Gryphon vs. McIntosh

Roxy54,
You must immediately surrender your 'audiophile crazy' card, asking a question like that.

Larry

Good listening, and LOL

After a weekend in peace and serenity I'm back for some more interesting discussion here. Thanks for additional comments guys.

As far as the myth of dark character for Gryphon Tabu. I would say that is not correct if I correlate this with your description of dark and what I heard through Gryphon. I would say that Gryphon Tabu had and exceptional well amount of air, very well defined edges and body of the instruments, very dynamic and seductive sound which is with high energy but not aggressive at all. I would hard to say if that is NEUTRAL but sure I would say it was NATURAL to me and enjoyable as music was all around me. Experience that I had with a relatively very cheap system at that time was memorable and was not repeatable in experience and pleasure of enjoyment of the music. Other components that I used on that time while testing Gryphon Tabu were the following: Canton Venton 807DC, Marantz CD53 (old entry level CDP), Nordost Red Dawn ICs and Nordost Super Flatline Gold MKII.
Soon after that experience I bought second hand MF A308 Dual Mono integrated but I did not achieved the same pleasure as with Gryphon. Also changed CDP for MF Nuvista. In 2010 I also upgraded speakers for Anthony Gallo ref 3.5, where there were a lot of improvement and different presentation of music but still I carry that reference magic moments when the music just emerged and that was I think the blame to Gryphon Tabu. Control and body of the singers and organic body of the instruments struck me the most.

About Gryphon reservation towards USA market something is mentioned on 6moons review and I sense some bad experience Gryphon company had in the second half of 90s. More to read is here: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gryphon/1.html

What is interesting to point here is that we can identify also NAD's attachment to Gryphon and very interesting background. Is here the answer to the development of NAD S300? I think it goes well together if we look the years when NAD S300 was released (1998).

But if I return back to the topic I have a question that is also rather fairly often said for McIntosh gear. "McIntosh sound" often said but not so often discussed what that can be? What kind of sound is that? How do you compare it towards Gryphon? I guess from your answer now is that it is not so deeply involving and does not reveal all the details that e.g. Jeff Rowland Contiuum 500 does?! I'm just guessing this from your answers. I think that McIntosh is not only about the look as I still see a lot of very happy users who found its sound very lush McIntosh. Does McIntosh offer too much forgiveness?

Thanks for great discussion,
best, del.

As is the case with many things, it's hard to describe.
Let's start with the obvious:
It's very pleasant...and that's not a 'damning with faint praise' comment.
Pleasant is good.
The bass is a bit, 'rubbery' if that makes any sense...a bit lose with the overall impression that it's not plumbing the depths...a little heavy in the midbass...not as tight as it should be tonally.
Background, very black...midrange very nice...if not a bit 'forward'...remember the 'absence of one, is the prominence of another'.
The highs...softish, not articulated, in my experience...but NEVER fatiguing.
Forgiving but not syrupy...sounds about right.
Actually, with some of the THIEL'S, interestingly, the Mac sounds nice...good offsets for one another.
If we could agree that Spectral is a bit dry sounding, clean but dry, we have some common ground.
Classe...more musical and very Threshold/Pass Labs sounding.
Krell, thunderous bass, a bit grainy (my main objection) in the mids and upper frequencies.
What's fundamentally right about the Gryphon...I notice NOTHING as it relates to these regions...I'm only hearing what passes for music 'for ME'.
I've heard Gryphon with THIEL, Logan, B&W, Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams, PSB, Rega, LSA...almost too many to mention...and it's character or musicality always outshines any perceived color for me...just musical, without the pejorative connotation one normally associates.
Without those niggling little problems or issues, the rest just falls in place for me.
Gryphon is in a league almost by itself for my taste...MBL offers a very, very similar sound...with a slight, and I do mean slight...did I say slight? lack of that final ounce of resolution?
Having said that...they're as close as you'll hear, as if the same guy and suppliers are at work here.
If this does NOT make sense, I apologize...subjective analyses, are always hard.

Hope this helps a bit.

Larry
Good listening

LoL Larry, I’m not sure that "rubbery" is legitimate Stereophile lexicon to describe the bass but I nonetheless wholeheartedly agree with your observation(s) on the McIntosh sound. On the whole I found the McIntosh "inoffensive” which is also not damning with faint praise… :-) I think....

The McIntosh can seem slow too, having no real snap to it -and somewhat behind in the resolution stakes. Still, with the right speakers the McIntosh works.

Let's call it 'flabby' or 'loose'...yeah, I struggled with that.
Not well damped would probably work too.
Sorry...words escaped me.

Those comparisons, inadequate vocabulary notwithstanding, should be fairly accurate for a numbskull like me.

Larry