MC 462 Stereophile Review -May '19
 

The new MC462 will likely receive a Class A rating in Stereophile next year. The review is stellar and John Atkinson's measurements show a very high power amp that displays excellent engineering.

Nice plug for McIntosh. Now I want one dammit!

The reviewer bought the Demo.

I look forward to reading this review.Really considering buying one of these.

My issue isn't here yet ...

As did Paul Seydor in his Absolute Sound review of the C52.

I don't think anybody else offers more pedigree, build quality, power and sonic ease in a class A/B amp at the price.

You should give Bryston a listen. :yes:

Talk about a thread derailment! Oh wait - that's el jefe ... Carry on!

OK, I'll bite. I'd agree that some Bryston amps are worthy competitors when it comes to sound quality. But, until they forgo their complete disregard for industrial design (aesthetics), Bryston will remain at least one step below McIntosh on my list. :smoking:

Take your pick...

https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/-/media...tyle-Hero.ashx


https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...2_orig.jpg&f=1

Ouch! :thumbsup:

Ha, but you still don't know which one I like the most... :D

Respect. I've nothing against Bryston with their confidence inspiring 20 year assurance of quality. Rather the contrary. Indeed, I'd considered Bryston in the less expensive form of a stereo amp when I settled on my MC452/C52 combo. I also considered Parasound monoblocs but I think neither company has quite the pedigree or cosmetic appeal of Mcs, not that anybody listens to lipstick. I'm sure there are other worthy options in this price range we've not mentioned but I'll stand with Bart for the nonce! It's hard to go wrong with a 452-462/C2600/C52 for value returned in the elevated world of high end pricing where a $15500 amp-preamp combo is considered entry level!

(Please send 28B3 pair for review and the satisfaction of seeing my potential retraction of McIntosh supremacy on these very pages)!

Your signature shows neither so it's a mystery. :scratch2:

I have a lot of sympathy for the iconic blue meters.
But my pick would be the Brystons. :yes:

My MC462 of six months has been and continues to be superb. And, it constitutes (dare I write it?) something of a true bargain. Made in the good ol' USA, too. Just sayin'.

Happy listening.

Bob

I'm thinking the C52/MC462 combo would be provide just the right kiss of bliss in my humble listening room. I'd be plotting this acquisition now if I weren't in the middle of having a good bit of work done on my Contender.

Silhouettes?

Don't scrimp on the ICs between your pre/amp. Makes a BIG difference.

Read the review - super yawn ...

I too would pick the $24K 1000 watt monos over the 462 ;)

I had a pair of 7B NRB monos they powered my N802s nearly 15 years ago. Not a complaint about em.

Why would you pick Bryston over McIntosh?

I would probably chose mcintosh over bryston, but it also depended on price.

Having owned any number of units from both, I'll stick with Bryston. Am a fan of their physical design, as well. Not as much bling as McIntosh, but I'm good. Both make great gear. But I prefer the sound of Bryston by a bit. Go with what 'lights your fire'. Can't imagine being unhappy with an MC462.

I'm really debating going for the 462 to replace my 14bsst2. Decisions, decisions...

Transplanted Canadians?

me too, that's why I utilize PASS

While the 462 is most definitely eye candy and I’m sure sounds spectacular. We as audiophiles are in this hobby for getting the best sound we can within our budget.

I just recently went from the McIntosh MC452 to the PS Audio BHK Signature 300 monoblocks. I do miss the look of the 452 but as soon as I power up the BHK 300 I forget all about the 452.

McIntosh MC1.25KW:

1,200 watts into 2, 4 and 8 ohms
THD: 0.005%
S/N: 124 dB/120 dB (balanced/unbalanced)
Dynamic headroom: 2.2 dB.
Meters

Weight: 158 lbs

Retail Price: $25,000 (pair)


Bryston 28B-3:

1,000 watts into 8 ohms; 1,800 into 4 ohms (no other impedance is provided)
THD: 0.005%
S/N: 117 dB/116 dB (balanced/unbalanced)
Dynamic headroom: Not provided.
No meters.

Weight: 93 lbs

Retail Price: $24,000 (pair)


All things considered, I think the McIntosh is the better unit and likely to outlive the Bryston as well as having much better resale value.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no contest for the small difference in price.

"While the 462 is most definitely eye candy and I’m sure sounds spectacular. We as audiophiles are in this hobby for getting the best sound we can within our budget.

I just recently went from the McIntosh MC452 to the PS Audio BHK Signature 300 monoblocks. I do miss the look of the 452 but as soon as I power up the BHK 300 I forget all about the 452."

Paul, aren't you comparing apples and oranges? You went from an older Mac stereo amp to the top line PS mono amps. What would you expect? If you had chosen the 611 the story would be different.

McIntosh is the bar by which all other manufacturers are measured, both solid state and tube. Mac is still going strong when challengers like Krell, Classe, Adcom, ML, Roland, I could mention more, have receded. Thankfully, Ayre seems to have managed to have survived Charlie Hansen's passing. AR is another but their sound has changed. Wilson is another survivor. In twenty years Dag will not be the Dag of today. Ditto for Bryston and PS Audio. Designers who found companies are not immortal. No manufacturer has had the consistency of McIntosh and this is once again proven with the 462 review. Mac needs competitors to push them. If there is one criticism I have it's their tendency to complacency over the years. However, I don't see this in the current Mac organization. Mac seems to actually be pushing the envelope with regard to new technologies.

____________________
Charles Updated System
Most recent update: AQ Diamond USB replaces AQ Coffee
Amps: McIntosh 1.25KW’s (3) set on floor on custom made cultured marble slabs
Preamp and DAC: McIntosh D1100
Sources: McIntosh MCD1100 SACD player, MVP881 BR player, MVP851 DVD player, MR87 tuner, Marantz 510LV Laser Disc player, ASUS laptop USB (JRiver Media Center 23)
Speakers: Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx
Sub-woofer: Wilson Audio Specialties Thor’s Hammer (1) horizontal lie and Wilson Watch Controller (abbr: WC)
Cables main system: Audioquest Wel Signature speaker cables and balanced IC (preamp to amps); Wel Signature AES/EBU balanced digital IC for CD playback; Audioquest Diamond optical (1) for tuner, (1) for BR player, and (1) for LD player for total of (3); Diamond USB cable; McIntosh MCT cable for SACD playback; Dragon power cords (5 HC cords and 3 source cords for total of 8); Thunder HC power cord for tuner; cables for DVD player not listed
Cables subwoofer system: Audioquest Redwood speaker cable (1); Wolf balanced subwoofer IC from WC to amp; Wind balanced IC from preamp to WC; Hurricane HC (2) and Dragon HC (1) power cords
Power conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 7000 (1) and Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines with no. 10 wire straight out of fuse box
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD) solid walnut cabinet on large casters; holds all sources and preamp; also, Niagara 7000; 11 feet minimum distance from speakers
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes enough to turn the room into a virtual anechoic chamber if desired; however, at present my room is significantly reflective giving me a bright, vibrant, dynamic, highly resolving, smooth sound free of harshness and grain and perfect for my taste; zero slap echo; gorgeous midrange
AC: Dedicated to this room only, an ultra-high efficiency and quiet Trane split system 2.5-ton heat pump with 4 returns; active electrostatic filter and top-grade digital thermostat
Room (mancave): 40’L x 15.5’W A-frame; max ceiling height 8’ min 5’; wall within wall construction built of 2 x 6’s; built over garage with custom hardwood floor with gym seal with over 40 Lowes stiffened wooden I-beams supporting floor; complete isolation from rest of house

1) Looks
2) Performance
3) Warranty
4) Price (premium over America is much bigger for McIntosh than for Bryston!)

That being said, I've enjoyed very very good McIntosh systems (Ivan's for example, and many others).

All things considered, I think the McIntosh is the better unit and likely to outlive the Bryston as well as having much better resale value.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no contest for the small difference in price.[/QUOTE]



I’m not so sure about outliving Bryston. I’m 59 and have 2 Bryston amps (2B, 3B) still working from when I was an undergraduate, and one I bought used. The 20 year warranty speaks for itself.

I’m not so sure about outliving Bryston. I’m 59 and have 2 Bryston amps (2B, 3B) still working from when I was an undergraduate, and one I bought used. The 20 year warranty speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]

No doubt that's true but it also depends on how the equipment is used. In that regard, McIntosh is more likely to prove more reliable under extreme duress than the majority of amplification equipment from competing manufacturers. This is one of the main reasons McIntosh enjoys the resale value it does.

If you wanted to drive a 2 ohm pair of Magnepans for instance, I'm sure the MC1.25KW would be better suited for the task than the comparable Bryston model over time without failure. This is due to the autoformer design allowing for the coolest operating temperatures under extreme duress.

The weight of the respective units (93 lb vs 158 lb) should bear witness alone to how "overbuilt" the McIntosh is - which is the primary reason McIntosh is held in such regard which is reflected in its unusually strong resale value.

Hi Charles. This is very true. The 611’s were most definitely in my radar. The decision came down to price. While they might be the same MSRP the actual price to be paid was not even close.

Then there was the preamp. If I would have stuck with McIntosh I would have chosen the c1100. The BHK preamp was considerably less as well. So basically the decision came down to price.

MC 462 Stereophile Review -May '19
 

This has become a great example of how to puke on a thread.

Want to add relevant commentary to the original post? Great, add it here.

Want to speak about other products or direct comparisons of the MC462 to other products, start another thread.

(Rant over)

:goodpost:

Earlier in the thread the MC462 was being compared to the Bryston 28B-3 (albeit loosely) which is not a logical apples-to-apples comparison to make. Price was also cited (although it wasn't clear which was presumed to hold the advantage in that regard).

A little further delving was in order to shed some light on the matter. After navigating Bryston's site (with some difficulty), I was unable to find a comparable unit to the MC462 therefore proceeded to find the closest comparable McIntosh unit to the Bryston 28B-3 thus being in a much better position to compare the the respective offerings which was intended to prove enlightening to the reader, not destructive.

It's also commonplace for discussion to deviate from the OP and as all commentary thus far has been respectfully & thoughtfully presented, it's difficult to understand the reason for such a characterization. :headscrt:

I hope many will read the Stereophile review. Basically, the 462 is a 500 W/ch stereo amp that will compete favorably sound and spec wise with any 500 watt stereo amp on the planet. Cosmetically, it has no peer. It is both beautiful and functional. I find the meters very useful. I try to listen to my Alexx between 1.2 and 12 watts unless I realy want to crank it up but never over 120.

However, the Thor is very different. For example I was watching Aquaman. The low frequency effects of this movie are amazing. I noticed this from the outset. I had the volume set on 45 which just about brought down my room. During the fight between King Orm and Aquaman at about the midpoint in the movie the needle flew past 1,200 watts. It was difficult to appreciate there was a particularly low note that set the needle off. The whole fight was quite loud and amazing in terms of sound effects both low and higher frequency. It surprised me. I don't want to damage my system. I turned the volume down to 44. My Alex were hitting 240. I would never have know this without the Mac meters. I want the movie to be loud but under no circumstances to damage my speakers. Clipping can do this.

Dag meters are very insensitive I understand and basically useless for this reason. Mac meters are extremely sensitive and therefore very useful. To develop their meters from scratch would add thousands of dollars to a rival amp. Ditto for autoformers, etc. You get so much more with a Mac amp than any other amp but competition and opposing opinions make the world go round. I want folks to buy and love their gear. It makes my Mac gear all the more special.

^^ :goodpost:

Great review! Though I have to say, other than the measurements (which are great), the review really only shows how great the MC462 pairs with Harbeth or B&W speakers. The B&W sounded like were on loan and new to the reviewer. It's really hard to do any comparison when they don't keep their speakers, preamps, etc. consistent across their amp reviews. Don't get me wrong, it is a great read and a good data point.

In my opinion, McIntosh + B&W sounds great. B&W speakers tend to be on the brighter side. It would be awesome for them to try pairing the MC462 with equivalent sized warmer sounding speaker. That would make an awesome review/comparison, at least for me.

I just read the Stereophile review elsewhere. The one interesting thing I read was at the end during the Q&A with Charlie Randall. In it, he mentions they are working on a new of amplifier for introduction later this year.

From the article:

“....We are going to work on a crazy amplifier towards the end of this year that will bring both worlds (my edit - Tubes and Solid State) together. From a performance standpoint, it is purely subjective—it's what you like to listen to. I like them both. I think vacuum tubes do a better job in some areas, and solid-state, same way.”

The complete review is now up on the Stereophile website.