Mcintosh Vs Proceed

I haven't used either of these amps so I have no opinion to give on their performance. The reason I am posting is that I looked into buying the MC352 at one time and thought I would share that everything I read and everyone I talked with had nothing but good to say about the performance of the MC352.

On the other hand, I have owned the Mark Levinson 383, and it's quality and performance was top notch, I would assume the Proceed to be very nice.

Mac's resale is very good if you ever decide to sell. There are a few dealers I have come across through Audiogon that will give some great prices on the MC352, e-mail me if you want the prices and e-mails.

Have you read the user reviews at Audioreview.com? Last time I looked there were 17 for the 352.

Im not sure if I have heard the specific amps you have mentioned but I have heard lot of Macintosh and some Proceed. Based on what I heard I found Proceed to be many levels above Macintosh. So much so that I was suprised to see this comaprison. In fact I have never heard any Macintosh piece that could come even close to the Proceed.

This is of course a generalization but after hearing a lot of one companies products its hard not to generalize.

I am going to buy a Proceed HPA2. Their equipment is top notch. I already own their AVP audio/video processor, and have auditioned the AMP5 5 channel amp. It was excellent. They incorporate a lot of Mark Levinson technology in their amps and preamps. As soon as I get enough cash scrapped together I plan to order one.

I have listened to many systems in the last few years thanks to an obsession I have developed for audio equipment (and being an electronics engineer is part of it). Just a few months ago I was in Texas for business and went to Marvin's electronics in Ft. Worth and auditioned at length a Proceed setup and a Mcintosh setup. The Proceed was the HPA3 and AVP preamp. The Mc was the MC352 and C42 preamp. They were both playing on Paradigm Reference 100 speakers (which I own). The Mcintosh was clearer and more full than the Proceed; it was so "musically ethereal" and just seemed effortless (perhaps the more power) that I listened for 20 minutes as if in a trance. The store assistant manager was auditining them for me and he agreed (as does the store owner who owns all Mc gear) that Mc is just better and more reliable. Proceed's reliability has been questioned by friends of mine who used to own their equip (cd player especially). I will say however that Proceed's sound quality was not THAT much poorer than Mc's. I used to not be a Mcintosh man (some family members are and one has used the same amp and pre for 25 years with NO problems!) but after auditioning many systems (business trips are good for that) I feel Mc is very underestimated among some audiophile circles, possibly due to Mc's humble marketing campaign (they don't need one obviously - they know what they are capable of).
I now own the Mc352 and C712 and LOVE them. I think they just look fantastic and the sound...! Timeless.

Unlike "Perfectimage" I listened to both of these and I can tell you with no heresay, I liked the McIntosh best - check both out and see for yourself.
Arthur

McIntosh MC-352.

I own the MC-352 and it is an excellent amplifier. Truly a difficult amplifier to beat, plays at any load, musical, quiet, and pack substanial punch. Very refined.

Although is it 'rated' at 350, House of Music in SF has done several tests indicating it is more in the 437 range.
Not to mention, peaks at 1,200, or pinned at 1,200 x 2 with no real harsh sounds or damage.

For those unfamiliar with McIntosh, it is not spelled like the computer company, Apple Macintosh.

Good luck, and give the MC-352 its chance in the spotlight.

Dan

They're both good products, you are the only judge for what qualities you will find pleasing. Some years ago I owned a McIntosh 2205 and loved its power and its looks, not to mention it was built like a tank. My opinion is that you really wouldn't be making a mistake with either McIntosh or Proceed.

I live in Ft. Worth, and visit Marvin's Electronics on a monthly basis (many of my friends work there). I cannot remember the Mac equipment numbers, but it was a home theater setup of Mac vs. Proceed, with B&W 801's for the front and 805's for rears (nautilus center). On the Mac side, the 801's were driven with a 600 wpc stereo amp, and the rears and center with a 5 channel amp (the rears were bi-amped). The Proceed side was the AVP, with HPA2 and HPA3 powering the speakers. Both ran with a Proceed DVD transport. By FAR, the proceed trumped the Macs in almost every category. More visceral, more lifelike, more palpable. I like Mac gear (been ogling over Marvin's Mac MC2000 for years), but it doesn't really shine vs. the proceed. After listening to The Eagles "Hell Freezes Over" DVD (DTS of course!) on the Proceed equipment, I would quickly become disinterested in the Mac stuff. Now Mr. Shuster (any one of them...the store is co-owned by three generations of Shusters) would DEFINTELY try to put you into the Mac stuff in that store (cuz he's got it), but I think that they really cozy up to the Mac distributor at that store (same with Gray's power Company...which I hate). But don't listen to me, this is all IMHO. Listen to both and judge. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

I sold the MCintosh line for quite some time. I've only heard the proceed pieces in mention in other store demo's, and would have to say that, yes, they both make some good sounding pieces between the two companies. I'd say the Mac is a bit warmer and bodied over all, while the Proceed usually has a bit more top end energy usually, and is less warm in the midrange. The Proceed comes across more like Krell gear to me, and the Macintosh a bit more like a mix between Theta and Classe to me!! In ultimate terms, the Proceed's are probably a bit more extended and finished on top, giving a bit more air and top end detail (a smidgen). The Mac MC352 is not the last word in top end extension, but is 98% of the way there. Your key is going to be finding the balance with your system needs.
I'd have to say however that, as far as reliablity and quality control goes, I don't think the Macintosh stuff is as tight as perhaps it once was!!...?
At the very least, during the period of one year, we had severl Mac pieces go back defective out of the box!!! Preamp's, amp's, pre/pro's, and CD/dvd players!!! We never even had as many problems with the Parasound or Adcom stuff we sold more of!!!...seriously!
I must say though, the Mac stuff is nice when it's working (ha). It mates well with a lot of higher end speakers (that tend to be a little on the analytical side sometimes). I like the Mc352 amp enough, and it sounded really good on things like NHT 3.3's, and Maggies. I think the Proceed stuff alway's tended to sound a bit dry and zippy if not properly matched with gear. Not to play it down, it's just not recessed in the slightest, and it's balance tends to be unfriendly with some of the more neutral, dry, or analytical set-ups.
If you need warmth and body, I'd say a functioning Mac would do (they should take care of any problem should it arrise. Infact scream and yell if they don't!) fine. If it's a wamish bodied speaker (Vandies, B&W's, Alon, Celestion, Sonus, M. Logan, etc) who isn't so easliy tipped into brightness (i.e., Thiel's, Maggies...Revel's are marginal), I think you'll do well with the Proceed...if these are you're choices.
Haven't heard your speakers though, so maybe you could describe the character and catagorize em yourself!
Have fun...

I sold my Mark Levinson 331 to buy the 352 because it sounded more balanced and natural. Built like a tank and good looking too.