MC402 vs FPB 300cx


Anyone have any insight here...These are two amps I am considering going for, but have a little concern leaving Krell. I have read alot on both, most of the information on the FPB I am familiar, and I am familiar with the Krell sound. The Mc402 however seems to get some commentary in the Bass area, lackthereof. I love the bass slam of my Krell, and I love the detail of it. Is MAC way off in terms of sound signature? Does the 402 give slam, or does it roll?

Thanks for any insight anyone has.
jc51373

Showing 5 responses by hassel

Jc51373, you judge too quickly. The 402 takes weeks to brake in properly, and is in no way slow, harsh in the mids or shrill in the highs, or only enjoyable with jazz. My own 402 disappointed me in exactly the same way that you describe now, however I was told to stick to it, and everything would come out fine. Which is exactly what happened. I listen to AC/DC, Sonny Rollins, and Mahler, and the Mac is involving and lively with all kinds of music.
Jc51373,
to everybody his opinion. However, I do not think it makes sense to say a company would make a better product any time, nor does it make sense to say that McIntosh and Krell are in two completely different classes. They are different amps in the same class. People change from Krell to Mac, or the other way round.
The German magazine Audio, in its December 2006 issue, ran the McIntosh C1000 preamp and 2KW amps against KrellĀ“s new top of the line Evolution preamp and amps. A six-editors-panel gave the nod to the 40,000 S Krell Evolution Two preamp as being a slight touch more honest than the 17,000 S C 1000 McIntosh preamp, but all preferred the 60,000 $ Mac-amps over the 50,000 Krell amps.
Also, I find it somewhat strange that you get a 402 and first write
"Mac better in every way in my system over the Krell so far. I am picking up more detail in my music, much more. Very nice sound stage, a little wider, and deeper, but much quieter, or darker if you will. Bass is taut (sp?) and punchy, appropriately so, no overly punchy, no boomy at all, balanced."
and then trash the Mac again. This makes me think that you may lack the experience necessary to judge components on their own merit.
Regards,
Florian Hassel
Jc51373,

the quote "I was disappointed when I first got it. The bass was there alright, but the highs sounded harsh, voices sharp." is correct - but not the context. As I wrote as well, and mentioned in this thread, all this completely changed after the amp was burned in. Otherwise, I obviously would not have kept the 402.

I want to make a few more points.

First, I am not at all an offended Mac-owner. Like Mike, I was astonished to see your comments, because it it just the opposite what McIntosh-users, listeners and reviewers experience all over the world.

There is valid criticism of McIntosh to be made -e.g. that they are not the most detailed amps. This is true from what I have heard myself, when I exchanged my 402 for a Densen power amp. I was able to hear a detail I could not hear with the Mac.

Otherwise, however, the Densen was inferior in the areas that matter to me: a musical, weighty bass, a natural presentation, and so on. The points you make seem to be completely out of line of the typical experience, and so I highly doubt that these are valid points in general.

Moreover, I get very critical when I hear, or see, people writing in absolute terms:

"It is my belief McIntosh and Krell are in two completely diffent classes" or "I basically think the Mac is a tier below what I thought it would be, nice entry-level amp, but not for someone looking to move up from a Krell piece."

This kind of sweeping, generalizing statement is something I would never make - at least not today. My experience in two decades as an audiophile is that absolute statements of this kind are usually nonsense.

Amps, like everything else, depend on a lot of factors to work successful: cables, preamp, room acouctics, you name it. One thing I have learned is that even the own listening experiences have to be taken with a large grain of salt, and that they are not generally valid.

One example: I like LAT International cables a lot, and have recommended them to many a friend, to their benefit. Once, however, I tried the LATs in the system of a friend, who has the same speakers - Shahinian Diapason - but other equipment. The LATs, in his system, were not as good as in mine. Likewise, he gave me some Goertz Alphacore cable to try, which sounded shrill and awful in my system - but wonderful in his.

When I wrote " you may lack the experience necessary to judge components on their own merit", I did not mean you lacked the experience of listenening to the 402, but that you lack the experience of putting it into context. I stay with that statement.

And lastly: Yes, I have listened to a Krell amp in my system, I found it to offer amazing bass, but not sounding as musical as the Mac. But I do not think Mac makes the "better" amp - it is different, and works better in my system, for my taste.
Regards,
Florian Hassel
Again on the power output of the 402: Mhelming is right - 400 watts are only the published minimum. The German magazine Audio reviewed the 402 and measured it and found, depending on the tap and the load, that the 402 was able to deliver up to more than 800 watts. I have Diapasons, which represent a 6 ohm load, and have them connected to the 8 ohm tap. From there, they get more than 600 watts sinewave, as was confirmed by a friend of mine, who works for one of the largest high end-importers here, and who came over with test equipment to check out the 402. He said it was one of the most powerful amps he ever measured.
Regards,
Florian Hassel
Mhelming, you should not have written that - I,too, think about these 501s, and you only wet my appetite further...
Regards,
Florian Hassel