Hardly ever heard them. I imagine they sound good but they look so pretentions. If you wear several rings and large gold chain they may fit in a lounge that has velvet paintings of cigar smoking, sombrero wearing, pistol toting Mexicans.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Probably because you weren’t welcome to listen to some of the finest gear ever produced. Especially if you know what to look for or what your talking about.. You know guys like Jerry Garcia, Carlos Santana, Brian Wilson and lil-ol-me, the American Irish kid..
Best parties in the world Amigo..
Just so you know most are not haters, they are just plain jealous. They should be, if you know what you’re looking for, just like anything else Mcintosh will fill most ANY requirement.. It can cost a bundle too.
There are some folks that trick out Macs best equipment and just like any other piece of tweaked (one of a kind) gear, MAC does hold up, pretty darn well. C1XX - CXXXX control gear is pretty good stuff.. 20-40K before tweaks but I like Mac.. BTW I like tone control and VARIABLE loudness.. and they have a TT I just want. So what!! :-)
So i own 10 b&w spkrs to date, and approaching my 4th mac amp. They get along. And love driving audis, owned 3 thus far. Learned alot about cars herein tonite.
I am getting a kit out of this thread as I read it and listen to my MC462/Revel combination. One of the best combinations I have owned and within spitting distance of anything I have heard. Revel is another brand that gets no love around here for exoteric speakers that are worse…
10 years ago everyone on here poopooed subs too. Now I see more people coming around to subs though. I own a few amps in the last year or so and I think the Mac is here to stay.
It's funny as hell the negative post I read here about mcintosh. Well let me throw in my two cents worth. I have several different stereo systems in my man cave. The latest is mcintosh c2600 and mcintosh mc402. I also have parasound rogue tube equipment- krell fbb-300. Luxman. Audio research. Regardless what brand name equipment I have all of them sound damm good to me. I do believe the mcintosh gear will out last my other Audio gear. By the way I'm not getting any younger and these damm amps are heavy as hell. Now that's something to talk about back pain. If I decide to sell any of my gear I know my mcintosh gear will keep its value more than any other gear I have.
I love my McIntosh gear A pair of MC601 mono and C2300 tubes preamp. Seems like a perfect match to my Vandersteen speakers. I have been a Mac user/owner since the 70s and will continue to stay with McIntosh. I’ve tried so many different brand out there and to my ears McIntosh is the one. It may not be for everyone’s ears but it is for mine. So, am I out there giving bad names to other brands? No I’m not but I could very easily but it’s not my style because I have class.
I broke-in during the 70's when Mac was making the most durable stuff ever and was actively marketing solid state gear. Their well-deserved reputation for quality-at-a-price was built on their still very desirable tube products. IMO that old Mac tranny stuff is still cosmetically cute and will probably last until the big flood, but they sounded like a can of nails when we put them on DQs or Maggies. Hard to deal with that dichotomy. Mac was at least smart enough to re-introduce tubes. The guy I worked for used to love to run 4 ESS Heil III's on a 2105 thru a C28. Miracord changer with a Shure Type IV! "Dark Side of the Moon" had just come out and the owner loved to demo the system at hi volume. When he first played me "Money," I nearly lost my little neo-audiophile hearing! Can of nails!
So I think 1 problem when someone states they don't like McIntosh amps is that they are listening to a Frankenstein system with a mixture of different preamps, dacs, cd transports, & phono preamps. So they are listening to the amp out of context: Maybe the amp is so good that its telling you that something up stream isn't so good & and you are blaming the amp for doing its job being the last component in the chain before the speakers or maybe the speakers that you are using are not a good match to the amp. For the best results, it is always better to keep the system whole from a single brand because its designed to work together & to have synergy: Frankenstein systems don't have synergy and lead to frustration and pain & suffering with endless attempts to make the system sound better. This creates an endless cycle of frustration.
@jb1 - I guess 99.9% of audiophiles have Frankenstein systems. Very few manufacturers offer all components (maybe Rega and Linn?) and even they may not have all the components of a CD system.
I do like turntables sold with arms from the same manufacturer with one continuous cable from cartridge (from a third party manufacturer) to phono stage (no separate headshell) . Of course you want to make sure the cartridge is a good match to the tonearm.
To solve the electronics issue as far as amps go, it's simple, just get an integrated amp and rid yourself of all the extra interconnects.
I am curious why you consider not having a line-stage preamp is a flaw in their lineup. Do you think this limits adding a separate non-McIntosh phono stage?
If you flip a switch, they are line stage. Flaw, I don’t think so. Either or in all their new gear..
Some people think line stage means volume only, not even a balance. I personally wouldn’t own just a line stage. The closest I have ever owned is a Krell HT and it had sub and bass management.
The other 15+ preamps I own ALL have tone control, maybe 5 or 6 have tone control bypass.
Sure nice having tone control breaking in things.. Cables, speakers and the like.. A little tweak until things settle down a bit. I stay at + 1 to -1 on the bass. Crap CDs get a treble adjustment every now and then..
If, to me, there is no discernible difference in sound between components (preamp, amp, speaker, etc.) I will always choose the one with better visual appearance and craftsmanship. I will even pay more for the better looking component and better craftsmanship all other parameters being equal. If that means I get pretty blue meters in the purchase, so be it.
A high quality revealing system will reveal differences. Try eliminating reverbs in room, makes it easier to hear component quality changes. Not rocket science.
femoore12 - by logic that means you would rather have inferior SQ to a better looking component for the same money. Remember, nothing is ever exactly equal when comparing the SQ of two products.
Dagostino is very pretty. Wilson speakers are kinda ugly. GAT from conrad johnson is dated. Mac can be too iluminated. Tubes are cool. Nagra preamp is industrial, yuck. Audio research is cool. Lumin x1 is sleek and nice looking.
Let me quote myself so hopefully it becomes clear.
"If, to me, there is no discernible difference in sound between components (preamp, amp, speaker, etc.) I will always choose the one with better visual appearance and craftsmanship.”
How do you infer by logic that I mean lower sound quality? I clearly stated that if there is no discernible difference in sound between components I will choose the one that has better visual appearance. I have no idea how that equals selection of inferior sound quality.
I love the gate keepers on this forum. Even questions about what people do for a living in order to attack their comments. Who cares what I do for a living. Why in the hell is that even important?
To me, the hate is unjustified (unless the price is concerned). Sometime ago I replaced my tube integrated in my main system with a Macintosh solid state amplifier the sound clarity was obvious vs the tube amp. Then I replaced the McIntosh with another SS power amp and a preamp with the total cost of about the double. I didn't use the McIntosh for some years since then. Recently i have hooked it up in my second system. Is the SQ twice worse than that in my main system? Not really, in fact the differences are not that huge. The base sounds good and natural, piano is also fine, instrument separation is really good, high frequencies are also ok. Perhaps it lacks a bit the body, still the soundstage is not really flat. The built quality is good and it has a lot of features. Do i like the blue illumination? No, but I have it off. The balance works perfectly well, doesn't get hot ever. For me, the SQ is not luxurious but it is more than decent and stable. Now I am no longer sure if I have to sell it.
When I saw the C29 for the first time, i knew that some day I would go for this. What a look! A real gem. And one day my local dealer displayed one in his showcase. After 8 or 9 weeks of sneaking around it was still there and I dared asking for a reasonable price- and I got it!
It was my holy grail for two years or so when I bit by bit realized it did not offer that kind of sound I had always been looking for. The sound was integral, nothing excelled. Good mids, the bass strong but a little rounded, but a lack of decay, resolution and detail.
I suspect the developers intended to find a successor for their tube gear that would do no harm to the listener's ears, but so they created amps that would deliver a rounded sound lacking impact and deep dimension picture in the high and upper mid frequencies.
So finally I sold the C29 to a friend. A review in an audiophile magazine had the verdict "good" for the C29 (but a "very good" for the contemporary Audio Research preamp)…funny enough, 30 years later I got an AR tube pre that is still in my line-up and delivers all the rich sound that I want. It is carefully tweaked and gives me everything I missed with the C29.
McIntosh of today? I dislike the green lights as much as I loved the turquoise lights. I think the magical look has vanished with this change. No reason to get one...
I still think that serious listeners should go back to older gear from time to time- just to find out that sound has not bettered through the years, maybe utmost.
I think they do... There are guys out there who recommend the use of tubed preamps with ss power amps as tubes are better for voltage amplification and power amps for current purposes. I use tube amps and ss amps for the latter, but a tube pre is mandatory IMHO.
But since tubes are en vogue again there is a lot of junk out there on the market. The influence of the power supply is much higher with tube gear than with ss-based (pre-)amps. An improved ps will do magic if you know where to install/change capacitors either in the output stage or in the ps. My AR pre now shows all the virtues of a modern construction, but still with the magic only tubes can do- decay, resolution, soundstage, imaging. I will definitely not go back to transistorized preamps.
@fenmoore12 - logic dictates that in circumstances where a piece of equipment sounds better than another but less money was spent on improving the looks (or adding unnecessary, sound degrading meters) and the cost is lower than an inferior sounding one that looks nicer and costs more, you would take the inferior sounding one (at times).-
Here is the logic: let's say you set aside a fixed amount of money (or had points to spend and couldn't use any leftover points for anything else) for a new box and the nicer looking one of the two under consideration costs exactly that amount of $$ or points and the better sounding one costs a little less. I am assuming that you want to maximize the value of the dollars that you spend. If you don't buy the nicer looking one, you will leave money or points on the table, whereas a person only concerned with the SQ (assuming as I mentioned in a previous post, it is not hideous and disallowed by the boss in her den) will buy the less expensive one because it sounds better.
This is theoretical of course, but demonstrates the error of an audiophile putting beauty ahead (or a major consideration in relation to) of SQ.
Now, I have no problem with this if that is important to you, which is why I asked if you are an interior designer. I would expect them to care very much about the looks, perhaps even beyond the SQ a piece of equipment delivers. I am sure that those people kept B&O afloat for a while and is a major contributor to MacIntosh's undisputed success and popularity.
People's Mendoza line for acceptance of looks varies from person to person, but IMHO, it should be a yes or no proposition, and if it meets or exceeds that line, the only criteria of a serious audiophile for a piece of equipment is SQ.
Now, I have no problem with this if that is important to you, which is why I asked if you are an interior designer. I would expect them to care very much about the looks, perhaps even beyond the SQ a piece of equipment delivers. I am sure that those people kept B&O afloat for a while and is a major contributor to MacIntosh’s undisputed success and popularity.
People’s Mendoza line for acceptance of looks varies from person to person, but IMHO, it should be a yes or no proposition, and if it meets or exceeds that line, the only criteria of a serious audiophile for a piece of equipment is SQ.
@sokogear There are so many holes in your 'logic' it is hard to know where (or if) to begin. But here goes..
Why would aesthetics not matter? Name one manufacturer that does not care and invest in this aspect of their product, electronics or otherwise.
Calling our interior designers as the only ones who care about aesthetics is absurd. Most everyone cares about visual appeal.
B&O and Mac are in two different leagues. Enough said there.
Mendoza line refers to a baseball analogy. Perhaps you meant Maginot line.
And as to the blue meters.They have no impact on sound quality and you can always turn them off. At least on my C2300 you can.
@jerryrocks- Mendoza line is used as a reference to a cut off point. Mario Mendoza hit about .200 which got referenced as a minimum average for a major league hitter. I use it as a minimum quality of the looks of a piece of equipment. If it passes, then the differentiating factor is SQ.
Of course equipment manufacturers invest in the looks of their gear, but only the MacIntoshes and the like expect it to be a differentiating factor.
I just mentioned interior designers as an extreme example, I would think everyone has their own Mendoza line of visual appeal and I hope audiophiles select the best value of SQ and don’t let nice aesthetics overtake something of better SQ/value for the dollar.
The biggest value hit recipient would be a MacIntosh buyer who keeps the meters off. Like a previous poster said, why not have it as an option and the deleters save a few bucks?
Anything that measures something and is somehow attached to it impacts its performance in theory. Whether it is audible or not is debatable.
Because, McI is PP amp with sharp and metal sound and big power, that you never will use. Too much money for good vision and big power. Better try to listen Single Ended amp and you will sense the difference.
This discussion seems to quickly lose rational basis, so going back to the original question, "why don't people like McIntosh?", some rational reasons not to like it are as follows:
1) Value - at the surface, it is expensive compared to most similar products with similar specs. 2) Looks - if you don't like the McIntosh look, you don't like it - what is there to debate here? 3) Sound Quality - again - this is a matter of personal taste. If you don't like the way it sounds, why would you buy it? 4) Build Quality - the quality of the components, how those components are put together, and the QA/QC that ensures the consistency of what was intended by the designers vs. what ends-up in the box you buy. In my recent experience, McIntosh is not as good at this as they once were in this regard.
Conversely, some reasons to like it: 1) Value - when you consider the substantial resale value (should you decide to upgrade within McIntosh or try something else later) it is typically a better "investment" than most brands. 2) Looks - see above - my own polling on this over the years has shown that most think it looks very cool, retro, and "pro" - males and females both. This criteria should be irrelevant, but most of us are at least partially moved by this element. 3) Sound Quality - this is pure personal preference - do not make any significant audio purchase without listening for yourself, and try to do so in an environment that mimics your home listening room to the greatest extent possible. That said, in my experience, at least as many people like the sound of McIntosh as dislike it. 4) Build Quality - while it may not be what it once was, it is still very good for the most part - especially once you are in the stainless steel chassis line of products.
I hope this helps. There is no "fatal-flaw" in buying McIntosh, unless you listen to it, don't like the sound, and then buy it anyway. Conversely, if you like the sound, there are few brands of equipment that have enjoyed lasting value and performance over the decades the way McIntosh has.
@mhwilliford - My vote is for 1A. Much of the cost goes into the look/meters IMHO. In terms of 2A, nobody looks to buy stereo equipment as a positive investment. If you are already thinking of getting rid of it when you buy it, something is wrong.
I always wanted some Mcintosh equipment for some reason and finally bought an amp and preamp several months ago.
Doesn't sound any better than the B&K stuff I replaced but like the looks and love the tone controls but way simpler for the old lady to operate so she isn't always bugging me.
MC275 tube amps were great amps. But there is no good reason to put an output transformer on a "good" solid state amplifier, it can only make it’s performance worse. It’s a bit like using auto-formers on otl tube amps that can’t drive speakers well without them.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
