McIntosh autoformers vs direct-coupled output

@broockies, 

It all ends up what sound signature you like listening to.  Two similarly measured amps can sound different with the same speakers.

As George mentioned, the ML panels go below 1ohm in the higher frequencies.  From my experience, the amount of power needed to bring out the full potential of the panels is related to the size of the panel itself.  What could easily drive my older Source MLs speakers, sounded anemic with the 11As.  

With MLs if you want a crisper sound signature go with direct coupled.  If you want warmer sound with more rolled off highs then go with autoformer.  If going directly coupled, my recommendation would to make sure the amp is rated down to at least 2ohm.  Otherwise, go with autoformer to make sure you provide enough stable power to the speaker.

I do believe that matching preamp and amp is the way to go.  Only reason I mentioned alternatives is that a used McIntosh amps sell far higher on the used market than far newer competitive brands.

Viridian, the X was Acoustats first speaker and it used the direct drive amps that clio mentions. They continued to use that amp in various models for two years but people wanted to use their own amps so Acoustat developed a two transformer interface which made the speakers reasonabley easy for most amps to drive. By the time my speakers, the model 2+2 came along the direct drive amps were no longer made. 
About 20 years ago I decided I could improve the performance of the speakers by doing several things. The first was designing an adjustable high voltage supply to the diaphragm. This allowed me to push the voltage right up to the point where the speakers started arching then back off just a little. Doing this gave me another 1000 volts. Acoustat had to design the speaker to tolerate the most humid environments. Up here in New England we are pretty dry and I run A/C in the house. Next I tossed the two transformers and their crossover and got one very big 1 to 100 transformer which favored high frequency response. Since I use sub woofers bass response did not matter to me. The overall result was a speaker that was 6db more efficient, more dynamic and I think more detailed. I also can not saturate these transformers without making my ears bleed. It is actually not the panels that limit headroom, it is the transformers. ESLs have a reputation for being fragile with limited headroom. That is not the case with properly designed ones at all. Sanders explains this nicely in his white papers and I like his speakers a lot. I just wish he would do a line source version. 

M.L. #3 -

There is no such Martin Logan speaker that I know, but seeing your saying it has it own active bass, the amp you are to use will just see the ESL panel loading only of 40ohms-0.9ohms, if an ML.
I would go with the direct coupled Mac IF it is stable into these wild capacitive loads, and doesn’t act like a tone control (stays flat throughout the FR) I can think of far better amps for your needs.

Cheers George

@jetter...…………………..

So, because I found the Parasound Halo to be thin and lifeless I shouldn’t say anything? I had the Parasound Halo Integrated paired with Golden Ear Triton Ones, Sony HAPZ1ES Music Server, Cambridge Audio CXC Transport, Magnum Dynalab MD102 Tuner and found the sound to be thin, lifeless and very uninvolving. That is how I heard it and that is how I called it. I switched to a McIntosh MA6600 Integrated, MCD301 SACD player and MR85 tuner with the same speakers, same Sony music server and the same cables.  It was a night and day difference for the better. I switched to the Mac equipment in September 2017 and listen to this system every day and still love it as much now as I did then, actually more now.  It was the Mac MA6600 that made the BIG difference, I bought the other 2 Mac pieces to match the amp.

Don’t anyone here ever tell me not to describe the sound of equipment I have owned weather you agree or not!

1: Full range CLS/CLX, 
2: Two ways with passive bass driver. 
3: Or two way with active bass diver? 

George, I think he was referring to option 3 from your original post.