mbl 101e vs 116f vs 111f

IMHO, Mac would NOT be a good match.
As I've stated before, the Mac is rated into 4 ohms, which gives the impression of more power than it actually delivers. (Universally, mfgrs rate in to 8 ohms).
I am not damning the Mac, I like it's basic sound, and even went to New York and attended McMasters Training, which gave me a real appreciation for the 'hands on' nature of that company, in terms of build.
It's just that the Mac is 'softish' in the bass, with a bit of 'bloom' and sponginess which would not do well with the MBL...Besides, we're talking about electronics, I believe, when talking about MBL, which cost a bit more, aren't we?

Congrats on chosing from the line that I think makes the best speaker on the market today.

Best,
Larry

thanks Larry, what brand of electronics would you recommend to match the 111F?

i guess i should make a separate thread in amp/preamp section

but the bryston 28sst2 seems like a prime choice, correct me if im wrong

thanks

My father has a set of 101's for sale (NY) if interested.. let me know.

I think that the MBL electronics, if within a price range that's possible, would be the perfect match--the synergism of the product line becomes very obvious at that point.
I've tried the MBL in my home and it's very Gryphon-like in its sound. Not at all hashy or grainy, very smooth, nice staging. Possibly a little 'soft' sounding in the very top. I don't really know if it measures this way, but it sounds to me as if the last octave, (of what is considered human hearing) 10K to 20K is a bit honey colored, and overly smoothed over. This is NOT a deal breaker for me, as I prefer that over the other side of the spectrum.
This kind of overall voicing of the amp/pre and even integrated, may reflect their speakers propensity for a bit of forwardness in it's presentation in that region. So, the process of interactive voicing may be the reason for this result.

If you can find MBL used, (built like a tank by the way) consider that.
Good listening.

Larry