C-220 Review in Stereophile

[Still-One]

As I was reading through the Stereophile with the reviews of tHe Ayre and Boulder products I noticed that Sam Tellig followed up his review of the MCD-500 with a review of the C-220 pre-amp. I will post some notes when I read it in detail. He had both positive and negative notes on the unit.

[Still-One]

Here are a few comments by Sam on the C-220.
Nicely built.
"The MM phono amp is unexpectedly fine."
"The line stages were very quiet and made no noise when switching."
"I couldn't fault the C-220 in the way it passe signals. Even the tone controls when engaged did not degrade the sound."
"Don't forget that this is McIntosh's least expensive pre-amp so what I say next should be taken in context". "Yes the C220 is very good at passing signals, but I thought it was less impressive at enhancing signals. Maybe you need one of McIntosh's more costly pre-amps do do that".
He thought the C220 was quieter than the CJ Classic Special Edition. He heard less line level background noise. "But quiet isn't everything" The CJ was able to take whatever line level source he fed into it and enhance it, the way the best pre-amps do. He heard more body, bloom, more tonal color, more dimensionality. If you want this you will have to move up the line.
It was trade of between the two, with the C220 you picked up functions and flexibility and engineering or do you want the purest sound possible?

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Stillone

I couldn't fault the C-220 in the way it passe signals. The CJ was able to take whatever line level source he fed into it and enhance it, the way the best pre-amps do. He heard more body, bloom, more tonal color, more dimensionality. If you want this you will have to move up the line.
It was trade of between the two, with the C220 you picked up functions and flexibility and engineering or do you want the purest sound possible?

This sounds like a contradiction. How does enhancing the sound make it more pure? I am all for sound enhancing (I like body, bloom, tone, etc.), but I put those in the euphonious distortion category. Based on this snippet - I haven't read the full review, it sounds like the C220 is more HiFi (less noise, less impact on the signal) than the CJ and yet in the end he asks "or do you want the purest sound possible?"

Puzzling.

Alberto

[Jerome W]

Originally Posted by Alberto

This sounds like a contradiction. How does enhancing the sound make it more pure? I am all for sound enhancing (I like body, bloom, tone, etc.), but I put those in the euphonious distortion category. Based on this snippet - I haven't read the full review, it sounds like the C220 is more HiFi (less noise, less impact on the signal) than the CJ and yet in the end he asks "or do you want the purest sound possible?"

Puzzling.

Alberto

Alberto,

Nice comment. I agree with you. This seems to be strange.
I will post a review comparing the 220 and the C1000P as soon as I get it. ( certainly next week).
This should be interesting, regarding Stereophile's comment on going up in the line of Mc preamps : I will be going from the least expensive one, to the top of the range product...

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by C220MC275

Alberto,

Nice comment. I agree with you. This seems to be strange.
I will post a review comparing the 220 and the C1000P as soon as I get it. ( certainly next week).
This should be interesting, regarding Stereophile's comment on going up in the line of Mc preamps : I will be going from the least expensive one, to the top of the range product...

I can't wait to read your thoughts.

Alberto

[PHC1]

Oh Sam, Sam, Sam....

I keep telling you guys, go for McIntosh SS preamp. The C46 will add the body and richness a musical system should have but will lack the ultimate resolution of C500/C1000. The tubed C500/C1000 may actually suit some but I think one has many choices at that price range. Yes, I have heard the C220, C46, C2300 and C500.

[1KW]

I would like a fully balanced pre amp to take advantage of the higher S/N ratio however I just have no room for a 2 box pre amp . I am staying with my C220 until something new from Mcintosh comes along.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Alberto

This sounds like a contradiction. How does enhancing the sound make it more pure? I am all for sound enhancing (I like body, bloom, tone, etc.), but I put those in the euphonious distortion category. Based on this snippet - I haven't read the full review, it sounds like the C220 is more HiFi (less noise, less impact on the signal) than the CJ and yet in the end he asks "or do you want the purest sound possible?"

Puzzling.

Alberto

I will expand a bit on what he wrote, maybe I edited it too much.
"The CJ is a wholly different animal with no features at all: no tone controls, balance switch, mono switch, speaker selector or remote. Is no remote preferable to one with 56 buttons? I will leave that to you."

I thought the McIntosh C220 was quieter than the CJ Classic Special Edition-I heard less line level background noise. But quiet isn't everything. I thought the C-J had a way of enhancing whatever line-level source material I fed it. It not only passed the signal, it somehow transformed it, the way the very finest preamps do. I heard more body, more bloom, more tonal color-more dimensionality. Is this the result of C-J's untterly simple, completely spartan design and build?"

"McIntosh customers are probably not going to buy a C-J pre-amp. They want matching and integrated all Mcintosh rig. I am sure the C220 preamp will meet the needs and expectations of most Mac users. It's beautifully built and filled with features. If you want more body, bloom, dynamics and dimensionality, maybe the thing to do is stretch your budget and purchase a more expensive McIntosh preamp."

"At this price, we are not in the realm of super preamps, not from McIntosh or C-J or from anyone else. The difference between Mac and C-J highlights the tradeoffs. Do you want value features and flexibility and heroic engineering? Or do you want to lose the features and flexibility in search of the purest sound possible?"

"That's the way audio is. If you want everything you have to pay more for it."

[Supercronopio]

I hate it when someone gets their stereophile before I do.

[jdandy]

I enjoyed Sam's C220 article. It seems clear to me he admires McIntosh as a company, and its products. His grasp of McIntosh history is impressive. Despite the 56 buttons on the remote, I think Sam found the C220 to be a preamp he would choose to use. And, if he thought the phono stage in the C220 was very good, imagine what he would have said about the phono stage in the C2300, C500 or the C1000. I have been reading Sam Tellig's articles for many years, and always find his point of view interesting.