George,
If I did that, the test would be compromised by the fact that the amp used in the test was not designed to be used with autoformers. I really wish that you could have been in my listening room about 9 years ago. I was using at that time a Mac MC 300 and occasionally a Mac MC 2105 which I still own and use periodically. Anyway, I got the audiophile itch, and the darling at the time was the Pass Labs X250.5. I sold my MC300 and bought a perfect one on Audiogon from a member who, coincidentally sold it to buy Mac 501 monos, and later admitted to me that he was so much happier with them than he had ever been with the Pass.
Anyway, that amp was so pretty, and I was expecting this new generation wonder to show the Mac a clean set of heels as the Brits say. I was in for a surprise. I used it with 4 different sets of speakers, and with ALL of them, it sounded thin and transistory. My best audio buddy agreed; and believe me, I wanted to like this amp after having just sold my Mac to get it. I tried extended warm ups, different cables etc. It was, as you said, put up for sale "quick as a flash".
I use an 8 watt 300b, a 40 watt class A integrated and a Mac 2105. I'm not really what you'd call a Mac fanboy; more of a mature listener who knows what he likes when he hears it, regardless of the technology that was used to achieve that sound. My point to you is less about defending McIntosh and their circuit topology, and more about judging gear, any gear, on the merits of its performance, and not how "correct " it is the estimation of electrical engineers. I've been through quite a few amps, more than some and surely less than others, but if the Macs weren't better than most of what I've owned, I wouldn't still be using one.
