McIntosh MT10 Turntable and C50 Preamp mini-review...

playdrv4me

Active Member
So I drove home all day yesterday from being out of state (where I picked these beauties up). And still running on zero sleep, I spent the entire night with my friend playing records and other music between the MT10 and C50.

Let me first start with the TT, and qualify this by saying I am mostly a NOT ANALOG guy, so my experience with turntables has been limited at best. But I figured the deal on the MT10 came along and it made good business sense to take it on for an audition.

I was actually not planning to even tackle the MT10 in its gargantuan box until later today or tomorrow, and just play with the C50, but my roommate who is a lover of records depleted me of every last ounce of energy unboxing this thing and setting it up. He's heard decent turntables, and has a cheap one of his own, but nothing in this league. Still, he has heard almost ALL of my high end equipment and typically always finds SOME fault in it that leaves him unimpressed, and me feeling a little silly. This guy is seriously cynical about the amount people can invest in black boxes. In fact, Part of the reason I chose the C50 (in addition to the fact that both showed up at the same time in the same place) is because of the tone controls which he felt were absolutely necessary after hearing digital music through a cheap DAC (the only one I had) on the C2300, which somehow resulted in a very prominent midrange he didn't like at all.

So it's 2 in the damn morning. I'm dead tired, he's half there from a night out, and we both fumble our way through... and let me say that this is the first revelation with the MT10... With some care, an absolute IDIOT can set this thing up. I'm not actually even entirely sure that I set it up perfectly in the end (precise weight of the tonearm and such). Moreover, in the limited space I have right now, I had no other choice than to set a cardboard riser on top of one of MC601s and then set the MT10 on top of THAT, right NEXT to the speaker no less, due to cable lengths and such (cables that were NOTHING special by the way... some solid, but basic RCAs I had floating around, and some speaker lead I trimmed to make a grounding cable). This is about as amusing a comedy of errors as you could have with such a high end piece of equipment... Here's the bottom line: It didn't matter

This turntable turned not only a horrendous by anyone's measure setup, but plenty of worn out old records into an absolutely sublime auditory experience. I was impressed right off the bat, but seeing my friend's reaction really sealed the deal. I had never seen him so enthralled with ANY piece of gear in the entire time I've known him. And here was the biggest surprise... After he fiddled with the tone controls for a bit, he ended up turning them OFF altogether! On all but the WORST of the WORST records that really had no hope, the MT10 shone through with an incredible depth of imaging, soundstage and "being there" quality that was simply astonishing. NEVER was there a hint of background noise, hum or table noise of ANY kind at any point during our listening session. This table is DEAD SILENT even on the terrible surface I'd made for it, and even next to a speaker. And while I may not be extremely familiar with turntables or the analog world, I am certainly no stranger to what quality music ought to sound like. I may add more to this at a later time, but there's really no need. This piece of equipment shattered our expectations and should be on the list of any McIntosh die-hard, not JUST as a completion to a Mac system, but as a damn good turntable all on its own. So there you go. I'm putting my money where my mouth is after my original inquisition about this table, and telling you that while I am not qualified to make a value judgement, I know that McIntosh achieved what they set out for here. You only need to be the one to ultimately decide upon which turntable and which price point you feel comfortable.

C50 (amended below)
My review of the C50 will be much more brief. All I can say about the C50 so far, is that while it is no doubt in the less popular category in comparison to the tubed C2500 which so frequently overshadows it, it absolutely holds its own with its brother in situations where it can prove to be the more useful of the two. This includes setups where the equipment is on a great deal or on every single day for several hours where tubes might not wear well. Secondarily, its multi-channel EQ is effective and does not overpower any particular frequency. I typically would use it out of loop from the EQ, but for some this feature alone makes the whole unit. My only observation of note on the EQ is that I wish there were a visual representation of the EQ channel and level on the display while you're turning it, like the volume control. But this may in fact be a plus since the EQ is probably analog.

Speaking of the display. This two line display on the newer integrateds, C50, C48 and C2500 is SO nice compared to the blocky characters on the older pres. In addition to looking pretty, it also does yield a good deal more info necessary with the built in DACs on these units.

That DAC, by the way, is no slouch. The average person should have no reason to substitute an outboard DAC with the one built into the C50 (which is shared with the C2500 to my understanding). It's clean, has a superb soundstage and never feels congested or "digitized" in the top octaves. There are outboard DACs I'm sure that can outperform this one, but most people just won't need that level of perfection.

Combined with an excellent line stage and stellar performance in combination with the MT10, the C50 should be on your short list of McIntosh preamps if you're in the market for the latest models and have thought, like I did at one point, that it was C2500 or nothing for the single chassis units. Neither the C50 or C2500 are, by McIntosh's standards at least, fully balanced designs (for this see C500 or C1000, but you'll forgo the DAC, EQ and display updates) but they seem to have no trouble at all despite this.

In summary, the MT10 is the standout here. It is an absolutely MAGICAL piece of gear, and that is something that just is occasionally talked about, but really rarely seen in consumer electronics these days. Even if you are *not* a TT diehard, the MT10 is for you, because of how dead nuts simple it keeps the entire game. And the fact that it performs SO well even with old worn out records you might have sitting in a closet all but forgotten. It's design is not for everyone, but I for one absolutely love it. Two thumbs up for these, and way up for the MT10 in particular. :thmbsp:

Related equipment:

Speakers: B&W 802 Diamond D2

Amplifiers: McIntosh MC601 Monoblocks

Sources (aside from the MT10): AppleTV (48Khz), ATT Uverse receiver.

---

EDIT: For those that are reading this review in the future, please note that I swapped the C50 back out for the C2300/D100 combo in the end. This is really no fault of the C50 in particular, but I felt its sound was a little too bass heavy after listening to it for a more extended period of time, particularly in my small listening space. If you're looking at a C50, do consider the C2500 and C2300 unless you must absolutely have the flexibility of the EQ and are worried about the longevity of the tubes in your particular application. If you are set on SS and want the EQ, the C50 is a great unit.
 
Last edited:
Glad you loved your MT10. I love mine. Next you will go through the "which cable stage" unless you've done it already
 
The RCA cables you use to connect the MT10 to your C50 should be low capacitance and very well shielded. You can buy cables designed for this use or use the best microphone cable with RCA ends installed.
The signal from a MC coil cartridge is very small and the gain in the preamp is very high, which is a recipe for hum and noise.
remember to load the MT10 cartridge to 500 ohms in your C50 set up menu.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
The RCA cables you use to connect the MT10 to your C50 should be low capacitance and very well shielded. You can buy cables designed for this use or use the best microphone cable with RCA ends installed.
The signal from a MC coil cartridge is very small and the gain in the preamp is very high, which is a recipe for hum and noise.
remember to load the MT10 cartridge to 500 ohms in your C50 set up menu.

Thanks,
Ron-C

Thanks Ron.

That was really part of my point. The setup was hasty, the cables were not ideally chosen (it was the middle of the night anyway), and the result was still far above my expectations. I never heard a smidgen of hum or noise of any kind. Much like a plasma TV that has that has the darkest inkiest black levels, the background with this table was just silence.

Also, I have to echo the comments by some in the past stating that for reasons not entirely evident, this table almost seems to quell some of the pops and crackles that make themselves more known on lesser equipment. It just does everything well.
 
Man, what a great night! Sounds like an absolute blast. I take it you're no longer planning on just 'auditioning' the MT10? hahah Well done, sir. This was fun to read, and I assume way more fun to experience. Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Well, this has caught me totally off guard here. You've gone a complete 180 from just a few days ago. Wow - just wow. I look forward to your updates as your system set-up becomes finalized.

In the meantime, enjoy it!
 
Cables

The RCA cables you use to connect the MT10 to your C50 should be low capacitance and very well shielded. You can buy cables designed for this use or use the best microphone cable with RCA ends installed.
The signal from a MC coil cartridge is very small and the gain in the preamp is very high, which is a recipe for hum and noise.
remember to load the MT10 cartridge to 500 ohms in your C50 set up menu.

Thanks,
Ron-C

comments deleted by william13
 
Last edited:
Yeah, kind of kicking myself I didn't go the extra mile and get the C50.....
I sure like the idea of the 8 band EQ......Mind you, its a lot more $$ to get into a C50 as opposed to a C48......$$ I couldn't get my hands on....

I agree with regards to the DAC, they do sound really good.........the slightly unpredictable nature with the USB connection can be a bit annoying, but I have learned how to work it to minimise these issues.....so all good in general..

Good review.....:thmbsp:
 
Yeah, kind of kicking myself I didn't go the extra mile and get the C50.....
I sure like the idea of the 8 band EQ......Mind you, its a lot more $$ to get into a C50 as opposed to a C48......$$ I couldn't get my hands on....

I agree with regards to the DAC, they do sound really good.........the slightly unpredictable nature with the USB connection can be a bit annoying, but I have learned how to work it to minimise these issues.....so all good in general..

Good review.....:thmbsp:

Nah, you realistically won't use the extra bands all that much. I know your pricing is higher down there, but I've seen C48s up around these parts for not a whole lot more than the regular retail of the D100, and that's tough to beat.
 
So I drove home all day yesterday from being out of state (where I picked these beauties up). And still running on zero sleep, I spent the entire night with my friend playing records and other music between the MT10 and C50.

Let me first start with the TT, and qualify this by saying I am mostly a NOT ANALOG guy, so my experience with turntables has been limited at best. But I figured the deal on the MT10 came along and it made good business sense to take it on for an audition.

I was actually not planning to even tackle the MT10 in its gargantuan box until later today or tomorrow, and just play with the C50, but my roommate who is a lover of records depleted me of every last ounce of energy unboxing this thing and setting it up. He's heard decent turntables, and has a cheap one of his own, but nothing in this league. Still, he has heard almost ALL of my high end equipment and typically always finds SOME fault in it that leaves him unimpressed, and me feeling a little silly. This guy is seriously cynical about the amount people can invest in black boxes. In fact, Part of the reason I chose the C50 (in addition to the fact that both showed up at the same time in the same place) is because of the tone controls which he felt were absolutely necessary after hearing digital music through a cheap DAC (the only one I had) on the C2300, which somehow resulted in a very prominent midrange he didn't like at all.

So it's 2 in the damn morning. I'm dead tired, he's half there from a night out, and we both fumble our way through... and let me say that this is the first revelation with the MT10... With some care, an absolute IDIOT can set this thing up. I'm not actually even entirely sure that I set it up perfectly in the end (precise weight of the tonearm and such). Moreover, in the limited space I have right now, I had no other choice than to set a cardboard riser on top of one of MC601s and then set the MT10 on top of THAT, right NEXT to the speaker no less, due to cable lengths and such (cables that were NOTHING special by the way... some solid, but basic RCAs I had floating around, and some speaker lead I trimmed to make a grounding cable). This is about as amusing a comedy of errors as you could have with such a high end piece of equipment... Here's the bottom line: It didn't matter

This turntable turned not only a horrendous by anyone's measure setup, but plenty of worn out old records into an absolutely sublime auditory experience. I was impressed right off the bat, but seeing my friend's reaction really sealed the deal. I had never seen him so enthralled with ANY piece of gear in the entire time I've known him. And here was the biggest surprise... After he fiddled with the tone controls for a bit, he ended up turning them OFF altogether! On all but the WORST of the WORST records that really had no hope, the MT10 shone through with an incredible depth of imaging, soundstage and "being there" quality that was simply astonishing. NEVER was there a hint of background noise, hum or table noise of ANY kind at any point during our listening session. This table is DEAD SILENT even on the terrible surface I'd made for it, and even next to a speaker. And while I may not be extremely familiar with turntables or the analog world, I am certainly no stranger to what quality music ought to sound like. I may add more to this at a later time, but there's really no need. This piece of equipment shattered our expectations and should be on the list of any McIntosh die-hard, not JUST as a completion to a Mac system, but as a damn good turntable all on its own. So there you go. I'm putting my money where my mouth is after my original inquisition about this table, and telling you that while I am not qualified to make a value judgement, I know that McIntosh achieved what they set out for here. You only need to be the one to ultimately decide upon which turntable and which price point you feel comfortable.

C50
My review of the C50 will be much more brief. All I can say about the C50 so far, is that while it is no doubt in the less popular category in comparison to the tubed C2500 which so frequently overshadows it, it absolutely holds its own with its brother in situations where it can prove to be the more useful of the two. This includes setups where the equipment is on a great deal or on every single day for several hours where tubes might not wear well. Secondarily, its multi-channel EQ is effective and does not overpower any particular frequency. I typically would use it out of loop from the EQ, but for some this feature alone makes the whole unit. My only observation of note on the EQ is that I wish there were a visual representation of the EQ channel and level on the display while you're turning it, like the volume control. But this may in fact be a plus since the EQ is probably analog.

Speaking of the display. This two line display on the newer integrateds, C50, C48 and C2500 is SO nice compared to the blocky characters on the older pres. In addition to looking pretty, it also does yield a good deal more info necessary with the built in DACs on these units.

That DAC, by the way, is no slouch. The average person should have no reason to substitute an outboard DAC with the one built into the C50 (which is shared with the C2500 to my understanding). It's clean, has a superb soundstage and never feels congested or "digitized" in the top octaves. There are outboard DACs I'm sure that can outperform this one, but most people just won't need that level of perfection.

Combined with an excellent line stage and stellar performance in combination with the MT10, the C50 should be on your short list of McIntosh preamps if you're in the market for the latest models and have thought, like I did at one point, that it was C2500 or nothing for the single chassis units. Neither the C50 or C2500 are, by McIntosh's standards at least, fully balanced designs (for this see C500 or C1000, but you'll forgo the DAC, EQ and display updates) but they seem to have no trouble at all despite this.

In summary, the MT10 is the standout here. It is an absolutely MAGICAL piece of gear, and that is something that just is occasionally talked about, but really rarely seen in consumer electronics these days. Even if you are *not* a TT diehard, the MT10 is for you, because of how dead nuts simple it keeps the entire game. And the fact that it performs SO well even with old worn out records you might have sitting in a closet all but forgotten. It's design is not for everyone, but I for one absolutely love it. Two thumbs up for these, and way up for the MT10 in particular. :thmbsp:

Related equipment:

Speakers: B&W 802 Diamond D2

Amplifiers: McIntosh MC601 Monoblocks

Sources (aside from the MT10): AppleTV (48Khz), ATT Uverse receiver.

Congrats on the new table; how many hours does the needle have on it ?
 
Nah, you realistically won't use the extra bands all that much. I know your pricing is higher down there, but I've seen C48s up around these parts for not a whole lot more than the regular retail of the D100, and that's tough to beat.

Well, at the end of the day, this is why I ended up with the C48, I feel its some of the best modern McIntosh buying you can do.....
The grass is always greener right? But I can't afford that grass so I'm staying where I am with the C48...:thmbsp:
 
Very enjoyable review to read. Yeah its crazy how the passion of this hobby can drive us to stay up all night setting up and listening, even after a long and stressful day.
I've read very good reviews of the MT10 but yours has to be the most enthusiastic of the performance that I can recall. I too remember someone saying the MT10 somehow manages not to reveal too much ticks and pops from records of poorer condition.

No doubt the C50 is a solid performer, and with effective use of the 8 band EQ I'm confident you can make it sound however you want.

Thanks for sharing :thmbsp:


Yeah, kind of kicking myself I didn't go the extra mile and get the C50.....
I sure like the idea of the 8 band EQ......Mind you, its a lot more $$ to get into a C50 as opposed to a C48......$$ I couldn't get my hands on....

I agree with regards to the DAC, they do sound really good.........the slightly unpredictable nature with the USB connection can be a bit annoying, but I have learned how to work it to minimise these issues.....so all good in general..

Good review.....:thmbsp:

Kev: I figure you and I pretty much have a plain-clothes C50 with our C48. I wouldn't kick myself for not going the extra. In fact, even if I comfortably had the choice of either, I'd still go for the C48.
Although I would use all 8 bands if I had them, I believe the C48 is virtually the same performance in a more efficient size and configuration.
I love my C48 and am totally happy with it, and I know you are too.

.
 
Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed my review. The positive feedback about my silly reviews from you guys, stumble through them as I may, along with persistent prodding from many people I know may just lead me to start taking videos/reviews of all these seemingly disjointed hobbies and activities I do on a Youtube channel eventually. We'll see.

I do have to report something unexpected tonight, however. And that is that I actually ended up switching out the C50 back to the C2300 with a CA Dacmagic (1st gen) as a temp DAC until I swap something else in. The Dacmagic was a random side acquisition a week or so ago when I wasn't sure which direction I was going with all this, but it's a damn fine sounding unit for what it is. After I listened to the C50 more and more, I just felt there was a fullness to the low end, perhaps a classic McIntosh warmth if you will, that was a little overt for my taste. Particularly in this small room where my equipment is and the 802 Diamonds that are already a large speaker for this room. I'm not blaming the C50 for doing anything wrong, mind you, but I'm happier overall with the sound of the C2300. Ironically, despite the fact that the C50 is prominently known for its tone controls, I'm not comfortable invoking tone adjustment to take something like that out when I wasn't experiencing it with the previous equipment in the first place.
 
It's just a sound preference. Some will prefer the C50 sound, some will prefer the C2300 sound. Both are great units. The only reason I chose the C2300 over the C50 was that I liked the green glowing tubes (yes I know - silly reason), but more importantly I wanted a separate DAC and a C2300 came up for a great price. Some people will want a combined DAC. I know for my smaller upstairs room that a C2500 will make more sense.

I really like the 8 band EQ on the C50 though! Tough first world problems.

Have you had the chance to try a D100 with the C2300?
 
It's just a sound preference. Some will prefer the C50 sound, some will prefer the C2300 sound. Both are great units. The only reason I chose the C2300 over the C50 was that I liked the green glowing tubes (yes I know - silly reason), but more importantly I wanted a separate DAC and a C2300 came up for a great price. Some people will want a combined DAC. I know for my smaller upstairs room that a C2500 will make more sense.

I really like the 8 band EQ on the C50 though! Tough first world problems.

Have you had the chance to try a D100 with the C2300?

Patience... soon... ;)
 
One thing I did notice with the C50's DAC that was a little odd was that when EAS warnings would come up on the screen watching TV from the UVerse receiver, it threw out some disturbingly high distortion trying to make the warning tone. I don't recall this happening with the TV by itself, or any other DAC but it concerned because of potential damage to the speakers. I'll have to wait until the next time they do a test to confirm whether it was the DAC or something wrong with the data stream from the box.
 
One other observation on the MT10 I forgot to mention that night but one I would feel remiss in not addressing...

Am I the only one who thinks that for a 10k TT that wall wart is an absolute embarrassment? It's not even well made as far as wall warts go, very light and puny feeling "orient" plastic. It also made me a little worried as the TT's main lifeline to the power outlet. Worse yet, it's an uncommon pin set so I can't just easily obtain an audiophile grade high end power supply (at least I don't think so). The counter argument would be of course that as well made as the TT is and given how well it isolates noise to a remarkable degree, a nicer PS isn't necessary.

The soft cover that came with it was also a very odd affair that I never did quite figure out, I just sort of got it to where the faceplate is uncovered and the rear is... mostly covered.

Other than those "accessory" related observations, no complaints on the TT's performance.
 
One other observation on the MT10 I forgot to mention that night but one I would feel remiss in not addressing...

Am I the only one who thinks that for a 10k TT that wall wart is an absolute embarrassment? It's not even well made as far as wall warts go, very light and puny feeling "orient" plastic. It also made me a little worried as the TT's main lifeline to the power outlet. Worse yet, it's an uncommon pin set so I can't just easily obtain an audiophile grade high end power supply (at least I don't think so). The counter argument would be of course that as well made as the TT is and given how well it isolates noise to a remarkable degree, a nicer PS isn't necessary.

The soft cover that came with it was also a very odd affair that I never did quite figure out, I just sort of got it to where the faceplate is uncovered and the rear is... mostly covered.

Other than those "accessory" related observations, no complaints on the TT's performance.


I'm glad you brought the power cord up. There was some discussion that MAC had a recall on the power supply cord assembly and the part that accepts the cord on the TT.

Not sure if it was gossip or true.
 
Back
Top Bottom