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.
