Mcintosh 6900/Klipsh Cornwall III - a good match?

Wireless 200 has no clue what he's talking about, if anything the MA 6900 is overly smooth. I currently run a MA6900 with JM Labs 1007 BE and the sound is magic.

Many people like to crap on Mac's becasue they are expensive and beautiful, but they are true hi fi.

I'll put myself on the line here: Old mac solid state may be better than old mac tubes (except maybe 225).

Hey Elvick - here I am with my chainsaw. :) The old Mc tube amps - all of them including the reissued 275 - are incredible. I've owned both old Mc SS and Mc tube, and you now see what I ended up with: a MC240. The old Mc SS amps are not bad, just smooth and laid back. That has to be compatible with your system - otherwise they don't sound good. The tube amps are more detailed and have much better immediacy and pace but are pickier about the speakers they get mated to. So in the end, it still boils down to system synergy but in general, the Mc tube amps remain closer to neutrality than the old Mc SS amps in my experience.

Arthur

It's all a matter of preference? I hated my 225! My Pilot, Fisher and Scott tube pieces were much better sounding. My Mac Solid pre/receiver was bulletproof.

I own Cornwall III's, initially driven by a MAC MA6600. At 200 w/ch, the horns were easily over-driven (when pushed to their physical stops at high volume levels) the distortion became quite jarring. I remedied that by using only the MAC's preamp section to drive a pair of Luxman MB3045 mono-block tube amps (50 w/ch). With this lash-up, the horns cannot be over-driven (to their physical limitation). I would like to try a 100 w/ch tube amp next, to see if I can't get a little more volume.