Why do no audio enthusiasts use McIntosh?

since mcintosh is a viable company, some consumers are buying their products. of those who boight their products, some are pleased with their purchase. what term would one use to characterize satisfied purchasers ? if not audio enthusiasts, how do you define the term ? if the "happy" customers are not audio enthusiasts what are they ?

Happy consumers can be a simple general way to also refer to a happy audio enthusiast. To me they are very different, so I am not sure what point of the question is.. But to get more granular, an audio enthusiast is different because it is usually person who loves music first, and is passionate about equipment second. What that hifi equipment is can be a completely different discussion altogether. Hi-Fi is really it's own very obscure category..I have lots of friends who think the pursuit of hi end audio is silly, and I can understand why they think that, they would be categorized as a satisfied consumer. On the other hand, I can't fathom listening to music any other way than through hi end equipment; Bose, and Marantz and Denon, and Sony, etc to me are not hi-fi, they live in a completely different category, where happy/satisfied consumers live as well.

Audio enthusiast is someone who cares about detail in sound, and details build quality of equipment-and the fun associated with it..To me hi end audio is a small shop operation, not operated by a conglomerate in an effort to stay viable, often times hifi manufacturers are just a few equally passionate people who have the ability and have chosen to make hi end audio equipment (thank you for them!). Because they too love music like most of us here on the forums, and these are the people that understand that things CAN be better than commercial, mass market equipment.

I mean does the guy who owns Bose equipment know why a Black Gate Capacitor is better than what they use in Bose? Or how important circuit board design and layout is? Or Power supply-doubtfully. That doesn't mean he is stupid, just not interested. Does a guy who owns Sony CD player know that DAC inside is what makes a CD sound better or worse-doubtfully....I will say one thing, the guy listening to the commercial mass market equipment has one major advantage usually, not overpaying for this stuff they way we ALL do, and they still get the benefit of hearing music. Without the magic of course. : )

I recently "upgraded" from a Jeff Rowland Concerto integrated (which was no slouch) to a McIntosh MA2275 'toob' integrated. It was a huge risk on my part because the San Diego Mac dealers don't really lend out gear and most consumers in San Diego don't purchase enough esoteric two-channel stuff anymore to warrant a dealer actually stocking an integrated -- let alone one that costs nearly six-and-a-half-large.

Unpacking a McIntosh piece can be called a revelatory experience; One immediately notices that real people actually gave a sh_t and packed the unit to withstand the UPS Drop-Kick Delivery Technique. And Mac is smart enough to NOT plaster "fragile" stickers all over the package because they serve as "crush me!" beacons to couriers. The packing itself weighs over 30 pounds! After removing two layers of very thick cardboard packaging and foam, the finale comes when the family members argue over how to properly unbolt (!) the MA2275 from its wooden pallet without destroying it. Finally we decided to flip the amp on its side atop a pillow and then began to unbolt the four large metal bolts and washers from the pallet. The MA2275 seemed to breathe a sigh of relief as it was liberated from its packing constraints.

I almost ruined my lower vertebrae while lifting it (properly I might add) onto its perch atop a Salamander rack. The "pound-per-watt" rule was true in this case.

I could almost sense the Rowland taunting the Mac as I started the process of gingerly inserting the four KT-88 (Russian) power tubes and six 12AX7A (Russian) preamp tubes into the gleaming top of the Mac. After replacing the tube cover and hooking up all the cabling it was time for a listen. But first...

It seems that the folk at McIntosh value the tactile -- almost retro -- feel of the control surfaces of its products. When I rotate the Source select knob or adjust the volume I get a reassuring feeling that something within that glowing front fascia (made of cool retro glass and illuminated by high-tech LEDs) is working. And then there's those meters. Those cool blue meters ;-) -- Remember when manufacturers began to put blue LEDs on their gear? One brand had their blue LEDs so bright as to burn one's eyeballs out. Ugh. Or when Muse's bright red LEDs seared holes in reviewers' retinas? Some manufacturers are still guilty of that today. But not McIntosh. And definitely not those giant blue meters. For these meters genuinely serve a purpose; to let me know that 75+ pure tube watts are making their way to a waiting pair of Avalon Opus speakers sitting at the end of 30' of Analysis Plus cable.

People warned me that 75 watts would not be enough to drive the Avalons. (This is why I went to the Rowland's 250 Class-D watts in the first place). I am happy to report that in the case of my system and 3700 cubic-foot room, those folks are wrong. Complex orchestral passages played at 100+dB never sounded gelled nor fuzzy. In fact my ears gave out well before the cool blue meters started pegging the '150 peak watt' mark. And during times when I was able to endure the large SPL's the MA2275 was indeed clipping and, as tubes do, gently transition into even-order distortion.

The typical audiophile terms? Yes. In spades. Slam. Check. Rhythm. Check. Deep soundstage. Check. Smooth, detailed midrange. Check. 'Sounds Live From Other Room' test. Check.

I can understand that for those with larger rooms and/or inefficient speakers, the MA2275 may not be the answer. If you have Kats and Kids, it's almost definitely not the answer. There are a few times when the Rowland seemed to have an easier go at the music. But in my system, the Rowland sounded too calm and collected. It just wanted me to HEAR the music. The Mac, on the other hand, sounded more true -- more real. It WANTED me to LISTEN to the music. And in the end, the Mac's magical sonic qualities outweighed the effortless slam of the Rowland.

And to many people, therein lies the magic of McIntosh.

Best Regards from a recent Mac Convert/Audio Enthusiast ;-)

Hey Gregpen - great post. I totally agree. Enjoy the music!

hi gregpen:

when you say the roland sounded too calm and collected, what do you mean ? i have auditioned many roland amps and pres, but not in my own stereo system. i have also heard older roland gear with avalon speakers in nyc at an audio dealer. i wouldn't characterize the sound of roland as calm and collected.

also, are you suggesting the roland sounds more like an old tube sound and the mac more like a modern, non-tubey presentation ?

also the question about mac and audio enthusiasts perhaps should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of mcintosh amps, preamps and digital sources.