2. amps-preamps
  3. 1249786221

MH a300 vs A3.5?

Looking at some MF integrateds and trying to figure which way to go. The 3.5 has gotten some good writeups but I have also heard that the production went overseas and caused issues. The 300 seems to get some good press too. I am looking to have these run Ohm Walsh 100s3 speakers.I hae no way to hear any of these. They are replacing a Mcintosh 5100 with only 45WRMS and I may just use it for a year or so until I can buy what I really want.

I listen to all kinds of music though its probably jazz 40 female vocals 20 and rock 20 and everything else 20% all on CD in a 14 x14 roomForget the $ and give me your opinion.
joekapahulu
stanwal's avatar
stanwal
3,147 posts
 
I think the 3.2 might be better than the 3.5. They call all of them dual mono but they seem to be less so as the series progressed. The NuVista M3 is really good but runs $2k or so. I have one. For less money I would go with the 300 or 3.2.
hens
173 posts
 
I would go with the A300. I've had quite a few MF amps over the years, including the A3 before the A300 and the A5. I've hung onto the A300 in a 2nd system driving Usher Be-718's and the combination works supremely well. I've not heard the Ohms, so couldn't say what the synergy would be there. I can say that the A300 is a very smooth amplifier, with a wee bit of warmth in the mids and tight and punchy rather than supremely deep bass. I think this is one of the most underrated amps MF have produced.
rar1's avatar
rar1
1,784 posts
 
Like the others, I have owned MF equipment over the years. In my case, it was the A3 integrated, A300 power amp, and CD PRE 24 cd player/ preamp. All great stuff. For integrated amps, I would go in this order, starting with the most desirable first:

308, 300, 3.2, 3, 3.5

Best regards,

Rich
More to discover