@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.
"If the MAC "fanboys" would admit they purchase MAC for resale value and aesthetics over sound quality the brand would become much less polarizing." Another stupid comment that is just repeating what others have wrongly said many times before. "SOTA" sound is in the ear of the listener, no matter what the box it comes from looks like, or what the cost was. There are actually many people dayglow who buy Mac gear because they like the way it sounds.
I don't think it's hate maybe confusion? Many in the mid fi and casual audiophiles/music lovers segment view McIntosh as the "holy grail" of amplifiers. IMO they produce some great gear the MC452 and C22MK3 provide great value/sound for 2nd hand gear but are not considered close to being SOTA. If the MAC "fanboys" would admit they purchase MAC for resale value and aesthetics over sound quality the brand would become much less polarizing.
gg107, Your first reason may have been true in the past, but I think it hasn't been so in a long time. Number two is right on; they are looked at as old fashioned by some audiophiles who are dazzled by the latest technological twists. Finally, they are as you say voiced (as all amps are) in a certain way that doesn't appeal to all listeners, although that voicing, in their SS gear has changed over the years. I also think that their brand has been hurt somewhat in the minds of audiophiles who have no real experience with them by parrots who perpetually compare them to Harley Davidson and Rolex. That's really just a lot of nonsense, and I think is strikes a positive note to some who like to buy American (HarleyDavidson) and others who value good resale (Rolex)
Why do people -- i.e., audiophiles -- "hate" or dislike McIntosh? It's an interesting question. I gave it some thought and came up with three reasons:
1. McIntosh is, by repute, the brand for doctors and lawyers -- i.e., presumably well-to-do people who just want fancy, expensive, nice-looking equipment for their living rooms and dens, without really knowing anything about high-end audio. Thus, knowledgable audiophiles will look down on such unknowledgable buyers. (Let me stress that I don't think this is a good reason -- but it is a reason!)
2. McIntosh amps use older, unfashionable technologies -- primarily autoformers. They are not, in any technical sense, state-of-the-art. Thus, knowledgable audiophiles, who appreciate the latest technical advances in the audio arts, disdain McIntosh equipment as stuck in the past.
3. McIntosh amps do not have a "hi-fi" sound. To audiophiles searching for a hyper-detailed presentation, they may seem "veiled" or rounded off. This may be particularly true for audiophiles who primarily listen to amplified music.
I should add, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have owned and enjoyed an MC402 power amp for over a dozen years. I've changed speakers, sources, power cords and cabling during that time, but I've never seen any reason to get a new amp. I listen to about 80% classical and 20% hard rock, and I find the MC402 does everything I want.
It’s funny how using the right words brings out the ones those words attract the most, the haters. I’ve owned more high end amplifiers than most and currently own a pr of Mcintosh MC611 monos. They’re one of the best amps I’ve ever owned. For all those haters “stop hating everything you don’t like”. As for the original thread post. Why don’t people like Mcintosh. What makes you think people don’t like Mcintosh?
Unsound, you said: "Autoformers in ss amps for the last 50 years only serve to compromise one of the advantages of ss amps with typical dynamic speakers, that of adapting power requirements with impedance load." I didn't understand that comment, as the autoformers do exactly that; that is, they allow the amplifier to deliver full power into any impedance.
@roxy54, Yes. I answered the OP’s question. And while I don’t care for the Mc sound, I don’t want to just keep dumping on them. I think I’ve said enough.
@roxy54 , Your points have merit. But, the only practical advantages were over 50 years ago when in the early days of ss amplification transistors weren’t very durable. Those days are long gone. Autoformers in ss amps for the last 50 years only serve to compromise one of the advantages of ss amps with typical dynamic speakers, that of adapting power requirements with impedance load. I wouldn’t dream of arguing with your preference,. But “in my humble opinion” such an application is just plain stupid.
unsound, Just because other manufacturers of SS amps don't use it doesn't make it wrong. It has practical advantages, and to some people, like myself, it sounds better than Mac amps that don't have autoformers. There are many technologies that aren't widely used. It doesn't make them any less valid.
I think the critical comments are coming from people who do not like the sound of Mac amps that have the big autoformers, which make the sound smoother than what they prefer.
I have a McIntosh MA252 integrated amplifier. It is solid state with a tubes preamplifier. It does not have the big autoformer transformer that Mac solid state is known for. Its damping is rated at 200, and it has good bass control. I added Mullard NOS tubes.
I just added a Cardas Clear USB cable a few days ago and a Pangea digital coax cable, which has Cardas copper, last week. A few weeks ago I added Pangea power cables for my DAC, reclocker and amplifier. My system now sounds amazing, whereas prior to adding these cables it was a bit edgy or harsh with a few songs. The new cables eliminated the problems with bad recordings and improved the sound of the good ones.
I will also note that I added about $3,500 in room treatment with skyline diffusors and absorption.
So, it took me a while to dial in my system, but I’ve got it now to the point that I am blown away by how good it sounds. It has even exceeded what I was hoping for. It is lively but never too bright, and it sounds full but not slow. Bells, chimes, cymbals, and brass are so beautiful that I shake my head and marvel at what I am hearing, like right now as I write this as I listen to "Alleycat" by Nucleus from its 1976 UK tour. Drum strikes have solid impact without going over the top. Acoustic instruments are sublime. Tone is exquisite. Clarity is stunning.
Out of the box, the McIntosh MA252 was good but a bit lacking at times, but I find it to be consistently very good now.
@roxy54 , 50 years is about the amount of time that transistors have been around as perhaps the most rugged of output devices. Other than one particular, rather unique First Watt ss amp that uses autoformers at the input rather than the output al la McIntosh, I know of no other ss amp manufacturer that uses autoformers. Are we to understand that all others have been wrong for the past 50 years?
McIntosh was always known for being on the cutting edge. And if you have the money for their top end equipment I believe they still are. That new tube ,solid state amp combo is unbelievable . But you’re also paying for the resale value because they are nice to look at. And have a cult following. You can buy a McIntosh piece of gear and five years from now you can sell it for the same price. Nothing to complain about there. Everything else drops about 50% in value. I’ve owned two pieces of McIntosh gear and sold them within a day or two.
So many of my thoughts have already been posted, but as one not particularly interested in tube gear, let me add that IMHO using autoformers in modern ss amps is just stupid.
Buy what you like. I will be buying a new McIntosh integrated amp for the warm sound, great looks, and its resale value. I’m sure there are tons of other great amps which do the same, but many of them don’t have the resale. Kind of like buying a Rolex or Patek vs. an Omega, Breitling, or Tag.
I have never heard a McIntosh Amp in action, but who ever designed this amp (just on looks) must of been back in the 40’s or 50’s that is the impression it gives to me. And the design seems to stay the same in all models...? That sort of implies the type of audiophiles/ music lovers it seems to attract. Just on looks its either dislike or love for the amp. If I had the money and was forced to buy an amp with VU meters, bass, treble knobs and all extra’s which come with it it would definitely be the Luxman amps. Its just sheer pleasure to look at it and most probably a lovely precision feel to the use of its knobs, volume control etc...A tasteful silver look not purple/blue with red letters...!
I owned a lot of audio equipment and still have a few pieces including McIntosh. I liked them and always liked the sound. It's on the warmer side for sure and not as open as some other gears but very musical and good for long listen without fatigue.
Currently in my system I rotate the following preamp: McIntosh C38 Mark Levinson No 26 Krell KRC-2 Inex Innovation fiber optics preamp Marantz 7
They all perform differently and C38 compared to the rest is the most non-fatigue one. Quite musical.
As for the power amp I rotate among: McIntosh MC7100 Bryston 4BST Canary Audio CA300 mono blocks Sonic Frontiers Power 2 Threshold CAS2 Monoblocks Inex Innovation 8W power amp
I find McIntosh right up there with the rest of the them.
In my past, I've owned McIntosh MC225, MC240, MC275, MC250, MC2100, MC2120, C504, C20, C8, MC20W2 all of them are very good. This is comparing to the other amps I had such as Spectral DMA50, Audio Research Classic 120, Classic 30, D125, M100, D100, D76 which I owned and also Krell KSA80B, Counterpoint SA20, PS Audio P200, GAS Ampzilla, New York Audio Lab Moscode300, DB6M Conrad Johnson Premier 7, Premier 3, Premier 2, PV6, MV75, Marantz 8, VTL Deluxe 120, First Sound Preamp, VTL Ultimate and among other things that I've owned.
I can say that McIntosh is as good as anything I owned and heard and they are lovely. But the draw back is not as open or clear and not as attacking compared to the list of the amps I had.
1978 I became an audio enthusiast I owned the Mac C28 preamp and the 2105 power amp. I met a guy which was 100% blind we became friends low and behold he was an audiophile; I invited him over to listen to my system, within 5 minutes he said that`s enough what I hear is DARK AND VALE VERY POOR LEADING EDGE at the time I didn`t understand. He began tutoring me in how to and what to listen for what`s good and bad as far as amplification is concern. He also made a suggestion I should get rid of the Bose speakers 901`s series 2`s, out went the Mac and the Bose speakers In came Audio Research SP3a preamp, David Hafler mono blocks and Maggies Typany1D`s. For about 40 yrs. its been Audio research and Maggies, 3 month ago I up graded to the Pass Labs XP30 preamp, X 350 power amp and held on to the Maggie 3.6`s. My next upgrade will hopefully be speakers the 20.7 Maggies.
I wasn't trying to sell SL only making a comment. Yes I am a SL dealer and a SL client. SL is the only audio equipment I will ever own for the rest of my life but like I mentioned. When I post a comment specifically discussing SL and other AV products I would absolutely disclose I was a dealer. I was more speaking to you directly than the forum. I specifically asked SL if PE was involved in their company and the answer absolutely " NO " But I will double check ? Perhaps PE is involved with S&S ? Thanks for the heads up ....T
You stated that you are a dealer, which to your great credit you havent attempted to hide. I’ll take that at face value and good for you.
If you are in fact a dealer though, now that you’ve listed your opinion of "the finest" product, Steinway-Lyngdorf, that you would "personally" go "toe-to-toe" about I now wonder if you might just happen to be a dealer for that particular product? If so, ironically, you should probably disclose that. Not that I would be a candidate either way. I apologize in the event you are not a dealer for Steinway-Lyngdorf, however, I’m not even a little bit sorry if you are a dealer for their products and did not disclose it.
It might come as a surprise to you as well that, if memory serves, Steinway is owned by a VC/PE firm controlled by John Paulson. I also think (I’m not certain) that Lyngdorf is privately held by Peter L. along with investors, which again, could be properly categorized as VC/PE.
And finally, I prefer not to participate with your newsletter, podcast, twitter, instagram, reddit, facebook, etc. Especially if you are a dealer for the product in question and failed to disclose same.
The Tom i am making reference to was and is a mag sales rep and was my GM at a shop, i was never paid and i never for got what i was trading for, and Charlie Randall wouldnt lift a finger to go look into the issue with a mac trade at a mac dealer, and my part of the work was done
Ok lets forget about Mcintosh and just say " all audio is subjective for the listener " Personally I feel the finest reproduction of Audio is Steinway Lyngdorf but that's another topic for discussion that I would absolutely love to go toe to toe with anyone. Moving on - I think conversation and reading various opinions is not only fun but beneficial assuming you have an open mind and don't take what is being said personally. I will open a conversation later specifically relating to PE and the AV Industry. I would appreciate your feedback as it will fuel my newsletter and possibly my podcast - Thanks Tom
Why because i cannot stand checkpoint charlie… i was ripped off by a dealer, and my general manager at a store i was doing it work for, and he Would not even look into matter… that directly involved them
No hate for modern Mc amps. I love the meters. :-)
What distinguishes them on the rare cases when I have heard them is the treble and that is why I feel they are not appropriate for me or my speakers. Especially in combination with say B&W or Triangle ... oh I could not listen to that for long.
Their speakers though, are they freaking kidding me??
Since every aspect of audio is subjective & a mater of opinion, this discussion has no merit and is a waste of time. 70 years in business, Mac must be doing something right. If it was up to up to the golden ear audiophiles to support the industry, there would no industry.
@atlanticstereo VC/PE isn't the problem. The fact is that any time the founder/creative driving force of any organization departs the business, random outcomes happen. This isn't unique to high end audio. If the business fails, an argument could be made that the person didn't set the organization up for success through proper succession planning.
In your post above, you cite Krell as an example of a firm damaged by PE investment. Someone else might make the case that Mr. D had run the firm he successfully built into the ground, necessitating HIM bringing in outside investors. Those investors, after prolonged financial underperformance, removed him. I have never owned Krell, never considered it. Its my understanding that some of their new amp designs are quite good and present a good value. I'm just stating that sometimes a business comes along and thrives because of a good idea or two AND good timing. If a business isn't viable, it isn't viable. Had there been great ideas in the pipeline when Mr. D left the firm, they probably would have done ok. The same goes for Cary Audio...Dennis Had left many years ago and I can't think of a product they make that is inspiring...it doesn't mean they aren't great or doing well as a business...heck there are examples too numerous to list of companies whose products we enjoyed where they weren't viable over the long term....there are others to the contrary. The method for capitalizing a business isn't the culprit, its the business model and the presence of proper capitalization.
Congrats on being in the industry and congrats on what has likely been the best two years in your business. I assume you are in it to make a profit and its highly likely if you are are quite profitable, that you are engaged to a large degree in home theater. If I were in the business, which I am decidedly not, I would want to have McIntosh in my product line. What would you rather have? Sony? Yamaha? Marantz? Bryston? Arcam?
McIntosh today is a far more diversified and viable business than at any time in their history. Purists and those heavily influenced by nostalgia forget how close McIntosh was to ceasing to exist. Dark days indeed when Clarion purchased them for pennies but there was enough corporate culture internally to survive through the years to come out the other side with the possibility of nurturing their mojo. McIntosh makes good gear, it isn't to my taste, but they make fine products. I wouldn't invest in a company that caters to me, that's too narrow of a market...but I do enjoy what I enjoy. If I buy a Shindo or a Leben or a Devore product and they pass away, sell or change their business direction either by choice or by acquisition, that's the way it goes. Its just an audio system.
My final point is that you describe some mystical obligation to the consumer by the manufacturer. That's unreasonable. Buy what you like, you get it and then you either enjoy it or you don't. There is no perpetual obligation on the part of a manufacturer to evolve in the manner you determine or think best, thats for the owners of the company to determine and the obligation of the retailer/consumer to choose accordingly thereafter.
The short answer though, if you are a retailer and you aren't the McIntosh dealer, you have to work a little harder. Peace.
The phrase "you get what you pay for" is not always accurate. In the case of Mac amps, the phrase is "you get what you overpay for". As far as quality and sound go, Mac amps are great. It's just that similar quality and similar sounding amps can be found for significantly less money. Some people don't care about how much they spend, but for me, it always has to be a consideration.
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.
