2. amps-preamps
  3. 190114-95977

Not sure what to think

This weekend I spent A/B testing a new preamp. My system: OPPO 105 (I only  have CDs), Bryston 9B-SST amplifier, B&W 801 loudspeakers (circa 1980) no special cables, non-sound treated room. My current preamp is a Krell-KAV 250p recently serviced. I have always wanted to test a McIntosh preamp. My dad had McI equipment when I was growing up and recently visiting local stores with McI in their listening rooms blew me away (as would be expected in a vendor-setup room). I borrowed a McI C-49 to try out.

I spent 3 days putting different CDs in and out. Rock, jazz, classical, house. In rock, 80s rock, prog rock, anything I knew super well. I tried a few SACDs, too. I had to keep switching the cables so there was always about a minute or so going between the equipment. 

I wanted BADLY to hear a difference. I really did. Between the childhood nostalgia, the looks of the McI (yes, I know music is for listening, not watching what it comes out of), and the vendor visits, I was ready. I had to believe my "vintage" Krell would not stand up to a modern, much more expensive McI. I spent hours going back and forth and back and forth. I kept telling myself I would hear something different on the McI and I just did not. So many discs, keying in on different types of passages, focusing on the bass or the vocals or the mids. You name it, I was ready for that one tiny moment to say "drop the money on a McI and don't look back."

Alas, as much as I still have a passion for the McI for the non-auditory reasons above, for the moment I will be sticking with my Krell. I am not here to knock McI - I still love the thought of it, or any type of equipment that might upgrade my listening experience. I guess I should feel good that the Krell is still working and maybe something else will come along in my future. My sound producer friend suggested I spend the dollars on room treatments. :-)

olfac87
olfac87 OP
24 posts
 

I did not expect the outpouring of responses to this thread which have all been very positive. So many great perspectives, from tubes to room treatment to DACs to transport, and then even perspectives like the one above on how I could just enjoy the McI for lots of reasons. And yes, the C49 definitely did not make anything sound worse for sure. So many avenues!

bbarten
67 posts
 

Room treatment is the icing on the cake.  Imagine cake without icing.  lol

tweak1
3,679 posts
 

+1 to all you correctly mentioned the 105.

When it first came out I bought one primarily to play and add to my SACD collection. I played redbook through my then Pioneer PD 65 with upgraded chips. The 105 simply did not compare. Years later I upgraded the 105 power supply, and while it was a huge step forward, I likened it to putting lipstick on a pig.

I have been enjoying the heck out of a Audiolab CDT 6000 (responds really well to upgraded PC and coax cable) for several years, but have the itch to get the Shanling ET3 at a reasonable $750, a top loader with I2S, which means eventually replacing my Audio Alchemy DDP- 1 +PS 5 which was pre I2S as that interface is said to significantly improve redbook sound

hth

aewarren
667 posts
 

There was a lot of good advice here from many different perspectives and I would like to offer one more. You heard a "Mac stack" at your dealer and were blown away. Different speakers, different room, etc, etc. Then you tried a Mac pre in your system and did not hear a real difference. Maybe your system is not resolving enough to hear the differences in components? I'm not a Mac fan, but I have heard that Macintosh, like some other brands, sound best within a system comprised of their own components. I would also like to congratulate you for not convincing yourself that you heard non-existing improvements and to add that every difference heard is NOT necessarily an improvement. Good hunting, and I also think you should try a tubed preamp.

jlbkmb1958
28 posts
 

If you want to hear a difference... tubes.

More to discover