MA 7900 or MA 8000

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BowiePop

Thank you every body !

I've got time to take the right decision.
Perhaps, the MA7900 would be enough for my speakers. My subwoofer has got is own amplification with 500 w (class D).
I think that the difference between the MA7900 and the MA8000 would be stronger with other speakers than mine (which are satellites), as big B&W, Focal or Klipsch per example. My retailer hasn't got the MA8000, so impossible to test the both with my Cabasse.

The specifications (above) recommend up to 220 w for amplification. Just 20 W, is it really a problem to take care for best association ?
I like the Digital to analog conversion of new McIntosh, better than my network player Yamaha NP-S2000 (i've already test), so i don't look after the MA7000.

I wonder too if the MA8000 wouldn't be enormous for my living room too, hope my wife won't be afraid !

I would go with the 8000. Not that the 7900 isn't beautiful. It is. But this 8000 is one fantastic looking and I am sure functioning/sounding piece.

[syd123]

I'd probably chose the MA8000 but for reasons not yet mentioned. ..While I very much dislike the new push/scroll multi-function knobs on the latest gen of Mac Integrateds (to me, the knobs feel un-mac like, and flimsy), I do prefer the functionality of the preamp section of the newer MA8000. I find the ability to set trim levels for each input to be hugely helpful and the ability to dim/turn-off the meter lights an absolute necessity. Both of these features are found on the MA8000 but not on the MA7000. Not to be too much a fan-boy for my own amp (MA6600), but I'd prefer it over either. ..It pre-dates Mac's move to the push/scroll knob while offering the more modern feature set of adjustable trims for each input, lighting dimming, etc., which were not incorporated on the MA7000.

As for claims that any of these integrateds sound different from the other, I suggest a health dose of skepticism (they all have inaudible levels of distortion, insanely good S/N ratios, and enough clean power and headroom to cause hearing damage with all but the most inefficient speakers).

I also wouldn't make too much of the add'l 50 watts on tap with the MA8000. ..That small increase in output would very likely be inaudible (remember, a 3db increase, which is barely audible, would require a doubling of wattage). ..My 90db speakers rarely need more than 10 watts to wake the neighbors, so what possible advantage would a move from 250 to 300 watts give me (or most people).?

[Front242]

The MA8000 has such awesome bling factor that it cannot be ignored. I am thinking about ditching my c50 and mc275 mk6 for one! I have 85db speakers and feel the need for watts. Lots of watts.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Front242

The MA8000 has such awesome bling factor that it cannot be ignored. I am thinking about ditching my c50 and mc275 mk6 for one! I have 85db speakers and feel the need for watts. Lots of watts.

Agree. Also, the 8000 probably has a slightly larger power supply and current capacity.

[Stahle]

Originally Posted by syd123

I'd probably chose the MA8000 but for reasons not yet mentioned. ..While I very much dislike the new push/scroll multi-function knobs on the latest gen of Mac Integrateds (to me, the knobs feel un-mac like, and flimsy), I do prefer the functionality of the preamp section of the newer MA8000. I find the ability to set trim levels for each input to be hugely helpful and the ability to dim/turn-off the meter lights an absolute necessity. Both of these features are found on the MA8000 but not on the MA7000. Not to be too much a fan-boy for my own amp (MA6600), but I'd prefer it over either. ..It pre-dates Mac's move to the push/scroll knob while offering the more modern feature set of adjustable trims for each input, lighting dimming, etc., which were not incorporated on the MA7000.

As for claims that any of these integrateds sound different from the other, I suggest a health dose of skepticism (they all have inaudible levels of distortion, insanely good S/N ratios, and enough clean power and headroom to cause hearing damage with all but the most inefficient speakers).

I also wouldn't make too much of the add'l 50 watts on tap with the MA8000. ..That small increase in output would very likely be inaudible (remember, a 3db increase, which is barely audible, would require a doubling of wattage). ..My 90db speakers rarely need more than 10 watts to wake the neighbors, so what possible advantage would a move from 250 to 300 watts give me (or most people).?

Again, BowiePop is comparing the MA7900 to the MA8000, not the MA7000 to the MA8000. The MA7900 has the same trim controls and lighting controls as the MA8000.

I definitely agree with you regarding the new push/scroll knobs as feeling cheap and flimsy. However, a new feature I wouldn't want to be without is the ability to name an input whatever I want which both the MA7900 and MA8000 offer.

[Mark]

I just brought the MA7900. I am loving it.

[BowiePop]

Hello Mark, congratulations ! I'll be pleased to have some pictures of your system !

I'm gonna take the MA7900 too. Sorry not to choose the MA8000 for the people who try to explain to me the positive way to get it.

I think the MA7900 would be enough for my speakers, just have to wait for earning enough money. Hope in the beginning of 2015 !

[BowiePop]

I find another way for my futur system.

But i don't have the possibility to test between those two configurations :

D100 + Mc302 or MA7900

McIntosh give me this answer about the D100 + MC302 :

"Hi Eric,
Pure audio performance will be a bit better, but, with the D100, you will have digital inputs ONLY, no analog inputs, no phono input, no record outs and no EQ.

Chuck Hinton

McIntosh, Wadia and Snell Tech Support
McIntosh Sales Admin
Toll Free: (888)-979-3737 X311"

I'don't need phono input, i don't listen vinyl since a very long time. I'm using Dirac Audio Processor, that i test recently and find it great. So, i don't need any Eq.
And i don't need too analog input, i only watch movies and listen music with my Mac mini, and it won't change probably for a long time (to use a computer as source).

Are you agree with McIntosh suggestion? My dealer doesn' t know the D100 but he thinks that the D100 is more a DAC than a pre-amp.
Thank's for your help!