McIntosh MC402

Hello I currently own a Mac 252 a mc 275, a c2200 and the little cd205 changer. Love them all. I have heard in my house, the 402 and the 501s. I have had all three there at the same time....my results were. the 252 is the best bang for the buck, the 402 is a little better and the 501s were quite nice and were the best of the lot. They all share that famed mac sound, open lush and very inviting and musical...not fatiguing.

If money were not an issue I would have gotten the 501s...another twist is 2 252s into mono....might give that a try....which amp probably depends on the speakers....either way you win.

Thanks for the great evaluation - I'm anxious to hear although I can't in my home in my system.

I own an MC-252 which I use to drive a pair of totem mani-2 speakers. Its a grat amp, rock solid reliable into the totems which are very inefficient. Organ pedals are reproduced with ease. Great amp for the buck, and it is rarely pushed to the limit. I consider it a very good value.

Pat

I had a chance to audition the MC402 with a pair of Martin Logan Ascent loudspeakers at Magnolia HiFi in Seattle this past summer. The other componets auditioned included the McIntosh MC46 preamp, McIntosh MCD205 CD player, Audioquest Jaguar interconnects with RCA termination, and Audioquest Gibralter speaker cables. The CDs that I used included “Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section” (Contemporary Stereo S7532, 20-bit K2 edition), “Sarah Brightman: Time to Say Goodbye” (Angel CDC 56511), and Mozart Synphony Nos. 40 and 41 perfomred by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and conducted by James Levine (Red Seal Digital RCD14413).

I found the MC402 warm, lush, and rich with an enveloping bottom end and a tipped-up treble that not only spot lit that region but added a rich glow to cymbals and bells that was not completely accurate no matter how seductive it might have been. I also found soundstage width compressed at the expense of soundstage depth, which seemed deeper than normal. Detail, transparency, clarity, and openness were not up to the standards set by the Sunfire Signature 600 – Two, which I had heard the day before.

If you cherish traditional audiophile values of neutrality, balance, clarity, detail, transparency, and openness, you will find that the MC402 will definitely have a sound of its own -- a warm, romanticized presentation -- that will only be exacerbated if it is paired with warm-sounding loudspeakers. If you like that type of sound, then you may enjoy the MC402.

I don't think there is one definition of what "audiophiles" prefer. Virtually every component sounds slightly different from another one, each a different flavor. To be an audiophile, at least to me, means 1) you love music and 2) you search for the components that satisfy you most in the reproduction of recorded music. While Mcintosh may not strictly meet the scientific criteria of traditional audiophile values listed above it is immensly enjoyable from a musical standpoint. And it works for virtually all kinds of music (the mcintosh tube amp is exceptional with bluegrass, jazz, classical, folk, acoustic guitar, native amserican flute, even space music and ambiant) and it can drive virtually any speaker out there. I have also found that too much detail can detract from the performance, the Mcintosh having a nice balance of detail with a cohesive nature.

In my experience the Mcintosh CD player is a good one but not a great one. I've heard several different CD players and DACs in my Mcintosh system and it clearly conveyed the difference between them, being more detailed with more detailed digital and less detailed with less detailed digital, more incisive with some, more relaxed with others, warmer with some, more analytical with others. My point here is that the Mcinotsh components have been neutral in allowing the differences in the sources to come through.

I would absolutely give Mcintosh a try. But be warned, they are heavy!