McIntosh C52 Preamplifier Review

[Capitalcityguy]

Originally Posted by jdandy

Kieran.......In my opinion, that is a false generalization that some people have repeated enough times that it has influenced some who don't have actual experience with the ESS ES9018S. My experience with multiple DACs that use that ESS DAC has been extremely pleasing. There are many manufacturers who have selected the ES9018S because of its excellent performance. Some people have personal preferences for other DAC's. There's nothing wrong with that. Before you allow someone else's opinion, including mine, to influence your purchasing decision let your own ears be the judge.

Keep in mind, the DAC alone is not the absolute "do all" definition of a component's sound and performance. There are analog amplifier circuits, some solid state and others tube driven, that the audio signal passes through in every DAC. The design, implementation, power supply, and parts quality of all the circuits in a DAC influence the sound. It is easy to say this DAC or that DAC sounds one way or the other while ignoring everything else inside a particular component.

I suggest you take time to discover for yourself how different DAC's, preamplifiers, amplifiers, and speakers sound before taking anyone's comments as the gospel. No two people hear the same way, so what may thrill one person might be a major turn-off for another, or vice versa. There is no substitute for actual hands on experience. It is the ultimate proof source. Everything else is just gossip.

Good stuff for sure. thanks for your input. As for me, I do have a decent amount of experience with listening to DAC's, but not being a technical person, I never dove into their design, implementation, or what type of chip. I have owned Bryston, PS Audio, DB Audio Labs Tranquility, Red Wine Audio Isabella, DS Speaker Dual Core 2.0 and most recently used the DAC in the C2500 and a modded Sony HAP 1ZES. They all had their pluses and minuses. None of them are as good or as enjoyable as the MDA 1000, wish I would have discovered that one earlier.

[rottikid]

Does anyone know if the c52 and the c47 have the same DAC.

[pasaja]

Originally Posted by rottikid

Does anyone know if the c52 and the c47 have the same DAC.

Upon information I have they share same ESS DAC.

[Andrew Zakon]

Good day to all

I am also using Mcintosh C52 in my 2ch/HT setup based on 2 Macintosh MC-601 power amps, Mcintosh MC152 for zone B, Mcintosh C205, player OPPO 105D, B&W 802D, 805Dspeakers (see photo in attachment). Transport is MacMini connected to C52 by Curious USB cable. Waiting for upgrade in a week by Uptone Regen and JS-2 Linear Power Supply.
The software I use is Roon. And I faced a problem with Roon 1.1 and C52 with herable electric clicks when manually switching between songs. But after I updated to Roon 1.2 problem disappeared.
Before C52 I had Classe Sigma SSP. It is not correct to compare a preamp and sound processor. But both offer digital music through the USB and have balanced connectors for stereo. What can I say Mcintosh is sounds 10 times better.

[mgard]

Welcome to AA Andrew! And that is one sweet system you have put together. Thank you for posting a picture.

~Mike

[tutomac]

Originally Posted by Andrew Zakon

Good day to all

I am also using Mcintosh C52 in my 2ch/HT setup based on 2 Macintosh MC-601 power amps, Mcintosh MC152 for zone B, Mcintosh C205, player OPPO 105D, B&W 802D, 805Dspeakers (see photo in attachment). Transport is MacMini connected to C52 by Curious USB cable. Waiting for upgrade in a week by Uptone Regen and JS-2 Linear Power Supply.
The software I use is Roon. And I faced a problem with Roon 1.1 and C52 with herable electric clicks when manually switching between songs. But after I updated to Roon 1.2 problem disappeared.
Before C52 I had Classe Sigma SSP. It is not correct to compare a preamp and sound processor. But both offer digital music through the USB and have balanced connectors for stereo. What can I say Mcintosh is sounds 10 times better.

Super, super, nice

[Pampero]

Super duper duper nice system!

Switching gears: I played around with the eq section last night. I used it to touch up some music I love (The Band's "Last Waltz") that is sonically a pretty dismal CD.

This recording sounds like a classic board tape (probably is) but is a terrific live performance. However, it really lacks sparkle and punch, being dull and lifeless at the high end, lacking punch and clarity down low.

In any case, judicious use of the 2K and 10K filters (an effort to shelve the high end up....probably added maybe one or two db to each) and addition of a bit of boost at the low end (a classic smile ...or maybe more like a grimace) made the experience far richer.

Used as I did, the eq added no notable noise or ringing but brightened the thing up to the point that it was a more enjoyable musical experience.

I'd say Mc put a very useful program eq into the C52.

As always, the trick for me with program eq is to not use too much. I'm not looking for massive correction, just trying to sweeten 'er up. If I really hear the eq kicking in hard, I reckon I've gone too far.

[MORTIS]

Originally Posted by Pampero

As always, the trick for me with program eq is to not use too much. I'm not looking for massive correction, just trying to sweeten 'er up. If I really hear the eq kicking in hard, I reckon I've gone too far.

Pampero: I agree with your methods. I've eliminated my need for the C48 EQ on a majority of my recordings after getting a sub and doing extensive room treatment, but there are still a number of albums that need small tweaks.

I'd love to have the EQ flexibility and new DAC in the C52, and McIntosh puts a very good EQ in their preamps, but I seriously wish they would not make it +/- 12db, as that results in overly sensitive rotation of the knobs, making it difficult to do a very slight change in sound. I don't think anyone needs 12db off center position. I wish it was no more than +/- 8db, or only 6db.
It's especially difficult when I need a rotation only slightly off center detent, but the knob easily snaps back to detent; and rotating any further may be too much.

Hmm, I suppose my post began to sound like a bit of a rant; likely because I've been wanting to comment about that excessive +/- range on those knobs for a long time

[Pampero]

Originally Posted by MORTIS

Pampero: I agree with your methods. I've eliminated my need for the C48 EQ on a majority of my recordings after getting a sub and doing extensive room treatment, but there are still a number of albums that need small tweaks.

I'd love to have the EQ flexibility and new DAC in the C52, and McIntosh puts a very good EQ in their preamps, but I seriously wish they would not make it +/- 12db, as that results in overly sensitive rotation of the knobs, making it difficult to do a very slight change in sound. I don't think anyone needs 12db off center position. I wish it was no more than +/- 8db, or only 6db.
It's especially difficult when I need a rotation only slightly off center detent, but the knob easily snaps back to detent; and rotating any further may be too much.

Hmm, I suppose my post began to sound like a bit of a rant; likely because I've been wanting to comment about that excessive +/- range on those knobs for a long time

I haven't seen the specifications although I do recall seeing a graph of the eq's eight boost and cut curves at one point. I also think I recall reading (maybe here?) that McIntosh actually reduced the 'boosts and cuts' in their latest eqs. I should look just for clarity. Maybe somebody (Dan? Ivan?) knows off the top of their heads. In any case, I think I know what you mean. A slight movement off center gave me what I was looking for.

You know in recording and live sound, engineers do not fear eq, neither as an artifact nor as a device. Of course, pro eqs are available in a myriad of types and defined by purpose. In the old analog world, there are/were dedicated eqs for microphones, room tuning devices, program (playback) eq, various broadcast eqs, never mind all the eqs masquerading as something else: Fletcher/Munson curves, shelving filters, narrow band anti feedback devices, a long, long list. And then there was the (at the time very difficult to engineer) implementation of digital equalization that is included in every workstation (computer) based recording system extent. And the parametrics! And then to pile it on, every analog source be it tape or vinyl has its own special record and playback eq set.

In fact, certain analog eqs, as it is with every audio device, have attained almost legendary status and command big money in the recording community.

What makes this thing worth $4000?


Yet eqs have a nasty reputation amongst audiophiles. Some folks may not realize just how much equalization goes into creating the vast bulk of program material they are enjoying. So really I view getting a very nice program eq in the C52 as a bonus. I do not fear it.

[MORTIS]

Originally Posted by Pampero

I also think I recall reading (maybe here?) that McIntosh actually reduced the 'boosts and cuts' in their latest eqs.

Pampero: Here it is straight from the C52 owners manual:

"The C52 Equalizer has eight Frequency Controls
which will raise or lower by 12dB".

I have no fear of them. I'm a big fan of their benefits and would not want a preamp without it, which is why I purchased the C48.
I think a lot of the fear and disdain many enthusiasts have for EQ is due to the majority of other enthusiasts who refuse to use it and believe it to be overly destructive to the signal quality and sound. I even suspect that many folks who criticize EQ and refuse to use them have never even had one in their system, and are simply parroting the beliefs of the respected majority. Or if they had it, they casually tried twisting the knobs and heard it ruining the sound and so they immediately believed themselves to be a member of that trusted majority of EQ haters.
I have a very good friend and audio enthusiast who does not have any EQ in his system and admits he knows little about the precise use of them within the frequency spectrum, but refuses to have one because of all the negative info he's read online.

An effective application of EQ requires very careful and delicate adjustments and an understanding of how and where each adjustment effects the character and timbre of individual instruments and vocals, and the overall balance of musical presentation.

I may get flamed for parts of this post but I'm willing to risk that.