best match for Macintosh MC352

The MCIntosh 352 is a great amp I had one for years. But
not sure where it fits into your plans for HT and 2 channel. I am using an MX135 and a MC402 along with a MC205 amp. Irun the 2 channel through a ARC LS26 using Unity gain. This works great allowing me to have true 2 channel system and also use it a a HT system. What are you using for an amp now? The 352 will be great for the two front channels but what are you planning to use for ctr and surrounds? The AVM30 will serve your needs for the 2 Channel and 5.1 needs. Are you planning to lkeep the DefTechs? If so can you match the model series with center and surrounds? And just as passing note Macintosh makes computers, McIntosh is the Audio Co. Actually Macintosh derived it's name from McIntosh due to it's reputation and brand recognition.

Theo, actually APPLE makes computers and the Macintosh is a model/brand within that company. Also Macintosh is a variety of an apple, (like Red Delicious or Granny Smith) so maybe that's where the name came from?

Here is a link for the story about Apple's Macintosh Computer name:

http://www.creativepro.com/article/macintosh-any-other-name-still-sweet

Scroll down to the heading..."An Apple a Day"

Thanks Theo. To further elaborate I have Def Tech matching components. 4 BPVX surrounds and a CLR3000 center channel with a 10 inch powered sub. Happy with them. The surrounds are powered by a Anthem MCA 50 @ 180 wpc x 5 channels. I am overall happy with the two channel sound but find it somewhat lacking in the mids. Want to start upgrading and the AVM 30 is 5 year old technology. Wondering what processor will give me both great 2 channel sound and surround sound. Thanks in advance for anyones input.

Mofi, actually I have read in two publications where Apple (you're right about the mfg) aquired the name from McIntosh laboratories. I see that this is in direct conflict with the link you provided. So it is now a quandry, I see that I face many sleepless nights. However I appreciate you not correcting my attention to the spelling of the Audio Company vs. the Model of the Apple computer. Now go listen to your system Mr. Anti-McIntosh:)
Finnman, I would say at this point for the 8000.00 investment with which you are seeking to complete this project. One the MC352 will be a great addition and if you use the current Anthem Amp as a center and surround amp, leaving 2 of the channels idle. And then add a 2 Channel pre-Amp that has Unity gain which will be labled also at HT pass thru you can easlity do that with a used MC352 and a Used ARC LS26 if you want tube. Or the MC352 and an Ayre K5-xe solid state pre-amp. That was my original choice for this task but decided to try tube for a differnt sound as I was already using solid state with my MX135. I also think you could just use the AVM30 and the MC352 and let the AVM30 do both 2channel and HT. That will be easy as you set up your sources. But I have learned that having a seperate 2 channel pre-amp with the pass thru allows me to have a 2 channel system and just turn off the pre-pro and the 5 channel amp along with any source comp. connected to the pre-pro e.g. DVD etc.
There are many choices out there for the 2 channel pre-amps, and you may consider some of the McIntosh products such as the C2300 or C46.
I bought the ARC mainley because I wanted to try something new. I have been a McIntosh guy for years. And my local dealer threatend my life if I'd bought a Mcintosh again.
Not to mention MoFi was influential with his Anti-Mc encantations. But as he knows, it came with many challenges.
And one final not since I drifted for your original concern. I think you will find the MC352 will awaken a new sound in your Def Tech speakers that will reveal the maximum performance they can offer. I had Infinity Kappa 7's when I bought my 352 and I was amazed at what 350 watts of McIntosh power did for them. I quickly learned that I had better speakers that I thought I had and kept them longer than I had planned.

Thanks Theo. I am the inexperienced idiot here. Failed to say that I have the MC352 and love it!!! It sounds great at 3 watts or 300!!! I can listen to this set up for hours on end. What I am wondering, if I wasn't clear, was will I see a difference if I dump the Anthem for , say, a MX120 or MX136?

As an owner of the MX135 and previously MX134,MX132,MX130and a C39 I can attest that each generation sounds better. You can buy the MX136s relativly cheap now that the MX150 is about to hit the shelf.
The MX120 is basically the same as the MX135 but a few less inputs and a very little different processor chip.
I have a freind with the AVM20 and he tells me that he thinks the Mcintosh sounds better. I think you will be making an improvement. My bias opinion of course.

If you do not want to invest into the Mc proc as suggested which is very likely a good to great match, there are dedicated processors out now which possess outstanding audio credentials these days.

the Marantz and Parasound proc & rec were just reviewed together, anc compared the preamps of each to quite higher priced preamps, ranging upwards of $20K. the review says each held their own.

I've heard the Anthem gear and there are more musical processors out there. having HDMI 1.3A is a bonus with these newer procs.... and I'd not let their lower prices than Mac gear fool you.

Blindjim, when you say "dedicated processors" are you referring to a processor that is not a pre-amp? I have not seen anyone since Rotel, and Mcintosh had some back when the majority pre/pros were Pro Logic. I have been looking for a dedicated processor. I Am toying with buying the ARC MP1 since it has 3 sets of 6 channel inputs, I can use my current Denon 5910ci and buy a Blu-ray player. But I will need something to process the digital signal from my Directv reciever into 6 channels. The only solution I have been coming up with was a receiver. I used to have a McIntosh MAC3 then an MSD4, but eliminated them when I sold my C39 which was ProLogoc only. You mentioned the Marantz is that a receiver or a stand alone processor?
I think the ARC MP1 makes the most sense in the long run because your not investing in a new pre-pro everytime Dolby and DTS come out with a new codec.

There’s likely better people here to help you than myself, but I’ll step in until someone has better info or another perspective.

All processors are or can be used as preamps, but not all preamps can be used as processors.

Although it can be construed that a preamp does process the signal in the broadest of terms, it seldom changes the signal apart from adjusting the signals amplitude or inverting it's polarity. Processors do more.

The conotation of the word processor means it actually processes or changes, one signal into another. Usually by decoding the incoming info and outputing it into some other format. often these processors are multi ch oriented... not just 2ch.
I’m unfamiliar with what Mac offers by way of multi ch. They change often, and lay outside my $$$ reach much of the time.
I’ve owned a few receivers. I always felt the (previously) tradeoff of sonics vs. versatility were acceptable to me. Currently they offer far better audio used strickly as 2ch preamps…. Pretty much across the board. Of course there are always exceptions, and not all are alike. Though the 2ch audio representation they many afford one now is as best it’s been, and can be said to be over achievers.

A dedicated processor IMO does only that… processes the audio and video input signals for output to some other ‘dedicated’ device (s) ie., amps & displays. Some are upgradeable via firmware for newer audio formats (CODECs) so they possess more utility and longevity.

But that’s all they do, decode, pass thru, and output. A source unit or more are needed, eg., blue ray disc player, cable or satellite box, DVR, DVD, CD, DAT, tape, etc.

To cut costs and get up and running quickly, many choose to go with the trusty receiver initially. Eventually, it will become merely a dedicated processor as external amps are added thereafter, and it’s sole duties are then preparing and decoding those input signals as best it can.

HDMI 1.3a outfitted receivers or processors decode the newer high res audio formats thru that one cable interface. Yayy… less trouble and way less $$$. Nearly true 'plug & play'.

The thing is this, IF the processor has HDMI 1.3a, AND multi ch RCA inputs, you should be fine with current norms.

Probably for another four OR FIVE years or so anyhow. MAYBE MORE.

Past that if the maker of the multi ch processor will not or does not allow for future upgradability, one must then buy a 'THEN' current source device which does do the decoding itself.

The only upcoming change I can figure out for either receivers or processors, is networking and high res audio handling of computer based or hard disc drive files… some do that now like the new Marantz sister co of Dennon.

Many receiver makers offer the preamp/processor portion of their receivers as dedicated units… no amp, sometimes no tuner either. Often this ‘separates’ approach is seen as advantageous. Mo’ betta…. Than all in one receivers. Onkyo, Integra, Marantz, Anthem, and a ton of others make them in all sorts of price levels and ability levels. Some do video better than they do audio, or as well. Some emphasize or dote on the audio and allow for so so video and so forth.

Ya just gotta look around some and do a bit of leg/web work to see what’s what lately.

MX 120 on agon for @2500!!!

thanks everyone for your input

MX 119 or MX 120.