Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear

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".

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?

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.

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.