MAC Autoformers?

Well, my last post was removed because I mentioned another audio website. I was saying that there is a recent review of the new McIntosh 611 monoblocks if anyone cares to read it and see how "poorly designed" the reviewer found them to be.

Thanks unsound. I think your link makes a good case for autoformers.

Thanks Pops. Good to know that there are others who have the confidence to judge with their ears.

George,

If I did that, the test would be compromised by the fact that the amp used in the test was not designed to be used with autoformers. I really wish that you could have been in my listening room about 9 years ago. I was using at that time a Mac MC 300 and occasionally a Mac MC 2105 which I still own and use periodically. Anyway, I got the audiophile itch, and the darling at the time was the Pass Labs X250.5. I sold my MC300 and bought a perfect one on Audiogon from a member who, coincidentally sold it to buy Mac 501 monos, and later admitted to me that he was so much happier with them than he had ever been with the Pass.
Anyway, that amp was so pretty, and I was expecting this new generation wonder to show the Mac a clean set of heels as the Brits say. I was in for a surprise. I used it with 4 different sets of speakers, and with ALL of them, it sounded thin and transistory. My best audio buddy agreed; and believe me, I wanted to like this amp after having just sold my Mac to get it. I tried extended warm ups, different cables etc. It was, as you said, put up for sale "quick as a flash". 
I use an 8 watt 300b, a 40 watt class A integrated and a Mac 2105. I'm not really what you'd call a Mac fanboy; more of a mature listener who knows what he likes when he hears it, regardless of the technology that was used to achieve that sound. My point to you is less about defending McIntosh and their circuit topology, and more about judging gear, any gear, on the merits of its performance, and not how "correct " it is the estimation of electrical engineers. I've been through quite a few amps, more than some and surely less than others, but if the Macs weren't better than most of what I've owned, I wouldn't still be using one. 

Sure George, whatever you say. This is getting more ridiculous by the minute. It's a shame that listeners all over the world don't listen to you and unsound (good name) and realize that they're wasting their money on this outdated garbage. 

George,
You are still saying that it's a Band-aid, and I disagree.

Thanks Erik,
Taste is what it’s all about. Saying that autoformers are a fix for a flawed amplifier design as Stanwal said is in my view just ignorant. It is just another way of going about things, and for some of us, myself included, it produces a very good result.

Thanks George.

"A simple test is to put a well known Auto Former that’s used on OLT’s to make them "sort of work" into speakers they can't drive without them, on the rear end of good solid state amp (say a Pass Labs) and watch it transform into rubbish."

georgehifi,
Did you perform this test?

There is a reason why they retain value, and I really don't believe that it is the blue meters. They sound good, and from my experience, the amps with autoformers have more authority and "gravitas" I guess I'd say.

Oh Boy! This is an old argument, and when it pops up, you invariably hear someone say that Autoformers add distortion, decrease detail etc. It is all nonsense. The proof is in the sound, and the amps with Autoformers sound fuller and more effortless and authoritative (to me) than those without. Bottom line, the "Mac Sound" is best expressed in the amps with Autoformers, and it's a great sound, so if you are going to get a Mac amp, I would say get one with Autoformers.