MAC Autoformers?


Someone is selling a MAC MA6500 Integrated claiming its superiority over the Ma6600 due to the fact that "it does not have the degrading autoformer design found in the MA6600". That is the first time I've heard a claim that the autoformer was a hindrance to better performance; I thought quite the opposite. What do you MAC Maves think?
pubul57
My 2 cents is after talking to Mctintosh Tech Teryy somebody in Knoxville TN, research,the verdict is that autoformer as opposed to direct is a different but very d=techniacal approach. Your own ear is the judge. Mu experience is with MC 2200 paired with Martin Logan motion 10 +sub. Results were very Impressive used 3 different venue's (rooms).

So my Net answer is I think due to dedication & quality, Mcintosh had a game winner.

 Very versatile  amp with rich smooth Mcintosh sound, attention to quality, is the defining difference but people forget how dedicated Frank WAS.
RobyK
If you read Ken Kessler's book, there's significant disagreement about Autoformers between the various designers.  I think it might've had marginally better relevance in the very early days of Solid State.  Now there are even CAR stereo amps that can run .5 ohms all day at negligible distortion.  It has to be a cakewalk for well isolated AC.
This is an old topic...literally.  In the times when tubes were dominant amplification devises, the output transformer was a necessity (one might say a necessary evil.  The tubes are amplifying voltage, so that they work with high impedance loads. The loudspeakers normally have quite low impedance. Thus a transformer is required to match the output of tube amplifier and the loudspeaker.  When first transistors have emerged, the schematic design did not evolve immediately. Thus, early transistor amplifiers were very similar to the matured at that time tube amplifiers. 

However, over time it was realized that transistors work better and amplifiers of  current as opposite for tubes which work better as amplifiers of voltage. Thus, transistor amplifiers can and do work well with low impedance load such as loadspeaker directly. 

Now, still transformer (autoformer) can assist with the loudspearkers with various impedance...i.e. 4 Ohm vs. 6 Ohm vs. 8 Ohm providing more stable load to a SS amplifier.  However, transformer alone is not a perfect transfer devise and making quality transformer for audio output is difficult and costs a lot of money. The typical issues with output transformers are: reduced damping factor and difficulties with driving complex loads, slew rate reduction, additional distortions, etc. 

From my perspective, McIntosh polished out the technology and because of the quality, manages to make very good sounding amps. The majority of other brands simply moved on ( which at this point seem to be the right thing to do) and still makes good amps. At the end of the day it is not the technology but the end result that matters.  
I have a C40 preamp driving an MC150. The C40 has an onboard 20 watt monitor amplifier. For low level listening in the evening, I use the monitor amplifier; for performance listening, I use the MC150. Both of these amps are wired into an "A-B" amplifier switch box that can instantaneously switch between both amps. On occasion, I have switched between the two trying to hear any differences. They both sound identical to me. 

I also have an MC754 driving some old JBL's for the TV. One of these days, I'll have to get of my lazy caboose and rewire to see if there's any difference between it and the MC150. I suspect there won't be much difference, if any, in the sound.

I've also demoed a pair of MC601's along side a new model MC275. Again, both amps sounded outstanding, but I heard no notable difference between the two. In that case, I'd go with the MC601's because they (a) have more power, (b) don't require tube maintenance and (c) have those lovely blue meters.

I personally prefer any McIntosh amp with an autoformer, but it's based purely on aesthetics and emotions -- not on what I can hear.