter and cleaner sound than my heavy sounding C200. The internal tone controls work fine. Not much tone adjustment needed. Now need someone to trade in their MT450 and I will be all set!
 
I just picked up a used C48 and am selling a C39 and MC7106 on Craigslist. Looking to get a used MC152 since my listening room is only 12'x15'. Very happy with the C48 and like the equalization controls. Recording engineers use equalization in the mastering process so it only makes sense to have equalization control on a preamp.
 
I picked up a nice used C47 today. Swapping out my old C200. It's awesome. Much brighter and cleaner sound than my heavy sounding C200. The internal tone controls work fine. Not much tone adjustment needed. Now need someone to trade in their MT450 and I will be all set!
Do you mean MCT450?
 
I picked up a nice used C47 today. Swapping out my old C200. It's awesome. Much brighter and cleaner sound than my heavy sounding C200. The internal tone controls work fine. Not much tone adjustment needed. Now need someone to trade in their MT450 and I will be all set!
Say what?
 
Yup. I was not sure of what I was hearing so I swapped out a second time and I hear definite improvement over the dual monolith C200. I am running 802 B&W's with a pair of 501 amps. Always thought this combo was too heavy and too warm to suit me. Was ready to change out speakers. But decided to first upgrade to the new DAC to see what would happen. Also thought I would need the limited tone controls on the C47 to increase the brightness of my system. Turns out I have no need to correct the tone now...have it shut off. So I would have been just as happy with the D150 and the improved S/N....
 
Yup. I was not sure of what I was hearing so I swapped out a second time and I hear definite improvement over the dual monolith C200. I am running 802 B&W's with a pair of 501 amps. Always thought this combo was too heavy and too warm to suit me. Was ready to change out speakers. But decided to first upgrade to the new DAC to see what would happen. Also thought I would need the limited tone controls on the C47 to increase the brightness of my system. Turns out I have no need to correct the tone now...have it shut off. So I would have been just as happy with the D150 and the improved S/N....
Very interesting Bob. For me, I feel the C200 unlocks the full capability of my system. My XRT22s are obviously very different animals than your 802s. Given that your MC501s are quad balanced, it's fair to assume that you are using XLR cables to feed them. I wonder if any of your sources were also fully balanced. Regardless, this would prove that no single component is right for every system.

Do you intend to keep the C200?
 
My thought exactly. Bob seems to prefer the sound of a current entry level pre over a TOTL fully balanced, dual chassis pre introduced 17 years ago; this could be interesting.
Heck, the C200 is the newest piece in my 2-channel rig.
 
Back
Top Bottom