@roxy54 , Let me start by saying that I don’t hate McIntosh. There’s a lot to say for McIntosh:
The good:
All of the high-end owes a debt of gratitude to McIntosh. In the early days of “HiFi”, when that meant something, they toured and demonstrated the consistent high quality of there products with objective measurements. Perhaps, some other manufacturer would have filled the void, but just as likely there might have been a string of bad actors promising quality and delivering junk, as did eventually happen, requiring the government to step in. Had consumers not had McIntosh to lay the foundation and raise the bar, consumer confidence in the industry might have been so compromised that other start ups never had a chance to start up.
That despite different ownerships the quality of their gear has wavered less than many of same early competitors that had similar fates. That despite the passing of many, many years consumers can hold hope that their purchases can still be maintained on a level not found anywhere else in the industry. That they maintained a classic handsome albeit masculine appearance without trendy changes had allowed their customers add, change and upgrade in a consistent way, all the while maintaining the real value of their customer’s purchases.
Some of their gear ( FM tuners come to mind) were truly amongst the best in their time.
The bad:
To myself and apparently to others as well, the house sound is disappointing. FWIW, IMHO, McIntosh gear sounds flat, lacking dimensionality, weak in dynamic contrasts, and dulls transients, Yes, I’ve heard a lot of different Mc gear over the years, to my ears the signature is quite prevalent.
The Ugly;
This post was in response to the earlier query on this very subject. The use of autoformers in ss amps. There is no need for this extra stage in modern ss amps. In the early days pre 1970’s transistors like tubes were not up to handling the stress of differing impedance parameters. In order to preserve the reliability of these transistors McIntosh resorted to the similar tricks they had long used on their tube gear; optimize the output through tap options. It worked, unlike other transistor amps of these earlier times, the transistors didn’t self destruct. Later on, since about the 1970’s transistors developed to the point where they became the most durable of output devices. Please note that the following is presented from a somewhat academic perspective, in practice there are other variables to consider, actual performance will vary. Still, the matter at hand still applies. These later transistors in the right application could not only handle various loads without worry, they could double down or halve up with impedance and the corresponding sensitivity of typical dynamic loudspeakers. Something that isn’t done the same way as they do within the limitations of a tap. When McIntosh claims that their autoformers ss amps provide maximum output into all loads, understand that’s the power output into a standard 8 Ohm load into all loads within the tap. Some other ss amplifiers without the taps that come with autoformers provide the power output as demanded from the speakers impedance and corresponding sensitivity. For example such an amplifier standard rated output of 100 Watts into 8 Ohms will output 200 Watts into 4 ohms as the sensitivity of the speaker decreases by 3 dB with the impedance drop . So the maximum 8 Ohm power is actually increased as needed. This maintains greater frequency linearity at high output levels. Again, there are other variables, and the actual output of either type of amplifier might stray from such a limited perspective. Having an amplifier go through an unnecessary stage such as autoformers can’t be good. Perhaps McIntosh does it to keep costs down on expensive cooling heat sinks or more expensive power supplies and still maintain reliability, or perhaps they’re stuck on a novel yet traditional (for them) marketing strategy? I don’t know. But, I’ve yet to see a convincing argument for autoformers in modern day ss amplifiers.
BTW, although you might be tired of hearing about the oft referenced comparison to Harley, Rolex, etc., those comparisons are not without merit. These brands have much in common. They are all marketed to the same economic demographic, they all have iconic presentations of look, sound, etc, that are readily recognized beyond the scope of the enthusiasts audience, all live to some degree more on their legacy reputation than their current state of the art performance innovation.
On the other hand I can appreciate the disdain for automatic categorization. I’m all too aware of enthusiasts search for the next great thing, and under appreciating the tried and true, I’ve never owned them, but Vandersteen 2’s comes to mind. IHO, the answer to the question of: “what is quality?” is enduring appreciation.
