2. amps-preamps
  3. 149606-111688

McIntosh autoformers vs direct-coupled output

Hi Out there!  I'm just getting back into audio after a 40 year hiatus.  An old "Tube" guy (McIntosh, Marantz, etc)
who didn't much care for the perceived change in sound with the intro of S.S. about 1970.

I happen to like certain features of McIntosh stuff. I'm also of the opinion that older, high grade items, brought
back to specs with judicious restoration, are more than adequate sonically, and a bargain against new.

All that said: I'd greatly appreciate feedback on the issue of McIntosh's Autoformer Amps vs direct-coupled.
Seems there's a serious division of opinion, and I'd like to hear yours!
Thanks for any/all input!
Bo
broockies

Showing 3 responses by roxy54

roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,154 posts
 
stereo5,
I had a similar experience. I put an ancient Mac 2105 up against a Pass 250.5, (I owned both) in my system using 4 different speakers that I own, and the Pass 250.5 sounded thin and electronic (not natural) compared to the Mac. My buddy thought that it was obvious as well. 
roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,154 posts
 

kosst_amojan,

You said:


"For me their simply out of the question. My Focals were designed to be powered by direct coupled solid state amps and utilize impedance curves to draw power and flatten the response. A power source amp that's indifferent to those impedance curves simply won't produce flat response. And my Focals are hardly unique in that design tactic."

Almarg, Could you please comment on this statement? I haven't heard of this before. 

roxy54's avatar
roxy54
8,154 posts
 
I admit that I'm a fan but not a fanatic when it comes to Mac gear. That said, after having owned autoformer coupled pieces and non autoformer coupled, I feel autoformers coupled sounds fuller and more natural.

Now prepare to hear from the Mac Autoformer haters. Where are you georgehifi?
More to discover