McIntosh MC402 or MC501's for Totem Mani-2

Why would a 1.2 k amp sound noticeably more powerful than a 400 watt amp at low listening levels (i.e providing 10 watts output)? All an amplifier does is reproduce the input signal with at increased voltage levels. The amps current capability allows for this reproduction when applied to a given load. There is no rational basis for stating that two different amps would sound different when both are operating in their linear regions. Where in the spec sheet on an amplifier is the measurement for "sounds more powerful"? In such a simple system as an amplifier for audio signals, if the paramater is not and cannot be measured, quantified, and listed, then it is without meaning. How do these people confirm the difference between the sound of a 501 and 402? By their statements? That is not confirmation, it is merely an assertion. As to the 6500 vs 6900 analogy - an argument that confirms, rather than refutes, the point of bias created by one's purchase.

musicnoise,

asserting that everybody who has bought something is blinded by his having spent money, and so automatically forces himself to think that the buy is better, is nonsense. If it were so, there would be no sense in a forum like audiogon and comparisons by audiophiles, because, in your view, everybody who has bought something is blinded anyway.

FYI: I did not buy the MA6900, just got one to compare it to my own MA 6500 - and still thought it was better.

The MC402 I bought later, sounded right out of the box, at low levels, better than the MA6500, although the power output was the same, and although the measurement are almost the same with both amps.

You seem to belong to an old school of audiophiles who still doubt that amps do sound different, especially at low levels. But they do. Specs and measurements are not without merit, but tell little about how an amp will sound. This is after all why Stereophile was started 40 years ago.

If you want to stick to the measurement-only school, that's fine with me, but it seems to be outdated.
Regards,
Florian Hassel

I have to agree with Florian. I can't even begin to say how much difference I have found between amplifiers at low volumes. Output power is only a tiny part of the amplifier's character and high-end amp design is much more art than science (I am an EE). As a result, predicting the performance of an amp based on power numbers is totally incorrect. However, you may believe what you wish, of course.

As for the 402 vs. 501, I have heard them both on 802D twice and feel that the difference is not worth the extra money. But if I HAD the money, then I would get the 501 because they are indeed "better." Just from a design standpoint, I have found monoblocks have superior imaging since their channel separation is essentially infinite - and the 501s are a perfect example. The 501 also have a bit more top end extension, which helps just about everything.

So the question really boils down to how big your budget is. As always. Having said that, I think you can do just as well in getting a 402 with a really nice set of cables as getting a pair of 501s with only-decent cables. There are many variables involved so there is no single absolute answer.

Arthur

I agree with Arthur....I have the 501's and compared them to the 402. Both were excellent sounding amps, the 501's had just a little more presence in the midrange area but they were really close. I chose 501's because I really wanted monoblocks and I drive Thiels so I wanted as much power as I could muster under 10K.

The 501's love Kimber 8TC, don't know if it's the size of the guage or not but they sound better on my system than many others I've tried.

I borrowed some MC501s when they came out, and compared them to my stereo MC500. The biggest difference by far was how much easier the monos are to move! Splitting up the weight into two chassis meant that I could easily move them myself . . . and that was always an issue for the ten years that I owned the MC500.