McIntosh MA6600 voiced simular to MC402?

I've heard the 402 a bunch and listened to the MA7000 a few weeks ago for a long time. I haven't heard the 6600 yet but the MA7000 is the one to compare a 402+Cxx to anyway. All I can say is the 7000 was really a special amp. I heard it on Avalons and DALIs and both were fantastic (G08 source). Beautiful, organic, natural, and yet highly detailed and dynamic at the same time. Quite a feat. We pitted it up against top-level Accuphase and there was no comparison - the McIntosh had so much more presence and emotion, it was amazing. The 7000 is a big step up from the 6900 in every way. The only advantage the 6600 might have over the 7000 is the digitally-controlled volume.

Arthur

Arthur,

I definetly agree with you on the 7000. I do like the volume control on the 6600, its a nice feature but the 7000 definetly surpases in sound quality. I have it narrowed down to the either the MA7000 or C220/MC252 for my system. I dont know which way to go. I like the integrated since l less interconnect and power cable to buy. All I know it is really hard to beat McIntosh integrateds. But I like the tube like qualities that the 220 and 252 has. Still has the power and dynamics but with good vocals, jazz etc the tube pre really shines. Your thoughts?

I've owned the 402 and really loved the amp. But my wife and I together can barely handle the weight of 402 and I don't want the hassles of preamps and extra cables. I was hoping to hear that the new MA 6600 was an improved product over the 6900, perhaps simply a C-45 & 402 packaged in one box with less power. I'm in a smaller room with a modest speaker load so 200 Mac watts are enough for me.

My guess is that the 6600 is better than the 6900 because the two new integrateds are based on the Reference circuits. The 6900 was a great amp but you had to be careful to match it to speakers that weren't soft or slow. The 7000 is not that way at all - it has "get up and go" that the 6900 never really had. I'd say the 6600 is very similar to the 7000 circuit-wise.

As for C220/252 or a 7000, that is a tough call. I think I would go for the separates but that is me. I like the felxibility. However, one thing I didn't care for with the C220 is that the controls aren't as nice as the higher level Mcs. It seems to me there is some obvious cost cutting on it. For example, the volume control doesn't feel nearly as nice as my C42's (or the C46 for that matter). Also, when you change inputs, the clicks are "tinny" sounding whereas the other preamps sound like solid and well-damped clicks. Any way, minor stuff I guess but kind of important to me for a preamp.

Arthur

5560,

I would agree with Arthur that the 6600 and 7000 are very similar. I like the 7000 because of the 5 band adjustments, which are nice with my record collection. As for the 6600 being better than the 6900; in my opinion it is a big improvement. Not just in the sound quality, but in build and asthetics. It has the optical/digital volume control and the newer much more reliable fiber optic lighting. Aball hit the nail on the head with the "get up and go" characteristics of the 7000, as the 6600 has them as well. To me the 6600 had more pace and rythm than the 6900. It was faster and more accurate, but it didnt get harsh or edgy sounding and lose the warm mcintosh sound. It truely is a nice piece. Also it is my understanding that the 6600 can accept a tuner card for HD radio which gives it a receiver type feature that McIntosh hasn't done in quite some time. Thanks.

Luke