McIntosh C41


Anyone using the McIntosh C41? Your thoughts and opinions on the unit are appreciated. This will be used as a second system preamp and when a change is needed will be used in the main system which consists of a McIntosh 402, Marantz, LSA, Running Springs Audio, Rega, Kimber. I`ve thought about the C2200 but have never used tubes. I don`t need any `multi channel theatre` inputs like the C46 and some others have.

Thanks,

happy listening
f1fanatic

Showing 1 response by aball

I've compared the C41 and C42 head-to-head in the same system and the C42 definitely is more transparent. The speakers were B&W N802 and the source was an Oracle 1500mk2.

The C41 lacks dynamic snap in comparison, sounding kind of slow and uninterested. The C42 and C46 are clearly (pun intended!) better preamps - but the C41 does cost less.... It could all be due to the volume control. The 41 uses a typical potentiometer whereas the 42 and 46 (and 2200 and 200) use a fancy digitally-controlled analog volume with post attenuation.

The C42 and C46 are purely 2-channel. Neither have multi-channel inputs. You are thinking of the C45, which does, although it isn't a real multi-channel preamp by absolute standards.

There is no reason to fear tubes. If you use the preamp every day, you need to replace the tubes once a year. Simple as that. But the 42 and 46 are so good that you really don't have to go to the 2200 if you don't want to. I've had over a dozen preamps and my C42 has trumped them all. You can take a look at my system page for more info.

Arthur