Anyone have, or heard a McIntosh C41?

Please see the web site below that references a McIntosh C41. http://66.216.98.167/mcprod/views/ReviewSuono324.html

I am with Rodney, I listened to the C41 It was good, went right to the C42 I liked the 8 band EQ, and the sound was much better. Then It Happened the C2200 was a very warm & open sound being tube. It took me 30 min. in matching this to a MC 352 Amp, which I did, This is a sweet combo and I love it.
The C41 was very nice but not for me.
Dave

I own the C42 and the C2200. The 2200 is by far the better of the two. The 41 I have heard and it can compete with the 42 without as much control for recordings with glare. If there is a large difference in price I think you will be happy with the 41 but if you can swing a 2200 do not hesitate.

I also heard the 2200, and I like it a lot, but it is out of my price range.

My other gear is a pair of Scott Nixon monoblock amps. They are 40 watts each, and are op-amp designs based on the LM3875. I also have a Nixon TubeDac with a Sony 7700 transport. Audience AU24 interconnects, digital, power cords, jumpers, and speaker cables. Piega C-3 Limited speakers.

Thanks for the advice. .

B

I too will highly recommend the C-2200. I have owned ARC, Levinson, and VAC preamps, and the 2200 outperforms them all. However, I wonder why so few "golden-ears" seem not to like any of the Mac preamps. They favor Hovland, Lamm, Bat and ARC, but regard MacIntosh preamps as "stogy, old-fashioned,and basically dull. Have any of them ever listened to a C-2200? However, many of them will grudgingly admit to highly regarding the so-called classic Mac gear from the '60's as "OK". This seems to be the attitude of "The Absolute Sound", and all the sheep who follow the great god Harry!