2. amps-preamps
  3. 149606-111688

McIntosh autoformers vs direct-coupled output

Hi Out there!  I'm just getting back into audio after a 40 year hiatus.  An old "Tube" guy (McIntosh, Marantz, etc)
who didn't much care for the perceived change in sound with the intro of S.S. about 1970.

I happen to like certain features of McIntosh stuff. I'm also of the opinion that older, high grade items, brought
back to specs with judicious restoration, are more than adequate sonically, and a bargain against new.

All that said: I'd greatly appreciate feedback on the issue of McIntosh's Autoformer Amps vs direct-coupled.
Seems there's a serious division of opinion, and I'd like to hear yours!
Thanks for any/all input!
Bo
128x128broockies
audioman58's avatar
audioman58
4,101 posts
 
Personally I donot find McIntosh that much better sounding then average ,especially for the price ,they meters do you kool though.
i sold Macintosh for 2 years in Europe , the Danish Amplifiers 
as well as German beat them hands down , the Auto formers 
are not exceptional by any means , . Look at the parts quality a mass of red $7 wima capacitors , as well as power electrolytic caps 
plain decent quality caps ,nothing inside is top of the line .it sounds 
reasonably good ,and very dependable ,thst is why doctors ,and lawyers have bought them faithfully for years . Pass Labs for sure is a better product, watt vs watt, parasound Halo, and for sure Boulder in U.S amps ,as well as the Ampzilla monoblocks ,that don’t get much press since Jim B passed away.  McIntosh is a good product but overpriced considering the interior parts quality.
having many products modded ,I know parts quality very well vs
the competition.
stereo5's avatar
stereo5
6,364 posts
 
@audioman581...………….

I owned a Parasound Halo prior to purchasing a McIntosh.  The Parasound sounded thin and lifeless compared to the McIntosh.
broockies's avatar
broockies OP
31 posts
 
With much respect for the technical discussion, I'd like to get back to the focused point of my inquiry:  Mac Autoformer amps vs Mac Direct Coupled.
I'm contemplating acquiring a pair of Martin Logans, and I'm hearing
 that these bi-polars prefer Direct-Coupled, that the Autoformers
have some difficulty in the mid-base region - just about the low end
of the M.L.'s panel's low end. 
Is this just another of those opinions masking subjective bias, or is there techical substance here?
Any help on this issue will be greatly appreciated!
Bo
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
7,944 posts
 
stereo5,
I had a similar experience. I put an ancient Mac 2105 up against a Pass 250.5, (I owned both) in my system using 4 different speakers that I own, and the Pass 250.5 sounded thin and electronic (not natural) compared to the Mac. My buddy thought that it was obvious as well. 
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 
Is this just another of those opinions masking subjective bias, or is there technical substance here?
First you need to say the model ML you have, what type of music, if you have ML’s
1: Full range CLS/CLX,
2: Two ways with passive bass driver.
3: Or two way with active bass diver?

There are far better amps than Macs, for the same money to drive ML’s models in general with. As ML's impedance can be as high as 40ohms and drop to very low 0.9ohm, this is not Mac territory in my opinion. 

Cheers George
More to discover