MD108 VS. MD102

You can find out about tube complement, some specs, and pics at:

http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/tuners.htm#mr71

I talked to McIntosh technical support a couple of weeks who report that the MR-71 is without question the best sounding of all its tuners. But you have to have a good signal or a lesser audio section tuner (including most MDs) but a better RF section tuner will sound better. And sound is subjective, but once you immerse in the 3D sonic landscape of an excellent, updated with NOS hi-end tubes tube tuner you will find it hard to go back to the relatively flat sonic landscape painted by solid state tuners. The best solid state tuners I have heard with this tube sound (actually it is tubes short comings, harmonic distortion that help to create, in part, the effect of harmonic layering that is so palapable) include Naim NAT-01, Accuphase T-101, T-100, T-109 and to a degree the Roksan Caspian and Meridian 504/604.

Hi, how old is the MR-71? Are there photos of one anywhere on the web? I have a FT101-A that I really like......am I correct in assuming however that it's probably inferior to the MR-71 & the more expensive MD's? And what about the Fanfare? The tuner afficiandos on this site don't seem to mention it much. Finally, any advice on buying an MR71, hopefully in great condition (& not getting beat!)?
Thanks, Steve

Hi, I agree with the other posts about the superior sound of the old Mac tuners compared to the MD's. I have a MD-102 in my system upstairs and it sounds fantastic on the jazz and classical stations I like. The rock stations I like don't tune in as well, that is not the 102's fault, it's my antenna and geographic location. However, I bought a Mac MR-67 on ebay ($600) and bought NOS Telefunkens for all the tubes except the 6AU6s in the IF section and now that is my absolute best-sounding tuner. I also have a vintage Fisher 350-C and a Meridian 204 and an old Marantz 2110. The Mac sounds incredibly good, and the MD102 is a close second.
Sarah

If you do near field listening and like jazz and classical I really concure on the strengths of the MR-71 (I sold the incredibly transparent Rotel RHT-10 and kept my MR-71; the Rotel is definitely better in transparency, quick bass slam, getting and holding onto distant stations, quieter background but it, like several MDs I owned, sounded harmonically lean, seemed more lifeless and lacked the expansive soundstage and real music sound of the MR-71, MR-67, Marantz 10B or Fisher 200B oc 200C). Regarding disbelievers: Some may have heard a misaligned MR-71 or other excellent tube tuner with cheap replacement tubes and went away thinking there is nothing to these old tube tuner myths. If you have a good local station with an uncompressed signals a reconditioned MR-71 with good tubes like NOS Telefunkens and Mullards is extremely hard to beat! But if you like fast bass slam and heavy duty Rock and Roll especially from distant stations the newer hi-end tuners are the way to go. Ever wonder why the king of the current hill MD-108 uses 2 12AX7s in the audio stages?

I had a 102 until I got a Mcintosh MR71 on Ebay and sent it to Audio Classics for an upgrade performed by Richard Modafferi who designed the MR78. Cost for the tuner $650 and $500 for the upgade.It was not even close when comparing.
Charlie at Vacuum Tube Valley sold me two tubes at position 11 and 12 that made it even smoother. I haven't compared the 108 but I bet the Mac could be better.