• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

McIntosh MC-275 Mk IV versus MC-250

rcarlton

rcarlton

Big Klipsch Speakers
One month ago I purchased a McIntosh MC-275 Mk IV to replace my MC-250 for two-channel and home theater listening. Terry DeWick restored my MC-250 to specs last year.

Back in 1970 the MC-275, 75 watts/channel, sold for $444 and the MC-250, 50 watts/channel, was $379 (the MC-2505 sold for $449, the blue meter version of the MC-250). Based on the similar prices one would assume they would sound about the same.

Listening test:
I used Chesky’s Ultimate Demonstration Disc to test the amps. The disc is well recorded and readily available. I have run through many CD's this past month using the new amplifier. The system consisted of Klipschorn’s, Cambridge Audio Azur 640C, Denon AVR-3200, and Monster cable.

ud095.jpg


High resolution: Spanish Harlem. Rebecca Pigeon’s voice was very distinct and filled the room, the MC-275 seem to put a ‘halo’ around her voice. Heard more of a sharper distinction in the vocals with the MC-250. Edge MC-250.

Depth: If I Could Sing the Blues. Virtually identical. Placement of the trumpet is identical, about 15 feet behind and to the right of the microphone. Tie.

Midrange purity: Grandma’s Hands. Near the end of the song you can hear tapping of feet, seemed more distinct with the MC-275. With the MC-250 sounded like they were wearing tennis shoes, with the MC-275 they might have been wearing dress shoes. Edge MC-275.

Holographic Imaging: Festival Te Deum. Certainly can tell this piece was recorded in a large cathedral. No edge to either amp. Tie.

Bass Resonance. Maybe more detail in the MC-275, especially as the fingers moved down the strings. Slight edge MC-275.

Appearance: Edge MC-275. Who can resist the glow of tubes?

Measurements:
Measured the room response curve of both amplifiers using full range test tone from Room EQ Wizard. The MC-275 seems a little flatter in the higher ranges and does a better job at 12-17 KHz. Lower end the curves track real close. Edge MC-275.

mc250%20vs%20mc275.jpg


Overall: Slight edge to the MC-275.


Conclusions: The newer MC-275 Mk IV beat the MC-250 by a small margin in my very subjective tests. Is the difference in price between the MC-275 at $3,900 and MC-250 at $450 (after a going over by Terry DeWick) worth it? The MC-250 is one heck of a value. Very warm, tube like sound at 1/8th the price!
 
Register to hide this ad
Very cool and love the graph. I think that many Mc-Tube purists might prefer tubes through and through (and I understand that this is highly subjective). I do think, however, that the solid state McIntosh components are every bit as capable as the tube offerings.

I am only a lowly vintage McIntosh owner (MC2125 and MC240), and I will indeed have to do some subjective side-by-side comparisons, but I must say that when I listen to an MX110Z/MC240 combination I am hard pressed to hear a sonic improvement with the solid state MC2125/C32. I suppose that the advantage of solid state is greater reliability and less heat, but I am fortunate to now have both and enjoy each in different situations.

I would love to have a chance to hear both with "horns".
 
BTW, I'd love to get my hands on an MC2300, 2500 or an MC275 :D

For the sake of shaking the trees...lets all gather around a Yamaha B-2 sometime...there's a treat too!!
 
Last edited:
The graph in the above post showed how the amplifiers worked in my listening room. The only way I could remove the room from the equation is to use an anechoic chamber, which I don't have. As I have done before, I piled 2" and 4" bass traps (OC-703) around the left speaker to remove as much of the room effect as I could. Here the MC-275 Mk IV really shines, much smoother and flatter curve.

anechoic%20mc275vs%20mc250.jpg


A good question to ask is how effective my pseudo-anechoic chamber is? I made a measurement with the left speaker (in the chamber) off and only right speaker playing. As expected the low frequencies were not blocked, but it did a terrific job with the high frequency.

filtered.jpg
 
Hey, some cool stuff there Ron. I have Chesky's The World's Greatest Audiophile Vocal Recordings which has some of the same material as your disk. I'm gonna give it a spin.

Murray
 
Some people, like Brian in Toronto have been making these comments for quite some time, so its interesting to see this validated in an A/B test. I bet if you tried the MC2100, the SS amp would have the edge in the bass department. Supposedly they were voiced similarly.
 
rcarlton,
Sorry to slip off topic, but I noticed your MC 275 on the bottom shelf of what looks like a Sanus rack in you pic. Do you have any problems with heat when the tubes are that close to the shelf above? Also, is the glass really strong enough o hold the amp? I have a similar set-up, but was afraid of the glass breaking, or heat build-up. Thanks,
Bill
 
Bill,
Bottom shelf and top shelf are supposed to handle 70 lbs, the rest of the shelves are rated at 60 lbs. MC-275 weighs 67 lbs. Should be OK. Watching the temperature closely. Doesn't seem to get too warm. Good air circulation. Front half of the glass shelf immediately above the tubes warms up some. I've moved the power conditioner back a little.

3761d1183331569-using-rew-access-new-equipment-dsc00800.jpg
 
Thanks Ron,
Considering that most of the weight of the 275 is concentrated under the transformers rather than spread out, I've been a bit wary of trying it. Looks like it works for you though. I was told by Sanus that the top shelf could handle 110lbs. The thought of them being wrong and the subsequent consequence would be too much for me to bear. It's a long drop from the top and would probably take out everything below it on the way down. Yikes! Thanks again,
Bill
 
Here is what I got from the Sanus site:
Product Specifications
Product Width: 26" / 66.04 cm
Product Height: 55" / 139.7 cm
Product Depth: 22" / 55.88 cm
Package Specifications
Package Width: 59.5" / 151.13 cm
Package Height: 31.5" / 80.01 cm
Package Depth: 5" / 12.7 cm
Package Weight: 89 lbs / 40.37 kg
Product Type Specifications
Top Shelf Width 26" / 66.04 cm
Top Shelf Depth 22" / 55.88 cm
Top Shelf Capacity 60 lbs / 27.22 kg
Middle Shelf Width 19" / 48.26 cm
Middle Shelf Depth 19" / 48.26 cm
Middle Shelf Capacity 50 lbs / 22.68 kg
Bottom Shelf Width 19" / 48.26 cm
Bottom Shelf Depth 19" / 48.26 cm
Bottom Shelf Capacity 70 lbs / 31.75 kg
 
Hi Ron,
My unit must be different since it is only 34.5" tall. Sounds like you have a taller one which might explain the difference in capacity. I'll have to check their web site to confirm. Thanks again,
Bill
 
Actually, the wonder is not that you are comparing the 250 to a 275 but, you are comparing it to a 275 MKIV. For you disbelievers, now you know why the 250 was my main amp for some 30 years and only replaced by a 2105 that is the metered version of the 2100. As for comparison, the 2105 in fighting form does provide more bass output than the 250 though I swapped out amps only to get 3 db more headroom. The tradeoff sems to be in the high end where there is a bit more delicacy in the instrument presentation. Not talking large difference and probably more a result of the increased bass output than the voicing of the amp in the high end.

I happen to like the 50 watt range for amps as it provides the steam without stressing the drivers as I prefer the pre-ferro fluid / high current drivers that came about in the 70s. However the 250 provides enough juice to push a set of LSTs with little difficulty. We used it in the AR showroom at Harvard Square when it was converted to an Olson/Teledyne store. The only other amp we had that did as well was the Crown DC300 but while it increased the dynamics, it sounded far worse. Rockers loved it. Classical lovers got bloody ears until we switched to the 250.

As for the frequency response, it does not surprise me they look so close. However, that you are seeing is the response of your speaker/amp and not the amp. To measure the amp, you'd measure the output at the speaker terminals and use a generator for the source. Building a chamber is quite an undertaking. While it will show you what the system can do, it is not the real workd but could be a reference point to try to tune your listening room against.

I listened 1 time to a system in the AR chamber in MA and while an interesting experience would not want my system to sound like it. AR also found it interesting but the system was used in a listening room that was tuned but not to the chamber.
 
The MC250 was a good amplifier for the 1970's if you wanted solid state but far behind the MC275. After recently hearing an updated one I thought it sounded OK but grainy when compared to the the MC252 and the MC275 MK IV is much quieter the the original MC275. The MC250 and M2100 are good budget amps but nothing like the current McIntosh line up and their price on the used market reflects it.
 
Actually all those old amps sell for a pretty penny. Many for more than their new price when originally purchased.
 
grateful said:
Actually all those old amps sell for a pretty penny. Many for more than their new price when originally purchased.
Click to expand...


But the tube units have increased in value much more than anything solid state from the same period because many people just don't seem to like the sound of the early solid state units.
 
Not sure we are in agreement nor disagreement Tony. The 250 and 2100 amps on a dollar per watt price today are not inexpensive and more expensive than many amps for competing companies that are far more powerful. Against Mc amps if you price the 2505 and 2105 (to compare meters to meters) on a dollar per watt basis the price differences are not as great as at first blush.

My 250 does have slightly more grain than the 2100 but, the 2100 was completely gone through by a reputable Mc repair shop just prior to my purchase, and 1 reason why I bought it while the 250 that I've owned since new has never had it bottom cover dropped.

As for the 1st gen amps having more grain than the current Mc amps, I would hope that there was some improvement with Mc amps over time. BUT and a BIG BUT, the differences are not as great as 1 might imagine and unless you are hyper critical music listening or an audiophiole as it is defined today, these amps are more than competent. When I got the 2105 I was auditioning for new Mc amps and had an open pocketbook. I do not remember whether the 252 was out then and 1 of the amps I listened to but if the little 250 from the late '60s has a bit more grain than a new 250 watt amp, I would suggest the 250 has stood the test of time very well. Of the new Mc amps I auditioned I found as a group they were dry and sterile, leaving the emption of the music stripped away in comparison to the 250. The 250 was used in the stores so I could compare apples to apples. The store that had the 2105 when it was hooked in amazed me in that the emotional transmital of the music outweighed the noticable detail improvement with the newer amps. This increas in detail sounded more false but it really was more like halving the sitting space to where the instruments were.

Admittedly, years ago I was a seeker of the perfect reproduction system (no quips please) worried whether my bank of Marantz 9s were sounding exactly the same and later my bank of ARC amps. 1 day I woke up and realized it is not finding the perfect components and find a synergistic system that pulled me into the music and away from the hardware. The 250 with KLH Nines did that. Today, the 2105 with the Bozak Symphonys do it for me.

Today, like 30+ years ago if I were 30 years younger, I'd buy new Mc and 30 years later be as passionate as I am about what I bought 30 years ago and have loved these 30 years.
 
No I have not. My family decided to buy me a digital camera for father's day. We went to the store, jr went for the dslr rack picked out a camera, asked for my credit card and paid for my present. Got home and he took it to his room. I've seen it 1 time since. Some time maybe I'll get to see it and use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom