Mcintosh C50 Preamp

So a preamps appearance has an effect on it's price?  Maybe, but this should not be significant.  Mc preamps have given the end user control over the room or the recording that certainly have an effect on sound quality in my listening space.  I'm gonna have to agree that the VTL 2.5 doesn't sound anything like a McIntosh.  Like I said before, I tried to make the 2.5 sound like music here in my system, but was unsuccessful.  I used highest quality vintage tubes and quality cabling as well.  This preamp might be good for you, but in my experience most if not all of the McIntosh preamps I have used (tube and SS)have reproduced music convincingly better here.  The C42, which is an older SS Mc preamp, made the VTL 2.5 sound overly analytical, lacking in musicality, and less refined in my system.  It has a "bite" to it I just can't  live with, as always YMMV.

Over a year ago I snagged a C50/MC452 combo and have been loving life, driving a pair of Focal Sopra No2 floor-standing speakers.
I do not use the built in DAC, so I can't comment on how good that sounds, but have a PS Audio DirectStream DAC into the balanced input on the C50.  I thought that DACs were improving so rapidly, not to be tied down to the internal DAC.
One thing I really like about the C50 are the number of balanced outputs (3 sets), I use one set to connect my power amp, one set to connect a pair of JL Audio sub woofers and the third set to connect a Bryston headphone amplifier (the C50's headphone amp struggles to power my inefficient but excellent Sennheiser HD800's).
I was also attracted to the eight-band equalizer, but once I got things "tuned" in my "man cave", bypass the tone controls.
I'm really happy with my setup, including the C50.

Hi

I own the Macintosh D100 , Is the inner DAC in the D100 is the same as the C50 ? Better ? Worst?