MC402 vs FPB 300cx

We all are entitled to our own opinion. I agree with your dealer about the B&W and Mac matching, so if there is a mis-match it is elsewhere, in my opinion.

Again, the issues you describe such as those with Cassandra are simply not issues for me.

I just went back to my Krell, and WOW. It feels good to be home. Sounds better in everyway, no harshness at the same volume level. Maybe I just keep this amp, the Mac gave me a new found respect for it.

So now that I am back to my Krell I can make a better more accurate comparison in what I heard in comparing my Krell (KAV) and the MC402.

MC402- very detailed, quiet, nice bass, not overly tight, but not boomy either. Full spectrum of the music represented with the Mac, whereas some amps are weak in one area or another. Mid-range however, at moderate volumes sounded harsh and etched in my system. Highs (and this is where I noticed a big difference) sounded grainy compared to my Krell.

All around the Krell is just smoother, very much smmooooooooother, more refined...More dynamic and more balanced and emotional. Dynamic peaks came from a darker soundstage with the Krell, as opposed to the MC402, I knew the tones were coming since it was so much slower. The Krell places instruments/performers better than the Mac as well.

I can say with confidence, and this might not please those with this amp, that it is NOT a weakness or difference in my system. The reason I say this is because I have had other amps in my system and they did very well. If for some reason however, the Mac can not work with something I have, that adds to the weaknesses of this amp IMO.

It is my belief McIntosh and Krell are in two completely diffent classes, even at the KAV level of Krell. One of the things I would use as an example is the parent company of McIntosh, and the fact they have piece where they slap their own faceplace on a crappy Escient product-weak. I don't mean to slam this amp, but I guess I am. If it were worth it's salt IMO, I would rave about it. I basically think the Mac is a tier below what I thought it would be, nice entry-level amp, but not for someone looking to move up from a Krell piece.

Sorry if I offended any Mac owners, but I would suggest going to audition a Kav and see for yourself. The difference is jaw-dropping.

That's why there's vanilla & chocolate!

I have a 'dog in the fight' as I own a MC402 amp. Sharp, rasspy and overly pronounced are not adjectives I would ever use to describe this amp. I too have been through some amps (none were Krell) and while not the last word in detail, the MC-402 I have in a very good system is worlds apart from you have experienced.

Vanilla & Chocolate...........Krell works with your gear!

Jc51373,
to everybody his opinion. However, I do not think it makes sense to say a company would make a better product any time, nor does it make sense to say that McIntosh and Krell are in two completely different classes. They are different amps in the same class. People change from Krell to Mac, or the other way round.
The German magazine Audio, in its December 2006 issue, ran the McIntosh C1000 preamp and 2KW amps against Krell´s new top of the line Evolution preamp and amps. A six-editors-panel gave the nod to the 40,000 S Krell Evolution Two preamp as being a slight touch more honest than the 17,000 S C 1000 McIntosh preamp, but all preferred the 60,000 $ Mac-amps over the 50,000 Krell amps.
Also, I find it somewhat strange that you get a 402 and first write
"Mac better in every way in my system over the Krell so far. I am picking up more detail in my music, much more. Very nice sound stage, a little wider, and deeper, but much quieter, or darker if you will. Bass is taut (sp?) and punchy, appropriately so, no overly punchy, no boomy at all, balanced."
and then trash the Mac again. This makes me think that you may lack the experience necessary to judge components on their own merit.
Regards,
Florian Hassel