Will Sabrina rock?

[Sea music]

I had the Mc 275 for a weekend with my Sabrina’s. They sound great but quickly run
out of power. My Mc 301’s are a great match power wise for the Sabrina’s. I would however
recommend the Mc 452’s. Less money, more power and easier to trade out of later.
The Sabrina’s are a very good speaker in that price bracket and have good bass for their
size. Remember wife acceptance factor and good luck.

[PeterMusic]

Thanks to all for the advice--I will focus on switching to a hybrid solution. I especially appreciate the help on a point that was glossed over by the professional reviewers. Cheers!

[brownbear]

I'm driving my Sabrinas with an all SS setup of the MC152 and D1100. No lack of power whatsoever and the bass response is fine. The 152 could be an option for you if you don't want to jump to the 452. I was looking into upgrading to the 452, but instead I changed out my preamp from the C47 to the D1100 and I'm really glad I did.

[PeterMusic]

So to answer my own question--yes, Sabrina rocks!

I went back to the dealer today, this time with the group's hybrid advice in mind and the Sabrinas positioned more carefully and closer to the back wall. They did beautifully with 3 different amp combinations--the original MC275/C2600, a 300wpc Bryston with the C2600, and the MC152/C2600. I also took a listen to a pair of B&W 804/D3.

All the amplification options sounded terrific. As several have pointed out, the SS amps increased the punch compared to the MC275. But with more careful positioning of the speakers, the tube amp had plenty of bass. Especially compared to the MC152, I would not have been able to identify any bass weakness without direct comparison.

So the demo Sabrinas, MC275, and C22 are coming to my house this weekend! (Once I found the bass acceptable, I couldn't resist the MC275's magic on the mids and highs.)

Thanks again for the thoughtful comments and advice. Although I ended up at the original, theoretically suboptimal spot; the group's comments helped me understand the situation much better. Cheers!

[brownbear]

Congrats! I'm happy for you and glad you went with your ears. Did you feel the MC152 had bass weakness?

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by brownbear

Congrats! I'm happy for you and glad you went with your ears. Did you feel the MC152 had bass weakness?

No weakness to speak of. Although the Bryston bass was a step above the MC152 bass, it could not match the MC152 on overall experience. It was easy for me to choose the McIntosh.

I thought the MC152 was a great amp; the bass was slightly quicker and more defined than the MC275. I chose the MC275 because of what I would describe as the almost ethereal nature of the vocals--they sort of hover above the speakers.

Just to be clear--of all the comparisons I made yesterday, this was the only one that was at all difficult in terms of ranking--I had to go back and forth several times to understand the differences. My take between the two amps is that they are extremely close in sound, with the MC152 a bit better on the low end and the MC275 a bit better on the high.

Overall, I would not say that one is a better amp than the other, only that for me and the music I enjoy, the MC275 is the better choice. Of course, if my listening preference was strictly hard rock, just for example, I would probably have reversed the order of preference for the 3 amps in question

[Dr Tone]

I think the 275 has the option to be run in mono mode, add a second some day down the road for a little better control of the Sabrina's impedance dip.

[brownbear]

Originally Posted by PeterMusic

No weakness to speak of. Although the Bryston bass was a step above the MC152 bass, it could not match the MC152 on overall experience. It was easy for me to choose the McIntosh.

I thought the MC152 was a great amp; the bass was slightly quicker and more defined than the MC275. I chose the MC275 because of what I would describe as the almost ethereal nature of the vocals--they sort of hover above the speakers.

Just to be clear--of all the comparisons I made yesterday, this was the only one that was at all difficult in terms of ranking--I had to go back and forth several times to understand the differences. My take between the two amps is that they are extremely close in sound, with the MC152 a bit better on the low end and the MC275 a bit better on the high.

Overall, I would not say that one is a better amp than the other, only that for me and the music I enjoy, the MC275 is the better choice. Of course, if my listening preference was strictly hard rock, just for example, I would probably have reversed the order of preference for the 3 amps in question

Nice summary, thanks for sharing that.

[Sea music]

Originally Posted by Sea music

I had the Mc 275 for a weekend with my Sabrina’s. They sound great but quickly run
out of power. My Mc 301’s are a great match power wise for the Sabrina’s. I would however
recommend the Mc 452’s. Less money, more power and easier to trade out of later.
The Sabrina’s are a very good speaker in that price bracket and have good bass for their
size. Remember wife acceptance factor and good luck.

I will add that my son preferred the tubes. Sort of fun that he listens to classical
and owns a turntable whereas I am all digital. I hope this is a sign of a great
2 channel resurgence.

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by Sea music

I will add that my son preferred the tubes. Sort of fun that he listens to classical
and owns a turntable whereas I am all digital. I hope this is a sign of a great
2 channel resurgence.

Excellent! Vive la difference! We have the same interfamily dynamic. My son insists on vinyl over digital sources; my music is all digital. I did wonder if an MC452 would have beaten the 275 in my selection process, but as I noted, I'm already at the very top of my budget.

My general theory--most of us are spending a huge amount of money in order to get new technology such as CDs and SS, to sound as good as old technology such as vinyl and tubes. Not a criticism, just an observation of the irony