I try not to get too hung up in specs, but since those are what I have to go on for the moment, I'll lay out what I see in those......because I don't have a local dealer with this stuff on display (search for those more distant resumes today), I can make the most of what I have read so far.....
The 205's long life in production is a selling point. Must have been something right with that product to keep it as such for so long. If a 255 didn't exist, on balance I would probably push hard for the 205 (and still well might), but the 255's listed "bona fides" have my attention, as follows:
50% more filter capacitance: I have spent a goodly part of my audio life (on the tube side in particular) watching/dealing with smaller power supplies and getting them boosted. That aspect of an amplifier seems to translate in many ways to how the amp controls the speaker. Take an MC30 and beef up the power supply (yeah, I know, not cool to alter the schematic but in research this stuff is useful) to see if that "waver" in the midrange changes as you tighten/firm up the bass response. It does, in both instances, which makes it a "different" amp, but illustrates the point, that reworking that stuff can matter in real world operation.
One "critique" I see on occasion in SOME corners, primarily in systems where inefficient speakers are used and the 205 used as mains, that the amp can run out of steam on the low end when pushed, all channels driven. It's highly unlikely I would have the issue, because I have Klipsch Cornwalls, which are 101 db efficient and therefore this amp would likely NEVER see anywhere near full output, even on peaks.
The amp would likely be living in the 250 milliwatt to one watt range primarily, 10 watt peak, with everything else as reserve. So I don't suspect that five channels driven full is an issue, and even at that suspect that even as Mac delivers real specs true to the rating that some of today's hard to drive speakers will tax anything short of Mac's biggest beasts. So I don't see that necessarily as a problem here, as many, many , many have not had such issues (albeit in a myriad of arrangements).
I have an Outlaw (ATI lineage) amp that does 10+ watts pretty well - especially for the price. Really quite good. But at 250 milliwatts it's pretty average, and on Klipsch Cornwalls a bit tiring, especially for music listening. What I need is to have this amp do is a "250 milliwatt tap dance" such that the modest, conversation listening is as clear and smooth as it is opened up. Mac does really well historically when it comes to voicing/matching/high frequency handling on speakers like Klipsch Cornwalls.
My MC250s do that "250 milliwatt dance". The bass doesn't fall off a cliff at conversational volume, the presentation stays balanced as it should. I even looked into buying a pair of MC2100 and adding that to my existing MC250 pair to get 5 X 100 watt fully autioformered power to the five Cornwalls (all there will ever be in this system). Even have a rebuilder sourced to redo the MC250s and would have had the MC2100s added to that job. However, it seems that the price of MC2100 has gone up considerably, recently losing out on a pair of those at $1100 each, which would have had me awaiting rebuild on those instead of asking all of the questions here. But when I add the 4K acquisition cost of two MC2100/2105, then 4-4.5K to rebuild them all, I'm in brand new, state of the art MC255 territory and still have a pair of MC250 to play with otherwise.
But that "dance" at most volumes, coupled with how the autoformered vintage amps get along with the speaker, it's another strong consideration. But in the end, it seems that mating an MX151 to an MC205 or 255 would be the better choice, especially for what is in part a theater type install, despite the "lean" toward music and less toward Hollywood superhero flicks. But I still think the "modern" approach is better, especially as I can scratch the "tube itch" and all of it's requisite sonic pallette in another 2 channel system and leave the theater to have a more "modern Mac" core presentation.
Which brings me to notable "spec" number two, which is the configurability to three channels as "front soundstage" amplifier on the MC255. This is another "step towards" another suggestion made on another forum - why not go whole hog and do MC303 for fronts and an MC152 for the rears. Well, that's 16K for that layout, maybe 10-11K used if I could locate, and what might be nice but yet a more cost effective "middle" seemingly now being available by way of the MC255.
That "middle" being a bigger power supply than an MC205 AND the ability to dedicate the amp to three channel @ 250WPC does seem to make it an interesting "merge/step between" the 205 and the 303/152, doesn't it?? This seems a response to what seems a lot of people using the MC205 as a mains amp - where Mac probably envisioned most high end customers doing MC303 for front stage and then 205/207s to fill out the effects channels. But as many used - and really tested the MC205 as a mains amp, the next logical step is to "hybridize" the feature set to allow one who really "uses" the power of the 255 to adjust/dedicate the 255 like an MC303. It's an interesting option/proposition/rework WRT the MC255.
So since I haven't yet located a dealer where I can listen, the specs certainly are something I'm looking at, not so much as a "spec driven guy" (after all, the MC30 is only guaranteed less than a half percent THD as one of the best midrange amps ever it doesn't matter) so specs aren't a "thing" for me other than trying to read between the lines of the good people's thinking at Mac to envision their intention as to why it would even be necessary to make a new five channel amp in the first place. They made the MC205 for 14 years, they could make it for another 10 and no one would complain, so there is a certain amount of "reading the tea leaves" on the specs, mostly because that, and your comments and pics are all I have :-)
I do appreciate your thoughts.
|