mcintosh mc 202 VS. McCormack dna 225

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....

I love the Mcintosh gear partly because it is slightly warm sounding. Mcs go great with Mcs too.

I have done in home audition of many highly rated brands of amplifier until I decided to purchase the McIntosh. I own the mc352 but I have the mc202 in my house for 7 days. I am fairly impress with the mc202. To my ear and my setup the McIntosh are more musical and a joy to listen to. To get any better you have to spend a lot more money. Paired it with a good preamp and you got a winner. There is no mid-fi about it. Let your ear to be the judge.