McIntosh MC402 or MC501's for Totem Mani-2

Actually most posts in the audiokarma Mc forum I've read say the difference is nil to slightly noticeable.

Wireless200,
you better read more thuroughly, then.

audiokarma member jem666:

"Taking into account the specs on paper, I am still, be it pleasantly, amazed at the difference between the 501 and 402. As I said before the 402 is an excellent amp...but nothing could prepare me for that goosebump, "bring tears to your eyes" emotionally overwhelming experience when the first notes played on the 501's...from that moment on, there was no going back."

Member Indy:
"The 501's have more top end air to them and the bass is more natural. Don't get me wrong the bass is fantastic on the 402's- it's heavy."

gb1: "I had the same choice to make and after critical listening I found out that MC501 will always edge MC402."

http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=78258&highlight=501&page=2

and lots of other threads
Regards,
Florian Hassel

You have to look at the mentality of the guys on there. A lot of them are running several Mc Amps in a HT system. I mean who puts together a system with 3 Mc501s on the front channels and more Mc Amps on the rears. These are not exactly audiogon types. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just not exactly your audiophile crowd. Read the threads and you'll see what I mean. Of course there's some diehard McIntosh mostly 2-channel tube types but...

Of course the 1.2KW guys say the exact same thing after "upgrading" from 501s. Come on do you really think the 1.2KW's are going to be better from an audiophile standpoint? But you'll find everyone saying so who's dropped the coin on them. At some point with all that power you begin to lose nuance. Where you draw the line is up to you.

In any case I'd recommend listening to both at your local Mc dealer if that's possible. Mine advised that the mc402 had better synergy with Focals than the mc501s. I thought the 501s sounded good but so does the mc402. Either one will have good resale.

Wireless makes a good point. It is just human nature to stick to the validity of one's purchase once the choice has been made. So long as the amp stays linear (doesn't clip) there should not be any difference in the sound between the 402, 501's and 1.2k's. All are fully balanced or quad balanced as Mc puts it, and, I believe all have the same noise floor. Depending on the genre of music to which one one listens, it can get to even a further degree of diminishing returns. 99 % of the music I listen to is classical. I would estimate that 99 percent of actual time, my 402 is operating under 40 watts (a decent A/V receiver from denon or yamaha could handle that). So the Mc amp is only really doing what I have it for, for 1% of the time. Of course I find that 1% to be important or I wouldn't have the amp. As I said earlier, to stay linear with the 802D's pushed to their limit, something larger than the 402 is necessary, but I would have a listen first. Not everyone even wants to listen at those levels.

Musicnoise,
"So long as the amp stays linear (doesn't clip) there should not be any difference in the sound between the 402, 501's and 1.2k's". But there are - huge ones at at that.

In fact, there are a lot of die-hard two-channel audiophiles over on audiokarma who confirmed the differences between the 402 and 501s.

The argument that " human nature to stick to the validity of one's purchase once the choice has been made" does not convince me if I read even from owners who still had the 402 in the house when the 501s arrived, and described differences.

From my own experience, I had a MA6500 and was told the more expensive 6900 sounded the same. It did not.

If you connect a 402 or a 1.2k, the 1.2k will sound noticably more powerful even when listening at low levels.