[copeland]

Thanks Snejk and JustinS!  Been reading and lurking for a couple years, but back in the market for an amp and some headphones.  Figured this was the right place to learn!  I've been dreaming about my first piece of McIntosh gear for over 25 years - pretty certain this unit will be 'the one'.  

 

[JustinS]

No probs, I have always liked what Mcintosh look like, but have mostly had Naim for 25 years. The looks were initially what drew me to the MHA, along with pride of ownership, whilst minimising cables etc. From being wowed since connecting via Optical, I have switched it on every day, thinking that I will get over the "new piece of equipment being the best thing ever" and come down to earth. The truth is that I am still amazed what this box of tricks does, and it gives me more and more pleasure with each listen.
I was listening last night, and again, was just blown away with the sound quality and presentation. It gives me everything that could ask for in order to provide maximum musical enjoyment, while providing a visual feast at the same time.

 

[groovyd]

  No probs, I have always liked what Mcintosh look like, but have mostly had Naim for 25 years. The looks were initially what drew me to the MHA, along with pride of ownership, whilst minimising cables etc. From being wowed since connecting via Optical, I have switched it on every day, thinking that I will get over the "new piece of equipment being the best thing ever" and come down to earth. The truth is that I am still amazed what this box of tricks does, and it gives me more and more pleasure with each listen.
I was listening last night, and again, was just blown away with the sound quality and presentation. It gives me everything that could ask for in order to provide maximum musical enjoyment, while providing a visual feast at the same time.

what they need is a non-dac version with the same footprint as the D100 so people with a D100 can also enjoy having a McIntosh headphone amp that is not at all redundant with their D100.  I don't really need the X-Bass or whatever they call it but a decent analog crossfeed would be nice and having a couple independent output jacks for connecting a couple headphones at different impedances balanced to the same output level would be great.  I don't really need speaker outs either as my Paradigms are self powered.  

 

[JustinS]

I understand your point groovy, that's the reason I have left Naim, so many boxes, and a lot of them duplicating each other.

 

[barid]

 
what they need is a non-dac version with the same footprint as the D100 so people with a D100 can also enjoy having a McIntosh headphone amp that is not at all redundant with their D100.  I don't really need the X-Bass or whatever they call it but a decent analog crossfeed would be nice and having a couple independent output jacks for connecting a couple headphones at different impedances balanced to the same output level would be great.  I don't really need speaker outs either as my Paradigms are self powered.  

One of the big reasons I opted to this was that it did have the speaker outs and DAC in 1 box.(limited desk space).  Things I would have liked them to add would have been the same DAC as the D100, a DAC-out on the back, and maybe a balanced headphone out.
 
I think its a pretty versatile unit, but I can totally see the appeal only having the amp section.

 

[bmichels]

.... I would have liked them to add would have been the same DAC as the D100, a DAC-out on the back, and maybe a balanced headphone out.

+1000

 

[mikemercer]

+1000

+3000!
 
and I loved it when I reviewed it!
But I also would've LOVED a balanced option
 

 
- and owning the D100 DAC, and seeing the difference when I stacked em

 
- well, I still think the MHA100 is a FINE headphone amp/DAC,
but I imagine it would've been pretty easy to re-enlist @mgoodman to take care of the DAC section in the MHA100 like he did for the D100!

 

[groovyd]

 
One of the big reasons I opted to this was that it did have the speaker outs and DAC in 1 box.(limited desk space).  Things I would have liked them to add would have been the same DAC as the D100, a DAC-out on the back, and maybe a balanced headphone out.
 
I think its a pretty versatile unit, but I can totally see the appeal only having the amp section.

oh and i almost forgot... make the amp tube based instead of solid state, with a fat row of those green glowing tubes  visible through some top glass

 

[barid]

 
oh and i almost forgot... make the amp tube based instead of solid state, with a fat row of those green glowing tubes  visible through some top glass

Also it must do my taxes and laundry

 

[groovyd]

 
Also it must do my taxes and laundry

there are some things we would all agree on

 

[perplekks45]

  For me the USB input sounds best. But I will A/B again over the weekend... maybe.

Well, as promised I did some testing over the weekend. Didn't really have as much time as I hoped but will get back to it if there is interest.
 
Gear used:
 
Amp: MHA100 (duh)
Headphones: LCD-X
Cables: Norne Vanquish with Furutech FP-704 1/4", Kimber Kable USB B Bus Ag, Kabel Direkt Pro Series optical cable
Source: MacBook Pro (early 2011) with SSD and Audirvana Plus (no iTunes integration, stand-alone mode)
Settings: Normal 40 - 150 ohms @ 23% volume
 
Songs used:
 
Bat For Lashes - Glass [FLAC, 16/44.1]
Adele - Rolling In The Deep [MP3, 320kbps]
Lorde - Royals [FLAC, 24/48]
James Blake - Limit To Your Love [FLAC, 16/48]
James Blake - Retrograde [FLAC, 16/48]
 
I picked these songs because I know them very well and they each have elements that highlight certain strong or weak points of the audio chain.
 
I do not know nor care which part of the audio experience came from the cables, the DAC entry point, the MacBook or my ears. This is what I heard.
No tests have been done (yet) with different cables to confirm or disprove any findings.
 
When listening to Glass by Bat For Lashes the drums seemed to me to be more wide-spread and faster/punchier using the optical connection. There was quite a bit of air and a good feeling of space as well. Switching to USB the sound immediately struck me as warmer and darker. Bass was deeper and lasted longer, the fast drums began to partially melt into each other (as in, the first drum was still hanging in the air when the next one started). The soundstage seemed closer, both in width and depth. It was mellower and the mix itself felt more cohesive, whereas the optical connection offered more insight into the music and made it easier to distinguish each instrument or voice.
 
Next up was Rolling In The Deep by Adele and I was struck by how controlled the optical connection was. The big drum, the voice, Adele's voice... everything was so quick and clearly distinguishable. Again, switching to USB there was more warmth, the drums sounded fuller and had more low-down oomph, the voice sounded fuller, and the soundstage seemed smaller. I also think I heard a difference in quality between MP3 and FLAC. This may just have been my brain imagining things, though. Or the mix/production. Or maybe it is true and the soundstage is bigger on FLAC. Will most likely go back to this particular song in the near future. 
 
Lorde's Royals showed exactly the same picture with more control, wider soundstage, and feeling more detailed (though this might just be because it is brighter and emphasizes treble more) when using the optical output on the MacBook. USB gave that amazing depth to bass that is usually attributed to LCDs, made the whole sound warmer and the treble was just a hint smoother. 
 
James Blake's two songs used here are both stunning examples for post-dubstep production and further confirmed the findings. Especially Limit To Your Love with its pulsating (I won't say wobbling!) bass showcased the differences. Using the optical out it was fast, detailed and sufficiently deep. USB just gave the depth another dimension while giving up some of the speed. The treble over the optical connection was sharp and blisteringly fast, while over the USB connection it seemed smoother. 
 
After reading all this I guess you already have a clear picture of the difference I heard or imagined when A/B-ing between optical and USB. I sincerely hope this comparison answers some questions, whereas for me the essential question is still not anywhere near answering: which one is better, optical or USB? I honestly cannot say as both have their advantages and it all depends on what you prefer and, maybe even more importantly, what kind of music you listen to. Treble-sensitive listeners may want to avoid the optical connection, based on my findings at least. The same could be said for bassheads. People looking for details and crisp treble will probably be more happy with the optical output. But, depending on cables used, headphones used, your ears and for all I can say the phase of the moon your mileage may vary significantly. 
 
TL;DR:
Optical airier, crisper, faster, wider soundstage, more controlled.
USB warmer, lower extension, smoother treble, more cohesive feeling to the mix. 

 

[bmichels]

  Well, as promised I did some testing over the weekend. Didn't really have as much time as I hoped but will get back to it if there is interest.
 
...
 
TL;DR:
Optical airier, crisper, faster, wider soundstage, more controlled.
USB warmer, lower extension, smoother treble, more cohesive feeling to the mix. 

 
very very interesting.  
 
IDEA:  assuming that the same source can be connected to the MHA 100 by Usb AND by optical, just by rotating the 'imput selection" switch, we can change the sound signature, just like ... tube rolling, just easier 

 

[perplekks45]

   
very very interesting.  
 
IDEA:  assuming that the same source can be connected to the MHA 100 by Usb AND by optical, just by rotating the 'imput selection" switch, we can change the sound signature, just like ... tube rolling, just easier 

I found it very easy indeed. By just changing the preferred output in Audirvana and a quick turn on the input knob on the MHA I can, to my ears, change the sound signature. I had both USB and optical cables connected for the whole test. 

 

[snejk]

Thanks for your impressions perplekks, interesting indeed. I just need to find the time myself to try the optical, have been busy all evenings and the weekend and tonight as well (7 year wedding anniversary! My wife didn't even ask what the MHA100 cost, she's obviously a keeper). 

 

[perplekks45]

That she is! 

 
Give it a go when you have time. I would really like to know if others hear the same as me.