My MCD201 Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

jayvis

Super Member
Well I got my new player and after 10 days and approximately 20 hours of listening to redbook cd's, this is my initial review. First off, this is a big, beautifull cd player. I wouldn't have expected anything less of a McIntosh product in the aesthetics category. I tied it to my MA6500 which is piped through a pair of JM Labs Electra 915.1's. As reported by many other owners, the player loads a disc extremely slow, which reminds me of my first cd player back in 1985. The first disc I played was James Taylor's Hourglass which really made me smile. It just plain sounded great! But, since that first disc, my overall impressions have gone down hill. Disc after disc, some old, some new, I kept finding myself continually turning up the volume to hear the detail and punch I had grown accustomed to with my Arcam CD92 and other players before it. Sorry to say, that detail and punch was never found on the vast majority of the discs I've played. To my ears, it seems that the McIntosh's dac's just don't measure up to the Arcam's dCS Ring dac. I do agree with others that the MCD201 is easy to listen to for extended periods, mainly due to what I interpret as a filtered and subdued output. It does have a full bodied sound but doesn't reach down far enough on the lowest bass notes like the Arcam. The player excells in the midranges and highs, taking the edge off of many digital recordings. After about an hour and a half last night, I came to the conclusion that I was listening to a cd player that has somehow achieved analog sound qualities better than any I've heard to date. This is a very good thing for all those vinyl lovers out there but probably bad for those who crave that digital punch and detail. I keep reminding myself that it will take time for me to warm to this "new" sound that I'm just not accustomed to. So far, my initial reaction is somewhat disappointment. I really expected more from a player that retails for twice as much as the Arcam it was meant to replace. If you like the analog, vinyl sound, this is a player you must have. If you like or expect digital punch and detail from your redbook cd's, you may be disappointed. A big positive to report is that I haven't experienced any of the skipping or loading issues other owners have had. I'll continue to give the player and my ears time to get better aquainted and will report any change of opinions to all who are interested.
 
I'm sorry to see that you are disappointed by your new player. Maybe because I fear "digitus", or maybe because my B&W 703's have the reputation of having enough bite on their own, I never found the MCD201 lacking any kind of detail, punch or bass. I'm lucky because I got just the right combinaison of detail and warmth that I was looking for. It did take mine some time to break in, but you also took some time with yours before reviewing so that shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe bad synergy with your speakers or simply not your cup of tea?

I hope you get to love your 201..
 
Last edited:
This is a very good thing for all those vinyl lovers out there but probably bad for those who crave that digital punch and detail.
I think with time you may find that MCD201 does not over-emphasize certain frequency ranges like many CD players tend to do, making you believe that there is more resolution and detail but instead will more faithfully reproduce the recording on the CD without any added drama. I absolutely love my MCD201 for that reason and it continues to impress me with it's smooth, more lifelike presentation of recorded music. I suggest you go and listen to some live music some more and pay attention to see if all that added drama really exists in live music. Of course tastes vary and if the "digital punch" is what you really like, then I am sorry to say, the MCD201 will never satisfy your craving.
 
As far as low level resolution and outright dynamic range the MCD201 is about as good as it gets. Yes, a player with less dynamic range will sound louder but I don't think this is true to the music.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
I respect everything you guys are saying. But, what I'm trying to say is some of the things I hear clearly from my old player (finger snaps for example) are barely audible on the MCD201. You may be correct in stating that those types of details may be overemphasized on my old player and really aren't true to the live performance. But, isn't the ability to extract fine audible details from recordings part of the alure of the digital format? And yes, I am able to hear that type of added drama from most live performances. I have never heard a recording on vinyl ever closely compare to a live performance and was hoping the MCD201 would.
 
That was the first thing I noticed.....

...when I got my 201: My old NAD 542 always over-projected the mid-range and left me with a headache. It was so bad, I had to use my Ma6900's eq alot on old R&R (Who, Zep et al.) This doesn't happen on the 201 -- it sounds balanced. And the detail is simply superb.



PHC1 said:
I think with time you may find that MCD201 does not over-emphasize certain frequency ranges like many CD players tend to do, making you believe that there is more resolution and detail but instead will more faithfully reproduce the recording on the CD without any added drama. I absolutely love my MCD201 for that reason and it continues to impress me with it's smooth, more lifelike presentation of recorded music. I suggest you go and listen to some live music some more and pay attention to see if all that added drama really exists in live music. Of course tastes vary and if the "digital punch" is what you really like, then I am sorry to say, the MCD201 will never satisfy your craving.
 
Jay, everyone's system is different of course and synergy between components is very important. The MCD201 sounds balanced when used with McIntosh amps and speakers by McIntosh, B&W, ML, Wilson and others as reported by consumers.
As far as recreating the sound of a live performance, this is a lofty goal but a whole lot more is involved than the sound of one component. I would not be so quick to dismiss the sound quality of vinyl though as it does reproduce the emotional content of music better than digital in most instances.

thanks,
Ron-C
 
No argument Ron. I'm just reporting what I'm hearing (or not hearing) from the MCD201 in my system. Not trying to stir up trouble. Remember, I'm the one who has to live with my investment, good or bad. I've always been a fan of McIntosh equipment, but will never cave in to the half sighted belief that all Mc equipment is superior. As I've said before, I'll give this player more time and will hopefully be able to revise my initial opinions. There are too many variables (and dollars) involved right now to just give up on it. My next plan is to try everything through my old Klipsch Heresy's. Horn loaders might be the ticket with this animal.
 
Last edited:
if it's brand new it will need some time to burn in. you can always get your money out of a mcintosh.
 
Jay, how is the MCD201 connected to your system? Are you using it as a preamp? Balanced or unbalanced?

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
Hello,

Just let time to time ("in french, laisse du temps au temps").

Very very happy with my MCD201 which replaced the well known TEAC VRDS 25X, known for its (very, too) detailed and punchy sound.

What is lacking? microdetails?rythm?fluidity?musicality?warmness?

To me , it just sounds...real.

Jean-Marc.
 
Good review!

It's largely a comparison of the Arcam CD-92 to the MCD-201, so I was interested in what a CD-92 sounded like. I found that Arcam has ceased using the Ring DAC, and here's some comments from a review on AudioReview.com that may help explain things:

Strengths:
- Beautiful midrange - Excellent highs (almost too good - a bit on the ear piercing side) - Fantastic soundstage - Great dynamics (one has to turn the volume down to allow for those high dynamic transient music passages) - No problems in reading any CDs I have thrown at it. - Very user friendly

Weaknesses:
- Bass not up to par with upsampled CD players.


Many of the CD-92 reviews state that it takes quite a while for it to burn in. I don't recall my MCD-201 having that issue, but I do recall it getting slightly less laid back, more lively, after about 20 hours.

It's impossible to conclude anything, but jayvis, you may be switching from a particularly punchy unit to a more neutral unit and missing that punch. Your comment about vinyl is especially interesting. Most folks think that vinyl gets closest to the real thing, with SACD a close second and CD a distant third. You seem to prefer some aspects of digital that many find annoying.

To get another datapoint, have you tried SACD in the 201? If so, please give us your impressions!
 
Hey Jayvis,

Do you still have the Arcam?

If I was you, I would compare during two weeks on every style of music you use to listen to.And then take a decision.

It's not because you hear better (louder) finger slaps and other details that the sound is better: perhaps is it what you search, after all?

JM
 
Good points Negotiableterms. I haven't tried a SACD yet (don't own any), but hope to soon. My vinyl statement is my opinion that it doesn't approach the real thing. I certainly don't believe cd's do either. The only aspect of digital that I really find annoying is the overemphasis of the upper range that is prevalent on most cd's. I did experience that with my Arcam but not as much as what was described in the Audio Reviews. I also find the CD92 superior to the MCD201 in the deep bass department, at least in my system. That also goes against what you read in the reviews. Arcam discontinued use of the Ring DAC because of cost. Big mistake, in my opinion. So far, it seems to me that McIntosh has gone a little too far to de-emphasize the highs on the MCD201 when playing some redbook cd's. Hopefully I'll experience the same thing you did after about 20 hours of use. And yes, you are right. I am missing that punch that I have grown used to.
 
Ron-c,
The MCD201 is connected to a MA6500 integrated amp. The only cd connection option on that amp is unbalanced.
 
Have you tried bypassing the 6500 pre-amp section and hooking up the MCD201 to the "amp in" on the 6500? I am driving the 501 monoblocks with MCD201 directly (internal pre-amp) with excellent results. I liked it so much that I sold my
BAT VK31SE preamp!
 
I'll have to try the 201 pre instead of my 6500's, but I'm pretty lazy and the back of my gear isn't too accessible... oh well, would some one else try it first?? ;)
 
Well, my MCD 205 is mighty fine. Don't have the flexibility of different disc formats, but it sounds great, and I have multiple disc and random flexibility. Mighty fine.
 
mcd201

i respect your review. don't let more money fool you into better sound.
use the arcam if that is what you prefer. i agree with others on this thread that many high end systems today are high on the wow factor and fatigue factor too. i recently listened to a very well set up system that cost more than a 901 turbo and felt like my ears were going to bleed after 10 minutes. The speakers and amps are in the pages of stereophile as "reference". The speakers alone cost more than my toyota Sequoia.

i love the mcd201 in all repsects except the very painfully slow disk load times. i actually sold my mcd/mda1000 set and replaced with the 201 and am happier. I tend strongly towards warm, relaxing midrange/highs with a powerful but accurate bass. I rely on digital b/o ease of use. I have found no problem in the bass on the 201. I do have a hybrid speaker system - monitors with powered subs and find the bass excellent. i traded in a 501 pair for the ma2275 and find it a great combo. preferred to many very expensive combos (such as lamm's and AR). i have spent enough money on the high end and am happier than ever with the 201/2275 combo.

my 2 cents worth
ts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom