Marantz vs Mcintosh

Hmmmm...I would venture a guess that the 6300 would be the first one to try out on those speakers. I was very impressed by this new amp - and I even heard it on some of the most ruthless speakers ever made: Klipsch Cornwall III. The 6300 may even make you feel like keeping your speakers afterall! ;)

But if you do sell them, don't change amps until you get another pair of speakers.... The speaker/room interaction is what dictates the majority of the sound signature. The amp should merely compliment it because it can rarely do much more than that anyway, even though the 6300 is balanced and powerful enough to be polyvalent.

I always questioned whether or not I was hearing real music until I discovered McIntosh. After tons of other brands (and I still experiment a lot), McIntosh does it for me like very few others.

Arthur

I did audition the 6300 and 6600 in store. I agree that 6300 has better impact and 6600 offers fuller sound. The salesman advised that the 6600 was very very similar to the older 6900.

I think you would not leapfrog just by changing amp. Maybe mac is sweeter and warmer a bit than Marantz, but your speaker with it sleek design and its smallish woofers would never able to provide the body of sound you need to enjoy realistic classical music reproduction at home. I would rather go for an old design, if you could have an ugly big box at home, like tannoys, electrovoice, goodmans jbl studiomonitor frim the 70s 80s with at least 10' woofer. They were designed when the main source of music was analogue, and they have a more natural balance than todays speakers.

If you want the music to sound "more real" try tubes, Mcintosh, Marantz, or other. I find that nothing sounds more lifelike than a good tubed amp/preamp combo. Happy listening!

don't restrict yourself to only MAC .. i have had the marantz, they are excellent on vocals n jazz but when it comes to orchestra and classical, the 3d imaging is rather thin .... using a bat integrated now...