MC30's and MC225's are considered the best sounding of all Mac tube amps. The sound is influenced by your choice of mfg and condition of tubes, coupling caps, carbon comp resistors, SR's and other components. A proper restoration is more than popping in new cheap parts wherever out of spec items identified. The best 30's and 225's i have heard were also the most original. The worst were amateur "replace everything" restorations. If you are disappointed in the sound of 30's or a 225 ... the problem is.. whoever worked on it.
I really liked the sound of the MC240's- more than the MC225's from what I remember, but without an A/B test between them I would not be certain. I recently purchased a pair of MacKit30's, which appear to be all original except the electrolytics and they sound great on my LaScalas. There will be a video on them vs a solid state amp a/b test in a few weeks. I appreciate your thoughts.
I am not familiar with your sub, but it would depend on the sub's impedance as to which taps you would connect to on the MC30- probably 8ohms. However, I would recommend solid-state amp with more power for a sub- at least 100w
In a few minutes I will be hooking a pair of the MacKit 30's to my system- same thing but offered as a kit and they have a MacKit30 logo. They test great. Thanks for the comment!!
Do yourself a BIG favor. Get a better preamp than the C-1. I have never seen one good review from either side of the Atlantic on that preamp. They liked the Sonic Holography though. Even inexpensive Schitt Audio preamps are better than that. Carver made holography outboard devices like the C-9 which you can add on to it. You have some of the best sounding power amps on the planet there. Hard to believe someone would use those with a C-1. A total quality mismatch.
Thanks for taking time to share your comments. Have done real life a/b tests between the C1 and several nice preamps, including several nice vintage tube preamps including the schitt freya +. The C1 sounds as good as any of them and measures great. The C1 is used as a bench preamp, not in any of my systems, which both have Carver tuner/preamps in them. If I did not, I would be on the lookout for C9. While I do not consider myself to be a Carver FanBoy, his gear has quite a following... I appreciate you compliment on the MC30's. I would be interested in hearing your comments following a video that will be out before the end of the month on an a/b test between them and a bryston ss amp....
@@vintageaudioreview Back in the 1980s, I had the Carver C4000. Still the most fun preamp I ever owned. You have to live with sonic holography a while to really appreciate what it does. I missed the C4000 at first, when I had to sell it. Tbe PS Audio IVa preamp that replaced it, did have much more cleanliness to the sound, and refinement. Carver could have used better parts. His old 1980s preamps are considered grainy (distortion) by the best standards; even back then. He gave more attention to clarity of sound than cleanness of sound. There are all types of little distortions like TIM distortion that is more degradng to the sound than harmonic distortion. Maybe I will take a listen to a C-1 some day. The reviews all said it sounded a bit grainy and non refined. Maybe they're wrong or maybe they changed something within it during its production run.
@@sidesup8286 Thanks again for the discourse! You sound very close to the same age group as myself. I listened to a C4000T that was a bit beat up, and I thought it sounded pretty good. That preamp has a bunch of interesting features and if one came up for a real reasonable price I would probably get one. I do agree with you that Carver gear- at least what I have seen with the cover off- does not use the best components, but I do think the build quality is decent for the most part. I am not sure how one would measure the difference between clarity and quality, though. I obviously am a big believer in measurements, but they don't always predict how something sounds- at least the basic measurements. I really don't put much faith in what reviewers say about how something sounds- I mention some basic characteristics of my listening tests, but most things I have listened to sound "good", its just what happens when they pushed to deliver more power (I am thinking amps/receivers). I almost always listen with the Sonic Holography on- it would be nice to have the speakers set up properly for my rooms, but that is where the Wife Filter nulls that out....
@@vintageaudioreview Re:Carver 4000; I always used the the Sonic Hologram button too. The focus really snapped sharply into place. And there was more openness, width and depth. Interestingly the C-9 SH outboard device excelled at width, but not depth AND width, like the C4000. The dynamic range expander of the C 4000 was great; really dramatic. The Autocorrelator noise reduction made an audible puffing sound if set to automatic. I always used the manual setting, where I could adjust it just right, to where it didn't make that puffing halo noise around the instruments. The time delay circuit really did create the effect that you were listening in a much bigger environment. It did wonders for the bass, but some of that sharp focus from the front channels would be compromised. I usually listened without the time delay. Compared to preamps with better parts, the C 4000 wasn't as pure sounding. That purity which can tickle you on every note was not there. It also sounded more transistory with more of an electronic signature than better preamps using better parts. But sonic holography, improved dynamic range and effective lessening of noise from records and tapes are no small thing. I also liked that it had seperate treble adjustment for the right versus left channel. There were sound absorbing drapes on the left side of my room, which a little treble boost nicely corrected. The smoother, grainless, more liquid sound of better preamps were a plus. Wish I could have had both in one. I also wish I would have not needed the money so bad that I had to sell it. I can double the sound quality with mods, and if I still had a C4000, I would have been able to have my cake and eat it too; so to speak.
@@sidesup8286 Last week a guy on a FB page I follow had a mint C4000T with the box- here in TUcson- for $375 + shipping. By the time I noticed the post it was sold. I would have purchased it and used the IR remote volume control I reviewed with it. I appreciate your passion, knowledge and "civility"!
MC30's and MC225's are considered the best sounding of all Mac tube amps. The sound is influenced by your choice of mfg and condition of tubes, coupling caps, carbon comp resistors, SR's and other components. A proper restoration is more than popping in new cheap parts wherever out of spec items identified. The best 30's and 225's i have heard were also the most original. The worst were amateur "replace everything" restorations.
If you are disappointed in the sound of 30's or a 225 ... the problem is.. whoever worked on it.
I really liked the sound of the MC240's- more than the MC225's from what I remember, but without an A/B test between them I would not be certain. I recently purchased a pair of MacKit30's, which appear to be all original except the electrolytics and they sound great on my LaScalas. There will be a video on them vs a solid state amp a/b test in a few weeks. I appreciate your thoughts.
how would i hook up my rel storm lll sub with high level 3wires one end and speakon to sub other end
I am not familiar with your sub, but it would depend on the sub's impedance as to which taps you would connect to on the MC30- probably 8ohms. However, I would recommend solid-state amp with more power for a sub- at least 100w
These are excellent, getting hard to find and pricy
In a few minutes I will be hooking a pair of the MacKit 30's to my system- same thing but offered as a kit and they have a MacKit30 logo. They test great. Thanks for the comment!!
Do yourself a BIG favor. Get a better preamp than the C-1. I have never seen one good review from either side of the Atlantic on that preamp. They liked the Sonic Holography though. Even inexpensive Schitt Audio preamps are better than that. Carver made holography outboard devices like the C-9 which you can add on to it. You have some of the best sounding power amps on the planet there. Hard to believe someone would use those with a C-1. A total quality mismatch.
Thanks for taking time to share your comments. Have done real life a/b tests between the C1 and several nice preamps, including several nice vintage tube preamps including the schitt freya +. The C1 sounds as good as any of them and measures great. The C1 is used as a bench preamp, not in any of my systems, which both have Carver tuner/preamps in them. If I did not, I would be on the lookout for C9. While I do not consider myself to be a Carver FanBoy, his gear has quite a following... I appreciate you compliment on the MC30's. I would be interested in hearing your comments following a video that will be out before the end of the month on an a/b test between them and a bryston ss amp....
@@vintageaudioreview Back in the 1980s, I had the Carver C4000. Still the most fun preamp I ever owned. You have to live with sonic holography a while to really appreciate what it does. I missed the C4000 at first, when I had to sell it. Tbe PS Audio IVa preamp that replaced it, did have much more cleanliness to the sound, and refinement. Carver could have used better parts. His old 1980s preamps are considered grainy (distortion) by the best standards; even back then. He gave more attention to clarity of sound than cleanness of sound. There are all types of little distortions like TIM distortion that is more degradng to the sound than harmonic distortion. Maybe I will take a listen to a C-1 some day. The reviews all said it sounded a bit grainy and non refined. Maybe they're wrong or maybe they changed something within it during its production run.
@@sidesup8286 Thanks again for the discourse! You sound very close to the same age group as myself. I listened to a C4000T that was a bit beat up, and I thought it sounded pretty good. That preamp has a bunch of interesting features and if one came up for a real reasonable price I would probably get one. I do agree with you that Carver gear- at least what I have seen with the cover off- does not use the best components, but I do think the build quality is decent for the most part. I am not sure how one would measure the difference between clarity and quality, though. I obviously am a big believer in measurements, but they don't always predict how something sounds- at least the basic measurements. I really don't put much faith in what reviewers say about how something sounds- I mention some basic characteristics of my listening tests, but most things I have listened to sound "good", its just what happens when they pushed to deliver more power (I am thinking amps/receivers). I almost always listen with the Sonic Holography on- it would be nice to have the speakers set up properly for my rooms, but that is where the Wife Filter nulls that out....
@@vintageaudioreview Re:Carver 4000; I always used the the Sonic Hologram button too. The focus really snapped sharply into place. And there was more openness, width and depth. Interestingly the C-9 SH outboard device excelled at width, but not depth AND width, like the C4000. The dynamic range expander of the C 4000 was great; really dramatic. The Autocorrelator noise reduction made an audible puffing sound if set to automatic. I always used the manual setting, where I could adjust it just right, to where it didn't make that puffing halo noise around the instruments. The time delay circuit really did create the effect that you were listening in a much bigger environment. It did wonders for the bass, but some of that sharp focus from the front channels would be compromised. I usually listened without the time delay.
Compared to preamps with better parts, the C 4000 wasn't as pure sounding. That purity which can tickle you on every note was not there. It also sounded more transistory with more of an electronic signature than better preamps using better parts. But sonic holography, improved dynamic range and effective lessening of noise from records and tapes are no small thing. I also liked that it had seperate treble adjustment for the right versus left channel. There were sound absorbing drapes on the left side of my room, which a little treble boost nicely corrected. The smoother, grainless, more liquid sound of better preamps were a plus. Wish I could have had both in one. I also wish I would have not needed the money so bad that I had to sell it. I can double the sound quality with mods, and if I still had a C4000, I would have been able to have my cake and eat it too; so to speak.
@@sidesup8286 Last week a guy on a FB page I follow had a mint C4000T with the box- here in TUcson- for $375 + shipping. By the time I noticed the post it was sold. I would have purchased it and used the IR remote volume control I reviewed with it. I appreciate your passion, knowledge and "civility"!