|
The new 270 accuphase for 4500 , I heard it ,ot better then the Mac 5300 and less money . Cleaner more clearer sound ,
|
Be thankful you can own McIntosh, most of us will never know what they sound like in their own homes. Accuphase also, is the ultra top tier audio.
Either amp, equipment by these two brands will surely put a smile on your face. Enjoy.
i would go with McIntosh just to brag I own it, and have a 2nd system downstairs with accuphase :)
enjoy the music! |
I am not familiar with the E270. It might be a good idea to ask you dealer. My guess is that the sonic characteristics will be similar but that's just a guess.
|
greginnh,
Are you by any chance familiar with the E-270 model. Of course, that's
their basic model. Is it big difference in the sound between E-270 and their upper end E-470. I listened my speakers with the E-470 which I can not afford and I really liked the sound. I am very close to order E-270 but I am concerned about the sound difference between these two amplifiers.
|
To answer the OP's question, the Accuphase will generate a much more accurate and defined sonic signature without sounding clinical. Not sure is he is considering the E-470 or E-600. They sound very different as the E-600 is Class A. Either one beats any McIntosh integrated handily. |
I am not with audiozen... But they are not in the the same league. Accuphase is better. Its power conditioner, channel divider and equilizer are the best around the world. I think you will get the same answer if you ask any dealer. |
Both are higher priced because of the brand name, but really, Accuphase is going to be the better one, in most cases.
It depends on your preference for sound, as Esoteric is very good and a bit more dynamic, as is ARC, which still make only stereo CD players, and Ayre is very good, a bit more breath-openness than Esoteric, yet Esoteric has a huge sound stage. Then I find my old McCormack UDP-1 to be more warm and palpable, but less dynamic, while Accuphase is near as dynamic, more air, more lush and one might say warm, then how you define warm? If it means to shadow some detail, the McIntosh may sound better to one so disposed. Personally, I am happy with Esoteric, the two I have and I like the Ayre V-5xe for being a bit more smooth, or a air like presence in the upper mid-range, then both are very good and you would need the best preamplifier and a dam good power amplifier to tell much difference. |
Yeah, you'll have to make a trip to audition. I know I have to as well. The list of dealers nationwide is on the distributors site. Again, the low value of the dollar only tells part of the story as I explained in my last post. The dist. does not import hundreds of these units into the US. What is the case most often is an Accuphase component is a special order. This is what I've been told by an authorized dealer. |
I have always wanted to audition Accuphase gear- no local dealer/retailer. And yes, blame our government for the relative 'low' value of the dollar. |
The high price of Accuphase in the US is mostly due to distributor markup. You will see this if you try to get a unit from Japan. The shipping, duty, and what have you does not cost as much as you think. I don't think Audiozen is a dealer. He's just stating the facts of which manufacturer uses better parts and has better build quality. And that would be Accuphase. Accuphase is also better in sound quality; much more transparent and dynamic. However, McIntosh is not bad at all, and they certainly are in the top 10 of hi fi companies. But their stuff is a bit slow and colored compared to Accuphase. Anyway, that's my take. |
Audiozen sounds like he's a dealer. Not a bad thing, but calls into question his passion for Accuphase and his dislike of Mac gear. While I could own a piece, one piece that is, it is not that the Accu brand is over priced but, our pathetic government has pissed away the value of our dollar. Just look at the price of European gear. For a while there they were raising prices faster than I've ever seen prices rise. Mac is not expensive compared to other hi-end makers. Take some of the integrateds they have. Where can anyone get the reliability,resale value and a very musical sound for what nowadays is mid-fi at it's upper end price.
As far as looks go Audiozen, each to his own. I love the look of Accu and Mac gear. Black brushed faceplates, well they just plain suck out loud and they're boring to look at.
If the Jpanese yen wasn't in the tank, the Accu gear would be WAYYY more costly.
NASA grade? Does it really matter the parts quality, as long as reliability isn't sacrificed, it is implementation that is so critical. If parts quality was what made or break a piece of gear, then how would companies with modest pricing be able to come so close and in some cases better the sound of equipment they compete against at much more costly prices. It's execution of the build.
To myself, I have gear to my ears that sounds far more musical than Accu. And too much of what you think is great, along with many other people, can't be found in a live performance. Imaging, soundstage!!! Give me a break. Sounds to me like your more into dissecting the music than enjoying it. Been there done that, and just spent the 'H' out of a lot of money.
May you someday have the capacity to truly 'enjoy the music'. |
I have owned both, the Accuphase was more analytical the McIntosh more musical. What's your pleasure.....
|
Audiofeil: "So what he gets one vote, like everyone else". man, U'r rough.......Couldn't have said it better myself!! Michael Fremer doesn't get paid enough to listen, or think for people............LOL baggs1 |
I like the Mcintosh. I have heard Accuphase, and it is wonderful! I have heard and own Mcintosh, and it is equally superb. Theoretical technical advances and subjective evaluations are what this passion called audiphile is all about. There are simply too many variables to declare any winners... What speakers, cables, acoustics, source material? However, I sort of enjoy this spirited debate. Technical measurements are an "attempt" to distinguish one from another. Nothing else. |
Nvp,
Thanks for your clarification of slew rate to Audiozen. I'm not sure what you told him, but you really told him. |
Hi guys, sorry for the late reply.
Tzh2ly: The terms faster and slow refer to the attack of a note e.g. the key of a piano or the strings of a guitar or harps, and not to the tempo(speed) of the music (i.e. bits per minute). Of course, a whole orchestra consisting of 30 or more people can not be very fast. Regarding the term color, in the hi-fi jargon this term is used to express deviation form neutrality. This is what I have also meant. Of course having some color (i.e. deviation from neutrality) is often a good thing (nobody wants to listen music in an anechoic room for example).
Audiozen: Regarding the slew rate of an amplifier, by looking at its definition, i.e. the maximum value of the time derivative of the voltage, I would say that the slew rate of an amp is equivalent to the acceleration and not to the RPMs of a car. One can always make analogies between mechanical and electrical quantities. By doing so one can find that charge plays in electricity the same role length plays in mechanics. Thus, using Ohm's law (for a given constant resistor) and the fact that electrical current is the time derivative of charge one obtains that the slew rate is proportional to the second derivative of charge with respect to time. Since charge is equivalent to length, and the acceleration is the second derivatives of length with respect to time it should be clear that the slew rate should be associated to acceleration and not to RPMs (after all RPMs is just a number it have no units).
Best wishes,
Paul
|
Quanmer...that all depends..the Ayre is extremely neutral and can cut both ways..do you like your sound to be highly analytical in the center of neutral or do you favor a warm full chesty midrange?.. |
Luxman does make some great gear, no doubt about it. Not sure about Bel Canto. I have never heard it. |
Audiozen, what amp you would recommend for Ayre KX-R? |
Tzh2ly..faster or slower?..easy to explain..which pertains more to the amp than the Preamp. The rate of speed from the amp's output to the Speaker is called the slew rate and is measured in milliseconds. The higher the number, the faster the signal to the speaker. Its like rpm's in a car engine. Amps with slower slew rates sound sluggish and dull. If you want the best sound qualities of tube and solid state amp performance and can afford it, hook up a Luxman C-1000F Preamp to a pair of Bel Canto Reference 1000M monoblocks, with a Luxman D-08 SACD player, and the new Sony SS-AR1 speakers. This combination due to its design science, will take you to the gates of Audio Heaven regardless of price, providing you all the best dynamics, detail and smoothness and richness one could ever hope for. |
I could never understand why so many audiophiles like what they say is a faster versus slower sound. I have not heard an orchestra sound as we hear it on solid state syetems. If anything, they sound slower and warmer to my ears 95% of the time. I want to hear music as close to the real performance as possible. For me, I never played in a symphony orchestra but I do play clarinet so I do have experience with how instruments sound. I have never heard solid state electronics give me this sense of realism regardless if it is Mcintosh or Accuphase. Tubes get closer, McIntosh does make some decent tube gear. You may want to try Atma-sphere. They do make great gear and have excellent bass for a tube amp. In fact sometimes I cannot believe it is a tube amp. They are very natural sounding and make some of the most colorful music I have heard. Not to change the subject, but if you are looking to spend some money, you might want to give Atmasphere a listen. Great value for the coin. IMO. |
Whatbdo you mean by colored? Hearing colors in music to me is a very good thing. |
Boy this got out of hand ... hopefully I will not make things worse.
Firstly, we shall all agree that Accuphase vs. Mcintosh is like MAC vs. PC, i.e we have two camps that almost never agree. One should never disregard this and make bold statements (irrespective whether these statements are correct or not).
Secondly, It is also important to realize that both these brands are very expensive and often highly overpriced in most parts of the world (let's leave USA and Japan aside). Because of this almost always they are partnered with top of the line speakers and since both brands make pretty decent electronics almost always we hear good sound from both brands. However, it seems to me that when compared directly Accuphase wins almost always, e.g. my dealer who carries both brands says he sells 3-4 times more Accuphase than Mcintosh units (the two brands have comparable prices here in Europe).
Personally, I would always choose Accuphase over Mcintosh. Firstly, because of the sound. To my ears Mcintosh amps always sound slow and dark (by dark I do not mean having black background but I mean colored), they also do not image as well as Accuphase amps. Secondly, because of the build quality the Accuphase devices are much more luxurious, e.g. Mcintosh potentiometers and buttons feel rather cheep. Because of the facts mentioned above, I consider Mcintosh to be an expensive (and more versatile) Musical Fidelity, i.e. not bad but not up there with the big boys.
|
In any case, I would suggest listening to other brands too.
Drinking by the label has limited value. Oops, to take it literally I do drink by the label but still try to keep an open mind.
NASA or no NASA, happy journey. |
Yeah Thenis, a lot of useless response. |
Themis,
You got a NASA-grade response. |
wow! a lot of response for my simple question |
Sounds like OP might have to actually listen to both to know which he would prefer, and that could be very dependent on the speaker and room used. Both are obvioulsy fine pieces of equipment. |
Audiofeil, I too am humbled by the level of experience demonstrated, and the perfection of the logic presented; it is not often that logic forming such a perfect circle is presented in such depth and with such vigor. I certainly have been schooled. I shall retreat to my corner and ponder my navel (which is surely not NASA grade - robust, circular, and enduring though it may be).
As to the OP's questions:
1) It depends on the integrateds. In general, I find Accuphase to have excellent bass, but to be a little rolled off in the treble. If I had to choose between top of the line Accuphase and TOTL McIntosh, I would choose TOTL Accuphase any day of the week.
2) I find Accuphase's 'house' sound signature to be quite detailed but slightly 'softened', and lacking in dynamics. I find McIntosh sound signature to be less detailed, and more 'round' - perhaps similar weaknesses but more pronounced. |
Right. Great engineer will make an excellent sounding amp using off the shelf parts of reasonably good quality.
The same with speakers. How many times did you encounter expensive speakers that used "NASA grade" tweeters and woofers that just didn't sound right?
Skill first, parts second. |
It is interesting that in two long conversations about all things regarding amplifiers with two great amp makers both said the thing is really about great circuit design with particular boutique parts being a distant second, it simply was not part of what they considered critical to their designs. Of course reliable parts that hold specifications is important, but not sure you need NASA requirements to get that. Might not hurt, but the NASA thing, for audio applications, sound more like it is coming from the marketing department than the engineering department. |
I'm humbled to be in the presence of such greatness.
This is awesome.
I can't imagine how much more you'll have to offer after completing that GED. |
T_bone..I have studied the Audio industry religiously for many years..going all the way back to the invention of two channel at CBS Labs in 1934..the three classifications of component parts has been referred to and discussed in many articles and reviews I have read over the past 25 years, and not just a one time discovery from Stereophile hyperbole..and is a term that is common knowledge with Audiophiles who were members of the State Audio Society I belonged to for several years..and is also common knowledge amongst circuit designers..it appears that many Audiophiles who have responded to this subject on this thread, lack the education and awareness of these standards, and never have taken the time to study parts designs and how they are classified, have to mask and cover up their ignorance with cynicism.. those who are not familiar..need to get beyond " college level audio syndrome" and delve deeper and study the classifications of Audio parts which will give you better insight why those, who can afford, buy exotic designed amps and preamps costing $ 30K or more for the very reasons I have discussed..many of my Audiophile friends are aware of NASA grade as common knowledge..Where have you been?... |
What is better, hospital grade or NASA grade, I want the very best this world can offer. My power receptacles say hospital grade, but I'm not sure they sound better - though they may save me from an unfortunate accident of there is too much oxygen in the room. |
I think that those manufacturers who read this are quite entertained by this NASA stuff. Also, those NASA grade parts should be able to interact with each other in a NASA grade style or it would be such a waist.
And, Audiozen, please keep your zen and don't call others names for no good reason. |
T_bone..your comments in the novel you just wrote are redundant..all these issues have already been answered..in reality, NASA was influenced by high quality parts that were taken from circuit boards removed from the dash boards of the UFO's that crashed in Roswell on July 4th, 1947 on Matt Braswell's farm..we can thank the Aliens for High End Audio..God bless those little grey's... |
Audiozen, I can obviously get pretty dumb.... I am actually responding to your comment... You shouted, why do you think 100% OF ALL HIGH END
COMPONENTS HAVE NASA GRADE PARTS.. BETTER SOUND
QUALITY If 100% of all high end components have "NASA grade" parts, then why bother making the comparison between Accuphase's better "NASA grade" parts compared to McIntosh' "NASA grade" parts? Making that distinction is meaningless. And if V-CAP tells me their caps are NASA grade, but the "lower grade cap" with the same capacitance with cheaper dialectric materials also tells me their caps are "NASA grade", then why bother? And the $5 cap? It too could be "NASA grade." The appellation "NASA grade" doesn't mean any guarantee of quality such as the quality in the V-Caps. Methinks you are missing the point... I am simply saying that "NASA grade" means almost nothing in terms of sound-quality, and now that you have confirmed that 100% of high-end components use "NASA grade" parts (which I will not disagree with), your original comment is rendered meaningless. I can absolutely guarantee you that NASA does not perform listening tests on their caps in audio circuits to determine whether certain caps meet "NASA grade" standards or not. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will retract everything I said. However, I think you are relying on some Stereophile reviewer's mid-80s hyperbole. Your definition of "NASA grade" seems to be the rough equivalent of "it's really really good." My definition of "NASA grade" is those parts which meet the specifications of MIL-STD 975M, which are roughly unchanged in the past 15 years, and remain US DoD guidelines because the US govt does not abide by 3rd party independent testing in many cases still. Having read the NASA procurement guidelines "for fun" a while back, I can confirm that I fully expect high-end audio components use "NASA grade" parts, because that means that the failure rate of the electrical components in my equipment is probably low enough to allow me to plug them equipment in safely. Taters, I fully expect they do. In fact, I would expect they have all made efforts to find good-sounding capacitors within a certain price point of "NASA grade" parts so as to improve the sound vs the less-good-sounding "NASA grade" parts. I also expect that all Japanese high-end mfrs would use parts which would meet or beat "NASA grade" specs for performance and reliability, despite being made in Japan. Oops... I forgot, Black Gates are made in Japan. As are Nichicon... |
Audiozen - Since you say McIntosh in not Ultra High End and Accuphase is, perhaps it would be helpful to look at the history of Accuphase. Wasn't Accuphase called Kensonic Laboratories, Inc.? My E-202 said Kensonic on the back. Didn't Kenwood still own part of Kensonic until the 1990's? I don't see much Kenwood equipment in the realm of Ultra High End. Just as a note - I have owned McIntosh gear and Accuphase gear and enjoyed both with little to critisize. One thing I can say about the old Mac gear I owned, however, is it was bullet-proof and never broke. I do, however, recall having my E-202 back to the shop on several occasions. |
S#*t, and I thought my stereo sounded good. |
Taters..Absolutely they do..its a standard of quality.. NASA does not certify or deem these standards..but were the first to develop high quality parts for electronics for Aerospace and Military applications that had a major influence on High End Audio in the 60's and 70's..setting a standard for the High End Audio companies to draw from. |
Does Fm acoustics, boulder, Rowland research, Ayre and Pass use NASA grade parts. |
Additional note..I first learned of the term " NASA grade" in Stereophile back in the eighties, when a reviewer examined the inside of an amplifier and stated "very impressive..NASA grade parts throughout"..also T_bone,..you agree that Accuphase uses better sounding parts?..when you already stated that NASA quality has nothing to do with sound quality..how absurd!..you missed my whole point..and that is the term "NASA"..refers to the very best quality in materials used in high end parts, as used in Accuphase, which results in superior sound quality. |
Boy...how dumb can you get?..quality as NASA defines it has nothing to do with sound quality ?..Dead wrong..example..a medium NASA grade capacitor from V-Cap can cost up to $ 300 per cap..due to its dielectric materials..speed..and clean sound they are known for..more liquid..a lower grade cap with the same capacitance with cheaper dielectric materials costs $ 30.00..who determines their NASA grade?..the circuit and layout designers and the companies they work for..thats who..why do you think 100% OF ALL HIGH END COMPONENTS HAVE NASA GRADE PARTS.. BETTER SOUND QUALITY..if that were not the case the high end market would be dead and Audiophiles would just buy their electronics at Radio Shack... |
Audiozen,
You'll have to forgive my skepticism. 'Quality' as NASA defines it has nothing to do with the sound quality of a part in a particular application. Parts' 'efficiency' in dealing with extreme conditions has nothing to do with electrical 'efficiency' and has only to deal with reliability in meeting specified electrical properties/values within an acceptable minimum range of error under a variety of adverse conditions. The fact that all those parts you mention are 'considered NASA grade quality and classification but are not used in military or aerospace programs but for high end audio products only' means what exactly? Who determines that they are 'NASA grade' if they are not so deemed by NASA?
Nevertheless, I agree that Accuphase uses better-sounding parts, on average, than McIntosh. |
I wasn't comparing anything to the A50, and the MC202 is as close to a match to the A20 as you're going to see. Remember, Accuphase is grossly marked up here in the US. The A20 was built in 1995 and listed for approximately 320000 yen, which is around $3900 US. The MC202 was built in 2003, and listed for $3300. Both fall at the bottom of their respective manufacturer's amp line-ups.
Also, I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm only saying that, to my ears, I thoroughly enjoyed the Accuphase over the McIntosh. YMMV.. |
MC202 and Accuphase A20 or A50 is not exactly apples to apples. |
I switched from McIntosh to Accuphase after I did some side-by-side comparison between my MC202 and my friend's A20. The MC202 is rated at 200 wpc (smallest model with autoformers), and the A20 is rated at 20 into 8 ohms and 40 into 4 ohms.
I was shocked at the improvement I got from the Accuphase. Maybe it's because it's class A, or maybe it's just because I like the sound signature better, but after a couple of days I couldn't go back to my Mac. The Accuphase was just so much smoother and more pleasurable to listen to. Hardly any drop of in the bass department, either, which I found most impressive.
I wound up buying an A50 here on audiogon. New, I could never have afforded one. One of the best purchases I've ever made. |
"Accuphase is a Rolls Royce"
does that mean it doesn't come with an air conditioner? |
Is that the same NASA that blew up two space shuttles?? |
