Integrated Amp / Stereo Receiver

[beerandmusic]

9 hours ago, uyire said:

I recently purchased a TEAC UD-301 DAC and I really like it (using it with TIDAL HiFi). I am in the process of upgrading my speakers (considering KEF LS50, BMR Philharmonitor and few other options). I am also looking at purchasing an integrated amp with/without DAC. 

 

Could someone help me with the selection process. My current list:

 

1) Cambridge Audio Azur 851A - $1699

2) Rotel RA-1572 ($1699) or RA-1570 (Used one)

3) Outlaw RR2160 Stereo Receiver - $799

 

I am open to other suggestions as well.

 

Thanks

 

McIntosh or Pass labs are the only 2 AMPS that i have heard that IMO stand above the rest, and I have tried about 100 amps over the past 3 years.  These are above your budget for new, but you can find both used within your budget.  I have heard good things about a few amps, that I haven't tried (parasound comes to mind).  And contrary to what some say, I think many of the CLASS D amps are awesome.

 

 

IMHO, if you stretch your budget a little for a used Mcintosh, you will NEVER regret it, and they hold their value so well (many go up), that you really can't go wrong.

 

[beerandmusic]

8 hours ago, uyire said:

Mcintosh MA6200 is available from a local seller for $1700, is it worth the price? 

you won't be hurt, as it will hold its value...i have not heard the 6200.

I personally would vouch for 6500, 6600, 6800, 6850.

6300 and 6900 have mixed reviews, but imho, you would be content with any mcintosh.

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, zackthedog said:

 

Meh.  I'd go for a Cambridge or Rega.

I have had several cambridge and don't hold a light to depth and separation and music you will get from a mcintosh....i can't speak for the rega.

[beerandmusic]

^^^^  I have tried emotiva, one of their top of the line models, and it easily paled to any mcintosh.

Mcintosh is on a whole different level, and worlds apart.

 

NOT EVEN CLOSE...funny someone would even consider emotiva over Mcintosh.

 

You got your DACs right, but very wrong on AMPS.....surprised from you.

[beerandmusic]

9 hours ago, uyire said:

 

How about Emotiva XPA Gen3?

 

https://emotiva.com/product/xpa-gen3/

 

I read reviews and I bought one of these and disappointed and sold within a week.

 

The ONLY amp i have heard that compares to a Mcintosh is a PASS LABS, and i have done a/b comparisons of about 100 different amps over a 3 year period.  Once you try a MAC you will never go BACK.  I really tried to save on AMPS, because i felt i couldn't afford an expensive amp or that it wouldn't make a big difference.  Boy was I wrong....It's like light and DAY, and much bigger difference than the difference between a $100 DAC and a $2000 DAC.

 

Skimp on the DAC, but don't skimp on the amp!

[beerandmusic]

On 10/21/2017 at 12:27 PM, gmgraves said:

 

Interesting that you are so picky about amplifiers. I review them all the time and when writing about one amp and comparing it to what I'm currently running in my "reference system" (yes, that term is ridiculously pretentious, but it's what everyone uses, so....). I have a hell of time describing what's different. I don't like reviewing amplifiers because they all sound so close to one another now days that finding things to differentiate them, sound-quality wise, is a real pain in the butt.  Yes, there are still differences, but they are much more subtle than they used to be. In fact,  I haven't heard a sonically  bad component amplifier since the Japanese stopped using those encapsulated Sanko power-amp modules in their cheap receivers! It's not like the old days when two different amps were easy to compare almost instantly because they sounded so different that those differences showed up almost instantly.  

I don't know, i used to think the same thing.  Then i got a hold of a mcintosh amplifier and it was worlds apart from anything else i have compared to.  Even after I bought and sold my first one, i figured i would find another amp i liked just as well, as i just had a hard time budgeting a $2000+ amp.  And so the hunt wen on, for nearly a year....granted, I have already tested and compared many amps before then.  And it took me nearly a year to find another amp (after about 20-30 attempts), and came across a threshold (nelson pass) amp, and it had a lot of the same characteristics that no other amp i have heard was close to...and it was a 20+ year old amp...and i lived with that threshold for about 6 months, but put it on market and took awhile to sell, but I knew once it sold, i would buy a mcintosh again, and never go back.  It has so much "space" between the instruments and depth, and made it sound like every instrument had a separate amp and in it's own space....don't really know how to describe it.  It also sounds warmer for vocals...i don't get some "shrills" on some recordings that make me want to cover my ears.  Those are the 3 most characteristics that make a MCintosh different than any other (although the pass labs was close).

 

best way i can describe

1.  Lots of clean space (like many different amps for each frequency)

2. Lots of depth and soundstage

3. warmth

 

I had a lot more difficult time telling dacs a part than amps...the difference paled in comparison to amps for me.  I have tried at least 100 different amps and 20 different dacs.  I agree, most amps are difficult to tell a part...but the few that do, are worlds a part.

 

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

When you talk about a McIntosh amp, are talking tube of SS? IF SS, I can cite you an instance where the Mac doesn't sound very good. Mac SS amps and Martin Logan ESS's don't work together at all! I went to my local Magnolia HiFi shop to hear the then new Martin Logan CLX. I sat and endured the distortion as long as I could (I'd heard the CLXs before and I knew what they should sound like and what I was hearing wasn't it) So, scanning the rack of equipment in the room I noticed that the meters on a McIntosh amp were keeping time with the music, so I asked the sales guy if he could connect another amplifier. He hooked up a (physically large) Marantz power amp (don't know anything about the model. As far as I know it could have been a 7 channel AV surround amp) and continued listening via the same Marantz SACD/CD player as before. The audio instantly cleared right up. The distortion was gone, and even the salesman noticed it as did the other assembled listeners. Of course, it could have been that the McIntosh was defective, but the salesman rejected that idea because of McIntosh's "legendary" quality control. Could be though.

 

I am sure it was a fluke..  Mcintosh's least expensive amp and current model MC162 has won many awards, and I owned one and it has all the same richness as other models I have and do have, and is noted especially for it's low distortion...anyway, you can stick with your HK or emotiva suggestions (of which I have tried and wouldn't consider in the top 10), and i will faithfully stick with Mcintosh.

[beerandmusic]

^^^typo, i meant MC152

 

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/images/ReviewAwardDocuments/MC152 Review Hi-Fi World October 2015.pdf

[beerandmusic]

On 10/23/2017 at 9:55 PM, gmgraves said:

 

They certainly didn't all sound the same in the 1970's (when your Pioneer was made) but since the 90's they've been more alike than different. 

 

All I can say, and without any hesistation or thought, is that a Mcintosh amp in my system made a whole lot more difference than the difference between a $100 and $2000 dac.  Maybe Mcintosh has house sound that I like, but for whatever reason, it's a whole different league which i can't say about any dac comparisons i have done.

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

 

That may well be the case. I know, for instance, that for years, McIntosh used interstage transformers to couple the signal to the output transistors in their SS designs. I always thought that the transformer made the amps sound warm but slow. I always thought that one of the great things about SS over tubes was the ability to get rid of transformers in the audio path, but beautifully designed and executed bi-filar wound output transformers were what made McIntosh stand-out from the crowd during the tube era, and I suspect they thought by incorporating transformer in their SS designs would keep the magic going. If they still do that, it might account for an amp that sounds different to you than do other amps. I'm not making a judgement here, merely trying to pin down why one modern amp would sound so much different from another as to give people really strong opinions about amps. But you are right about one thing (IMHO), DAC sound is very subtle and only a little less subtle than the difference between most amplifiers. One has to listen closely for a long time to notice any difference at all. But if I swap one DAC for another, I can tell "something different" about the presentation immediately. I usually can't put my finger on what it is without long listening sessions, but I can tell instantly that the character of the presentation has changed.

I actually bought the gungnir and am returning it.  I thought the usbgen5 may be worth it to try yet another dac.  I had an older bifrost before and was happy with it, but still prefferred native dsd. 

 

I have a pretty large collection of DSD material I have "acquired", and this is my "thinking" anyway.

If i play a dsf file (256K dsd), to the gungnir, it has to be downsampled to 48K if i use standard ASIO drivers, and then the gungnir I believe will upsample it to 192k....so i go from 256K to 48K then to 192K....and it has been my past experience that whenever the hardware is upsampling (true even with TEAC), it doesn't sound as good as if playing native DSD or or if software is used to upsample.   If i set the player to play 192K then it sounds better letting the software upsample and then the gungnir will play as is without doing anything to it....bottom line for me, is that hardware upsampling doesn't sound as good as native or software upsampling.  The Schiits may be a good choice for someone that has only standard flac files and use hqplayer or some other software to upsample first and don't let the schiit do any upsampling....but i am going back to my $100 dac but keeping my mcintosh.  I may end up buying a usb toy afterall, but i will play predominantly dsd native.

 

I don't know why mcintoshes sound better and unique to me as compared to other amps, but i think i figured out why i like cheap dsd dacs better than more expensive non-dsd dacs....No knock on the schiits (very supportive and no hassle return, albeit a reasonable 5%)..it sounded great..i just prefer native dsd. 

 

I have even searched google why mcintoshes sound different and many ascribe it to the autoformers, but my 6500 doesn't even have that technology.  I liked the MC152 (which did have the autoformers), but it was a bit over my budget and I want the "integrated" features of the 6500.  Many people do suggest that ss mcintoshes are warmer and sound tube-like...the depth and soundstage also is very notable, that i don't hear on many newer amps...I had huge hopes on the emotiva but it didnt satisfy me....There must be something in those mcintoshes design and circuitry that is very unique....suckers are so HEAVY too (despite it's low height, the MC152 is a whopping 75lbs)...

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

4 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

Lol!!

Are you LOL'ing my comment about preferrng native resolution or software upsampled to hardware upsampled?

 

What do you find so amusing?  Lots of people prefer using HQplayer and upsampling to quad dsd than to use hardware upsampling...probably the majority.  To me, it sounds more dynamic and discrete to play native than to let hardware upsample....hardware seems to make it sound mushy in comparison....don't get me wrong..it still sounds great...just sounds better to play native or software vs hardware upsampling.  I experienced the same thing with TEAC dacs.  I actually prefer native 96k to hardware upsampled 192K...not sure why that is, but I am not alone in this boat.  The teac even allowed you to change the upsampling rate with dial so easy to compare...If i use software (either audiogateway or hqp to upsample, that is better too...but native dsd files sound best imo

 

[beerandmusic]

49 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I am laughing because you can't make up your mind. I suspect a great DAC could come up and kiss you and you wouldn't know it.

 

I don't think you know what the difference is between NOS, hardware upsampling, software upsampling, and converting from PCM to DSD. I can guarantee that the majority don't prefer using HQplayer converting to DSD. Most users are not that sophisticated.

 

Software upsampling is often better than letting the DAC do it (what you call hardware upsampling). But that is not always the case. With a quality DAC that upsamples, you will not get "mushy" sound quality. 

 

There are a lot of people that prefer NOS DACs with no upsampling. There are those that prefer a NOS DAC with software upsampling. There are those that prefer Sigma Delta DACs and there are those that prefer R2R DACs.

 

What you should do is get a quality NOS DAC that supports DSD natively. But, I suspect you will end up with some under $500 DAC that sounds great to you......but doesn't really sound all that great.

LOL

 

I have had my share of Dacs from 100 to 2000.  I had most recently the NT501, and it supported native DSD.

Most people that use HQPLAYER do upsampling....most hqplayer users wouldn't put up with the interface unless they are serious, and use it's features.  The main feature that users like about HQPLAYER is it's upsampling....

I am sure i have been testing DSD dacs before you...but you can live in your fantasy land.  Don't know why you are picking something with me, but if you want to be critical of one another we can certainly start.

 

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

That's assuming you like the McIntosh solid state "house sound"....which I do not. A lot of people don't! A lot do....

oh yea, you are the one that likes pioneer...

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

That's assuming you like the McIntosh solid state "house sound"....which I do not. A lot of people don't! A lot do....

Lets just say I am sure there are a LOT more people who would want a Mcintosh amp than would want a pioneer, but continue on in your fantasy land.

[beerandmusic]

50 minutes ago, uyire said:

 

I am considering the following items, do these look reasonably priced? And, are these generally genuine items and reliable?

 

MC-152 for $3099 + shipping + paypal fee

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/solid-state-almost-new-2017-10-18-amplifiers-f9ecdf1a-045b-433f-b7ab-25685bba35d6

 

MC 7200 + shipping $2200

http://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649386618-mcintosh-mc-7200/

 

Another MC-152 for $3300

http://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649382694-mcintosh-mc152-stereo-amplifier/

 

MC 7270 for $2500

http://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649381122-mcintosh-mc_7270-power-amplifier/

 

MA6200 for $1500

local

 

spring for the MC-152....if you don't like it, you will be able to sell it...i even promise to buy it from you for $2500 if you ever decide to sell it...even 2 years from now....I really don't think you will ever be disappointed.  My guess is that over 90% of people who buy a Mcintosh will only buy a mcintosh...which is why they retain their value so well.  The MC152 is also still a current model and won many awards including HIFI world.

 

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

No, you missed my point. Most people aren't using HQplayer....

You missed my point....only those that are serious about the best quality and upsampling.

 

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, opus101 said:

 

As far as I'm aware, McIntosh are the only SS vendor using output (auto)transformers. Based on my own experience in using OPTs with chip-amps, they do make a difference where it matters to the amp's sound - giving better dynamics and more spaciousness. I persuaded another DIYer to try output trafos with his chipamp - he concurs : http://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3810&start=160#p81841

 

So build me one (grin)!

[beerandmusic]

3 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Software upsampling is often better than letting the DAC do it (what you call hardware upsampling). But that is not always the case. With a quality DAC that upsamples, you will not get "mushy" sound quality. 

 

I didn't say it would be mushy...i said "mushy in comparison".

And that is my honest opinion.  I think when you let the DAC do the upsampling it taxes the dac,

If you have a file that is native 192K and play it and it doesn't need to be upsampled by the DAC, it seems to have more "spaciousness" than if you have the same file in 48K and have the dac upsample it.  It is my contention that if you play a file in native resolution that it sounds better.  I am not the only one that shares these feelings.  Maybe its the use of a different driver, maybe it's the dac having to do the processing...i don't know what it is, but that is my honest opinion. 

 

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

You are making a huge assumption that may or may not be true

 

First you state it as a fact, that it is not true, and now you say "maybe".  You just like to hear yourself talk, and think you know as much as DAC engineers.  At least I said "I think" and "maybe it is the driver" and "I am not sure why"....

 

The only thing i said,  "is that to my ears, native resolution always sounds better than having the dac upsample, to the same resolution, in all of my testing.  Nothing was stated as a fact. 

 

I have little confidence in anything you say anymore....you just like to blow smoke in your fantasy land.

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, uyire said:

A local seller has MC-2105  for ~$1000. He says it works fine. Worth it?

 

Having realized the resell value of McIntosh amps, I am also considering waiting for a few more months to purchase a new 152 (Retails for $4500; $0 sales tax from online stores). Can buying this from a local dealer outweigh the $0 sales tax benefit offered by online stores?

 

My initial budget was $2500 - everything put together (DAC, speaker and amp; TEAC 301, Outlaw and probably BMR would have certainly fit in that budget). But I returned 301 and upgraded to NT-503 (which cost me $1000), now 152 alone will cost close to 200% of my original budget. 

 

However, I really like my current set up (Audioengine 5+, TEAC N7-503 DAC). Do you believe the upgrade will provide a substantial improvement in SQ (say, I decide to get 152 and maybe, a LS50/BMR/another bookshelf speaker for around ~$1500)?

 

What happenned to the  used mc152 option for $3k?

I would be content with what you have now, and wait to find another used one for $3K if that is not available anymore...jmo

I also would upgrade the speakers before the amp....no sense in upgrading the amp with powered speakers?

 

[beerandmusic]

44 minutes ago, uyire said:

 

Seller has declined my offer and mentioned that he had found another buyer. My thought is that why spend $3K on a used one when I can purchase a new one for additional $1.5K (with full warranty, satisfaction of owning a new component)?. 

 

Yes, I am planning to purchase both speakers and power amp at the same time. I don't want to get another pair of powered speakers like LS50W. That's where my confusion is -- will it be worth $6K ($4.5K for MC152 & $1-2K for speakers)?

 

usually one spends more on speakers.

I would rather get $3K used mc and $3K speakers for $6k...jmo

 

i can think of a few different speakers in the $3K and under range i would do...

 

B&W 803

PSB imagine T2

also Just looking at these Tekton Design Double Impact...

 

but I think for $3K speaker investment, i would like these best

https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOCAL-Electra-1037-Be-Speakers-Beryllium-11-000-New-Made-in-France-/332372289382?hash=item4d62eea766%3Ag%3AXVYAAOSw~e5ZVqEN&nma=true&si=dUX782d919urTwRiVqe31XO5VKQ%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

[beerandmusic]

14 hours ago, uyire said:

 

Seller has declined my offer and mentioned that he had found another buyer. My thought is that why spend $3K on a used one when I can purchase a new one for additional $1.5K (with full warranty, satisfaction of owning a new component)?. 

 

Yes, I am planning to purchase both speakers and power amp at the same time. I don't want to get another pair of powered speakers like LS50W. That's where my confusion is -- will it be worth $6K ($4.5K for MC152 & $1-2K for speakers)?

 

get this or better yet a PA7

https://www.ebay.com/itm/282713238337?ul_noapp=true

 

Designed by Roger Pass of passlabs....great sounding amp for pennies...best bargain out there.

then get $3K speakers.

[beerandmusic]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/McIntosh-MA-5200-Intergrated-Amp/263286732385?hash=item3d4d1cb661:g:KMoAAOSwWZpZ9h9r

[beerandmusic]

39 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

No offense intended here, but you sound as neurotic about audio as I used to be! Thankfully, I got over it (being an audio writer/reviewer helps). I wasn't aware that the Schiit Gungnir played DSD. I know the multi-bit version doesn't, so you've got me there. Even their website doesn't mention that the Gungnir plays DSD. Well, enjoy your Mc stuff. It is nicely made and on non-ESL speakers (I should say, non-Martin-Logan ESL speakers) It probably sounds great (of course, the amp I heard driving Martin-Logan did have the interstage transformers and yours does not, so maybe that caveat doesn't apply here). Enjoy!

where did i say played dsd on gungnir?   if i did, i meant i can play a dsd (dsf/dff) file but it would be converted, to be playable on the gungnir (e.g. jriver can play a dsf file but it would be converted to be playable on schiit..  Flac files sound fine on gungnir, but i prefer native dsd on any dac better than flac through gungnir....

 

 

[beerandmusic]

15 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You certainly inferred that you bought a Gungnir, was not satisfied that it "down sampled" a 256K DSD file to 48 KHz PCM, so you returned it. Since that was (from your most recent post) obviously not what you were trying to say, then please ignore my comments about the Gungnir.  

 

While I agree that DSD (in my case SACD) sounds, to these old ears, better than LPCM, the fact is that I don't see enough DSD (DSF/DFF) music on the market (and it's difficult, not to mention, expensive to rip SACDs on the desktop) to warrant giving the format much consideration. Just my take on it, you understand. 

I mispoke if i said that....I would have to go back and read what i wrote.

I know the gungnir upsamples everything to 192K.  Main reason i returned it was because most of the music i listen to is dsd64 (a lot was upsampled offline, but a good amount of it is also native dsd64 or higher)....and I can't say with any certainty that the gungnir sounded better downsampled then upsample the same file to 192k.   My "assumption" is that if you play a DSD128 file on a gungnir, the combination software/driver/dac would either

A) downsample to 48K then upsample it to 192K (gen5 driver)

B) downsample to 48K and play 48K (standard asio usb driver)

 

IMO, Those DSD128K files will sound as good or better just playing natively on a dSD dac.

 

IMO, the gungnir would be great for someone that didn't care about native dsd.  I thought that maybe I would find that hardware upsampled to 192K would sound much better due to the noise reduction the usb gen5 offered, but I am not convinced that it sounded any better, than what i was already capable of playing native dsd files on.

 

I am glad that you agree that you also believe that an SACD will sound better....i think we are on same page.