I don't think there is one definition of what "audiophiles" prefer. Virtually every component sounds slightly different from another one, each a different flavor. To be an audiophile, at least to me, means 1) you love music and 2) you search for the components that satisfy you most in the reproduction of recorded music. While Mcintosh may not strictly meet the scientific criteria of traditional audiophile values listed above it is immensly enjoyable from a musical standpoint. And it works for virtually all kinds of music (the mcintosh tube amp is exceptional with bluegrass, jazz, classical, folk, acoustic guitar, native amserican flute, even space music and ambiant) and it can drive virtually any speaker out there. I have also found that too much detail can detract from the performance, the Mcintosh having a nice balance of detail with a cohesive nature.
In my experience the Mcintosh CD player is a good one but not a great one. I've heard several different CD players and DACs in my Mcintosh system and it clearly conveyed the difference between them, being more detailed with more detailed digital and less detailed with less detailed digital, more incisive with some, more relaxed with others, warmer with some, more analytical with others. My point here is that the Mcinotsh components have been neutral in allowing the differences in the sources to come through.
I would absolutely give Mcintosh a try. But be warned, they are heavy!
In my experience the Mcintosh CD player is a good one but not a great one. I've heard several different CD players and DACs in my Mcintosh system and it clearly conveyed the difference between them, being more detailed with more detailed digital and less detailed with less detailed digital, more incisive with some, more relaxed with others, warmer with some, more analytical with others. My point here is that the Mcinotsh components have been neutral in allowing the differences in the sources to come through.
I would absolutely give Mcintosh a try. But be warned, they are heavy!