Your favorite Mac amplifiers?

[70sMac]

Originally Posted by Matt Cain

Im running my B&W 802d3's with MC462 now, but my 611s are being delivered tomorrow super excited to see / hear them finally

Do you have anything to report about your MC611s, Matt?

[70sMac]

I saw the venerable MC602 mentioned a couple of times...and the same goes for the new MC462...but I'm a bit surprised that one amp hasn't been mentioned yet.

Any thoughts from the MC452 folks?

[Yamaki]

Originally Posted by 70sMac

I saw the venerable MC602 mentioned a couple of times...and the same goes for the new MC462...but I'm a bit surprised that one amp hasn't been mentioned yet.

Any thoughts from the MC452 folks?

MC452 Club

[SAM992]

Originally Posted by 70sMac

I saw the venerable MC602 mentioned a couple of times...and the same goes for the new MC462...but I'm a bit surprised that one amp hasn't been mentioned yet.

Any thoughts from the MC452 folks?

I had the 452 as a loaner (as well as the 402) while waiting for my 462... honestly, at the volume levels I was listening to it, I couldn't tell much difference between it and the 462... the build quality of the 462 was a lot nicer tho, that much was very apparent.

[70sMac]

Originally Posted by SAM992

I had the 452 as a loaner (as well as the 402) while waiting for my 462... honestly, at the volume levels I was listening to it, I couldn't tell much difference between it and the 462... the build quality of the 462 was a lot nicer tho, that much was very apparent.

Sam..... Would you mind elaborating on the improved build quality of the MC462 vs the MC452? I'm very interested in the differences between the two amplifiers. Thank you for your time.

[Msegal]

I’ve been using a pair on MC275 LE mono blocks for about 8 years. I have never kept the same amplifier this long. I run a pair of REL G1’s of the speaker taps along with my Focal Scalas.
The bass is fast, right and tuneful with great PRAT. The mid bass is warm and robust but not slow. Imaging is precise. The highs can be a little reticent but I can juice up the Be tweeters with the speakers adjustable crossover.
I’ve thought of switching to MC2301s but would be afraid to lose what I’ve got. I’ve learned there is ALWAYS a trade off with switching gear.
I’ve also contemplated AR 160Ms but since most of my listening is classic rock, jazz and blues with virtually zero classical (yes I’m a troglodyte) I am not sure it will give me what I desire.

BTW my prior amps include Cary V12 monos, Classe 25 and Superphon DM200.

Best.
Mike S.

[SAM992]

Originally Posted by 70sMac

Sam..... Would you mind elaborating on the improved build quality of the MC462 vs the MC452? I'm very interested in the differences between the two amplifiers. Thank you for your time.

The three major differences are (the first one relating to build quality) the cast vs stamped housing for the transformers as well as the new "M" design heatsinks (see pics attached), and I believe the 462 has a Quad Balance design vs a Dual Balance for the 452, and finally they claim a 66% more dynamic headroom..

[Logan Nolag]

Originally Posted by SAM992

The three major differences are (the first one relating to build quality) the cast vs stamped housing for the transformers as well as the new "M" design heatsinks (see pics attached), and I believe the 462 has a Quad Balance design vs a Dual Balance for the 452, and finally they claim a 66% more dynamic headroom..

The MC452 is Quad Balanced it says so right on the faceplate. I think the only major difference between the two as far as specs go is that the MC462 has much larger filter caps so it has a much higher headroom. The other specs at least on paper are pretty much the same.

Also I wouldn't consider the build quality of the MC462 to be better necessarily. Just looking at the MC462 without knowing exactly how it's built the transformer pots look like they are extrusions of some sort which can actually be cheaper than a stamped part. As someone who designs aluminum extrusions I can say that the same goes for the
"Mc" heatsinks which are simply a different extrusion from the ones on the MC452 probably didn't cost much more for the tooling than the older ones seeing as the previous heatsinks were pretty much the same minus the "Mc". Aluminum extrusions are priced based on the size of the required die and amount of aluminum used more than the complexity which is part of what makes them so useful.

Also I just picked up a new C2700 to replace my old C47 and I can tell you that the new direct backlight that the C2700 shares with the MC462 is actually worse than the older fiber optic LED backlighting. From a distance they more or less look identical but on closer inspection the direct LED backlit units look a lot more like the older incandescent lit units in that you can see the light source through the letters at certain angles. The fiber optic backlights on the other hand are perfectly even no matter what angle you look at them from. If I had to guess they switched to direct backlighting because it's simpler and cheaper to manufacture not because it's actually better. I work in the lighting industry and I can tell you that fiber optic lighting with diffusion panels etc is far more complicated than just sticking a bunch of LEDs in a chamber behind the faceplate.

In short based on my observations of the newer units and my knowledge of manufacturing the build quality improvements are actually not improvements at all but rather just changes to simplify assembly and reduce costs without significantly reducing quality.

[SAM992]

Originally Posted by Logan Nolag

The MC452 is Quad Balanced it says so right on the faceplate. I think the only major difference between the two as far as specs go is that the MC462 has much larger filter caps so it has a much higher headroom. The other specs at least on paper are pretty much the same.

Also I wouldn't consider the build quality of the MC462 to be better necessarily. Just looking at the MC462 without knowing exactly how it's built the transformer pots look like they are extrusions of some sort which can actually be cheaper than a stamped part. As someone who designs aluminum extrusions I can say that the same goes for the
"Mc" heatsinks which are simply a different extrusion from the ones on the MC452 probably didn't cost much more for the tooling than the older ones seeing as the previous heatsinks were pretty much the same minus the "Mc". Aluminum extrusions are priced based on the size of the required die and amount of aluminum used more than the complexity which is part of what makes them so useful.

Also I just picked up a new C2700 to replace my old C47 and I can tell you that the new direct backlight that the C2700 shares with the MC462 is actually worse than the older fiber optic LED backlighting. From a distance they more or less look identical but on closer inspection the direct LED backlit units look a lot more like the older incandescent lit units in that you can see the light source through the letters at certain angles. The fiber optic backlights on the other hand are perfectly even no matter what angle you look at them from. If I had to guess they switched to direct backlighting because it's simpler and cheaper to manufacture not because it's actually better. I work in the lighting industry and I can tell you that fiber optic lighting with diffusion panels etc is far more complicated than just sticking a bunch of LEDs in a chamber behind the faceplate.

In short based on my observations of the newer units and my knowledge of manufacturing the build quality improvements are actually not improvements at all but rather just changes to simplify assembly and reduce costs without significantly reducing quality.

I stand corrected on the Quadbalanced... but there you have it, it appears the MC452 is in fact the better built unit... I don't claim to be an expert, but to my eyes I like the cast vs stamped, but I'm no expert.

[Logan Nolag]

Originally Posted by SAM992

I stand corrected on the Quadbalanced... but there you have it, it appears the MC452 is in fact the better built unit... I don't claim to be an expert, but to my eyes I like the cast vs stamped, but I'm no expert.

Honestly so do I. The new Mc heatsinks and extruded pots look much nicer in my opinion and it allows them to put the cool glass inserts in the lids. Aluminum extrusions are awesome and honestly I prefer them to stamped parts most of the time. Also maybe I wasn't super clear in my previous post but in my opinion extrusions are actually higher quality than stamped parts. Stamped parts can be more expensive when you're talking about low quantities same goes for injection molded plastic parts. Extrusions are much more cost effective for smaller companies because the tooling is significantly cheaper however once economies of scale kick in stamped parts quickly become cheaper. My company's products are pretty much entirely built using extrusions. Really the only part of the newer amps that are objectively worse are the direct LEDs and only because they aren't diffused as well. In every other way it can be argued that the MC462 is better built. I didn't mention this in my first post but the glass on the newer units is actually nicer. The gold lettering on the older fiber optic lit units is much less gold when the lights are off than the newer direct lit ones. I always thought my MC302's lettering was gold when it was off but with the C2700 next to it the color of the MC302's lettering is positively green. The C2700 text is solid perfect gold when the lights are off which is a huge improvement.

EDIT: Also direct LED is MUCH better for some things like actual lighting for example. Diffusing the LED through a fiberoptic panel reduces the brightness considerably and when the panels are very large they can be less even hence the reason full array direct lit TVs are much better than edge lit ones. In short I would never buy an MC452 over an MC462.