So...many thanks to TSAVJason and Moderator Supreme warrenpchi... got this beast today...
So lets get the basics out of the way:
1) The amp comes in a box...it is brown, the packing prevents it from being destroyed in shipping...this is good.
2) This is a HEFTY piece of equipment...I did not weigh it but those transformers are weighty.
3) Out of the box the tubes are encased in a substantial cage to prevent morons from somehow burning themselves...I removed the cage and will never install it...you should do the same (as you can see in the picture above) ... unless you are prone to placing vacuum tubes in places where they do not belong. I've run my amp for 6 hours and can still touch the tubes...they get only slightly warm - impossible to imagine anyone burning themselves on these.
4) The chrome finish on the unit is very shiny, retro and beautiful. It will leave fingerprints, get over it...buy a box of Kleenex. Also, the McIntosh logo on the side is big...and retro...this is important...see below
5) You've got a myriad of balanced and unbalanced inputs and outputs...this is very good. I do not understand if this is an "end-to end" balanced design, I don't think it is...I don't really care.
6) This amp has a dial that lets you select the impedance of the headphones you are using...anywhere from 38 Ohm to 600 Ohm...this is pretty cool, and an old trick used by McIntosh since the old days. They hand wind their transformers to allow for this to happen. It is fancy, I do not fully understand the engineering behind this...
7) This amp is made by McIntosh, they are probably the oldest "high-end" audio manufacturer in the US. I remember looking at dusty, used, McIntosh gear at Stereo Exchange on Broadway in Manhattan in the 90's, a 10 year old McIntosh tube receiver cost $2000 back then and looked like my grandpa's hi-fi...I realized that this gear must be special...I couldn't afford it back then. The McIntosh tube gear from that era had a big, obnoxious, McIntosh logo on it, written in gothic script...I thought this was cool in 1994 and dates to probably 1964 (see above #4), it's still cool. If you disagree please go back and install the vacuum tube cage on this unit.
8)The tubes are lit from below by green LEDs...they blink nicely when you turn the unit on as they warm up. You cannot turn the green LEDs off...this is probably because the tubes emit only a faint (very faint) orange glow when running...and everyone wants light from their tubes...don't they? I don't love the green LEDs .. I don't hate them...who cares.
9) This amp costs $2,500...which is quite expensive...but it's something special, and it is absolutely, unequivocally, worth the money.
OK...so...I have only listened to this amp for around 6 hours...it may need more burn in, I may be a tiny bit drunk, buut...I think it sounds absolutely fantastic...let me describe my somewhat compromised setup as it stands today:
1) LCD 2f's single ended TRS headphones
2) I'm using the pre-outs from my Schiit Asgard 3 Multibit to feed the MHA-200...becaaause, Schiit is on backorder on the Bifrost 2 I ordered...blame the global chip shortage...but this is a suboptimal setup admittedly. This amp absolutely deserves a dedicated DAC.
3) "No name" cables from Amazon...I don't do expensive cables...
4) Amazon HD source via Windows 10 USB exclusive mode. Yes, yes, I know about Quobuz/Tidal, I don't care. Amazon has the most music, and the most Classical...period.
So about the sound...I'll post more over the coming days. Keep in mind I'm upgrading from an Asgard 3 Multibit. This setup of running the pre-outs from the Asgard 3 does have the one advantage of allowing me to just unplug from the MHA-200 and into the Asgard 3 for quick comparisons, albeit not level matched, but the sound difference was not subtle...it was actually a revelation as to how much better the MHA-200 was.
If I were to generalize, I'd say the musicality and resolution of the MHA 200 was the thing that struck me most. The Asgard sounded muddy and veiled in comparison...these differences were not at all subtle, and not due to the DAC, as I used the Asgard 3's onboard DAC for all comparisons. This is not a swipe at Schiit, I love the company, but the MHA-200 costs 6x what an Asgard 3 MB costs...and the Asgard 3 MB includes a DAC! But the speed of the transitions on the MHA-200 are incredible. Comparing the MHA-250 to the Asgard 3 is an extremely unfair comparison - but its all I have on hand. With that said, I think the McIntosh can hold its own against frankly any amp out there - either tube or solid state.
The bass performance was excellent...example:
1) On Amber Rubarth's "Sessions from the 17th Ward" "Strive" has some incredibly punchy percussion, the transients were amazing. The soundstage on this Chesky recording is also outstanding, it was amazing on the MHA-200...much wider and open than the Asgard 3. The soundstage also gives you not only lateral extension but some mainly rearward soundstage as well. Bottom line...I find discussions of soundstage with headphones moot. No headphone is capable of reproducing a remotely realistic soundstage compared to speakers...
2) Billie Eilish "Bad Guy"...wow...just wow, no breakup, seemed to reach much deeper than the Asgard 3. And the base is tight and snappy.
Treble is "tubey" and non-fatiguing.
1) On Crucifixus by The Sixteen and Harry Christophers (Early Music - think Gregorian Chant) there are some ear bleeding, female, highs, that I have always found hard to take, although I love this piece. I found these highs actually bearable on the MHA-200
Instrument separation is great...but the difference between the Asgard 3 was subtler with Classical orchestral recordings, the MHA-200 really shines with more intimate music (chamber, jazz quartet, etc.), complex orchestral pieces are extremely well done, but differences between other amps is subtler
1) Vivaldi's RV 563 By Sir Neville Marriner and the Academy of St Martin in the Fields was quite similar to the Asgard 3
2) Same goes for Corelli with Philharmonia Baroque
3) Jazz at the Pawnshop (Chesky Records) is an exception FANTASTIC instrument separation...best I've heard, and I know this recording very well.
The last thing I'll say is that although the MHA250 resembles a shrunken, classic Mcintosh MC250 tube speaker amp...it is very different from that amp in regard to it's sound signature in every way, and for the better. The speaker amp is very old school tubes...rolled highs, flabby, indistinct base, but gorgeous midrange. The headphone amp keeps the amazing midrange but adds extended, musical highs, and tight, deep, punchy bass. I love this thing, it's really really good, and will drive just about any headphone out there.
OK...I'm getting tired, looking forward to more discussion on this outstaAnding, albeit pricey, amp.
Cheers!
Addendum 5/10/2021:
So I've been listening to the MHA200 with my Sennheiser HD660S's over the past 2 days, and I'd hazard to say that I prefer them with the MHA200 over the LCD-2f's. The mid-bass goes a touch deeper than with the LCD-2's and I'm hearing a bit more individual separation between instruments. I DEFINATELY prefer the Senns for Classical music with the MHA200. The downsides of the Senns is slightly more peaky treble compared to the LCD-2f. I find the Senns to be a more resolving headphone in general, and when combined with the outstanding resolution of the MHA200, suffice it to say that I'm hearing things I've never heard before.
Addendum 5/11/2021
So I've lived with the MHA200 for around a week, and I have noted some nits that I'd like to point out. None of these nits relate to sound quality.
1) On my unit, the volume pot is a tiny bit loose in the chassis...not bad, but as the pot is the only thing we touch on an amp, if the feel of the pot is not great, perceived quality suffers. Jason Stoddard at Schiit has noted this repeatedly in his blog posts here on Head-Fi, which is why Schiit pays a lot of attention to pot performance and feel.
2) I find the volume ramp up on the pot to be VERY steep past 12:00 - to the point that I have to press my fingers against the chassis when I'm increasing volume past 12:00 to insure I don't deafen myself, in fact, the "usable" volume range on my unit is only between 12:00 and 1:30...very tight.
It seems that in designing the MHA200, McIntosh put a premium on the ability of the MHA200 to integrate into existing McIntosh systems, specifically McIntosh pre-amps. So as the user manual states, they recommend keeping the MHA200 pot at 12:00 (it has a detent at 12:00 to help with this) and using your pre-amp volume control to control volume. I'm using a similar setup with my Asgard 3 multibit, I'm using the pre-outs from the Asgard to feed the amp. But I find I don't get enough volume with the amp volume pot at 12:00 and using the Asgard's volume pot. So I'm just keeping the Asgard pot at 12:00 and using the MHA200 to adjust volume...but as I said above, with this setup the "usable" volume is only between 12:00 at 1:30..which makes volume adjustment touchy.
Maybe things will be better once my Bifrost 2 arrives, perhaps the setup using the Asgard 3 as a pre-amp/DAC isn't ideal with the MHA200. Would appreciate input from Warren or other owners to hear if they have similar issues - especially those folks who are using the MHA200 with a dedicated DAC with fixed outputs.
The thing still sounds fantastic though...still glad I bought it...
Addendum 5/23/2021
So my OG Clears arrived last week and I've spent some time listening to the MHA200 with them in addition to the LCD-2f and HD660S.
I suspect that the Clears still need some more break in, but I've heard enough to say that they certainly pair well with the MHA200.
One nice feature of the MHA200 is it's ability to drive two sets of headphones simultaneously via the both the TRS and XLR outputs (I don't know whether you could drive a third set with the dual XLR outputs...but suspect you could, as all three outputs appear to be driven all the time). Though not level matched, this feature made it pretty easy to switch between headphones quickly. There is ZERO change to the sonic signature when you plug a second set of cans into the MHA200 (not even a click or static). I switched between XLR and TRS cables a number of times as well, and could not detect any difference between the different outputs (I did not have any duel XLR cables, so can't comment on that output).
In terms of preference...well, I prefer the LCD-2f with the MHA200 as opposed to the OG Clears. This is mainly because the LCD-2s allow that gorgeous midrange from the MHA200 to come though more fully. The OG Clears are more dynamic, faster, have better bass, and are fantastic headphones. I prefer the OG Clears with my Asgard 3, as it complements that warmer, albeit more veiled, amp. The OG Clears are far more resolving with the MHA200 than the LCD-2fs, but with the kind of smaller, intimate, music I prefer, I found the LCD-2fs more musical.
If you want a very fast presentation, with great, tight, deep, bass and notable highs, the OG Clears and the MHA200 are gonna be for you. This is a great rock/pop pairing for me. Hoping the Clears mellow a bit with break in though. For me, this pairing might be just a bit too much of a good thing when it comes to detail and transparency. Wondering if the Empyreans/Utopias might not be a bit better in regard to musicality.
The OG Clears are super-easy to drive - no issues with the MHA200 at all.
I think we're going to start to see a consensus develop regarding the MHA200 around it's essential transparency and beautiful midrange, two characteristics that come through with all headphones to some degree or another.
At the end of the day, the MHA200 doesn't change the equation that you should ALWAYS choose headphones first, as transducers trump tubes and transistors every time when it comes to their impact on the sound of a given recording.
But first, dinner (actually lunch for me).
