McIntosh MA6600 voiced simular to MC402?

Hello, 5560
I was in Charlotte NC this past weekend and had a chance to demo the new 6600. I must say that I was very impressed. I have done extensive listening to the MC402 as well as the older MA6900. The new 6600 in my opinion is as good or better than the MA6900. I demoed this amp with a pair of KEF XQ40, which were very impressive as well. The 6600 had they typical smooth and warm mcintosh presentation. But the bottom end is what most impressed. It was very dynamic, but extremely controlled and accurate, not bloaty like other solid state amps. To be honest it is a little difficult to compare the 402 to the 6600. I demoed the 402 using B&W speakers, which are similar in sound to KEF, but when I listend to the 402 it was driving 802D's and 803D's. The 402 is definetly a fantastic amp. I would say based on the speaker combination above, the 402 just seemed more alive. They soundstage was definetly larger and more foward, where as the 6600 was a tad bit more laid back, more tube sounding. Basically, is the 6600 voiced like the 402, absolutely, so is the MA7000 and MC252. But the 402 does have its characteristics and abilities. If I were deciding between the two my choice would be heavily persuaded by room size and speaker selection. For my room the MA6600 or C220/MC252 would by my choice. I am in the market for both amp/s and speakers and I must say the McIntosh and KEF experience was exquisite!

I've heard the 402 a bunch and listened to the MA7000 a few weeks ago for a long time. I haven't heard the 6600 yet but the MA7000 is the one to compare a 402+Cxx to anyway. All I can say is the 7000 was really a special amp. I heard it on Avalons and DALIs and both were fantastic (G08 source). Beautiful, organic, natural, and yet highly detailed and dynamic at the same time. Quite a feat. We pitted it up against top-level Accuphase and there was no comparison - the McIntosh had so much more presence and emotion, it was amazing. The 7000 is a big step up from the 6900 in every way. The only advantage the 6600 might have over the 7000 is the digitally-controlled volume.

Arthur

Arthur,

I definetly agree with you on the 7000. I do like the volume control on the 6600, its a nice feature but the 7000 definetly surpases in sound quality. I have it narrowed down to the either the MA7000 or C220/MC252 for my system. I dont know which way to go. I like the integrated since l less interconnect and power cable to buy. All I know it is really hard to beat McIntosh integrateds. But I like the tube like qualities that the 220 and 252 has. Still has the power and dynamics but with good vocals, jazz etc the tube pre really shines. Your thoughts?

I've owned the 402 and really loved the amp. But my wife and I together can barely handle the weight of 402 and I don't want the hassles of preamps and extra cables. I was hoping to hear that the new MA 6600 was an improved product over the 6900, perhaps simply a C-45 & 402 packaged in one box with less power. I'm in a smaller room with a modest speaker load so 200 Mac watts are enough for me.

My guess is that the 6600 is better than the 6900 because the two new integrateds are based on the Reference circuits. The 6900 was a great amp but you had to be careful to match it to speakers that weren't soft or slow. The 7000 is not that way at all - it has "get up and go" that the 6900 never really had. I'd say the 6600 is very similar to the 7000 circuit-wise.

As for C220/252 or a 7000, that is a tough call. I think I would go for the separates but that is me. I like the felxibility. However, one thing I didn't care for with the C220 is that the controls aren't as nice as the higher level Mcs. It seems to me there is some obvious cost cutting on it. For example, the volume control doesn't feel nearly as nice as my C42's (or the C46 for that matter). Also, when you change inputs, the clicks are "tinny" sounding whereas the other preamps sound like solid and well-damped clicks. Any way, minor stuff I guess but kind of important to me for a preamp.

Arthur

5560,

I would agree with Arthur that the 6600 and 7000 are very similar. I like the 7000 because of the 5 band adjustments, which are nice with my record collection. As for the 6600 being better than the 6900; in my opinion it is a big improvement. Not just in the sound quality, but in build and asthetics. It has the optical/digital volume control and the newer much more reliable fiber optic lighting. Aball hit the nail on the head with the "get up and go" characteristics of the 7000, as the 6600 has them as well. To me the 6600 had more pace and rythm than the 6900. It was faster and more accurate, but it didnt get harsh or edgy sounding and lose the warm mcintosh sound. It truely is a nice piece. Also it is my understanding that the 6600 can accept a tuner card for HD radio which gives it a receiver type feature that McIntosh hasn't done in quite some time. Thanks.

Luke

I recently A-B'ed some 501s against the 6900 fully planning and expecting to buy a 7000 (dealer didn't have one to listen to). There was so much difference in the sound that I had to rule out the integrateds. Maybe the 7000 is there in sound but I wasn't going to risk it at the price they want. The 7000 had better be considerably better than the 6900 or else it's a no-brainer to go with separates. I bought a 402 and I'm very happy with it. Lately everytime I listen I think how does this sound... the treble, the bass, and then after about 10 seconds I forget about that and become involved in the music. The 402 is seductive in that way.