mcintosh mc 202 VS. McCormack dna 225

I can highly recommend the DNA-225, as I own one. I have never heard the McIntosh you reference, but I would imagine most would argue that McIntosh is anything but mid-fi.

I can not compare the two, but I own the Mcintosh 202 and find that its powerful warm and detailed. One of the big plus's with Mcintosh not only is its reliability, but its value at resale.

If You are talking about plan what is more acurate to sound it is by far the DNA 225 mcintosh sound nice and warm and all but that seems to me to be allot of coloration the amp is adding the dna 225 has great musical sound and a much better sound stage then mcintosh that i have heard though i have not owned them i have never benn impressed enough Though the other post is right you can't beat the resale value people love the name and the looks
I love great sound and soundstage and depth and the dna does that the best period

It depends on the type of sound you like. I know the Mccormack 0.5 well and like my little Mc 7100 better. I like the liquid, warm, emotional, and involving sound I get from my McIntosh. The Mccormack could not deliver these qualities but did have more detail. To me, the 0.5 emphasized poor recording faults excessively. It made the music annoying - the last thing I want. Others will of course agree and disagree. So, I vote for McIntosh - not to mention the Mc 202 is darn beautiful to look at compared to the plain-jane Mccormack.

Another note, pairing McIntosh preamp and amp will add to the beautiful music aspect. I had a CJ PV10 preamp that did not sound as good as my McIntosh C712 (predecessor to the C15) with my McIntosh amp. It was probably a mismatch because the PV10 can sound great but it is all the more reason to keep amp and preamp the same brand. Just a thought....