McIntosh C22 mkV Tube Analog Preamp Impressions

[Cohibaman]

Originally Posted by kevtn8

The C2700 is also the only Mcintosh preamp ( besides the C1100) to use the their top of line balanced optical / digital volume attenuator.

The C2200 on up used a digital volume attenuator and as far as I know, they were all optically controlled. Is the C2700 and C1100 using a different implementation than my C2300?

[brownbear]

Originally Posted by kevtn8

The new C22 is basically the C70 anniversary preamp which I had before I sold it for the C2700. To my ears it's not close, the C2700 is a much more refined preamp than the C70. The implementation of their Da2 on modules which can be upgraded is ingenious idea. The C2700 is also the only Mcintosh preamp ( besides the C1100) to use the their top of line balanced optical / digital volume attenuator. For me it's a home run from Mac and together with the MC75s making beautiful music that one can listen to all day long.

One of the reviewers in the video in post #1 heard differences between the C22 and the C70, liking the C22 better. I use my C22 mkV with the D1100 Dac and it is just gorgeous.

[kevtn8]

Originally Posted by Cohibaman

The C2200 on up used a digital volume attenuator and as far as I know, they were all optically controlled. Is the C2700 and C1100 using a different implementation than my C2300?

Mcintosh preamps all use a similar optically controlled digital attenuator but only the C2700 , C53 and C1100 features a precision balanced version of it. This makes sense when you factor in the high retail cost of C2700 /C53 compared to their other tube preamps down the line.

Mcintosh really focused on their modern volume attenuator starting with the C2300. I can say that I much prefer the feel of the volume control knob on C2700 compared to the C70.

[kevtn8]

Originally Posted by brownbear

One of the reviewers in the video in post #1 heard differences between the C22 and the C70, liking the C22 better. I use my C22 mkV with the D1100 Dac and it is just gorgeous.

Their D1100 actually has the more advanced precision balanced volume attenuator but of course being mainly dac it's lacking all of the inputs of the new C22. As long as you're happy with the sound is all that matters. Enjoy !

[Sandor]

Hi all,
To me the look of the C22 is just perfect. The nicest of the line. I have recently red a very good review of this preamp in a French audio magazine : they were extremely happy with the sound. It is just a bit strange to see the picture of what is inside the gear : basically just a small portion of the available space used, and the rest is empty. Many audiophiles complain that Mc preamps use very cheep op amps in the signal path. But I think the question is not wether they are cheep but wether they sound good . And it seems the answer is YES.
Anyway I like very much the "pure analog" design of the C22. The absence of any digital screen is also what makes me prefer it over the C1100. I'll try to make and A/B comparison and let yo know.
Best.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Sandor

Hi all,
To me the look of the C22 is just perfect. The nicest of the line. I have recently red a very good review of this preamp in a French audio magazine : they were extremely happy with the sound. It is just a bit strange to see the picture of what is inside the gear : basically just a small portion of the available space used, and the rest is empty. Many audiophiles complain that Mc preamps use very cheep op amps in the signal path. But I think the question is not wether they are cheep but wether they sound good . And it seems the answer is YES.
Anyway I like very much the "pure analog" design of the C22. The absence of any digital screen is also what makes me prefer it over the C1100. I'll try to make and A/B comparison and let yo know.
Best.

It is very hard to get the op-amps to sound "different". Cheap or expensive. They tend to sound very similar.

It is the whole package that counts in the end.

True, you are not going to see point to point wiring and audiophile grade parts like you see in other boutique products but in the end it is still a good sounding products and perhaps everyone else tries too hard?

[SAM992]

Originally Posted by Sandor

Hi all,
To me the look of the C22 is just perfect. The nicest of the line. I have recently red a very good review of this preamp in a French audio magazine : they were extremely happy with the sound. It is just a bit strange to see the picture of what is inside the gear : basically just a small portion of the available space used, and the rest is empty. Many audiophiles complain that Mc preamps use very cheep op amps in the signal path. But I think the question is not wether they are cheep but wether they sound good . And it seems the answer is YES.
Anyway I like very much the "pure analog" design of the C22. The absence of any digital screen is also what makes me prefer it over the C1100. I'll try to make and A/B comparison and let yo know.
Best.

overall I agree, the look of the C22 is my favorite.... if it had the spec's of the C1100, it would have been a no brainer for me...

I had a C53 loaner and C2700 on order for a while, both also great... hard to go wrong with any of the McIntosh amplification line these days.

[Logan Nolag]

Originally Posted by PHC1

It is very hard to get the op-amps to sound "different". Cheap or expensive. They tend to sound very similar.

It is the whole package that counts in the end.

True, you are not going to see point to point wiring and audiophile grade parts like you see in other boutique products but in the end it is still a good sounding products and perhaps everyone else tries too hard?

Thats a good thing too. Point to point wiring is objectively worse. There's a reason pretty much everything uses circuit boards these days and it's not just cost. Also McIntosh does use audiophile grade components. Not necessarily the highest end audiophile components but they more than get the job done.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Logan Nolag

Thats a good thing too. Point to point wiring is objectively worse. There's a reason pretty much everything uses circuit boards these days and it's not just cost. Also McIntosh does use audiophile grade components. Not necessarily the highest end audiophile components but they more than get the job done.

Audiophile grade component traditionally have been the go-to parts such as Mundorf, Hovland, Clarity Cap, Vishay, Black Gate, Solen, etc.. Not going to find any of that under the hood of a McIntosh.

Point to point wiring is labor intensive but worse? It is an art.

I have no objections listening to my PrimaLuna with point to point wiring and boutique parts. I had no objections to listening to point to point wired Shindo gear. People wish for the opportunity to listen to AudioNote point to point wired stuff but it is way outside the budget of most.

I owned an MC275MKIV as well as MC2301s, great amps. PrimaLuna integrated sounds better in some ways to my ears. Heck, it sounds better than the much leaner presentation of the Audio Research REFERENCE 250SE monoblocks I used to own (nearly 8 times the price of the PrimaLuna) but that is all personal preference and system synergy.


Point to point wiring is not a detriment, it was always considered a plus but it all depends on the final package.


PrimaLuna Top. McIntosh MC275 bottom. PrimaLuna designed in Holland and assembled in China... More Bang for the sonic buck?

[PHC1]

There are clearly things one can and can not compete with when dealing with different parts of the world and skilled labor. https://youtu.be/Yilm77v5cfo