Mcintosh MC501 or MC 352 for Sonus Faber Cremona

[viclauyyc]

Read tons of review but still can't make up my mind.

The Cremona speaker can only handle 300W @ 4ohm. However, I never listen very loud. So I "hope" it is not an issue.

The MC501 is 500w @ 4ohm. ~$6000 501 is a Fully balanced quad-differential design in mono block and have very nice review. It is nice to have mono block. But I just worry will it be too powerful. And it is current model (2004-).

The MC352 is 350w @ 4ohm. ~$4500. a lot cheaper. It is a Double-balanced push-pull design. It is a little older design (1998). The power rating is more suitable to my Cremona. Review is also good too but not as good as the 501.

I mostly listen to Classical (mostly piano), jazz and pop.
Current system, BAT VK30SE, Oppo BDP-95, Krell KSA-200S and Sonus Faber Cremona.

thanks ahead.

Vic

 

[Grador]

Unless you don't think you can control yourself, having an amplifier capable of delivering more power to your speakers than they can handle is not an issue. Generally it is actually recommended to have an amplifier that will do that, so that if you're pushing the speakers hard you aren't going beyond the capabilities of the amplifier as distortion can damage speakers.

As for picking between those, I'll defer to other opinions.

 

[PENG]

Read tons of review but still can't make up my mind.

The Cremona speaker can only handle 300W @ 4ohm. However, I never listen very loud. So I "hope" it is not an issue.

The MC501 is 500w @ 4ohm. ~$6000 501 is a Fully balanced quad-differential design in mono block and have very nice review. It is nice to have mono block. But I just worry will it be too powerful. And it is current model (2004-).

The MC352 is 350w @ 4ohm. ~$4500. a lot cheaper. It is a Double-balanced push-pull design. It is a little older design (1998). The power rating is more suitable to my Cremona. Review is also good too but not as good as the 501.

I mostly listen to Classical (mostly piano), jazz and pop.
Current system, BAT VK30SE, Oppo BDP-95, Krell KSA-200S and Sonus Faber Cremona.

thanks ahead.

Vic

I do agree it is nice to have monoblocks. Having said that, I just don't believe the MC352 or the Mc 1.2 kW will make your speakers sound better. I recently heard the Blade powered by Mc tube preamp, didn't take note of the model number but next time I go there I will take a photo of it. With a pair of Mc 1.2 kW I really didn't find the system sound much better than mine much lower cost system. I really believe most of the noticeable improvements typically come from the source recording and the speakers.

Amps do contribute but when you get to the near high end (whatever the starting point is..), you reach the point where any theoretical improvements will not be noticed by human beings. The Krell you have should be well above what I would consider near hi end. With 200WPC into 8 ohms, up to 1600W into 1 ohm, I would take it before the Mc. I would say for almost certainty that your system must sound really nice now but if you want more, you should look to speakers upgrade first. Just my 0.0000002 cents.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I do agree it is nice to have monoblocks. Having said that, I just don't believe the MC352 or the Mc 1.2 kW will make your speakers sound better. I recently heard the Blade powered by Mc tube preamp, didn't take note of the model number but next time I go there I will take a photo of it. With a pair of Mc 1.2 kW I really didn't find the system sound much better than mine much lower cost system. I really believe most of the noticeable improvements typically come from the source recording and the speakers.

Amps do contribute but when you get to the near high end (whatever the starting point is..), you reach the point where any theoretical improvements will not be noticed by human beings. The Krell you have should be well above what I would consider near hi end. With 200WPC into 8 ohms, up to 1600W into 1 ohm, I would take it before the Mc. I would say for almost certainty that your system must sound really nice now but if you want more, you should look to speakers upgrade first. Just my 0.0000002 cents.

I agree with PENG, though the KSA200 is getting a bit old, and if it hasn't had a checkup in the past ten years I would recommend sending it back to Krell to make sure it is up to snuff. The caps might be weak, among other things.

I would also go after better speakers first. For the $20K+ per pair you're looking to drop on amps you could get better sound than the SFs offer.

 

[PENG]

though

I agree with PENG, though the KSA200 is getting a bit old, and if it hasn't had a checkup in the past ten years I would recommend sending it back to Krell to make sure it is up to snuff. The caps might be weak, among other things.

I would also go after better speakers first. For the $20K+ per pair you're looking to drop on amps you could get better sound than the SFs offer.

I was going to add that disclaimer about the age thing, distortion figures tend to be higher in those days but Krell must knew how to turn that into a positive.

 

[PENG]

Got really curious, search and found this review but I am sure the OP has read it already. My initial comment was purely based on the Krell name but after seeing the measurements, I see no need to edit my original comment. The rest of the reviews to me are, like most others just blurbs, bla bla bla, no such thing as bad reviews ofter all.

Krell KSA-200S power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

I guessed right about the relatively higher THD, but class A bias for 8 ohm load, plus low feed back design I don't mind that at all.

Yes it is old, but if preserved well, I still would prefer it to the Mc 252 for sure. Measured figures were impressive, 280 WPC, double down to 1600WPC (1 chanel driven) base on the 200 WPC 8 ohm rating (See even Krell played the double game a little but wouldn't call it cheating..). Transformer was rated for 2800 VA, that's more than double that of the so call 5X200W XPA-5 and has 68,000 uf per channel if I read it correctly, no wonder Sterophile referred to them as reservoir caps (vs filter..).

The Mc's have a much better look to me, so if I have to see them when listening with eyes open, I may actually pick the Mc but for SQ only I am really not sure if one is noticeably better than the other, even if there is a slight audible difference.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I almost bought that Krell a while back from Onecall.

Yes, I would keep the Krell and forget about any other amplifier. I don't think it would be an upgrade of any kind.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Got really curious, search and found this review but I am sure the OP has read it already. My initial comment was purely based on the Krell name but after seeing the measurements, I see no need to edit my original comment. The rest of the reviews to me are, like most others just blurbs, bla bla bla, no such thing as bad reviews ofter all.

Krell KSA-200S power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

I guessed right about the relatively higher THD, but class A bias for 8 ohm load, plus low feed back design I don't mind that at all.

Yes it is old, but if preserved well, I still would prefer it to the Mc 252 for sure. Measured figures were impressive, 280 WPC, double down to 1600WPC (1 chanel driven) base on the 200 WPC 8 ohm rating (See even Krell played the double game a little but wouldn't call it cheating..). Transformer was rated for 2800 VA, that's more than double that of the so call 5X200W XPA-5 and has 68,000 uf per channel if I read it correctly, no wonder Sterophile referred to them as reservoir caps (vs filter..).

As a former Krell owner I remember that article. As is usual for Stereophile, the only compelling reason to read the review is the measurements section. In the subjective section Martin Colloms is so full of BS; how does an amplifier sound "more confident"?