MD108 VS. MD102

If you do near field listening and like jazz and classical I really concure on the strengths of the MR-71 (I sold the incredibly transparent Rotel RHT-10 and kept my MR-71; the Rotel is definitely better in transparency, quick bass slam, getting and holding onto distant stations, quieter background but it, like several MDs I owned, sounded harmonically lean, seemed more lifeless and lacked the expansive soundstage and real music sound of the MR-71, MR-67, Marantz 10B or Fisher 200B oc 200C). Regarding disbelievers: Some may have heard a misaligned MR-71 or other excellent tube tuner with cheap replacement tubes and went away thinking there is nothing to these old tube tuner myths. If you have a good local station with an uncompressed signals a reconditioned MR-71 with good tubes like NOS Telefunkens and Mullards is extremely hard to beat! But if you like fast bass slam and heavy duty Rock and Roll especially from distant stations the newer hi-end tuners are the way to go. Ever wonder why the king of the current hill MD-108 uses 2 12AX7s in the audio stages?

You can find out about tube complement, some specs, and pics at:

http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/tuners.htm#mr71

I talked to McIntosh technical support a couple of weeks who report that the MR-71 is without question the best sounding of all its tuners. But you have to have a good signal or a lesser audio section tuner (including most MDs) but a better RF section tuner will sound better. And sound is subjective, but once you immerse in the 3D sonic landscape of an excellent, updated with NOS hi-end tubes tube tuner you will find it hard to go back to the relatively flat sonic landscape painted by solid state tuners. The best solid state tuners I have heard with this tube sound (actually it is tubes short comings, harmonic distortion that help to create, in part, the effect of harmonic layering that is so palapable) include Naim NAT-01, Accuphase T-101, T-100, T-109 and to a degree the Roksan Caspian and Meridian 504/604.