Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear

The Mc452 is rated highly by serious reviewers. Here's an interesting amp shootout of 41 amps where McIntosh does well. http://www.amp-shootout.com/2.html

Having actually owned McIntosh, the knobs are metal. I had an amp damaged in shipping and some knobs were damaged and I had to replace them.

No. McIntosh is kitschy looking overpriced Mid Fi with chromed plastic knobs. GROSS!!!

Really? That might be a stretch, there are other brands and for certain many random products within brands that people hesitate to sell.

I own McIntosh and I am an audiophile . It's the only brand you buy and hate to sell

FYI, my response to Hifizgreat is predicated on the fact that the Krell 400xi/sacd standard are being run balanced. Removing the standard and or switching to single ended connections would null my opinion, even though the pair would still be competitive with a wide array of other high end equipment.

Hifizgreat, sorry friend but I just cleaned my ears and now my stuff sounds even better! Look, I've owned most of the Levinson, BAT, ARC, Krell lineup and the odd piece from CJ plus various budget lines like NAD, Rotel etc... Speakers have been Totem Wind/Forest, Wilson WP 6's, Magnapan 3.6R, B&W 801N, Martin Logan, Dynaudio C6, Krell Res 2's plus...all musical great gear. Cables have been about every major brand available i.e. Transparent, MIT, Siltech, Nordost, Cardas, Straightwire, Monster Sigma, the list goes on. My current 400xi/sacd combo with $20k worth of MIT Oracle Dot 2 cabling and Transparent MM PC's delivers an extremely musical presentation, not unlike that which one experiences in a great hall such as the BSO! This is a secondary system (I have had 4 400xi's over the years for various duties around my house which were eventually gifted or sold. As I said before, Mcintosh is good gear...it just aint GREAT GEAR...GET IT!! You need to sell Mc stuff, that's fine. I can buy anything I want. Right now I have an inexpensive system set up while I decide what's next...but it's gonna be very difficult to better my Krell system at any price. I would not trust your ears based on the nonsense you have spewed forth regarding the Krell combo. My system is open for demo...by the way, you must truly appreciate live music in order to converse properly or understand what music reproduction should deliver at home. Any Harbison, shostakovich, Bantok, Rochberg, Carter or Corigliano cued up for a listen when comparing gear? I thought not. By the way, I owned the MC501's, C46 and C200. In addition, I recently owned the krell evo 402, 222 nd 525 followed by the ARC HD220 and Ref 3...I like the 400xi/sacd combo better! But what do Martin Colloms and I know, we have only been around this high end scene for 35 plus years.

Mr. Splittie:

From your description, I have indeed guessed that you and i share the same profession: 'Dictators' of the household! But at only 2 hours per day, you are still in training by my standards!

Seriously, though, kudos to you for focusing on the enjoyment of music. That is my goal, as well.

Dave b, you need your ears cleaned out, maybe lay off the funny cigarettes,the hard cold truth is that the Krell 400Xi Integrated with their SACD Standard has PALE compared to Mac's C-200 and ANY new Mac amp such as the entry level 252 all driven by a Mac 861 or 871, not even close my friend. Even a Mac integrated SMOKES that Krell, I KNOW for a fact haveing had your Krell pieces here at the same time for months. The Krell gear is not bad, but sounds thin, strained, shouty, full of glare and grit...very HiFi'ish sounding, not relaxed liquid musical clear and 3 dimensional like Mac gear does. Very few can afford to compare gear at home side by side, the BS stops here.
I'd take Mac over ANY supposed high end gear, you name it, I've had it here.

I am not an audiophile. I am a music-phile. Who has the time to spend listening to a 100k system in this day and age anyways?

I listen to my system about 2 hours a day while dictating (can you guess my profession). No one else in my house (nor my wife) has keys to my system nor do they want to as they are busy playing with their ipods, etc.

Suits me fine.

audiophiles are not defined by the equipment they own.

there is large sample of brands from which to chose.

there is no reason to disqualify the attribute "audiophile" from being applied to a person who owns mac gear.

Dave,
I think you missed the underlying message.

Tennis actually requires more agility, concentration and endurance than almost any other sport known to man. Irrelevant, I should say not! Now Mcintosh gear on the other hand...maybe so:)

Tennis is boring, old school, and a dinosaur sport.

Basically irrelevant.

Tea and crumpets would be nice, thank you.

I dont think Taters was asking for a definition of the term "audiophile"...missing his point entirely.....

tennis anyone

the term audiophile is not correlated with any audio component. being an audiophile is not a basis for predicting someone's stereo system. therefore an audiophile can own anything and still be an audiophile.

case closed.

Hey Dbarger, I'm a vinyl guy as well...that's how I know what music reproduction should sound like. If you took the time to look at my review of the 400xi/sacd std combo you would understand my reasoning. This combo has a unique feature/design set that no one else has, and I believe it to be the most vinyl like sound I have ever heard! I have owned more high end gear than most and can afford whatever new comes along...it just so happens that this krell secondary system creates music on such an exhalted level that I can hardly believe just how flawed most gear can sound. At the very least, I do pride myself on being a source of amusement for you Dbarger:) By the way, my $20K cable rig don't hurt either. What are you listening through currently?

dave_b, why am I not surpised by you not understanding why people keep playing those "flawed" and "mediocre" LP's. After all, you have a Krell SACD player.
Thanks, you keep me laughing!

LOL...:)

Absolutely Zamdrang...the metalwork on the Mc's are there best feature!

My question is do true metal heads own mac gear.....?

My 400xi/sacd standard into my res 2 speakers is far more natural and musical than anything I've owned (read review for details on why). As for Mcintosh, why are some people obsessed with antique cars, LP's or TV news...some people just can't let go of something that's been around for awhile; even if the object of desire is flawed or just plain mediocre. As I said before, Mc 'aint bad stuff, it just 'aint that great...and certainly not the stuff dreams are made of.

what is a true audiophile ? the term is ubiquitous on audiogon, but i have yet to hear a definition.

i will venture an opinion in absence of a definition.

true audiophiles can own just about anything, as long as it suits their preference. if one assumes that audiophile equals prefers virtually accurate presentation, i would say mcintosh tends to design tube components which are close to neutral.

my evidence ? i own an mc 275, which i intend to sell later this month and have reviewed an mc 220 preamp.

I have owned Mcintosh gear, a C-46, two MC-501 and an MCD-205 which I still have.
Mcintosh is well built, looks good and has a high resale value. It sounds very good to.
I like Mcintosh as much as I like Accuphase. They have been in business quite a long time and most of the time they have produced very good amps.
There are probably some amps out there which sound better than Mcintosh,but not many, and most of those are tubed amps of the SET variety.
You must like tubes to have one of those and high efficient speakers too.
In order to put together such a SET/highEffSpeaker setup you need some knowledge and lots of listening experience to get it right.
You run the risk of getting entangled in an eternal upgrade path and get confused by dealers, reviewer of all sorts and fellow audiogon members.
With Mcintosh you will be able to put together a one brand system, it will look fantastic(you will feel good), it has a considerable weight and will increase you feeling of having got something really tangible for your money (makes you feel good also) and then it will sound very good too and you will be a happy man for a long time.

There is no best amp in this world, everything is relative (Einstein)and all depends of your point of view, on your financial position (you need money for other pleasing hobbies too)and on your capacity to extract happyness from what you have got.
Be absolutely sure that the most expensive amp is NOT the best one.
With McIntosh you can not go wrong, that is for sure.
You can go shopping for something marginally better and end up with something worse.
If you like the mac, get it.
Do not worry what Audiophiles think of it, they are a bunch of masochists and eternally unsattisfied people. IMHO of course.

What is an audiophile anyway? Many times I believe people buy exotic audio to keep up with the "Jones" and forget the real reason, THE MUSIC!

I used to collect vintage Sansui gear. Most of you are probably turning your nose up as we speak. However my old Sansui 9090db was the sweetest, most forgiving (and non fatiguing) receiver that I owned and yet many people would laugh at me.. It sounded great for my ears and I have very sensitive ears (I used to be a studio sessionist). Well the 9090db was given to my son who now enjoys it in his one bedroom flat (whilst in grad school).

Our beloved hobby is in the ear of the beholder..

Furthermore,dealers who bash Mcintosh are probably in business for all the wrong reasons anyway. These snobbish, by appointment only L.A. type snake dealers are more concerned with selling you an over-hyped, OVER-bling, over-rated exotic "blah blah blah" component that they claim sound better because they are hand-made by Bavarian artisan monks retrofitted with caps or resistors developed by NASA. You get my drift. So p--lease, be careful not step in the b*llsh*t.

With that being said, let your ears decide for you not some glossy audio magazine or slick audio dealer. I have listened to many many ARC, Halcro,VTL, Mark Levinson, Mcintosh and Spectral components that were not worth their inflated price of admission.

I did however finally find vintage separates that agreed with my ears and wallet: a mcintosh mc-2155 amp and c-28 preamp. Warm, non-fatiquing, and easy going to my ears. But I bet alot of you out there would turn your nose up at my component choices.. Go figure.

Rja, I agree with you 100%. Cool username, btw.

I think the original question is insulting. Who are we to judge the equipment someone else likes? If someone likes McIntosh that's their business and fine by me. There's a lot more important things to worry about.

Another cool thing about is that they dont play the weekly upgrade game.... MK II, MK III, SE etc etc. That game destroys the value of your investment.

No race car drivers own Bentleys because the all the NBA players bought them all. ;>)

What about the Bentley Speed 8?

True race car drivers do not own Bentleys.

hi,

FWIW, in the latest issue of stereophile's recommemded components the Mac 275 got a A rating along with a few others such as Audio research Reference 110, BAT Vk-55Lamm Industries ML2.1 monoblocks and 4 or 5 others. So I guess it's in rarified company and very good. I'm thinking of gettineg one.

Larry

I use mny Mac to luisten George Thorougood With Klipsh Lascalas through a high gain pre ARC . Its a 50 watt Mac but if you want supremely clean non congested power your shirt off and truly feel the music really -rock your soul,--it's actually Bo diddley. You can play that 50 watt Mac with volume atnthe 11- 12 O'Clock position plenty left and blow your shirt off the loudest that combo I ever played was 110 Db+ at the SIttING position a ten foot distance.it is really bad for hearing Admittedley my audio group would disapprove. Even I couldn't take it for very long. The sound vibrates your whole body it penetrates you and Its a damn good amp! Loving music is all audiophile means and I love that sound, but only on occassion.

I don't know when they made the change. Nor do I remember exactly how long they will run before thermalling out. But it certainly is NOT indefinately. It was actually mentioned also in either an Absolute Sound article or Stereophile article. Forgot which. Review of the MC501 specifically.

I'm sure they're still well within FTC requirements as they are obviously far more robust than even "good" mainstream surround receivers (some of which are making HUGE power claims these days).

I am a little disappointed that Mc amps no longer make their rated full sinewave power (into a resistor, obviously) for more than a few seconds.

When did that happen? How is that even possible? - I thought the FTC required that an amp has to make its advertised power for a period of time, or they couldn't claim it had that much power.

This question is the philosophical equivalent to

"Do true race car drivers own Bentleys"

Cheers

Cwlondon

I've seen output transformers that respond out to 130kHz (-3dB) with feedback... (and I'm about to build an amp around one that goes to 117kHz without)... How can you claim that reduces transparency? In fact, some transformer'ed amps have less phase lag at 20kHz than the typical single-dom-pole solid state amps compensated to 100kHz. Not sure about the Mc's in this regard. Then there's the term "non-linearity" that gets tossed around a lot. They ARE non-linear with respect to voltage vs current, but Vout = (N2/N1)Vin !! even when you are saturating the heck out of the transformer OR your output stage is junk (ie, too much output resistance) in which case it's your output stage causing the wave distortion anyway and not the transformer. All other quantities cancel out in the calculation. Physical Law - Faraday (I think.) And, unless the transformer is TOTAL junk, you can ignore the resistance of the wire for practical purposes.

And, as for "slow bass"???? That's just silly. A ported speaker can slow down response and cause overhang - an amp cannot. Not even a D.F.=10 amp (unless your speaker design is exceedingly poor -ie, 10:1 dip from nom). And, in a "slow" speaker, no amount of "damping-factor" will speed it back up. Some amps CAN deliver considerably more power at low frequencies than others, and there is a link between perception of low-bass content and "slowness". I forget who conducted the experiment or else I'd quote them directly.

I do agree, however, that the tube is a "clearer" device for several reasons that are purely speculative. So I will not elaborate.

Transformers are hardly innovative, but to my ear Mc solid state comes closer to tube than any I've heard.

Then, there's the potential of catastrophic failure that's thwarted by the transformer. I've had experience with failed transistors (not Mc).

Plus - the fact that I can get my full power output into any load I choose! How annoying and what a waste to buy a 1200Wpc amp only to get 300Wpc at 8 ohms?

"But, it doubles at four ohms!" Yeah - right up there with "But, it goes to 11!" They almost all will momentarily - even your Pioneer receiver.

The real innovation in Mc other than their dreamlike specs is in their prices and their reliability. And, IMHO, there are a few "leading brands" in high end that ought to be avoided like the plague - ones I've serviced and seen their schematics and insides.

But, perhaps therein lies the rub. Because their amps aren't ridiculously expensive (comparatively), many will automatically assume they are inferior. And that presumption is flatly impossible to put aside in a non-blind listening test. This goes along with a report I was reading about a recent perception experiment with cars. Any markings that would betray the make/model were removed, and the focus group hated any car that they assumed was American - even when it was really a Japanese car (and vice versa). Not sure if we're allowed to post links to other websites on here ...

I am a little disappointed that Mc amps no longer make their rated full sinewave power (into a resistor, obviously) for more than a few seconds. Their amps from yesteryear make full power sinewaves all day long. In their defense, music hardly resembles a sinewave unless you listen to some weird stuff. Sadly, I don't recall listening to any of my pipe-organ amp torture cd's on a newer Mc amp. So I can't report on that front. I have only encountered an issue when playing compressed music ludacrously loudly with the amp in a cabinet with the door closed (obviously a situation to be avoided no matter which amp).

OK they've shut down the AC and lights in the office. Time to go home ;-)

Brooks carries Mcintosh? I was in his shop 6 months ago and he didn't have it. I'm going to give him a call.

what difference does it make what audiophiles own>

when were they anointed the true cognoscenti of matters audio ?

For those of you in Southern California, Brooks Berdan in Monrovia carries McIntosh and he's a highly respected audiophile shop. Give him a call if you'd like to know his opinion on Mac gear. He also carries Jadis and VTL so he'll also be able to give you the compare and contrast of those makers as well.

the results do not support your conclusions.

Without getting in to critiquing the "results", my point was that using output transformers is hardly innovative. It's about as retro as you can possibly get.

"Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear?"

First of all, who has the right to judge whether someone else is a 'true audiophile' (or anything else) for that matter? If you have an all-Mac system (I don't - just an MR85), and are happy with it, IMO, no one else can really fault him/her.

Davemitchell, the results do not support your conclusions. The results are incredible clarity.
Transformers are mixed blessings, of course, but the results speak for themselves. The dual differential truly balanced circuit is also fairly unique, although they are not the first on that one. McCormack does something similar I believe in their DNA 500.

You don't consider transformer coupling the transistors to keep them in their peak operating range innovative?

Not to pick on Mac, but no. Using output transformers, which have been around on tube amps forever, on transistors which do not need them, is not innovative. It means they are willing to trade away sound quality (transparency) in exchange for stability/reliability.

Tube amplifiers (except OTLs) require output transformers, but they are considered a necessary evil. Fortunately, the vacuum tube is such an inherently transparent and musical device that the final result can still be superb even with the loss that occurs through a good output transformer.

I used to think it was stupid, fashion oriented, history-bound etc etc.... but I have to say, that after working in a dealership that turned me against Mc in the first place - and then transferring to a place that carried it... Wanted to hate it, but couldn't. Their amps sound incredible compared to most other (more expensive) amps I have been around. More open, more detail, bright -never harsh. Like - I can readily pick it out blindfolded. And, they don't get wicked hot. Now, here's where I brag a little, and say that I have measurably above average hearing in the top octave AND I'm quite young for an audiophile. I'm also a season ticket holder for the Boston Symph Orch - quite the reference point.

And, I haven't worked for that dealer (or any others) for several years. ;) This isn't a product plug -or is it? Some (but def not all) of the guys that work at Mc headquarters are rude. So, there; I offset it.

I'm not a huge fan of the feature-laiden, nine-miles of wire preamps that they USED to make; but, I have to admit I actually did use the features even if the preamps were a bit cloudy.

The LS360 is a dream speaker for the price. The others in the line aren't up to it's performance - they're a tad dark. Alas, the LS line is no more. I have not heard the new all metal ones.

I also have to say that their new sources - the 4x CD player and 2x DVDa/SACD players with real-time error correction - make more of a difference in achieving analog sound than any other chassis/damping or upsampling scheme that I've ever heard. Makes technical sense, as optical read omission errors can be horrendous (or so I'm told by friends at MIT).

My fav amp ever is the MC30. Gloriously open/sparkly. Too small for my tastes, tho. Present fav of theirs is the MC501 or MC252 (essentially the same amp) and the MC275. I want one of each :(

SOOOO, yes. I own Mc. And, I am DEF an audiophile.

Taters;I have enjoyed reading this thread as well; please post your auditioning results and thoughts.

Mac makes a wonderful tube integrated Taters, the MA2275; if going separates, I'd lean towards the MC275.

After reading all the responces I guess audiophiles do listen to Mcintosh. If you just talked to the dealers in Southern California you would never know that. I'm glad I started this thread. Now I'm interested in Auditioning some Mac tube gear.