fisher 500c alternative combos?

sberger said:

So since the OP asked about 500C alternatives, I'm curious regarding the differences between prime Macintosh gear and the 500C. Specifically, MC30 mono blocks, MC240, MC60, MC275. I've heard many say how while they think the 500C is great, it's really no comparison between it and the Mac's. I would love to hear what are the specific differences/improvements one would get by spending the additional bucks for Mac. Also, would this also include a completely restored Harman Kardon Citation II, which I have also heard is a legendary piece?

Click to expand...

I'm curious about this too. My 500c and Mac separates each have their unique strengths when paired with my efficient L300s. While the mid horn is fatiguing with the Macs, it is magically delicious with the 500c. The bass control and definition is (not surprisingly) better with the Macs. AC/DC = C26/2105, John Coltrane = 500c.
I often wonder if something like MC30s (at $2-3K) bi amped (+$ for bi amp compatible xovers) with the 2105 would be the best of both both worlds. I've also thought about replacing the C26 with an MX110 as a "cheaper" way of warming things up too. Also wondered if a newer MC275 would bring the big bass of the 2105 along with tubey goodness in the mids/highs. Im just afraid of throwing another $3K at my system and ending up with sound that's only $300 better than the 500c... :scratch2:

I really enjoy 1957 RCA black plates in the tone and phono sockets. I have Telefunkens I use there too. I like to change the sound up. I have Bugle Boys too but like the Teles and RCA's better. I have four original Mullards but they're a little to murky ( for lack of a better word ) for my ears. The Genalex Gold Lion 12ax7 reissues are the best new tube that I've found so far.

hornertuber said:

... Is anyone running any combos or intergrated's that are in the same price range and offer both a level of user upgradability/restoration and still shares a similar sound as the 500c? Maybe seems like a silly question. :scratch2:

I was thinking maybe a set of 30a's and a 400c must sound similar and great either way but that more then doubles the budget.

Click to expand...

If you want to stay with Fisher, you might want to try a some of the EL84/6BQ5/7189 Fisher models for Fisher quality and a different tube sound. They would be in the same price range as the big receivers and replacement tubes are not an issue. These would give less power than the 7591/7868 versions but can give a really nice sweetness to certain types of music. An EL84/7189 integrated with a separate tuner (e.g. X-202 with KM-60) or even one of the TA-600/500S receivers might be to your liking.

Moving up the Fisher food chain, a 100-T or 202-T preamp/Tuner would be a much less expensive option to match with Fisher power amps or monoblocks vs. a 400-C/400-CX, if you are trying to keep the cost from rising too much.

perchdog said:

I think this thread is way off based..

I firmly believe that comparing a mid-range reciever (built at a certain price point) versus premium seperates is ludacris. I also think that any of the units in question will not perform unless they have been refurbed which further negletes ant sort of fair comparison between stock units.

As far as what it takes to run the L300's I don't think there will be very much difference between the MC30 and the 500C, they use similar tube, I doubt either is up to the challenge, I know many would disagree but then again I seem to remember somone posting n9ot so long ago about the awesome performance with the 7189 tube and those speaks.

It all comes domn to personel opinion, this is mane

Click to expand...

Hmm okaaaay... and I firmly believe that part of what makes this hobby so interesting and fun (to me anyways) is that fact that sometimes a "lesser/older/cheaper" piece of gear can take on the fancy big boys and hold its own or sometimes even surpass the fancier stuff.
I personally own this gear, so I can 100% confirm that not only is the 500c "up to the challenge" of driving the L300s (sounds killer, in fact)- it does a shockingly decent job of driving notoriously inefficient AR9s as well. Which is why I'm hesitant to drop more dough on "premium (tube) separates" in the first place!

Another interesting Fisher piece is the 500-S. It uses a quad of 7189 output tubes driven by a pair of 7247s for the amplifier section, and a whole butt-load of tubes, including separate eye tubes for the AM & FM sections. Sounds really nice, too!

-D