Vintage Mcintosh Separates or New Integrated?

SeattleHiFi

Active Member
I thought I'd pose the question to you all here about my current consideration. I've had my Mcintosh C33 and Mc2105 for about 4 years. I am considering the idea of replacing them with an integrated like the MA6600, or the MA6700. Mcintosh new separates are out of the question financially.

I'm happy with my vinyl front end (listen to lots of vinyl), Thorens TD 125, SME 3009, Shure v15xmr. And listen to FM through my MR 77.

My speakers may be replaced later down the road, but currently are Dahlquist DQM 9, with the upgraded regnar crossovers, and new surrounds on the woofers.

Can any of you who have hear similar vintage gear and the newer integrated give me your opinions?
 
Well I replaced my older NAD preamp/tuner and Audio Design power amp recently with a Bryston Integrated amp, the improvement was like night and day. But in my case I replaced some mid-fi gear at best, with much better equipment. I Replaced my Energy Pro-22 Monitor speakers soon after with some Reference 3A's, and that made even more of a difference

In your case, your starting out with what might be (I'm not familiar with your specific models) very good amps, so the improvement might be minimal, especially if you stick with the same brand. Your TT and Tuner are both likely up to the task if they are operating correctly.

I think by far the biggest improvement for your system would come from replacing your speakers. For the price of a MA6600, Spendor, Reference 3A, PMC or Harbreth, all offer some speakers that I believe would make a much bigger improvement than you could ever get upgrading you current Amps.
 
Last edited:
Well the C33 and MC2105 have excellent reputations. The C33 functionally is an awesome pre amp with an excellent phono stage (I also have a graham slee reflex era gold, but switch between the two because I find they both have very enjoyable qualities.) In the next few months I'm sending my tonearm for rewiring at smetonearms.com. May eventually put my sme 3009 on a michell gyro deck....

All pondering aside, I'm sure the c33 and certainly the 45 year old MC2105 are not the last word in low distortion/noise operation. The amp is currently being serviced by Audio Elite Technician, I will see what he has to say about an estimate, looks like some caps are failing in the power supply. This has me thinking about the next two decades of my audio gear! I was given this gear by my father, and he took great care of it as do i. Just, trying to look ahead I guess.

The Dahlquists, (as a term of endearment) look quite 'boxy', but sound quite amazing. I'm sure they are also not the last word in Speaker performance! I'm thinking of KEF LS50 down the road, but not sure.

Please don't tell me they haven't made any improvements in the last 30-40 years in audio gear, haven't they?!
 
P.S. I just recently hooked my dahlquists (quite efficient at 95db 1 watt 1 khz) to the Monitor amplifier in the C33, and it is excellent! In some ways I prefer its sound over the MC2105, though it doesn't have the juice to get as loud, it nevertheless at near as loud as I would need volumes sounds really wonderful. Perhaps a little closed in, but more articulate and controlled than the mc2105. This got me thinking about the amp in the newer integrated if I do need/want to replace the MC2105. Any thoughts on the C33 as a pre with the MA6600 as a power amp?
 
I'm thinking if you get Terry DeWick or AudioClassics to go through the 2105 you will be set for the next 35/40 years. Keep in mind that I'm a vintage Mcintosh freak though.:yes:
 
I would just up grade the amplifier myself. I have a C34 and though the phono section isn't quite s good as my MX120. I find the versatility of the mode selector, record selector, listen selector, graphic tome controls and processor insert functions to important to move to a current pre-amp. If I had more room I would move to a C-40. As far as amps are concerned. A significant move forward would be a 7200 if you like your C-33 direct coupled amps sound. If you need impedance control a 7300 with autoformers would be a great choice. The next step after that would be a 352. The Personally I wish Mac would build a Quad balanced 150-200 watt amp for those of us who have moderately efficient speakers. Think of all the Klipsch, Altec, JBL and Bozak owners out there that would really surprised . Now we are delegated to MC275s, which isn't a bad thing, but a Quad balanced amp would be better.
 
If you were going to an MA 6600, you may as well sell the C 33. Specs are likely better in the preamp section of the newer unit, plus you'd be losing the remote control capabilities by keeping the C 33.

For what it's worth and in my humble opinion - I doubt you're going to notice much of a sonic difference between by going from what you now have to the MA 6600.

Furthermore, the S/N and distortion levels in a lot of program material are not as good as that in my main system which is similar to yours. Even when switching in/out the MQ 101 EQ with "lowly" S/N of 85 dB, barely makes a difference with my C 30 preamp of 100 dB S/N.

If you're pressed for space, in need of DAC and/or remote control capabilities - that might justify the move; otherwise, I personally don't feel there's much to be gained.

My 2 cents.
 
Of your C32 and MC2105 I can only state this: I had a C32 and MC2205 forty years ago and I've never heard another preamp or amp that "I" thought sounded better no matter the cost. The combination of smooth and articulate was unbeatable. I wish I could afford to buy something similar today.:) I don't know about the new offerings but I've always preferred separates for the versatility.
 
Of your C32 and MC2105 I can only state this: I had a C32 and MC2205 forty years ago and I've never heard another preamp or amp that "I" thought sounded better no matter the cost. The combination of smooth and articulate was unbeatable. I wish I could afford to buy something similar today.:) I don't know about the new offerings but I've always preferred separates for the versatility.

I agree.
I would keep C33/MC2105 and, maybe spend some $$ to restore them by sending them to Terry; or possibly you could do it yourself. It seems you are taking care of the amp at t he moment. I'd like to hear your report about Audio elite (their work, prices?).
I am sure new amp will have better specs, especially S/n but I wonder about significant sound improvement.
Maybe, you could talk to the dealer of loaning you the new unit given that you could (would you?) trade in your old equipment.
 
I would just up grade the amplifier myself. I have a C34 and though the phono section isn't quite s good as my MX120. I find the versatility of the mode selector, record selector, listen selector, graphic tome controls and processor insert functions to important to move to a current pre-amp. If I had more room I would move to a C-40. As far as amps are concerned. A significant move forward would be a 7200 if you like your C-33 direct coupled amps sound. If you need impedance control a 7300 with autoformers would be a great choice. The next step after that would be a 352. The Personally I wish Mac would build a Quad balanced 150-200 watt amp for those of us who have moderately efficient speakers. Think of all the Klipsch, Altec, JBL and Bozak owners out there that would really surprised . Now we are delegated to MC275s, which isn't a bad thing, but a Quad balanced amp would be better.
I would love an mc275! I've demoed it quite a bit as I am currently helping a friend choose his new mcintosh gear, and it's wonderful. I listen to so much music though I think a tube power amp would end of costing me quite a bit in tubes! I would love to try a tube pre.
 
I'm thinking if you get Terry DeWick or AudioClassics to go through the 2105 you will be set for the next 35/40 years. Keep in mind that I'm a vintage Mcintosh freak though.:yes:

I too love vintage stuff. It's not like anything else. I personally don't really like the LCD displays on the newer stuff. But I wonder what may be logical. I don't think when my dad bought the c33, that he was thinking of his c28 and wondering if it weren't better to just stick with it. Or when he replaced he mc2105 with various amps (now a 452) that maybe they weren't really any better. I know in our passion for audio some of us geek out on equipment more than others and move trading swapping gear all the time. I wouldn't characteriZe Myself or my dad as compulsive upgraders.

When I look at my gear (I'm 28 years old) I think it's amazing that 40+ years ago this was designed and built and still sounds and looks wonderful.

When I look at new gear, I keep this feeling in mind.
 
I'm trusting my ears... nothing else. I'm a very pragmatic person and am not easily influenced by emotion or hype. My old C32 and MC2205 were as good as anything I've heard in the last 40+ years. I've had some nice sounding gear since then but none were any better and, I dare say, not quite as good. One example is my brother's love for high-end Krell preamps and amps. Altough highly detailed... they were a bit harsh to my ears. In fact, I much preferred my "budget" Forte gear over the very pricey Krell equipment. IMHO, the Krell was fatiguing. My old Mac gear I could listen to for hours... the Forte I had later too though it wasn't quite as detailed, controlled and dynamic as the Mac.
 
Last edited:
I agree.
I would keep C33/MC2105 and, maybe spend some $$ to restore them by sending them to Terry; or possibly you could do it yourself. It seems you are taking care of the amp at t he moment. I'd like to hear your report about Audio elite (their work, prices?).
I am sure new amp will have better specs, especially S/n but I wonder about significant sound improvement.
Maybe, you could talk to the dealer of loaning you the new unit given that you could (would you?) trade in your old equipment.


Part of my whole consideration, is how much money will it take to eek out another 20-30 years of life? Between down time (I have no second stereo), and inconvenience to travel/ship gear around, and what can reasonably be expected for the life expectancy of my gear even with significant $$ for restore, it could be a bit of an overload for me. I think vintage gear requires and in this case deserves some tlc and restoration. Is that a luxury I want to take on?
Just part of my question overall. Performance improvements would be welcome, but I'm also thinking long term.
 
I believe the only things in solid state gear that age to the point of necessary replacement are capacitors and mechanical switches/pots/relays... unless the gear is abused in some way. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.
 
Part of my whole consideration, is how much money will it take to eek out another 20-30 years of life?
The past is not always an indicator of the future. I would hope and be pretty confident Mac will still be around and make great gear in 20-30 years but there will probably be many advances in digital audio. Home many companies still make VCRs? Do many people refurb their existing VCRs? They probably convert the source material and store it on an HD.
 
The past is not always an indicator of the future. I would hope and be pretty confident Mac will still be around and make great gear in 20-30 years but there will probably be many advances in digital audio. Home many companies still make VCRs? Do many people refurb their existing VCRs? They probably convert the source material and store it on an HD.

Yeah I hope so to! I'm almost entirely a vinyl guy. So I'm not super concerned with digital audio, which clearly has a ways to go with establishing some standards that will last longer than a few years.

Could you elaborate more on your thoughts. Are you saying current mcintosh gear may not last 20-30 years?
 
Could you elaborate more on your thoughts. Are you saying current mcintosh gear may not last 20-30 years?
Of course the hardware will last that long but the faster technology accelerates the faster old standards disappear. Analog audio and film have been around forever but their digital replacement has gone through many iterations. VHS casettes are now like Edison cylinders. Tubes and phono are, I must admit, an anomaly.
 
Actually, analog audio and film went through countless iterations as well (gramophone, daguerreotype). It reached a point that new advancements were more-or-less pointless because we could no longer hear or see the improvements provided the quality was there.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom