MC2300 vs MC7300 vs MC300 vs MC302

Mcintosh has made four 300 watt stereo amps. I just wanted to ask you guys what you thought was the best 300 watt amp that Mcintosh made? I am about to purchase a MC7300 to go with a C40 from the same time period. I preferred the MC7300 over the MC300 because I liked the adjustable gain on the front panel. Even though it's distortion and noise figures aren't as good as the other models, I know some people swear by the MC2300. In your opinion, what are the biggest differences of these models and which one stands out as the best to you?

I'll be following this thread closely. There are so many factors between all these generations. I know there's a lot of romance and dedication associated with the MC2300, then there's people like me who really like what McIntosh is doing with their newest architecture and the voicing of their latest units, which would cause me to throw my hat in for the MC302 as it is in the same family as the 452 and 601s and I love how all of these sound. Then of course you have cost considerations and such.

For some reason, the MC300 seems to be labeled as poor. I cannot figure out why. The MC300 has input level controls on the back and the autoformers are hidden.

The MC2300 has a big following because of some perceived advantages over the later amps. More output taps, no power guard, full output all day all night without over heating and shutting down. It will put out 400 watts and when pushed will go into distortion like a really high quality amp. Amps with power guard sound different, musicians will tell you that, I know it from experience, and have heard the sound of the 2300 some really love. When pushed I find them offensive.

Theoretically the amp and a speaker should gel with one another. They should be mates as the Aussies would say. The speakers should provide adequate output for listener with out asking the amp to strain itself or requiring the amp to over drive the speaker to get required peaks. If the amps in question integrate with your speaker all will perform well. The 7300 has some nice features, balanced inputs, etc. But unlike its mate the 7200 has autoformers and depending on your speaker you may find the bass to blossom a bit. The MC 300 is a great amp, too, that can drive adverse loads better than the 7300 or 2300. Mac was changing their design philosophy with this amp. No longer the continuos output monster like the 2300 but the ability to provide current for complex speaker impedances and higher current for peaks. As we progress through time the amps become quieter with much lower distortion, but when do we reach the limit we are able to hear. There are other complex distortions the new amps handle better. This where the 302 comes in, though I suspect 2 301's that were just introduced will surpass the 302. The 302 uses the thermal track outputs for cleaner highs and better production of high frequencies at all levels at all temps. Though not quad balanced it only gives up a few db in signal to noise and a small amount of distortion to its costlier cousins. I've only heard the amp once trying to drive speakers that needed 1.2K's and it did a very respectable job as far as it went. But with speakers with 6 to 10 db more sensitivity it would a great amp. JBl owners or folks with speakers above 92 db sensitivity might find this amp to be just what they need.

I have speakers with 95 db sensitivity and have MC207 with electronic crossover tri amping my speakers. I normally listen between .5 watts and 2 watts with occasional extreme peaks of 20 watts. When I'm being very daring the bass may require 100 watts according to my MPI-4, but I've never seen a Power guard lamp flicker.

I imagine I could get by very nicely with 152's for the new sound of the thermal track transistors. I could use two 303's, but don't have the space or 6 2301's for the tube lovers out there. But the entire point of this conversation is knowing your speaker. If it has smooth highs, sufficient output and tight self controlled bass, I would recommend the 302 or the 2300. If the speakers is being run on the ragged edge, then the 2300 is out of the question. If the speaker needs a little extra in the mids to balance, either the 2300 or 7300. If you have a pair of ML-4's and you want the best sound I would go with the MC300. You'll really clean up the 2 inch domes and give added definition to the super tweeters with out being edgy like the 2300. It would be interesting to see what XR290's sound like with the 302 or MC 300. They would play louder with the 2300, but they should sound great with the 302 with the added clarity with out any strain.

You could always find a pair of 501's at a great price and be assured you really have gotten the best for your dollar.

AndyPrice44 said:

Mcintosh has made four 300 watt stereo amps.

Click to expand...

Three. The Mc2300=467 Watts on a good day.

Of the four, I've only owned the MC2300. [I've had about 20 of them over the years. I still have two.] The MC2300 is really just a big MC2505 in regards to sound. Many are taken with the sound of the first gen McIntosh SS amps, myself included. As twiiii mentions, the MC2300 is the only amp of the four that is designed to make rated power all day long (or 1/3 power for that matter). It also has the most output taps of any McIntosh stereo amplifier to date with .5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 Ohm taps per channel. Incidentally, these taps permit operating the amp in mono into loads as low as .25 Ohms. So, the amps are equally at home driving loudspeakers, subwoofer systems, modulating sonar on battleships, or driving shake tables in industry. Yes, as CountD states, they do make in excess of 400 watts per channel. They're unique in many regards and I'm very fond of them personally as most here are well aware. I use my pair every single day.

I really know very little about the MC300 and it looks as if I may have erroneously assumed it was an MC7300 with an updated cosmetic package. I do have quite a bit of experience with the MC7300 but never owned one. Color me very impressed.

I do own other larger amps from the MC7300 (MC2600) and MC300 (MC500) eras. In comparison to my MC2300, I found the noise floor of the MC2600 to best it considerably so that's a definite nod in favor of the newer design. I'm also not sure I had ever heard my Altec speakers sound better than they do on the MC2600 - until of course, I bought the MC500. [I'm nowhere near an answer on whether I prefer the MC2600 or the MC500 . . . ]

There is constant discussion as to how the MC2300s sound when pushed to clipping. If you're pushing an MC2300 to clipping in your living room, you either have incredibly inefficient speakers or you've been influenced by peer pressure or alcohol - I'm certainly guilty on the last two counts although my speakers lived to tell about it the following day. In normal listening situations, even with very loud music, I just don't see that happening. twiiii reports ill side effects of this on tweeters in club installations when reckless DJs pushed systems to their limits but that's certainly understandable.

One thing to consider that you may have not already. The MC2300, MC7300, and MC300 can all be used in mono. So, if you decide that you need more horsepower or would like to try McIntosh mono blocks it's a simple as purchasing a second MC7300. That's FAR cheaper than buying a pair of MC501s or MC601s on the used market. Back in about 1995, I ran MC2300s mono to my Altecs and had a blast with that set up. I liked it so much, I ran it for a few years until I moved into a house that had a much smaller listening space. Honestly, I'm not sure if a pair of MC1000s would have been much of an upgrade, but who knows. Not many folks then were in a position to purchase the MC1000s so I always considered myself a bit on the cutting edge if you will.

To me, McIntosh amplifiers have a special something I've just not found in other amplifiers that I've owned. I'm sure in a few months, you'll be able to identify with this.

Another thing worth noting is that I used to throw some HUGE parties in my younger years. I learned early on that most amps simply weren't designed for that kind of use. I've probably thrown ten parties with the MC2300s, including backyard parties on the 4th of July. For our 2007 4th of July party, the temp was a nearly unbelievable 118 degrees F and the system jammed all day long. We had 4 visits from local law enforcement in regards, and the officers were besides themselves at just how loud the music actually was when they showed up. The MC2300s never even flinched.

Party on dude.

So the 2300 will not just blow tweeters, it will blow the whole speaker.

jlovda said:

So the 2300 will not just blow tweeters, it will blow the whole speaker.

Click to expand...

If used incorrectly I suppose. But then, a blown BBC will also disintegrate tires as well . . .

this has been a good read so far. It seems like the MC2300 is really built like a tank. That's impressive.

jlovda mentioned earlier that the MC300 is regarded as poor by some. Can you guys elaborate on why this is the case? I assume the circuit layout is very similar, if not the same as the MC7300. I have read nothing but favorable reviews of this model.

Also, I am going to quote a couple of things I found interesting that were said above

The MC2300 is really just a big MC2505 in regards to sound. Many are taken with the sound of the first gen McIntosh SS amps, myself included.

Click to expand...

If the speaker needs a little extra in the mids to balance, either the 2300 or 7300.

Click to expand...

The MC 300 is a great amp, too, that can drive adverse loads better than the 7300 or 2300. Mac was changing their design philosophy with this amp.

Click to expand...

then there's people like me who really like what McIntosh is doing with their newest architecture and the voicing of their latest units

Click to expand...

The 302 uses the thermal track outputs for cleaner highs and better production of high frequencies at all levels at all temps.

Click to expand...

After reading through all these responses, it seems as if there have been a few distinct generations of the Mcintosh house sound. The first generation of Mcintosh solid state has its own unique sound and the latest generation has its own unique sound. It seems like the first generation might have been a bit warmer with some midrange bloom and the latest generation is more neutral or possibly pronounced in the high frequencies. I haven't had the chance to listen to any of the models being talked about in this thread so, my assumption on sound could very well be wrong. I wonder, with the advance in design and lower distortion figures, does the MC7300 sound more similar to the first generation of amps or the latest generation? Or maybe it is the MC300 that sounds more similar to the latest generation of amps. At what point in did Mcintosh change their design philosophy and the overall sound of the amps mentioned here? Where would the MC7300 stand sonically if it had to be categorized, Would it be with the MC2300 or the MC302?

There are a BUNCH of similar threads here at AK. You may enjoy many of them.

I think it's safe to say that the MC2300 has a far larger following than any of the others you mentioned but its all in what you intend to use the amp for that matters. One AKer called it the "Dirty Harry" of all Mc amps. Fitting.

I'm tuned it to hear what others have to say about the sound question but a lot of that will depend on the speakers the amp is driving.

damacman said:

The MC2300 is really just a big MC2505 in regards to sound. Many are taken with the sound of the first gen McIntosh SS amps, myself included.

If you're pushing an MC2300 to clipping in your living room, you either have incredibly inefficient speakers or you've been influenced by peer pressure or alcohol...

Click to expand...

Right on. If I could have anything in my living room it would still be the 2300. I was taken right away with a 2505 - and since then my ears won't go to anything else and I've owned a lot. A big 2505 = the 2300 is a good thing, no, a great thing, and when cranked they still sound good to me. I am all for progress and all for new stuff which keeps the company going but I am very happy with a C22 and a well-used 2300 (yes, I have compared more than 20, and it seems a Mc piece from this generation even sounds better the more hours it has on it).

This remains a good discussion with much gleaned thus far.

I'm trying to remember how many 2300's failed on me. Two, when an electrician lifted the center tap on a voltage regulator in a disco in Acapulco, MX. Two at the Basilica, in Mexico City. One, in Mazatlan, one in Merida, 4 in Mexico City, one in Chihuahua, and so many in Cd Juarez I can't count, but never lost any in the States. Never lost 2300's in a home installations from when they were introduced until I retired in 04. So I would say about 1/4 of them failed with in 3 years and continued to do so every 5 to 10 years in entertainment or commercial applications. Just for a reference, all the 2200's, 2255, 2250's, 7270's. 7300's failed. None of the 2500's, or 2600's failed. It just proves that Power guard used with proper cooling out performs amps with out either or without supplemental cooling in commercial systems. 2255's, 2250,s failed because the maintenance people wouldn't clean the filters properly on my supplemental cooling fans. Two 2200's failed because the contacts on the speaker protect relay got pitted and corroded after 30 years in the Cathedral in Juarez. They are still working today. So as far as longevity the 2300 in the home is as reliable as any other Mac amp, providing its updated every generation or so. But you can see why at the time I was not fond of them. As much as I loved 2255's they were more of a head ache. Side note I never had a 7200 fail, but it was not used commercially. Cosmetically my favorite amp is a tie between the 3500 and 2500 with gold face plates. And though there was a supposed difference in signal to noise and hum between the 2600 and 2500 being used as woofer amps never revealed the differences. Normally 7300, 2250's and 7270's were used at the time for mids and highs. By the time the century series amps came along QSC and Crown with their form of Power Guard stole the commercial market from Mcintosh. They could drive 70.7 volt lines directly, which Mac could do no longer, and the cost per watt was just a fraction of Mac watts. So to me the 2600 was the last of the great Mcintosh commercial amps. In addition it sounded great in the audiophiles home even if it looks were wrong!!!! The worst commercial amp was the 3500, but that's tubes for you and biasing issues on the tubes. They all failed! Its still my favorite tube amp.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! twiiii, you should have been in the Mc book . . .

This is such a great club. I love reading these threads

Wvnyc@Ct said:

This is such a great club. I love reading these threads

Click to expand...

Me too. We are lucky to have tons of experience to learn from.

CountD said:

Three. The Mc2300=467 Watts on a good day.

Click to expand...

I like to refer to my strapped pair of Mc2300's as having 'over two horsepower'.

I haven't been around much lately. I see this thread is still going. You guys helped me with my purchase decision. I decided to go with a C40 and a MC7300. I have had both for several months now and after living with them I am very happy with my decision. The MC7300 sounds wonderful and has all the power I could ever use. I haven't even been past 12 o'clock on the volume and that was around 94 DB on my scale. Much past that is too hard on me. This happens at around 30 watts of this 300 watt beast. Most of my listening is actually done with 3 watts or less and this amp sounds amazing while at idle speed as well. The combination of the C40 and the MC7300 does everything I have asked of it. I thought not having a remote control would bother me but, it really hasn't. I usually just set it at 10 o'clock and let it roll for the whole listening session. During the months that I have owned these Mcintosh pieces, I am now listening to more music than I ever did before. It has made me go back and re discover my vinyl collection and purchase several new LP's as well. I also have a VPI classic with a Soundsmith Paua cart. The table is being fed into a Rogue Ares phono stage with NOS telefunken tubes all around. The Ares feeds my C40 and then to the MC7300. This combination of gear just produces a great soundstage. It is very detailed but it still sounds more musical instead of analyitical if that makes sense. I have heard pre/amp combinations that sounded much too analytical to my ear and it became fatiguing after a while. They are just overly detailed and sharp to the point that it takes the life out of the music. I don't have that problem at all with Mcintosh gear. It just sounds like pure music to me. It reproduces faithfully what is on the source and doesn't add much coloration of it's own. Nothing more, Nothing less.

As you can tell, I am really enjoying these pieces and now I want to build a Mcintosh system to pair with some JBL control monitors I have. I am thinking about a C29 and a MC2255 to go with my JBL L112. The speakers and the Pre/Amp combination were all made in 1983 which happens to be the year I was born. I think that would make a nice vintage system. Haha, I'm beginning to be vintage myself....

Thanks again guys for all the help. I enjoy reading what you all have to say. Hope everyone has a good day.

Andy

AndyPrice44 said:

The speakers and the Pre/Amp combination were all made in 1983 which happens to be the year I was born. I think that would make a nice vintage system. Haha, I'm beginning to be vintage myself....
Andy

Click to expand...

You are probably the youngest person on here