Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear

Clash..Mcintosh...Truth Path to Paradise? You guys are smokin somethin aren't you..come on, admit it!!

I wish.

I have been on a long search for a solid state amp I could live with, and bought (used) ML 27.5, Ayre V5xe, Pass x-250, Nuforce, and other top contenders to replace my ARC VT-200 and VT 100 mk3 in the summer months. None of the solid state amps could compete, UNTIL I bought an MC402 Mac amp. It is definitely the finest amp I have heard, in musicality, detail, transparency, nuance, etc. I am using it with my Ref 3 into Quads, Thiels, or Magnepans. I had always considered McIntosh to be boutique gear for folks with money but no ears. But I had never really listened to it. I did try the Mc 275 tubed piece, and did not feel it was any better than my ARC amps, but the 402 is better in every way. It literally rocked my known audio world! I mean, transformer coupled transistors? You bet it works! Try a 402 at home and see what you think.

I wouldn't call your foray into solid state amps comprehensive in any sense. Also, the Mac testimonial seems dealeresque Dbarger. But, whatever floats your boat..enjoy!

Mac gear won several Editor's Choice awards from The Absolute Sound this year, including the MC402 power amp and C46 and C2200 preamps.

But of course, the editors of TAS likely don't actually own those amps, but just borrowed them from the manufacturer ;-)

I don't know any true audiophiles. My dad bought a McIntosh amp in 1974 and boasted to me at the time that it was built like a "brick sh** house". He is 90 years old now and his Mac is still going strong and sounding good after 33 years. Fast forward to 2007, and I recently listened to an all Mac setup powered by a MC 275 tube amp played through some Vienna Acoustic floor standers and they sounded great. I also listened to an old Harry Belefonte LP played through a Mac MC501 and room filling Magenpans, and it was wonderful, every bit as good as Classe, Pass Laboratories or Edge amps I have heard recently.

I do not consider myself an apologist for McIntosh, and don't own any of their equipment personally. My limited experience is that their gear lasts a long time and the current editions sound very good indeed.

09-10-07: Dave_b
Nothing innovative about Mac gear, nor is it tremendously musical. In fact it sounds like very goo old class B electronics..not particularly exceptional in any area, nor a total disaster in any either..just OK!

Absolutely NOT the case. You don't consider transformer coupling the transistors to keep them in their peak operating range innovative? Who else does it? Very musical also.
Hopefully someday you will find some pieces you like as well long term as most Mac owners do. Good luck with that. BTW, I am not a dealer, just an music lover with an recently opened mind.

Dbarger, Agree with you. Don't understand how someone could say "nothing innovative". Not musical, I can understand, as that's just their opinion and Mac may not be to their taste. It is to mine.

To the thread starter: Yeah, some of true audiophiles own Mac, some don't. Which ones own it? Why the ones that find it musical. As far as mid-fi stores selling it, Mac makes a wide range of equipment. If a store could sell Mac's $60,000 amps it would, but their customer base should dictate what they stock the most of. Krell has some expensive stuff, also their lesser KAV line. Mark Levinson called their lesser line Proceed. At least Mac doesn't call it something like "Mini-Mac".

I presently own Mac's MC501 and their C200 pre driving Dunlavy's SC-IVAs. My previous owned set-ups included Bryston, Classe C200, and a BAT VK 500. I have heard multiple Mark Levinson and Krell systems.

McIntosh clearly smoked my previous Bryston, Classe, and BAT systems. Compared to the Levinson and Krell systems I believe they are easily equal to and probably slightly better in overall performance.

Whether or not anybody out there is a Stereophile Magazine fan; they voted the MC501 amplifier of the year for 2004.
Stereophile also reviewed it as extremely close in performance to Halcro's DM58 amp which is considered by many to be the very best in solid state.

I don't believe in magazine reviewer opinions as much as the next guy. But I do believe in actual test numbers taken from Stereophile Magazine. The MC501 tested very well, see for yourself on the archived test results at stereophile.com. They also reviewed and tested the C200 pre with similar excellent test results.

Obviously McIntosh must be doing something right. They have been in business since 1949 and they seem to hold a pretty good resale value. I have had several pieces and can say I will probably buy more. I know that there is better out there at the same price point, but they don't have the track record. It seems that every time I see a thread on Mc that someone can always bash them. Maybe it's that old "blow your candle out and mine will burn brighter" syndrome. I am sure that someone will trash my reply here but that is their need being fullfilled. McIntosh is a good company building great products and offering exceptional service. As an audio equipment owner what more can I want?

Lest some of you gentlemen forget, I owned the MC501's and C46 preamp and a C2200 tube pre which was returned quickly! Both my Totem Winds and Dynaudio C4's bled the amps dry..meters were full tilt without pushing the amps very hard. Autoformers..new technology? I think not folks. Build quality is good..parts are fine but not exceptional and musicality is good to better than average (marginaly). At it's price point it is good value gear..nothing wrong with that, it's just not worth cult status! In particular, transparency was not state of the art. Bass was uniquely soft and less forceful than most amp/preamp combos available. Mids were full and pleasant..ripe even (a good thing). Highs were nice, not harsh nor dull, but not as complex and liquid as others. Overall, good gear at a fair price. Anyone who has read Stereophile for more than a few years understands the relationships that are made between reviewers and companies. It is illuminating to re-read reviews of gear one has owned, especially when it has been alot of gear...the small points are key elements of a design (inevitably negative in nature)and the large sweeping praise is conveniently vague enough to attract as many potential buyers as possible (in case you still believe in the tooth fairy). Money makes the audio world go around..world go around! So, like I said before..enjoy your stuff, it's just fine:)

Why people continue to "argue" with Dave, one guy, is beyond me.

I take it all back..Mac is absolutely the finest gear available! Happy?

Dave_b
"Anyone who has read Stereophile for more than a few years understands the relationships that are made between reviewers and companies."

I agree with you 100%. I've been subscribing to Stereophile for more than 15 years. That's why I made the statement, "I don't believe in magazine reviewer opinions as much as the next guy. I also stated, "I do believe in actual test numbers taken from Stereophile Magazine test reviews." Both MC501s and the C200 pre tested with excellent close to the highest state of the art levels of performance. Do you believe reviewers have anything to gain by reporting erroneous test data? It's illegal to publish incorrect data. Why would they put their careers on the line?

I also noticed my Dunlavy SC-IVAs pushing the famous Mac blue meters close to the far right. At that level I am pushing the volume level of the C200 pre to 75% - 80% of it's capacity.
Also, if you remember the last two MC501s meter increments at the far right end of the scale, go from 50 to 500 watts. Even at extreme musical peaks the meters have never hit the 500 watt level. They mostly stay halfway in between 50 and 500 watts. I have a fairly large dedicated listening room that requires high volume/decibel levels. The MC501s do just fine; like I said before they are the best I've heard as far as what I have owned.

This forum is considered a debate where people banter back and forth with their opinions hopefully based on sound experience and judgement. Your experiences are based on personal system set-ups including your own listening room, main source components and various other factors.

Nobody is saying, at least I'm not, that your opinions or observations are wrong, or you don't know what you are talking about. It's just that there are so many variables that dictate a systems performance. Your particular set-up incorporating McIntosh components or listening room geometry just might have not been to the optimum conditions or synergies that McIntosh components excel in.

Audia, points well taken...but test data as an ultimate indication of musicality? Plenty of gear measures well and still manages to fall short of accurate fidelity. Stepping back for a minute, I believe I mentioned that I thought well of the Mac stuff...I just don't feel it is all that great compared to other competitive products. Until you hear a bunch of other equipment over time under various circumstances, it is hard to understand what you are missing! All in all, synergy does go along way toward long term happiness. My time with the Mac gear was pleasurable and engaging for the most part. Over time however, I felt that recordings I new well had been served better via other amp/pre-amp combinations I have owned. Personal taste is everything..so...enjoy the amps your with...do do do do do do do do, do do do do do do do...do do do, do do do! (CSNY)

to original poster.... never and always and sometimes but not forever.

After reading all the responces I guess audiophiles do listen to Mcintosh. If you just talked to the dealers in Southern California you would never know that. I'm glad I started this thread. Now I'm interested in Auditioning some Mac tube gear.

Mac makes a wonderful tube integrated Taters, the MA2275; if going separates, I'd lean towards the MC275.

Taters;I have enjoyed reading this thread as well; please post your auditioning results and thoughts.

I used to think it was stupid, fashion oriented, history-bound etc etc.... but I have to say, that after working in a dealership that turned me against Mc in the first place - and then transferring to a place that carried it... Wanted to hate it, but couldn't. Their amps sound incredible compared to most other (more expensive) amps I have been around. More open, more detail, bright -never harsh. Like - I can readily pick it out blindfolded. And, they don't get wicked hot. Now, here's where I brag a little, and say that I have measurably above average hearing in the top octave AND I'm quite young for an audiophile. I'm also a season ticket holder for the Boston Symph Orch - quite the reference point.

And, I haven't worked for that dealer (or any others) for several years. ;) This isn't a product plug -or is it? Some (but def not all) of the guys that work at Mc headquarters are rude. So, there; I offset it.

I'm not a huge fan of the feature-laiden, nine-miles of wire preamps that they USED to make; but, I have to admit I actually did use the features even if the preamps were a bit cloudy.

The LS360 is a dream speaker for the price. The others in the line aren't up to it's performance - they're a tad dark. Alas, the LS line is no more. I have not heard the new all metal ones.

I also have to say that their new sources - the 4x CD player and 2x DVDa/SACD players with real-time error correction - make more of a difference in achieving analog sound than any other chassis/damping or upsampling scheme that I've ever heard. Makes technical sense, as optical read omission errors can be horrendous (or so I'm told by friends at MIT).

My fav amp ever is the MC30. Gloriously open/sparkly. Too small for my tastes, tho. Present fav of theirs is the MC501 or MC252 (essentially the same amp) and the MC275. I want one of each :(

SOOOO, yes. I own Mc. And, I am DEF an audiophile.

You don't consider transformer coupling the transistors to keep them in their peak operating range innovative?

Not to pick on Mac, but no. Using output transformers, which have been around on tube amps forever, on transistors which do not need them, is not innovative. It means they are willing to trade away sound quality (transparency) in exchange for stability/reliability.

Tube amplifiers (except OTLs) require output transformers, but they are considered a necessary evil. Fortunately, the vacuum tube is such an inherently transparent and musical device that the final result can still be superb even with the loss that occurs through a good output transformer.

Davemitchell, the results do not support your conclusions. The results are incredible clarity.
Transformers are mixed blessings, of course, but the results speak for themselves. The dual differential truly balanced circuit is also fairly unique, although they are not the first on that one. McCormack does something similar I believe in their DNA 500.

"Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear?"

First of all, who has the right to judge whether someone else is a 'true audiophile' (or anything else) for that matter? If you have an all-Mac system (I don't - just an MR85), and are happy with it, IMO, no one else can really fault him/her.

the results do not support your conclusions.

Without getting in to critiquing the "results", my point was that using output transformers is hardly innovative. It's about as retro as you can possibly get.

For those of you in Southern California, Brooks Berdan in Monrovia carries McIntosh and he's a highly respected audiophile shop. Give him a call if you'd like to know his opinion on Mac gear. He also carries Jadis and VTL so he'll also be able to give you the compare and contrast of those makers as well.

what difference does it make what audiophiles own>

when were they anointed the true cognoscenti of matters audio ?

Brooks carries Mcintosh? I was in his shop 6 months ago and he didn't have it. I'm going to give him a call.

I've seen output transformers that respond out to 130kHz (-3dB) with feedback... (and I'm about to build an amp around one that goes to 117kHz without)... How can you claim that reduces transparency? In fact, some transformer'ed amps have less phase lag at 20kHz than the typical single-dom-pole solid state amps compensated to 100kHz. Not sure about the Mc's in this regard. Then there's the term "non-linearity" that gets tossed around a lot. They ARE non-linear with respect to voltage vs current, but Vout = (N2/N1)Vin !! even when you are saturating the heck out of the transformer OR your output stage is junk (ie, too much output resistance) in which case it's your output stage causing the wave distortion anyway and not the transformer. All other quantities cancel out in the calculation. Physical Law - Faraday (I think.) And, unless the transformer is TOTAL junk, you can ignore the resistance of the wire for practical purposes.

And, as for "slow bass"???? That's just silly. A ported speaker can slow down response and cause overhang - an amp cannot. Not even a D.F.=10 amp (unless your speaker design is exceedingly poor -ie, 10:1 dip from nom). And, in a "slow" speaker, no amount of "damping-factor" will speed it back up. Some amps CAN deliver considerably more power at low frequencies than others, and there is a link between perception of low-bass content and "slowness". I forget who conducted the experiment or else I'd quote them directly.

I do agree, however, that the tube is a "clearer" device for several reasons that are purely speculative. So I will not elaborate.

Transformers are hardly innovative, but to my ear Mc solid state comes closer to tube than any I've heard.

Then, there's the potential of catastrophic failure that's thwarted by the transformer. I've had experience with failed transistors (not Mc).

Plus - the fact that I can get my full power output into any load I choose! How annoying and what a waste to buy a 1200Wpc amp only to get 300Wpc at 8 ohms?

"But, it doubles at four ohms!" Yeah - right up there with "But, it goes to 11!" They almost all will momentarily - even your Pioneer receiver.

The real innovation in Mc other than their dreamlike specs is in their prices and their reliability. And, IMHO, there are a few "leading brands" in high end that ought to be avoided like the plague - ones I've serviced and seen their schematics and insides.

But, perhaps therein lies the rub. Because their amps aren't ridiculously expensive (comparatively), many will automatically assume they are inferior. And that presumption is flatly impossible to put aside in a non-blind listening test. This goes along with a report I was reading about a recent perception experiment with cars. Any markings that would betray the make/model were removed, and the focus group hated any car that they assumed was American - even when it was really a Japanese car (and vice versa). Not sure if we're allowed to post links to other websites on here ...

I am a little disappointed that Mc amps no longer make their rated full sinewave power (into a resistor, obviously) for more than a few seconds. Their amps from yesteryear make full power sinewaves all day long. In their defense, music hardly resembles a sinewave unless you listen to some weird stuff. Sadly, I don't recall listening to any of my pipe-organ amp torture cd's on a newer Mc amp. So I can't report on that front. I have only encountered an issue when playing compressed music ludacrously loudly with the amp in a cabinet with the door closed (obviously a situation to be avoided no matter which amp).

OK they've shut down the AC and lights in the office. Time to go home ;-)

This question is the philosophical equivalent to

"Do true race car drivers own Bentleys"

Cheers

Cwlondon

I am a little disappointed that Mc amps no longer make their rated full sinewave power (into a resistor, obviously) for more than a few seconds.

When did that happen? How is that even possible? - I thought the FTC required that an amp has to make its advertised power for a period of time, or they couldn't claim it had that much power.

I don't know when they made the change. Nor do I remember exactly how long they will run before thermalling out. But it certainly is NOT indefinately. It was actually mentioned also in either an Absolute Sound article or Stereophile article. Forgot which. Review of the MC501 specifically.

I'm sure they're still well within FTC requirements as they are obviously far more robust than even "good" mainstream surround receivers (some of which are making HUGE power claims these days).

I use mny Mac to luisten George Thorougood With Klipsh Lascalas through a high gain pre ARC . Its a 50 watt Mac but if you want supremely clean non congested power your shirt off and truly feel the music really -rock your soul,--it's actually Bo diddley. You can play that 50 watt Mac with volume atnthe 11- 12 O'Clock position plenty left and blow your shirt off the loudest that combo I ever played was 110 Db+ at the SIttING position a ten foot distance.it is really bad for hearing Admittedley my audio group would disapprove. Even I couldn't take it for very long. The sound vibrates your whole body it penetrates you and Its a damn good amp! Loving music is all audiophile means and I love that sound, but only on occassion.

hi,

FWIW, in the latest issue of stereophile's recommemded components the Mac 275 got a A rating along with a few others such as Audio research Reference 110, BAT Vk-55Lamm Industries ML2.1 monoblocks and 4 or 5 others. So I guess it's in rarified company and very good. I'm thinking of gettineg one.

Larry

True race car drivers do not own Bentleys.

What about the Bentley Speed 8?

No race car drivers own Bentleys because the all the NBA players bought them all. ;>)

Another cool thing about is that they dont play the weekly upgrade game.... MK II, MK III, SE etc etc. That game destroys the value of your investment.

I think the original question is insulting. Who are we to judge the equipment someone else likes? If someone likes McIntosh that's their business and fine by me. There's a lot more important things to worry about.

Rja, I agree with you 100%. Cool username, btw.

What is an audiophile anyway? Many times I believe people buy exotic audio to keep up with the "Jones" and forget the real reason, THE MUSIC!

I used to collect vintage Sansui gear. Most of you are probably turning your nose up as we speak. However my old Sansui 9090db was the sweetest, most forgiving (and non fatiguing) receiver that I owned and yet many people would laugh at me.. It sounded great for my ears and I have very sensitive ears (I used to be a studio sessionist). Well the 9090db was given to my son who now enjoys it in his one bedroom flat (whilst in grad school).

Our beloved hobby is in the ear of the beholder..

Furthermore,dealers who bash Mcintosh are probably in business for all the wrong reasons anyway. These snobbish, by appointment only L.A. type snake dealers are more concerned with selling you an over-hyped, OVER-bling, over-rated exotic "blah blah blah" component that they claim sound better because they are hand-made by Bavarian artisan monks retrofitted with caps or resistors developed by NASA. You get my drift. So p--lease, be careful not step in the b*llsh*t.

With that being said, let your ears decide for you not some glossy audio magazine or slick audio dealer. I have listened to many many ARC, Halcro,VTL, Mark Levinson, Mcintosh and Spectral components that were not worth their inflated price of admission.

I did however finally find vintage separates that agreed with my ears and wallet: a mcintosh mc-2155 amp and c-28 preamp. Warm, non-fatiquing, and easy going to my ears. But I bet alot of you out there would turn your nose up at my component choices.. Go figure.

I have owned Mcintosh gear, a C-46, two MC-501 and an MCD-205 which I still have.
Mcintosh is well built, looks good and has a high resale value. It sounds very good to.
I like Mcintosh as much as I like Accuphase. They have been in business quite a long time and most of the time they have produced very good amps.
There are probably some amps out there which sound better than Mcintosh,but not many, and most of those are tubed amps of the SET variety.
You must like tubes to have one of those and high efficient speakers too.
In order to put together such a SET/highEffSpeaker setup you need some knowledge and lots of listening experience to get it right.
You run the risk of getting entangled in an eternal upgrade path and get confused by dealers, reviewer of all sorts and fellow audiogon members.
With Mcintosh you will be able to put together a one brand system, it will look fantastic(you will feel good), it has a considerable weight and will increase you feeling of having got something really tangible for your money (makes you feel good also) and then it will sound very good too and you will be a happy man for a long time.

There is no best amp in this world, everything is relative (Einstein)and all depends of your point of view, on your financial position (you need money for other pleasing hobbies too)and on your capacity to extract happyness from what you have got.
Be absolutely sure that the most expensive amp is NOT the best one.
With McIntosh you can not go wrong, that is for sure.
You can go shopping for something marginally better and end up with something worse.
If you like the mac, get it.
Do not worry what Audiophiles think of it, they are a bunch of masochists and eternally unsattisfied people. IMHO of course.

what is a true audiophile ? the term is ubiquitous on audiogon, but i have yet to hear a definition.

i will venture an opinion in absence of a definition.

true audiophiles can own just about anything, as long as it suits their preference. if one assumes that audiophile equals prefers virtually accurate presentation, i would say mcintosh tends to design tube components which are close to neutral.

my evidence ? i own an mc 275, which i intend to sell later this month and have reviewed an mc 220 preamp.

My 400xi/sacd standard into my res 2 speakers is far more natural and musical than anything I've owned (read review for details on why). As for Mcintosh, why are some people obsessed with antique cars, LP's or TV news...some people just can't let go of something that's been around for awhile; even if the object of desire is flawed or just plain mediocre. As I said before, Mc 'aint bad stuff, it just 'aint that great...and certainly not the stuff dreams are made of.

My question is do true metal heads own mac gear.....?

Absolutely Zamdrang...the metalwork on the Mc's are there best feature!

LOL...:)

dave_b, why am I not surpised by you not understanding why people keep playing those "flawed" and "mediocre" LP's. After all, you have a Krell SACD player.
Thanks, you keep me laughing!

Hey Dbarger, I'm a vinyl guy as well...that's how I know what music reproduction should sound like. If you took the time to look at my review of the 400xi/sacd std combo you would understand my reasoning. This combo has a unique feature/design set that no one else has, and I believe it to be the most vinyl like sound I have ever heard! I have owned more high end gear than most and can afford whatever new comes along...it just so happens that this krell secondary system creates music on such an exhalted level that I can hardly believe just how flawed most gear can sound. At the very least, I do pride myself on being a source of amusement for you Dbarger:) By the way, my $20K cable rig don't hurt either. What are you listening through currently?

the term audiophile is not correlated with any audio component. being an audiophile is not a basis for predicting someone's stereo system. therefore an audiophile can own anything and still be an audiophile.

case closed.

tennis anyone