Why don't audiophiles like Mcintosh?

[samplermike]

I used to own a modest Jolida integrated tube amp and cd player driving Dynaudio Audience speakers and was quite pleased. However, I am ready to trade up to my first true high end system and was seriously considering the 200wpc Mcintosh MA6900 integrated amp, Mcintosh MCD205 CD player and Martin Logan Aeon speakers. I have about $12k to play with. I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?

[topspeed]

I used to own a modest Jolida integrated tube amp and cd player driving Dynaudio Audience speakers and was quite pleased. However, I am ready to trade up to my first true high end system and was seriously considering the 200wpc Mcintosh MA6900 integrated amp, Mcintosh MCD205 CD player and Martin Logan Aeon speakers. I have about $12k to play with. I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?
Our hobby is purely subjective and opinions on equipment are like a**holes, everyone has one. Paul Seydor at TAS thinks Mac's latest tube and ss amps are some of the very best extant, regardless of price. He drives his Quad 989's with them for his reference system. Considering the Quads are one of the most transparent and revealing speakers ever made, it would seem safe to assume that if Mac's were "harsh and grainy," these speakers would be the first to proclaim it.

As with everything else, let your own ears decide for you and leave the posturing to everyone else. $12 large will buy you just about anything you want. The last CES had a display where (unbeknownst to the listeners) a pair of $11,500 Wilson Sophia's driven by a $1k Parasound amp and Apple iPod w/ Radio Shack patch cords clearly trounced a set of competitors $16K speakers being driven by $35K worth of Krell. The point wasn't that the Sophias were far superior, simply that your return on investment is better represented by great speakers instead of $1000 cables. I'd find my speakers first and then worry about finding a nice synergistic match with the front end. If the Aeons are your bag and you like the way they sound with Mac's, who are we, or anybody else for that matter, to say you're wrong?

It's your money.

[Geoffcin]

I used to own a modest Jolida integrated tube amp and cd player driving Dynaudio Audience speakers and was quite pleased. However, I am ready to trade up to my first true high end system and was seriously considering the 200wpc Mcintosh MA6900 integrated amp, Mcintosh MCD205 CD player and Martin Logan Aeon speakers. I have about $12k to play with. I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?

To them it's Mac or nothing. That could be the reason that "all the rest" of the audiophiles shy away from them. I've got a lot of respect for Mac gear. It was some of the first high end equipment that I heard, and it kind of sent me on my quest. For me though I find that the're a bit overpriced, and while built like tanks, don't offer any of the latest technology. That doesn't mean I don't like them. Eric posted some pics from the CEDIA show and Mac was showing a 1200 watt mono-block with the biggest meter I've ever seen on an amp. I would love to have a pair of those puppies driving my maggies.

If you've got 12k to spend my advise is to spend at least a month, if not more, auditioning speakers. Fully 1/2 of that 12k budget is best spent on speakers, and some would say 2/3's would be even better.

[Pat D]

I used to own a modest Jolida integrated tube amp and cd player driving Dynaudio Audience speakers and was quite pleased. However, I am ready to trade up to my first true high end system and was seriously considering the 200wpc Mcintosh MA6900 integrated amp, Mcintosh MCD205 CD player and Martin Logan Aeon speakers. I have about $12k to play with. I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?
I presume you like the Martin Logan Aeon i speakers better than anything else you can afford. From the specs, they require a stable amp since the impedance is said to go down to 1.32 ohms at 20 kHz, and may go lower higher than that. However, there is not much up that high in music so it should not be a problem with a good amp, but some amps may have trouble with such a speaker. I imagine a McIntosh would have no trouble.

I would want a good subwoofer with them, too. The specs indicate good bass response for most music, but I like to get the deep bass to below 20 Hz, too. So, consider a good subwoofer.

I have no knowledge of the current models, but in the past, McIntosh amps have measured very well and sound pretty much like any other good solid state amp with a low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion and noise, and a high input impedance. Just what "better" might mean in this connection is open to question. There are many other reasons for buying expensive equipment. McIntosh has a reputation for reliability and service, and of course, there is the styling, which I like.

I wouldn't mind having McIntosh equipment. I see no reason to get a really expensive CD player in this multi-player market, since there are universal DVD players available which will play CD , DVD-A, possibly SACD, as well as DVD videos.

Anyway, my first advice is to make sure you like your speakers, then get an amp that can drive them, and an appropriate preamp, if needed (you wouldn't since an integrated amp has one built in), and something to play your software with.

[E-Stat]

I I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?
I would never have called Mac equipment harsh and grainy. Possessing lower resolution than can be had for equivalent quality and investment, yes - at least to these ears, but not harsh. I am also not a particular fan of a design that goes to the expense of including a limiter circuit for those who can't hear up to 14 db of clipping. They have experienced, however, a bit of a renaissance in the past couple of years with the re-introduction of a couple of tube based products.

What's most important in the long run, of course, is what you think. I would recommend auditioning the 6900 to a comparably priced amp with less fussy (and presumably less costly) cosmetics and determine for yourself. If your source(s) are high level only and can be located close to the amp, then you may find that you could use a power amp with attenuators instead of an integrated. I have a particular fondness for the works of Nelson Pass, having owned a Threshold Stasis for twenty some years. The current Pass Labs X-150 would be in a similar price range for a power amp alone.

rw

[EstrellaBee]

McIntosh MA6900 is a perfect sound amplifier system to your preferred loudspeaker model.

_________________
McIntosh MA6900 Integrated Amplifier (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/mcintosh-laboratory-inc-1500/ma6900-integrated-amplifier-5970.html) - Download the MA6900 Integrated Amplifier Catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.

[Mr Peabody]

I really like Martin Logan, especially with tube gear. Have you heard the models with the powered bass module? I heard the Flagship driven by T+A electronics and it was very impressive.

My opinion of Mac is that they are over priced. I prefer Krell or Levinson in the same price range. Mac is more of a warmer sound though. I feel it is very good equipment and I wonder if the person who called them grainy ever heard Mac, they do not sound grainy. Mac is a hot item on the used market and the resale price holds pretty high. I do wonder if their products are as good since they were bought by Clarion some years back.

If you like a "musical" amp you should listen to Conrad Johnson. You can get a pre and power amp for the price of the 6900. CJ to me seemed to add soul or a groove to my music like no other gear I've heard.

I disagree with the advice of spending 1/2 your budget on speakers and don't spend much on a CD player. Contrary, your source, is, your most important piece. No speaker, or anything, down stream will reproduce what isn't in the signal in the first place. You have to start with a good signal, then maintain it throughout the system.

[Dusty Chalk]

They don't (http://audiokarma.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=54)?

I think the Mac/Martin Logan system will be fine, but if you can afford to spend that kind of dough, I'd be prepared to buy things for in-home listening for extended periods of time, and then sell them off if they don't synergize with the rest of your equipment and your listening habits.

[PeruvianSkies]

a great amp/speaker combination makes all the difference. I heard my PSB Platinum's for the first time being driven by Classe monoblocks and was blown away...ever since then I have wanted that combination. I now have my PSB's and am waiting patiently to save up for the Classe's. In the meantime I am driving them with a Parasound Halo amp, which works fine, but I also know the potential of these speakers and can't wait to get those amps to really drive these babies like they deserve to be. I have also seen/heard some great McIntosh setups at shows and such and I think they are truly timeless and very sweet looking and sounding. I am trying to think of what speakers I have heard connected to these....I am thinking it was the flagship B&W speakers and Tyler Acoustics top of the line models. Whatever it was....very good! Plus, I like the glowing blue lights! HAhah.

[basite]

I don't own a mcintosh amp or so,
but,
if I had such money, it would be spent on mcintosh gear, (speakers, source, cables would be from other brands) but, really, Mcintosh is the top of the line,

and you definately talked to the wrong audiophiles,
Mcintosh sounds warm, powerful, and everything else you wish...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[bobsticks]

...I'll just turn in my locker key and membership card at the desk.

I use a Mac/ML pairing and I love it. An MC7205 recently replaced a Rotel model and within minutes I was feelin' the love. Bass tighter, coherent soundstage, and an end to any symptoms of fatigue.Will it compete with SOTA systems like th ebig Soundlabs, or VS11s or Flo's Apogees? Probably not, but it sure presents music the way I want to hear it.
Someone around here, maybe BillyB, recently made a comment about grating systems making him want to repeatedly turn down the volume. My current system gives me just the opposite reaction and, as such, I have found myself getting louder and louder of late.

Great synergy between Mac and ML, so I say go for it Mike.

Rawk on

[Mr Peabody]

Which ML's do you have? With the right amp they do sing.

[PeruvianSkies]

Yeah, the Mcintosh cool blue could fool you as they sound so warm and cozy.

[bobsticks]

Which ML's do you have? With the right amp they do sing.

cinema i~ center
SL3~ front right and left
montages~ surrounds

That's the current line up, although my audio pimp has hinted that there may be a pair of Summits to be available soon. That could skew things a bit. I may soon have a set of Montages and a Rotel amp for sale--or I may just set up yet another system. Maybe one in the bathroom,hehe.

[Mr Peabody]

That's nice ML set up.

[bobsticks]

Gracias, Mr.P. They work well together and well with the room. I would say that the Montages are sort of a joke of a speaker. I bought them in order to maintain tonal equality for multi-channel music, but in hindsight, I wouldn't buy them again. They're simply not a very good speaker and for the money they're really not a good speaker.
If a pair of Prodigys or Summits came about at a good price I'd snap 'em up, and while they might be a bit much for the current room it would be a solid move for the future.

Back on topic, the Rotel works with B&W, we all know that. I heard a Rotel paired with some Danes that sounded absolutely great (made me wonder why nobody ever talks about that pairing). The Mac takes the ML to a different level of presentation. To say it was uncolored would be a lie but the loss of absolute neutrality in favor of a more listenable experience is IMO worth it.

[poweredamp]

I don't think so. Mac has such a good rep in giving so much power.

______________
McIntosh MA6900 Integrated Amplifier (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/mcintosh-laboratory-inc-1500/ma6900-integrated-amplifier-5970.html) - Download the MA6900 Integrated Amplifier Catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.

[Feanor]

I don't think so. Mac has such a good rep in giving so much power.

....

Welcome to AR Forums.


Yeah, I'd love pretty much any Mac component made since 1995. Used prices bring a lot of that equipment into the semi-affordable range. Something like an MA6850 is almost a bargain on that basis.
http://www.berners.ch/McIntosh/en/Frame_McIntosh.htm

[smiddy400]

Hello everyone: I just joined the site today. My first question is finding a yamaha yst sw-30 5 powered subwoofer. I will purchase this item in used condition as long as it works. I have been all over ebay and amazom .com with no luck. In addition, I called yamaha for info with no luck. I love this subwoofer and I would love to purchase it again. Thanks.

-Smiddy400

[melvin walker]

McIntosh had a difficult time moving from tubes to transistors, As a matter of fact McIntosh was one of the few companies that continued to use tranformers with their transistors power amps. Marantz never really made a good transistor pre amp or power amp.

How good is Mac? today well it all depends on what type of music you listen to and the speakers you use. Remember in the golden age of audio , music was softer and more detailed than today. Speakers though less focused was more detailed as well.
Times have changed , Mac and Marantz was not really designed for rock music.

Analog or records are more detailed than digital , digital has more dynamics.
The old tube Mac and Marantz was designed in the days for analog. Listen to a Sinatra recording using older equipment and listen using the new digital equipment.
There is a difference. Listening to rock the digital music will favor the rock.

Finally I have owned a McIntosh MC275 for 45 years and it is still sounding great.
But than I don't listen to rock. Those who dislike Mac. equipment or rock listeners.

[E-Stat]

McIntosh had a difficult time moving from tubes to transistors,You bet. I liken them to Cadillac. Both companies were the standard of excellence in the 50s and 60s and lost their mojo in the 70s. Since that is about when I got on board, I was introduced to McIntosh with the insipid C-28 and 2105. Bad timing. Instead, I gravitated towards companies like Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, and Threshold whose products were far more musical than Mac in those days. While those brands lacked the laser show illumination, they were built every bit as well. They got my business.

Today, McIntosh (producing tube gear again) and Cadillac (finally competitive with German/Japanese counterparts) have enjoyed a revival and returned to their performance roots. Both brands lost any allure to me, however, during their dark era. I can only think of Cadillacs from my teen years as a bad joke.

Wow, you have quite a stellar collection of vintage gear. I'm sure the 10B/7C/275 combo remains a killer system today.

rw

[funchesscott]

the mcintosh amps that i have owned and heard have been quite the opposite. you spoke of a true hifi system, with 12k to play with i wouldnt settle on intergrades i would separate as much as i can(preamp,power supply and so on) if you trust the things you have heard about macs well i would turn to bryston. if you are looking for a thick and smooth sound, mac and bryston has that. but your preanp and you cabling will play a huge role to your taste of sound. also if you are stuck on intergraded amps, i would take a listen to the nad m-3 it is class A .

[Mr Peabody]

ARC and CJ have quite a different sound. I'm not sure how it was in the 80's back. ARC's recent gear has turned me away. I've heard their stuff mostly with B&W and a bit with Martin Logan. It's difficult to put into words but the ARC gave me a feeling of gray and industrial. The operative word is "recent", I heard a VT-100 driving a pair of ML ReQuests, not sure the pre and I think the source was a Wadia rig, this system gave a presence that was down right scary.

I think when Mac started building transistor gear they tried to keep as close to the sound of their tube gear as possible. It may have been the set up to blame, when I heard Mac's expensive HT processor I was not impressed. Listened to a Anthem AVM-30 at the same visit and it sounded much better. I've heard some great Mac stereo gear though. Mac is also one of the hottest products on the used market. From what I can tell Mac and CJ have in common, both have a certain "house", or signature, sound and try to stick with that as much as possible no matter the product.

[Mr Peabody]

Melvin, you are probably aware but a couple of those Marantz pieces are pretty valuable on the resale market. Not many pieces of hi fi gear end up selling used many times their original retail.

From earlier comments about analog sounding better than digital, I don't want to open that debate, but I notice you use Sony ES changers, have you ever heard a high end cd player on your system or used a higher level DAC on the changers. I'm not a hard liner one way or the other, I use, and like both, however I'd have to give the edge to digital for detail. With that being said, I've heard ultra high end CD playback, where I've heard the high end turntables none have been to the extreme heights in price as my digital experiences.

[basite]

Both brands lost any allure to me, however, during their dark era. I can only think of Cadillacs from my teen years as a bad joke.


you should hear a new one though, yes, their vintage SS gear might not have been the best (like Mr Peabody said, they tried to keep it as close to their tube gear, and they both have a real house sound). Their new gear sounds fantastic.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[melvin walker]

Melvin, you are probably aware but a couple of those Marantz pieces are pretty valuable on the resale market. Not many pieces of hi fi gear end up selling used many times their original retail.

From earlier comments about analog sounding better than digital, I don't want to open that debate, but I notice you use Sony ES changers, have you ever heard a high end cd player on your system or used a higher level DAC on the changers. I'm not a hard liner one way or the other, I use, and like both, however I'd have to give the edge to digital for detail. With that being said, I've heard ultra high end CD playback, where I've heard the high end turntables none have been to the extreme heights in price as my digital experiences.

I have no problem with digital sound. We as human speak and hear in analog. Musical instruments are performed in analog. A Steinway piano is analog. Digital as posted earlier has better dynamics not detail. I have heard some of the high end CD playback equipment.
The conversion from analog to digital by the high-end CD players is improving.
Take a look at the curves of digital and analog and you will understand my point.
The top of the analog curve is cut of by digital . In other words the curve of a Steinway piano has it's top in cut off by a digital reproduction.

The reason that earlier Marantz and McIntosh equipment sells for such high prices is quality and performance. The founders of both companies were engineers and worked hard to produce the finest audio equipment of their time. An example the Marantz 10B
because of cost in research and development broke Marantz.
Saul Marantz said in a Audo magazine interview that it cost more to build the 10B than the consumer was paying for it.

[melvin walker]

You bet. I liken them to Cadillac. Both companies were the standard of excellence in the 50s and 60s and lost their mojo in the 70s. Since that is about when I got on board, I was introduced to McIntosh with the insipid C-28 and 2105. Bad timing. Instead, I gravitated towards companies like Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, and Threshold whose products were far more musical than Mac in those days. While those brands lacked the laser show illumination, they were built every bit as well. They got my business.

Today, McIntosh (producing tube gear again) and Cadillac (finally competitive with German/Japanese counterparts) have enjoyed a revival and returned to their performance roots. Both brands lost any allure to me, however, during their dark era. I can only think of Cadillacs from my teen years as a bad joke.

Wow, you have quite a stellar collection of vintage gear. I'm sure the 10B/7C/275 combo remains a killer system today.

Cadillac was never a well build quality car compared to Mercedes or BMW. The performance of a Cadillac never came close to the German cars.
Audio Research and Conrad-Johnson are far better than McIntosh of today. Remember
Audio Research , Conrad-Johnson and Threshold came into existance when both Mac and Marantz was in decline. Mac was changing over to transistors and Marantz had sold the company.

McIntosh is built very well today but there are many audio companies out there that build audio equipment that is as good or better than McIntosh.
The C28 pre-amp was not a very good pre-amp , for reason we have discussed earlier. The C22 was Mac finest pre-amp. Look at what the C22 is selling for today in comparsion to the C28. That also includes the 2105 which does not sound as good as the MC275 , MC75's or the MC60's.

rw Why don't audiophiles like McIntosh

[Mr Peabody]

Melvin, I agree that the digital and analog curves will never be the same but differ on loss of detail using high quality digital playback. A tube DAC from Audio Note may also surprise you as to how much micro and macro dynamics can be preserved. AN uses a no filter technology. Referring to micro/macro analog could still have the edge, I have yet to hear a mega dollar analog rig. It's just in comparing my P3 rig to Krell's 280 or my AN set up I don't notice and lack of information but the two presentations are certainly different. Of course, the Krell vs the AN presentation is different as well. I think the difference in the dynamics of analog/digital is probably more recognizable than I want to admit. My turntable has an excellent sound stage it just doesn't seem to have the space or void between things like my digital and I think that may be the dynamic aspect. I don't think it's noise my phono stage is SS.

I've been fortunate enough to hear Krell's KPS-28, or 25c, whatever their big preamp was with the built in CD player. I get the two models mixed up, I've heard both but one is a $7,500.00 player where the pre/cd combo was $20k. I know these things are system dependent but the pre/cd combo from Krell is the best digital playback I've ever heard. I also briefly heard a Linn $20k player and T+A has a tube CD player that runs $8k that is outstanding. I wish I had the opportunity to compare that and the Krell side by side. It would also be nice to hear a high dollar turntable with an high doller cart and phono stage.

You should at least consider a better DAC for your changer some day.

[music_man]

I used to own a modest Jolida integrated tube amp and cd player driving Dynaudio Audience speakers and was quite pleased. However, I am ready to trade up to my first true high end system and was seriously considering the 200wpc Mcintosh MA6900 integrated amp, Mcintosh MCD205 CD player and Martin Logan Aeon speakers. I have about $12k to play with. I like a musical sounding amp and was told that Mcintosh is harsh and grainy. Most audiophiles scoff at their name but I think their equipment is timeless, sort of like owning a Rolex. I listen mostly to classic rock. What advice can you give me towards this combination? Could I do much better in this price range?



You've received a lot of good advice from fellow audiphiles and enthusiasts. A subject that isn't always brought up is the quality of the CD's you're listening to. You mentioned classic rock. That's a potential problem for the Martin Logans. The ML's excell with quality recordigs, such as classical or jazz where recording standards and remastering standards are very high. Unfortunately, some classic rock recordings are pure crap. And even in some cases where they were remastered the quality isn't much improved. I mostly listen to classical and jazz, and some classic rock. Going from a classical CD to Hendrix can be frustrating. You notice it immediately. Why is this important? Because the ML's will reveal the limitations of poorly recorded music. It doesn't matter if you're driving them with expensive Levinsons, Krells, etc. It's how the music is mixed by the engineers; they are mixed to be "hot", with excessive treble and bass to accomodate most persons average sounding gear. In fact, one could argue that such CD's sound better on cheaper gear (quality receiver/dynamic speakers, etc.) than expensive gear, especially electrostatic and ribbon/planar speakers which deliver a more revealing sound. The fact that you've heard the ML's means you like the sound, which can be great with proper equipment and music. But as soon as you spin some poorly recorded CD, you'll be fatigued and eventually dissapointed.

The main thing to consider with electrostatic speakers is the load to the amp and PLACEMENT. Do NOT get the ML's if you cannot place them at least a few feet from the rear wall, otherwise you'll lose the imaging quality. Most electrostatics and ribbons deliver VERY low loads (around 1 ohm sometimes). If you're amp doesn't have the power, it's thermal protection circuits (if it has them) will eventually shut down the amp or you may even damage the amp (not a problem with the Mac's). Electrostatics and ribbons like current more than voltage. So make sure the amp you're getting can deliver lots of continuous and peak current (at least 50 amps min.). Plus, high-current amps sound better with electrostatics and ribbons than voltage amps. It's closer to a tube-like sound, which is what you want with ribbons and electrostatics. Otherwise, the sound will be too far forward, less "musical" and fatigueing. There are some amps out there that are hybrids; tube front ends with solid state outputs. These could be a good match. If you stick to a solid state amp, then get a tube preamp. I would also consider a tube cd player, or a tube DAC as well. In fact, some of the NOS (non-oversampling) DAC's out there like the MHDT laboratory tube DAC's sound very analog. Or go with the Benchmark One if you need a 24/196 DAC. These will neutralize any potential grain. Also, be careful in your cables; if you go silver or silver coated the sound will be brighter. Lastly, since you're into classic rock, the ML's don't have the deepest extension, so you will probably have to get a sub to get the punch, or "slam" that exists in regions below 100Hz. I would recommend a HSU as they aren't "boomy" and pretyy musical.

Good luck!

[Mr Peabody]

If you are buying the ML's new they have some excellent models with built in power bass modules whose bass is very good. In fact, the $3k model, whose name escapes me, is fully powered and you can get away with just a preamp. I'd love to hear those with my C-J preamp. ML's are incredible with tubes.

Anyone who says Mac is grainy was just doing some untrue bashing. I've heard even one of their vintage receivers with no hint of grain, only a very pleasant sound. I haven't heard the Mac/ML together but each many times in other systems and my guess is they would be great together.

[JGD]

I think your comparason of McIntosh to Rolex is on the money. McIntosh and Rolex are for people who have more money than taste. (Just my humble opinion). I think you can get a lot more sound quality for the money if you forgo those silly bule meters. Espically in the price range you are considering. NASA picked Omega for the astronaut's watches because they work! Senators wear Rolexes because they sparkle. You need to decide if you want to say WOW, what a system, befor or after you listen!

[bobsticks]

I think your comparason of McIntosh to Rolex is on the money. McIntosh and Rolex are for people who have more money than taste. (Just my humble opinion). I think you can get a lot more soundSenators wear Rolexes because they sparkle. You need to decide if you want to say WOW, what a system, befor or after you listen quality for the money if you forgo those silly bule meters. Espically in the price range you are considering. NASA picked Omega for the astronaut's watches because they work! !

Well, we'll accept that as one road of speculation...probably from a non-McIntosh owner.

I think you may run into problems with the watch analogy insofar as that, as you mentioned, Rolexes (and Panerais and Breitlings for that matter) are finicky at best and beyond marginally crappy at worst. Hi-maintenance to be sure, or to put it another way, not something one would one want as an everyday workhorse. The Mac was, literally, plug 'n' play.

Another problem with universal statements over the web is that you don't know everyone's circumstances. I got my Mac "used", in an unopened box. I paid considerably less than one of the aformentioned Pass Labs or P.S. Audio pieces...and, again, it does everything exactly as promised.

Would I use it to drive 98dB efficient horns? Probably not but with current hungry stats it does it's job with aplomb.

There's room at the table for everyone.

[meltdown]

Ive had my MA6500 for about a year. If you have followed any of my posts, I was having problems driving Sequel2''s with this Mac. The 6900 has autoformers where mine do not. You should not experience any problems with the combo you have choosen. If I had 12G's to spend I would consider Mac seperates, Its great to have everyting in one package, but I believe you will get better sound out of seperates. If your sold on intergrated check out the MA7000.

[basite]

I think your comparason of McIntosh to Rolex is on the money. McIntosh and Rolex are for people who have more money than taste. (Just my humble opinion). I think you can get a lot more sound quality for the money if you forgo those silly bule meters. Espically in the price range you are considering. NASA picked Omega for the astronaut's watches because they work! Senators wear Rolexes because they sparkle. You need to decide if you want to say WOW, what a system, befor or after you listen!


I said WOW (a couple of times, together with other praising words) before AND after I auditioned the Mcintosh.

and before you ask, yes, I heard other high end systems too, many of them costing much more than mine.

have you actually heard a Mcintosh piece? perhaps you'd change your mind if you did.

Mcintosh is for pure music lovers. If music is what you want, Mcintosh is definately worth every penny!

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello.

I have just recently posted a new topic, on whether to save the extra money in order to upgrade to McIntosh.

So in relation to this topic, music_man raised a very good point. The best high end equipment will tell you straight away if the CD you're feeding the player (or source), is of good quality or not.

I have a pair of Dynaudio Contours 1.8 Mark II's, and just as the salesman said, I would
be able to better detect if a CD recording was produced well, or not. I actually auditioned many brands of speakers, it took me 6 months and 30 shops to narrow it down to 3 brands. Dali, B&W, and Dynaudio. I managed to get the latter, and do not regret that decision.

Now it took me 6 months before making an informed decision to part with that much money. It was no where near as 12K, but since we're talking about 12K, one word of advice that you don't have to be an audiophile, or genius to work out, take your SWEET time and audition as many systems as you can. Let your ears tell you what is good as well. I just think 12K worth of money is worth a lot of time to invest before parting. Maybe it's just that I'm old-fashioned. 12K isn't normally spare change. It's harder to justify a 12K bad choice, put it that way.

I have listened recently to a McIntosh and B&W setup, it was from what I was told
a 35K pair of B&W fronts (don't know which model).

1x McIntosh MCD205 CD changer
2x MC1201's
1x McIntosh Control centre (sorry didn't take down the model number)

The overall setup was about 75K to 80K.

Then I put on 2 of my favourite CDs, and one SACD which is their copy in the shop.

Now the CD I first played contained a mp3 song, which was obtained legally from the artist directly, it had to be a good produced mp3. When I played it on my system, I could hear the choirlike sample of about 5 to 8 voices.

When I heard that same track in the shop, it was as if someone cleaned my ears out, I could hear an additional 20 voices in the same song. It was absolutely incredible.
I auditioned a new CD I brought from last week, and it was great. I got a better kick from the mp3, so it really does make a difference what CD you feed it.

I am going to find it extremely hard to find any alturnatives to McIntosh, perhaps it's the poor setups of all of the other shops that I've gone to. I just checked ebay before posting this post, that there are NO McIntosh items for sale. Only outside Australia. Ok there are not many Australian distributors (I am in Oz), but I have not heard of any returns or resales either. The only resales I have heard are tradeins for upgraded McIntosh gear.

I'll be honest, I'm not extreme expert, I have spend many years researching the jargon, and keeping up with technology. I've never taken someone's advice at face value until confirming it from other sources. Much of what I have heard about some things or another ended up being untrue.

For example, it was argued that there is no point getting equipment with balanced/XLR connections if you are working with 1 m lengths or less because there's no benefit.
About 99.99% of everyone else blatently invite me to come and see them just to prove that point wrong. Hook up unbalanced, then hook up balanced, and hear for yourself.

No you really have to hear a full McIntosh set up, and bring along at least 5 different CDs, and or SACDs/DVD-Audio if possible. You need to listen to good recorded ones, and perhaps not as good, at least you know what you're listening to, and pay close attention to picking up additional detail that you could not find in other places you've listened to the same CD to. You'll know for sure if this equipment will suit you. Also close your eyes when listening to a key part of one of your favourite songs, so you can capture a system's full potential.

A good set up and a reputable shop doesn't need to bombard you and try to justify why their product is so good, or should be brought. They should leave you alone and let you listen to an album/cd as long as you want (within reason).

The salesman, knew I was going to like the McIntosh gear, it was as if every other brand
was a waste of time to listen to. Ok, McIntosh I don't have the budget to buy it all now,
but who says I need to buy it all straight away ? one by one, layby.

Ok, I'd have to disagree with the CD player being the MOST important component in the system. If you have a $10000 player, but $50 speakers, and $50 amp, sorry, the listening experience is bad. End of story.

A resonable percentage of total cost should be invested in the source(s), the amp, AND the speakers. As a general guide, about 10% of the total cost should go towards the cabling (speakers and interconnects).

You may end up finding out that you will need more than 12K to finish the rest of your upgrades. I'd audition as many brands as possible, and the same brand in more than 2 shops, because you don't want to accept, or dismiss a certain brand based on poor set up (unless you're unfortunate like me as most brands are available in only 1 shop :( )

Some of the higher McIntosh amps have a built in current protection system, which protect your speakers. I believe that is a feature not worth being neglected. Go to their offcial site and find out for yourself.

I think it is worthwhile going to the official sites, and download their manuals. You need to find out what it can do. Features are also important. Some companies give you the advantage of remote hooking up all of your equipment so you just need one remote to power all 3 or 4 components.

I have been told that McIntosh have other power/shortage, surge proection features built in, so it is worth your while to go to the site and confirm that.

The cheaper brands and components just do not have such features, the dollars it costs should be a useful indicator. At least worth a read of the owners manuals.

One thing you must also consider, which has not been mentioned in this thread,
you may want to look around for additional/new technologies which are only available in the 'newer' components. You may want to consider (future-proofing) your investment, if it's possible. I.e. something which has more inputs, HDMI, or more types, will give you more options 3 years down the track. Waiting 6 months more to get that better pair of speakers, or other component may be worth it.

[E-Stat]

I have just recently posted a new topic, on whether to save the extra money in order to upgrade to McIntosh.
I would recommend listening to products from other companies as well during your search like Audio Research, VTL, Pass Labs, BAT, Conrad-Johnson, etc. subject of course to availability down under.


For example, it was argued that there is no point getting equipment with balanced/XLR connections if you are working with 1 m lengths or less because there's no benefit.
The challenge with all things cable related is all the variables. You really cannot make a blanket statement either way.


Some of the higher McIntosh amps have a built in current protection system, which protect your speakers. I believe that is a feature not worth being neglected. Go to their offcial site and find out for yourself.
Actually most any amp has some sort of internal VI current limiting designed primarily to protect the amplifier, not the speaker. Some brands, however, like Pass Labs don't need such because the output stage is more capable. I think you are referring to their Power Guard circuitry. It's a compressor. Sorry, but I think compromising the signal by putting a compressor in the signal path on a presumed high end product to protect speakers from clueless folks who don't understand (or hear) clipping is ridiculous. You find that on mid-fi and pro gear.

rw

[Mr Peabody]

Nice speakers Ozzie. If you are driving them with your Yammie you haven't begun to hear what they are capable of. I doubt if it can even break them in. That was going to be my speaker until the 2.5 came out. You should hear your speaker strapped to a Krell amp. Current is what Dyn's like.

Mac is good stuff, it depends on what type of sound you like. Though it's expensive and considered high end, I've heard more revealing for the same price range.

I would agree a system should be balanced but the source IS the most important. If the information isn't taken off the disc, LP or whatever, it's lost, nothing you will add down stream will get that information for you. You have to start with a good source, extract as much info as it is capable of, then maintain it the best you can throughout the rest of the system, and then until it reaches your ears, which include, possible room treatments if necessary.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello E-Stat.

Thankyou for the feedback.

I will have to do some further research about the PowerGuard. You make it sound like
it's definately not worth it.

I have heard the unit in operating performance, the quality of the sound is absolutely
supurb.

It doesn't mean I will not audition any further brands, however it is WA, I am very limited as to brand choice. Most of them are low budget, to low-middle budget ranges. My old Yamaha receiver is better than 30% of all of the amps in WA.

Cheers.

[E-Stat]

Hello E-Stat.

Thankyou for the feedback.
You're welcome. McIntosh is a grand old brand which continues to make very high quality gear. If you look at the product's "core values" (their term), however, you find their focus is on big blue meters and cosmetics. On their website, go to the integrated amplifier page. Note the first two such values.

You cannot go wrong buying Mac, but like Harley-Davidson, you will not be getting the most performance for your money. Both products emphasize image and bling over state-of-the-art performance.

Good luck in your search.

rw

[OzzieAudiophile]

Mr Peabody, thankyou for the praise and feedback.

You may have a point regarding them possibly not being broken in, however I purchased
a store demo pair, which made them more affordable. I have not idea how much they
were played before I brought them. I would guess not enough to be broken in. It was
however a LONG time ago. The imaging, I'm very happy with.

E-Stat you raised a very good point in terms of the Harley analogy. Make no mistake
the astetics is one of the lowest of priorities on my check list. I am just happy you do
have the option to turn off the lights on the meters.

You have NO idea just how much I'm aching to get a new amp. It's been nearly
7 years since I got the Yamaha, the lack of juice to power my Dyns is the only thing
I can fault about it. Only after these many years have I finally been able to start putting
some money away for some new components.

With thanks to all of you guys help, I will be able to make a most imformed decision.
However I am limited to the brands available, and there are probably like 5 to 6 brands
which one would consider as hi end equipment.

My ears will be the greatest deciding factor in what I finally end up getting.

95% of the rest of the available brands can only be obtained in the Eastern States (not
in WA), and I'm not willing to take a change making on online purchase of a 6 to 10K
component without personally auditioning it. I know you understand that, consider WA
equivalent to maybe a small European Village that is still using the Abacus for a
calculator lol.

[MrAcoustat]

Our hobby is purely subjective and opinions on equipment are like a**holes, everyone has one. Paul Seydor at TAS thinks Mac's latest tube and ss amps are some of the very best extant, regardless of price. He drives his Quad 989's with them for his reference system. Considering the Quads are one of the most transparent and revealing speakers ever made, it would seem safe to assume that if Mac's were "harsh and grainy," these speakers would be the first to proclaim it.

As with everything else, let your own ears decide for you and leave the posturing to everyone else. $12 large will buy you just about anything you want. The last CES had a display where (unbeknownst to the listeners) a pair of $11,500 Wilson Sophia's driven by a $1k Parasound amp and Apple iPod w/ Radio Shack patch cords clearly trounced a set of competitors $16K speakers being driven by $35K worth of Krell. The point wasn't that the Sophias were far superior, simply that your return on investment is better represented by great speakers instead of $1000 cables. I'd find my speakers first and then worry about finding a nice synergistic match with the front end. If the Aeons are your bag and you like the way they sound with Mac's, who are we, or anybody else for that matter, to say you're wrong?

It's your money.

Now that's telling it like it is some like blondes some brunettes some redheads me well i like them all but in audio like you say topspeed you are paying the bill you are the one that will be living with the system so TRUST YOUR OWN EARS

[MrAcoustat]

Our hobby is purely subjective and opinions on equipment are like a**holes, everyone has one. Paul Seydor at TAS thinks Mac's latest tube and ss amps are some of the very best extant, regardless of price. He drives his Quad 989's with them for his reference system. Considering the Quads are one of the most transparent and revealing speakers ever made, it would seem safe to assume that if Mac's were "harsh and grainy," these speakers would be the first to proclaim it.

As with everything else, let your own ears decide for you and leave the posturing to everyone else. $12 large will buy you just about anything you want. The last CES had a display where (unbeknownst to the listeners) a pair of $11,500 Wilson Sophia's driven by a $1k Parasound amp and Apple iPod w/ Radio Shack patch cords clearly trounced a set of competitors $16K speakers being driven by $35K worth of Krell. The point wasn't that the Sophias were far superior, simply that your return on investment is better represented by great speakers instead of $1000 cables. I'd find my speakers first and then worry about finding a nice synergistic match with the front end. If the Aeons are your bag and you like the way they sound with Mac's, who are we, or anybody else for that matter, to say you're wrong?

It's your money.

Very well said topspeed is 100% right it's your money so use your ears never mind what anybody else say if you like a smooth sound that you can listend for many hours then go for it you will be happy lot's of people don't like something when they can not afford them Mcintosh is one of many fine makes in audio and as been around for more than 50 years and believe me it's not for their speakers they make very good and durable electronics if you want a lively sound then it's not for you they MA-6900 is a sleeper amp.

[Mr Peabody]

That CES story is bull. Either there was something not set up right with the Krell system or those speakers were crap like Vandersteens or something. I had an mp3 player hooked to my Krell integrated before and it was not tolerable. It's alright for commuting on public transportation but there's no way a mp3 would hold it's own against a good CD player, especially one like Krell. No matter how good a Wilson is, it won't put back into the music what didn't come from the source in the first place. And, whether Krell or Mac when you are top dog there's always some one trying to put you down. It's absurd to think a $1k Parasound has the resolution and drive of a Krell amp. Even at the same volume. This must be some kind of urban legend. If it really happened the people who thought the Wilson's sounded better saw the brand and said what they thought wanted to be heard. There's no way the compression from the mp3 could be hidden. Even if the Ipod had lossless tracks the Krell would be obviously better. I'm not shooting the messenger Topspeed. The story is so beyond belief to anyone who has experience with that type of gear I wouldn't have beleived it no matter the reporting source. If anyone in their right mind believed it they might as well just have a budget receiver and Ipod because there isn't anything better. I know you have bought gear and I trust it was based on what you heard, so if you can judge between components in the budget you were shopping in how in the world could you ever believe or repeat something this crazy?

The point you were making about trusting our own ears is a good one though. Mac and harsh should never be in the same sentence.

[audio amateur]

There's some stuff from Melvin in here for those who need to catch up :D

[geronimo]

I am looking for Balanced cables to connect a McIntosh Amp and Pre Amp.
Where can I find these?

[Mr Peabody]

Any place that sells quality cables. Like a hi fi specialty shop. If you need online try:

www.bluejeanscable.com
www.amusicdirect.com

I'd imagine even www.amazon.com could hook you up with a variety.