I have seen some Interesting comments about Mcintosh lately
These comments come from here and a couple of other sites.
1.The only people that buy Mcintosh gear are one's that just don't listen. 2. Mcintosh is what rich people buy just like Mercedes Benz. 3. Mcintosh relies on generational buyers as a business plan. 4. Mcintosh is known for rebranding products and putting there name on it. 5. Mcintosh has great looks but uses cheap off the bin parts.
I can't think of another high-end company that have so many stereotypes about the brand. On the other hand I can't think of another audio company that has been in business as long.
DTC, In the late 70's/early 80's I worked at some high shops in the DC area, when Yamaha was a mainstay line for many shops like the one I worked at.
Then Yamaha introduced a cheaper line of equipment, sold at department stores and our factory rep came by and gave us a primer on how to sell against that equipment. We all thought it was the beginning of the end of the "sweet spot" in the product lineup Yamaha dominated, and it was.
Sales people who are on straight commission at these high-end shops have it bad enough to educate their potential customers, oftentimes those customers take that education elsewhere and buy something cheaper, thinking they are getting the same quality. I remember a customer who took several hours of my time, bought a cheaper system from a low-end competitor, then had the audacity to visit me to see if I could figure out why there was all this hum coming from one of the speakers!
When McIntosh (and some other "exclusive" brands) started selling at Magnolia, I thought it was "deja vu all over again". I see that McIntosh is no longer at Magnolia, I suspect the business arrangement didn't work out. But I do see brands like NAD, and B&W, not a good sign for those brands.
Hey, this is a hobby. Some of you with your strong opinions one way or another sound like you are really angry that someone else doesn't agree with your opinions, my advice would be to "lighten up". If someone else wants to spend their hard-earned money on things you don't value, who cares?
Fine Sounds now owns McIntosh as well as Sonus Faber, Audio Research, Wadia,
Sumiko and Fine Sounds Asia. The company started in 2007 when an
investment company (Quadrivio) bought Sonus Faber. Mauro Grange became
CEO of Sonus Faber in 2009. In 2012 they bought McIntosh. In 2014
Grange and Charlie Randall, President of McIntosh, along with LBO France and Yarpa,
bought out Fine Sounds management. Grange is Group CEO and Randall is
COO and President of McIntosh. I believe they have moved the
headquarters to NY.
In the US, Fine Sounds has partnered with
Magnolia to put high end Magnolia stores in selected Best Buys. Time
will tell, but this may well sour many independent stores on carrying
both Sonus Faber and McIntosh. My local Best Buy/Magnolia has both Sonus Faber
and McInosh on display, but they do not know much about it and are not
up to task of selling it, except to novice customers. When I went in,
they had 4 demo disks that I could listen to and were just thinking they
might hook up a computer system to it. They were not sure if the amp
they were using was class D or tubes. They knew little about the history
of the companies. I told them I had some older Sonus Faber Cremona
speakers, driven by a Cary SLP-05 pre-amp and Levinson 432 amp and the
salesman said he had not heard of them. I have not been back.
I've been a Mac fan since the sixties. Couldn't afford it until the eighties. I used to read the US stereo mags, particularly Stereo and HiFi back then, and I remember that around 1970 or so, Mac stopped being mentioned in the magazines. The story was that one of the mac guys (maybe Gordon Gow?) became incensed at an article published in a magazine by one of the big reviewers (I can't remember who, but he was one of the major names at the time) and pulled Mac completely out of the hifi mags. No advertising, and no reviews. This lasted many years and effectively moved Mac out of the headlights of the highend community, and fostered the attitude about Mac that has persisted.
In the nineties that story was repeated to me by a salesman at a store that carried Mac, supporting my memory of events.
Thanks for your explanation bdp. While I never considered most McIntosh gear past the 70's "cutting edge" I really feel quite differently about some of their earlier products of the 50's and 60's. I've listened to some quite incredible Mac systems based on some of these earlier designs. One in particular back in the late 80's had me searching for a nice pair of MC60s which I located and still have to this day although not in regular use. While I DO agree that their early designs are rather conservative there is MUCH that can be done to improve performance. After all, they still have those marvelous unity coupled transformers!
Tube reliability. Now, there’s an oxymoron for ya. It’s because they are inherently UNreliable that you don’t see any more tube gear in military or commercial aviation. That all went away in the ’80s. Why? Reliability. The reason that old McIntosh tube stuff demands high prices today is not because of reliability. It’s because of sound quality. Sound you can reach out and touch. It's always the reason there are so many tube electronics available today to audiophiles. Sound quality. But if it's reliability you crave, it looks like it's gonna be transistors for you. Reliability is a number.
tubegroover---I didn’t make my point very well. The McIntosh tube electronics of the 50’s and 60’s were unquestionably among the best available at the time, and found in true audiophile systems. And Frank and Gordon were creative, inventive, excellent design engineers. But they were also conservative, putting reliability above all else (as does Roger Modjeski of Music Reference now)---not a bad thing! Sound quality was important, but was not the MOST important consideration in their designs. Long, trouble-free operation was, glamorous aesthetics (the Mac backlit faceplate is still my favorite look in Hi-Fi) being very important as well. They designed McIntosh products to appeal to, as I have said before, the "Carriage Trade" (an old term)---Professionals who wanted "the best". The readers of Playboy, say. Amongst hardcore audiophiles, however, Marantz tube electronics were more respected and lusted after. When Bill Johnson introduced his Audio Research SP-2 pre-amp and Dual 50 and 100 amps in 1970, they replaced Marantz 7’s, 8’s, and 9’s in audiophile systems, not Macs. Then there were the small companies making extremely high-performance products for fanatics, like Futterman. Trouble free operation was obviously not a high priority for Julius! The absolute best sound possible was, damn everything else. A degree of reliability would be gladly sacrificed to eek the last iota of SQ out of a design.
When they switched to solid state, McIntosh’s standing in the audiophile community dropped drastically. That’s when McIntosh really became about well built "lifestyle" products, not high-performance Hi-Fi.
Bozak, Rudy would certainly beg to differ that Marantz was your only choice. but he created something..so he was in the ring so to speak. the critic who has not created..well I think Teddy said that best..
dealer did you wrong wrong by selling to you in clear violation of Mac policy.
My guess is all the new employees replaced by the new greedy capitalist pig owners were not buff enuf to lift the 402 and in a fit of souless zeal voided your warranty so they would not have to lift it out of the shipping crate.. ( seriously my recent anti Mac bias is how massive they are..my back hurts turning the pages of the Absolute Sound...
Sell the watch, memories vs save the children, is this a choice...?
Lets see of all the cars the Audi spent the most time on the flatbed headed to the dealer, followed by the grey market 328, then the 996 turbo ( actually tied with 993 ), AMG one trip for broken tranny mount, and a Boxster S with Zero...but it must be my ego..
I can handle banter, but it's the Jerry Springer shout downs that chill the environment: I'm right!!!! And you can't be!!!! On both sides. Although I do think the McIntosh advocates are somewhat demure in their defense of the product. As for me, I don't need to go to a Mc lovefest forum, but I think those forums partially exist because there's a Mc hatefest over here.
I've heard some really weird systems that blow top self products out of the water, Frankinstein stuff, 4 way speakers with the crossovers electronically managed for the room and each of the set of drivers driven by a different amplifier matched to achieve the clarity and/or warmth desired (so 4 amplifiers for a 4 way speaker) in those particular frequency ranges. Yes they were engineers with too much time and money on their hands.
I went to a local dealer in 2004 to give a listen to some new equipment. In his main listening room he had a set of Mac tube mono blocks driving a pair of B&W 800 diamonds I believe, can't recall the Mac models...they were huge though. After about 5 minutes of sitting in the sweet spot,I got up and left the room.
I don't know what the problem was with that setup,but for that kind of cost I was expecting to be bowled over,instead my ears were bleeding and my head was shaking in disbelief. Go figure...
One of the best systems I ever heard anywhere anytime was an all McIntosh system, the system in question was up on Red Mountain in Aspen and was used for practice sessions sometimes by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. That was back in the days when McIntosh was all tubes and when they produced huge speakers. There was also some otherworldly monster midrange horn in the middle of the room, dunno what that was. There were eight - count em - Ducati racing motorcycles in the garage.
"McIntosh has NEVER been considered a sound-first product."
Not too sure about that comment bdp24. I really don't know how many of the vintage Mac products you've listened to but Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow were first rate engineers and real pioneers in serious audio designs. Frank actually worked for Bell Labs early on. Some of their vintage gear is top rate as far as I'm concerned and rate favorably with Saul Marantz's designs. It is as if to say that McIntosh was never serious equipment but geared primarily to build and aesthetic quality, I couldn't disagree more with THAT impression if that is what you're saying.
McIntosh has never been considered a sound-first product. It has always been about quality of construction and aesthetics. Audiophiles in the 60's bought Marantz, not Mac. When they went solid state, only non-audiophiles bought Mac. It looked real good, and sounded "good enough".
True story..Sold the amp after about a year of use and did ok as far as recouping money but never again will I buy their products.Im not sure if thats McIntosh's policy now but at that time in the fine print it stated exactly the postition they took.Forgetting that, having owned many many macs over the decades I never was that sold of what I heard.The old stuff is way over hyped ,sounds tubby and slow compared to modern gear available,IMO
Having no authorized dealer within arms reach I bought a new MC402 over the phone from an authorized McIntosh dealer. Maybe 5 years ago.Paid for it with a debt card and $125 to have it shipped..I sent in the warranty card info and Mac sent the card back along with a letter stating that" for it to qualify for factory warranty it has to be bought at the store,paid for along with sales tax and carried to my car,no exceptions"No internet or phone sales qualify for factory warranty.I called McIntosh and spoke with several different levels of flunkies and got no where.The dealership couldnt or would do anything for me at that time either..No huge deal I thought although I wasn't happy.A few months later the amp started having distortion on the right channel..Long story short I had to pay an independent repair service to fix the issue...This is what I call horrible customer service
I find that so Interesting that you said Mcintosh has the worst customer service. I thought they pride themselves with great customer service. I am really shocked!
I wear watches when surfing so I know what time it is, and because I have piles of water resistant dive watches that need to have some fun. Hey, watches have feelings too. A note regarding the "church lady" consciousness that raises its thick humorless head around here from time to time…these forums should remain somewhat "open" and brand condemnation or quasi religious cult-like appreciation are simply two extremes of this stuff, and if you can't handle THAT, you need to turn off the computer and get the orderly to tweak your meds…maybe let you out into the yard to look at the ducks…get a nice watch…something…listen to a McIntosh 275 and bathe in the warm glow of the LED lit tubes…go surfing...
"While I am conscious of subjectivity of the comment and hate to hear myself say it because I always want to give a more definitive answer: It is particularly true with stereo equipment that synergy between the components, the listener, and the room itself creates the sound so the carte blanche condemnation of an entire brand is ridiculous."
Well most would certainly agree with that one Nad2, I think. You just have to understand that the very nature of these types of threads will always bring out these types of responses. I find some of them quite amusing myself but then again I always enjoyed the absurd antics of Beavis and Butthead when they were brought to my attention by my then 12 year old nephew.
There is an audio website that praises Mcintosh 24/7 and it can do no wrong. I would rather hear a difference of opinion even though I don't always agree with the posters. The whole Fan boy thing whether it's Mcintosh, Rolex or Ferrari gets old really fast.
Good Lord. It's Beavis and Butthead around here. Heck I've owned all of the items Schubert (and others) rail(s) against including all of the watches (for and against) and still have some of that stuff today (OK I sold my AMG - a car that I love to this day).
This type of exchange is what kills intelligent exchange on Audiogon. Let me summarize one side of the equation that is particularly frustrating: "MB is bad and overpriced, Rolex is bad and overpriced, McIntosh is bad and overpriced. You are an idiot for buying stuff that I don't think is good and/or is overpriced. You paid too much money because you want prestige. Rolex's are ugly. The Mona Lisa is a piece of ****" OK I added the last one, but you get the drift. The exchange in an audio forum ends with a discussion about watches! So the exchange really had nothing to do with audio and is all about value judements.
IMO some of you guys appear as shock-jock neophytes (you may not be, but that's what you appear to be). After reading some of these postings I've concluded that there is very little to be learned in the forums because of the domination of the Jerry Springer exchanges (yeah that dates me). Unfortunately, it appears that the "he who shouts loudest wins" effect is in operation. Or at least the "he who is rudest wins" effect works here.
There are few of you out there I do appreciate, you've got ears and you've got manners. I do appreciate the gentlemanly way in which some of the posters have conducted themselves in this thread and other threads as well, you've been helpful to me (you know who you are). I don't like the mean-spirited tit-for-tat exchanges.
Apparently all one has to do to get some folks to rail is to put McIntosh in the subject line. It's no wonder that there are other forums where owners of various product lines discuss those products without the "shout downs" here at Audiogon.
While I am conscious of subjectivity of the comment and hate to hear myself say it because I always want to give a more definitive answer: It is particularly true with stereo equipment that synergy between the components, the listener, and the room itself creates the sound so the carte blanche condemnation of an entire brand is ridiculous.
"nuff said. I may be done in the forums. The "Nanny nanny boo-boo" stuff is worthless and not productive or instructive. Have at me Beavis's. I don't plan on responding. It's pretty apparent that you don't know what you are talking about. I know my opinion doesn't matter - I don't know anything, I'll admit it. So I don't have to respond. You win: Rolex sucks, MB sucks, McIntosh sucks. Huuh. Huh. - Hee. He.
My dad was a watchmaker all his life. He hated expensive watches. Believe it or not, he thought a Timex was all anyone could ask for in an adequate and dependable timepiece. As a kid growing up, I seen plenty of high-end wrist watches and pocket watches...I used to drool all over of them.
Dad used to say " the worth of any timepiece is how accurate it keeps time,not branding or gold content." But,being the smart business man he was... the more expensive the watch... the more money he charged for repairs. He used to say to me that he was "laughing all the way to the bank"... I sure do miss that jag-o five-o.
When was the last time you surfed? My dive watches really get slammed when I surf with them (I'm an old longboarder…3rd in my Senior Longboarder contest rating a few years ago)…orthogonal my ass, but mostly I use dive watches and chronographs to determine elapsed time when grilling food as they are designed to withstand the intense pressure from eaters.
"Well, let's see, when was the last time you found yourself at 100 m or at 10 Atmospheres pressure? Take your time, you don't have to answer right away.
Any time you dive into a pool with a watch on it will experience pressure equivalent of 100m at water impact."
If that were actually true Olympic 10 meter platform divers' heads would be crushed on entry into the water. Besides when you dive into the water the watch is orthogonal to the direction of motion.
I collect watches, prefer mechanical ones, and have little interest in Rolex watches since they’re so damned expensive (last year nearly bought a Tudor Pelagos as I wanted a titanium watch…instead scored an older Oris Lume tt1 Titanium "new with tags" for WAY less and it's cooler…seriously...) and somewhat common…not unlike "high end" audio, there are MANY watch companies that I feel make stuff that’s more interesting than Rolex (note that Rolex makes about a million watches a year). McIntosh gear sort of IS the Rolex of audio…in all the right and wrong ways. A note about Seiko…my first water resistant watch was a "Seiko 5" my mother bought me in 1964 so I’d know when to paddle in from surfing (Honolulu…many waves break on a reef pretty far out there) to meet her for a ride home. Recently bought the 50’th anniversary Seiko 5 automatic…beautiful thing…under 200 bucks. That’s cheap even for me! My fabulous sounding Jolida 502p?…don’t get me started...
Mac & Rolex have 3 things in common: 1) High profile. 2) Very good re-sale value - Due to being overpriced to start with. 3) Neither are within the top ten of watchmaking or audio. As one of the most respected internet watch dealers for the past 25+ years - I have come to the conclusion that Rolex pays the Swiss government to COSC certify their watches as I cannot recall ever seeing 2 Rolex watches that run within COSC certification. My favorite watch joke: If you buried me wearing a Rolex - I would wake up & kick your A$$!
testpilot, you are silly, I don't follow celebs like you do so must be why I said USUALLY . As to my Seamaster ,it was willed to me by a beloved Uncle which is the sole reason I have not sold it and given the proceeds to Save the Children .
Well, let's see, when was the last time you found yourself at 100 m or
at 10 Atmospheres pressure? Take your time, you don't have to answer
right away.
Any time you dive into a pool with a watch on it will experience pressure equivalent of 100m at water impact.
Buying a mega-buck watch is just plain foolish but if you little ego drives you to it at least buy an elegant Omega like mine .
Just your Omega right, not all Omega's because the last time I checked the Speedmaster and Seamaster series (designed to compete against the Rolex design) cost big $$
taters,No. I do not, Ferrari are elegant and the people who drive them
usually just like to drive.
Justin Beiber, Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, Chris Brown, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Ozzy Osbourne are just a few examples of "drivers" who own Ferrari's. People who own Rolex are people who like to know the time LOL.
I grew up down the road from the Hamilton Watch factory. An American classic. At normal PSIs anyhow.
Lets face it it not that hard to keep accurate time these days. Just like its not that hard any longer to have good sound. There is a common theme there.
You can buy a Seiko or Citizen that will do that. Buying a mega-buck watch is just plain foolish but if you little ego drives you to it at least buy an elegant Omega like mine .
taters,No. I do not, Ferrari are elegant and the people who drive them usually just like to drive, unlike Rolex buyers who simply have mafia level taste .
Well, let's see, when was the last time you found yourself at 100 m or at 10 Atmospheres pressure? Take your time, you don't have to answer right away.
Total BS, Rolex’s are as ugly and tacky as sin , to make SURE others
know what it is ! Nobody with any taste whatsoever would wear one .
Haters are going to hate....
... they are ugly and heavy, I prefer something light and cheap,
I am not a huge fan of the Rolex look, but this is where function trumps form. Rolex watched are waterproof to over 100m and can withstand 10 atmospheres of pressure. Light and cheap need not apply.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
