McIntosh C52 Preamplifier Review

[JBT]

Originally Posted by Mahalo

JBT, thanks for that.

Enjoyed it especially because I'm considering purchasing a C50. I did wonder why the reviewer did not use a Mac amp, since he used 3 other amps for the review.

I don't know but the Rogue Mono Blocks are no slouches

[prepress]

Don't anyone get any ideas or draw conclusions, but I just subscribed to this thread.

[crwilli]

Originally Posted by prepress

Don't anyone get any ideas or draw conclusions, but I just subscribed to this thread.

Ha!

[prepress]

Originally Posted by crwilli

Ha!

What?

[GeAllan70]

Originally Posted by mgard

After watching that video I is hard not to want one. Way to go McIntosh! I want one... my C2300 is OK, but I want one...

~Mike

Mike let me know if you get one!!

you can sell your 2300 to me!!

[Mahalo]

Originally Posted by JBT

I don't know but the Rogue Mono Blocks are no slouches

My comment was not a reflection of the Rogues. From what I know, in the case of the C50 for example I believe the MC452 was the sister product. So, likely the same case with the C52. So, since: 1) the reviewer was reviewing a Mac, and, 2) since he commented several times that he was interested in determining whether Mac had a "sonic signature," I was just curious as to why he did not use a Mac amp as part of the C52 review.

[mgard]

Originally Posted by GeAllan70

Mike let me know if you get one!!

you can sell your 2300 to me!!

GeAllan70,

The C52 is a sweet preamp but I think the reality is my C2300 will remain in my system for a while longer. Last night I moved my audio cabinet from behind my speakers to a side wall. It was amazing what that did for the sound stage. Just like eh.. getting a new piece of gear.
I guess Jim Smith of "Get Better Sound" was right.

~Mike

[mgard]

I posed this question on another site, would it be better to upgrade to a C52 or keep my C2300 and upgrade my Bryston DAC? The C52 really looks good.

~Mike

[zele]

Originally Posted by mgard

I posed this question on another site, would it be better to upgrade to a C52 or keep my C2300 and upgrade my Bryston DAC? The C52 really looks good. ~Mike

I think it comes down to what kind of a sound you like and how much you are challanged on the space side. I personally would upgrade to the C52, with that I would get my favorite McIntosh sound and at the same time reduce system complexity by having to have one box less. When I compared the sound of the McIntosh internal DAC of my C2500 to the sound of Auralic Vega, I actually preferred the sound of the interal DAC. But if you like the sound of the Bryston DAC and space is no issue than it would be a different case....

[BWB75]

I just spent a couple of hours at the audio store, much of which was devoted to coveting the C52 on display. They had it connected to an MCD500 CD player and a pair of 601's driving new B&W 803 speakers.

The speakers are awesome and deserve their own discussion. Same with the 601s. I will comment here on my observations of the C52 preamplifier.

1) Built like a tank. Nice stainless chassis. Lots of inputs. But, we knew that.

2) I did not play a record (it's in a Magnolia store, so analog is not at the forefront, there). I did check out the MC and MM inputs, though. Here is what I learned.

The MM has a 40dB gain and is adjustable plus or minus 6dB from there. The MM stage is load adjustable from 50 to 1000 Pf. Not sure how that translates in ohms.

The MC has a 60dB gain, also adjustable plus or minus 6 dB. The load is adjustable from 50 to 1000 ohms. Not sure why this is in ohms and the other in Pf.

3) The headphone stage is fantastic. I tried it with a pair of nice Audeze headphones (around $700) and found it extremely resolving, non-fatiguing, and wound up sitting on the floor for a long time just bouncing my knees. Great detail, very neutral, could listen all day.

The HDX crossfeed thing did not please me. It significantly muffled the sound, seemingly truncating the extension of the highs and deadening the midrange. The soundstage did not sound especially more natural. It went from the usual "between your ears" effect of regular headphones to a sense that the instruments were arrayed around the top of my head. The imaging did not strike me as better, just different. Switching back to regular stereo opened up the sound in a most gratifying way. I would leave it on that setting.

They had the McIntosh MHA100 headphone system there, too, so I did an a/b comparison. I could not discern any difference in the sound on regular stereo. With HDX activated the MHA100 seemed to crush the sound a little less, but otherwise the performance was the same as far as I could tell.

So, I would not hold out for the HDX feature, but the regular stereo headphone amplifier in the C52 is simply stellar. Music in your head and those blue decibel meters dancing before your eyes makes for a very nice time. Based on this experience, I am going to sell my existing headphone amp and put the money towards a C52...

4) The 601s and big B&W speakers were very crisp and revealing, and everything they had to say was just wonderful. The system as a whole, which must by definition include the pre-amp, sounded very neutral, very coherent, and very detailed. It stopped short of the level of detail that hurts the ears or distracts from the music, but otherwise is right there with the best systems I have ever heard.

I wish I could have done a comparison with the C47, but they didn't have any around.

5).Tone controls! They really work!

6) The interface was easy. I am not a remote using type of person, so I played with the knobs. It's easy to work this pre-amp and it feels like quality.

Bottom line: I want one of these! Time to start saving some pennies!