2. amps-preamps
  3. 149606-111688

McIntosh autoformers vs direct-coupled output

Hi Out there!  I'm just getting back into audio after a 40 year hiatus.  An old "Tube" guy (McIntosh, Marantz, etc)
who didn't much care for the perceived change in sound with the intro of S.S. about 1970.

I happen to like certain features of McIntosh stuff. I'm also of the opinion that older, high grade items, brought
back to specs with judicious restoration, are more than adequate sonically, and a bargain against new.

All that said: I'd greatly appreciate feedback on the issue of McIntosh's Autoformer Amps vs direct-coupled.
Seems there's a serious division of opinion, and I'd like to hear yours!
Thanks for any/all input!
Bo
128x128broockies
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,078 posts
 
I admit that I'm a fan but not a fanatic when it comes to Mac gear. That said, after having owned autoformer coupled pieces and non autoformer coupled, I feel autoformers coupled sounds fuller and more natural.

Now prepare to hear from the Mac Autoformer haters. Where are you georgehifi?
Post removed 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
It is extraordinarily hard to blow a Mac amp. The transformers protect the amp from impedance irregularities and back EMF. Mac amps have this sort of floating smoothness for lack of a better term that many find attractive. On the speakers I use they are not as detailed or dynamic as a direct coupled class A amp but if reliability is your greatest concern Mac is the best.
Post removed 
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,078 posts
 

kosst_amojan,

You said:


"For me their simply out of the question. My Focals were designed to be powered by direct coupled solid state amps and utilize impedance curves to draw power and flatten the response. A power source amp that's indifferent to those impedance curves simply won't produce flat response. And my Focals are hardly unique in that design tactic."

Almarg, Could you please comment on this statement? I haven't heard of this before. 

More to discover