mcintosh c52 vs 2300/2500 preamplifier

2300/2500 = tubes, 50/52 = solid state. Different sound. 2300 does not have a DAC, 2500 does (up to 32 bit 192 kHz). 50 has the same 32 bit 192 kHz DAC while the 52 has a new DAC that has 32 bit 192 kHz and DSD.

I had a 2300 and loved it, but found it took too long to warm-up and it did not especially care for electric instruments. Since I couldn't leave it powered up 24/7 and own quite a bit of rock & roll, I traded it on a C50. The C50 warms up much more quickly, allows me to run digital files and is better with electric music but lacks the completely natural sound of the 2300. It is only really noticeable on very well recorded acoustic music, so it was a good compromise in my case.

If you really like the sound of your C2300 but want to add digital playback from your computer, I'd suggest you consider the C2500. That will get you the same reference-level phono section you already enjoy and add one of the best PCM DACs made.

Good luck & happy listening!

then, the 2300 is better? in relation to the quality sound , the c52 is more versatil

That was my perception. The C2300 was about as good as it gets, at any price. I may go back to tubes and get a C2500 at some point, but not until I have more free time.

I have found that external DAC's are the best option for me, as the technology in those has improved over the years, have had three of them to date, don't use the DAC built into my pre-amp.  For the last 14 months have immensely enjoyed my PS Audio DirectStream DAC.

I have a C50, find that it warms up very quickly and to me, sounds great.  One of my audio buddies is trying to get me to upgrade to a C2500.  Over three decades ago I worked in the high end audio business and found that tube equipment deteriorated, so after several months, swapping out the tubes on an amp-preamp setup dramatically improved the sound.  Since then I've steered away from tube equipment.