What is it about McIntosh?

[JBT]

No to the 'very best' in American engineering. Mac represents old school. Big and heavy--not fast and light. They've staked out a place in the luxury market, and cater to that group. I don't think anyone believes McIntosh is cutting edge or the best in engineering. Cutting edge belongs to companies that offer SOA and forward thinking. Benchmark is more representative of the best American audio-related engineering than McIntosh. That does not mean there isn't a place for Mac. They've been around longer than anyone. So I hope they continue if for no other reason than that.

Hilarious. This is as cutting edge as it gets



https://www.worldwidestereo.com/blogs/wws-underground/entries/mcintosh-mc901-review

 

[anmpr1]

Hilarious. This is as cutting edge as it gets

I really don't know who buys something like this. Has to be the man who sends his valet to the audio salon with a handful of Woodrow Wilson Fed notes in his pocket, and the dealer hires Two Men and a Truck for the delivery and makes the installation.

A tube amp for the highs and solid state for the lows. Didn't Bob Carver do something like that at Sunfire, with his transfer function gimmick? Big Blue Meter. The audio equivalent of Ric Flair's Big Gold Belt. But you only get one--although it's actually two meters in one. Clever.

The speaker they show with it (at their Website) reminds me of Don Keele's Audio Artistry multi-driver array. But the Mac is prettier. Better finish. You expect that for your tens of thousands of dollars. McIntosh has been selling these 'line sources' for ages. I don't know how they (or Keele) can properly integrate 70+ drivers into something that sounds coherent, but it's there if that's what your wallet is looking for.

I'm trying to think of an example of another company that's gone from selling solid well built but down to earth products to producing just plain weird..., and for through the roof dollars? And let's face it, this product is just plain weird. But I can't, off the top of my head.

PS: What's the wine? I guess if your daily drinker table wine is something from Pauillac, and if you buy it by the case, then this McGear is on your short list.

 

[JBT]

Is that the best you can do? For the record I had a Benchmark Dac 2 in a game room system and its a fine little Dac. Since it uses the ESS Dac chip like my Mcintosh D1100 in my main rig so I did a shootout with the D1100

System is 2 Mcintosh 601s, C1100 preamp and Aurender N10 as the source. This is a very large room with Vandersteen 5 speakers Benchmark sounded fine . Compared to the Mcintosh though it sounded small. The soundstage of the D1100 was clearly dominate. The D1100 costs 7 grand compared to the Benchmark which I paid 1500 for. I'm not knocking the Benchmark Dac by any means. It sounded really good in my game room system. Mcintosh MC 275, C2200 and Lumin U1 source. I sold it in the fall of 2019 because I bought the PrimaLuna Evo 100 Tube Dac which is a better fit with the Mcintosh Tube gear IMO.

 

[Mashcky]

I was in the rare position of getting hand-me-down vintage McIntosh. For approximately $300, I sent my MC2100 to be repaired and in return, got an amp that is beautiful, sentimental, plenty powerful, and performs at less than .1% THD+N across the audible band. I'd say that's pretty good, even by modern standards, for price/performance. It's too bad even their vintage units are overpriced compared to modern alternatives. For example, my MC2100 power amp is worth about $1,000 on the market, the same as two channels of state of the art class D power.

So what is it about McIntosh? Long life, decency, beauty, and serviceability. Plus it helps warm up my basement in the winter.

 

[BDWoody]

This is a very large room with Vandersteen 5 speakers Benchmark sounded fine . Compared to the Mcintosh though it sounded small. The soundstage of the D1100 was clearly dominate

How did you do this comparison?

Did you employ any controls to offset the bias any human might have? Hard not to like something more when it cost multiples of something else.

Would be interesting to see how obvious it would all be in a proper level matched double blind test, but those are too much trouble for most to bother with.
They'd rather buy a 5 figure DAC without actually trying to 'hear' if it makes a difference when not peeking.

 

[anmpr1]

Is that the best you can do? For the record I had a Benchmark Dac 2 in a game room system and its a fine little Dac. Since it uses the ESS Dac chip like my Mcintosh D1100 in my main rig so I did a shootout with the D1100.

The DAC-2 is sonically transparent. If you really heard a difference then your other DAC was adding imperfections. But probably your test wasn't 'blind' and you just imagined the changes. It is a well known psychoacoustic phenomenon. We've all experience it.

 

[anmpr1]

I was in the rare position of getting hand-me-down vintage McIntosh.

The company under Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow offered no-nonsense well built gear for the era. I am quite fond of their 'old' stuff. Frank and Gordon would not have understood or appreciated what their company has morphed into.

 

[JBT]

The DAC-2 is sonically transparent. If you really heard a difference then your other DAC was adding imperfections. But probably your test wasn't 'blind' and you just imagined the changes. It is a well known psychoacoustic phenomenon. We've all experience it.

It's hard to miss soundstage. I'll say it again. The Benchmark sounded small compared to the D1100

The company under Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow offered no-nonsense well built gear for the era. I am quite fond of their 'old' stuff. Frank and Gordon would not have understood or appreciated what their company has morphed into.

LOL. And you certain about this?

 

[peanuts]

Hilarious. This is as cutting edge as it gets



https://www.worldwidestereo.com/blogs/wws-underground/entries/mcintosh-mc901-review

an almost 100kg amplifier is cutting edge? im betting a 1kg icepower outperforms it on the bench. all that metal for nothing.
i do like tube amps but this is over the top ..

 

[JBT]

The DAC-2 is sonically transparent. If you really heard a difference then your other DAC was adding imperfections. But probably your test wasn't 'blind' and you just imagined the changes. It is a well known psychoacoustic phenomenon. We've all experience it.

It's hard to miss soundstage. I'll say it again. The Benchmark sounded small compared to the D1100. The DAC is run in Quad-Balanced mode, which dedicates four of the DAC channels each to the left and right signal paths. The analog section is fully balanced. It is state of the art.


The Benchmark was hooked up to my Aurender N10 streamer and I played 10 songs . Pulled out the Benchmark and the D100 to the Aurender. Played the same 10 songs. It is what it is.

 

[anmpr1]

1) It's hard to miss soundstage. I'll say it again. The Benchmark sounded small compared to the D1100
2) And you certain about this?

1) It's easy to fool oneself. A DAC 2 is transparent. If your DAC did, however, cause a change in 'soundstage' then it was doing something it shouldn't have been doing. My guess would be that you were experiencing an SPL artifact due to level mismatch. Or imagination.

2) Yes. At least pretty sure. Living through the late '50s through late '70s audio scene, and watching McIntosh as a company under these men during that time, I have a pretty good notion of what was important to them, and what wasn't. What they wanted the company to be and what they thought was mere fashion and trend. However, neither are with us to comment, so it's just a reasoned guess on my part.

 

[JBT]

1) It's easy to fool oneself. A DAC 2 is transparent. If your DAC did, however, cause a change in 'soundstage' then it was doing something it shouldn't have been doing. My guess would be that you were experiencing an SPL artifact due to level mismatch. Or imagination.

2) Yes. At least pretty sure. Living through the late '50s through late '70s audio scene, and watching McIntosh as a company under these men during that time, I have a pretty good notion of what was important to them, and what wasn't. What they wanted the company to be and what they thought was mere fashion and trend. However, neither are with us to comment, so it's just a reasoned guess on my part.

Yeah, my ears aren't as good as yours. ROFLO

 

[BDWoody]

It's hard to miss soundstage

Especially when you know which one is playing.

No need to roll on the floor...

It isn't about who has better hearing...it's about who bothers to use a controlled process to make these subjective judgments. Without them, you'll pretty much hear what you've been told to expect...

 

[anmpr1]

Yeah, my ears aren't as good as yours. ROFLO

It's not just my ears. I recall the big Nelson Pass-Yamaha integrated amplifier shoot out. Look at the archives. South Flordia audio store owner Steve Zipser was certain his big buck class A amps were sonic marvels. Arnie Krueger showed up with a then 10 year old Yamaha integrated, matched the levels, and with the Zipsters own high-end gear he couldn't tell the difference.

You have to control the variables or your judgement isn't reliable. I know that these facts are hard to deal with. I've been there. I can attest to it. Before you start rolling all over the floor laughing, save yourself some embarrassment and try a serious listening session with brands hidden and levels matched.

 

[Wes]

I know who buys something like this - 2 examples.

One an MD in a sub-spec. who is a bachelor and makes a very high income - races cars & likes the looks - he also thinks the SQ is top notch (and maybe it is).

Second a law prof. (business) also a bachelor and makes a very high income - has a fancy boat and has gone thru several different luxury cars.

Both just don't want to think too much about the Desolation Row of having to pick up a new area of expertise to decide on best SQ per $$ and don't care about the $$ anyway. They also like the looks.

IS there anything wrong with their choices? I mean modern mac gear doesn't sound bad.

If I were going to buy on visual aesthetics tho, I'd get Accuphase. I noted one of their items didn't measure great but then again how bad before the SQ actually goes down for electronics gear?

 

[AudioTodd]

Akitika has that David Hafler look. Back in the day you could even buy a McIntosh kit--the MacKit 30. I think it should be mandatory that every aspiring audiophile build a kit. There's nothing like pride of ownership along with the pure fun of doing it yourself. The smell of solder and burning fingertips! LOL Below was my summer project a few years ago.

View attachment 58946

I know this is OT, but I can't resist asking if those are Mark IV amps. Also, what model - or is it a custom adaptation - of preamp is that? It doesn't look like any Dynakit I can find pictures of.

 

[AudioTodd]

The company under Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow offered no-nonsense well built gear for the era. I am quite fond of their 'old' stuff. Frank and Gordon would not have understood or appreciated what their company has morphed into.

I love old McIntosh gear. I have a pair of 50W-2s that, back when they worked, sounded GLORIOUS! By that I mean gloriously not accurate but SO SEDUCTIVE compared to my Hafler DH220 of the era. There would, of course, be NO CONTEST over which one was more accurate and measurably so, but those old tube "tone controls" and "second and third harmonic generators" did sound so enjoyable. They are a neat flashback to a long-gone era, at least for those of us that don't spend $XX,XXX.XX on crazy boutique tube amps!!

One blew a power transformer 30+ years ago. Maybe I should have them rebuilt some day... A big job as the iron is potted in some sort of stuff...

 

[GXAlan]

The company under Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow offered no-nonsense well built gear for the era. I am quite fond of their 'old' stuff. Frank and Gordon would not have understood or appreciated what their company has morphed into.

I agree. I have a MC2105 and a MC2102 representing the first and last “amps” that reflect that core philosophy of McIntosh. The Mc2105 looks great, and for a design from the 1960s probably has a SINAD close to 77 at 5W. Main advantage of it is reliability. These amps are still going while I have had NAD, Parasound, and Proceed/Mark Levinson amps run into trouble.

The last “special” amp from McIntosh was the MC2102, especially when run with GE 6550 tubes. I have one and it consistently performs well — Sidney Corderman designed his tube amps to take advantage of the high current and inherent soft clipping capabilities of valves but to minimize coloration. Distortion and noise in the first watt is very good.

http://sportsbil.com/mcintosh/Amps/MC2102/MC2102_tst.pdf

Many solid state amps do worse in that first watt.

 

[anmpr1]

I know this is OT, but I can't resist asking if those are Mark IV amps. Also, what model - or is it a custom adaptation - of preamp is that? It doesn't look like any Dynakit I can find pictures of.

Thanks for asking. They are 'NOS clones' of a MkIV. The difference is the predriver tube. The original Dave Hafler-Ed Laurent design used a 7199 which is no longer made. Mine uses a 6GH8A w/adapter. The 'sound' is pretty much vintage 1960. I did change out the speaker terminals. The original spade lug contact points were ridiculous. But that's the way it was in 1960.

https://www.dynakitparts.com/shop/mark-iv-kit-120-vac/

The preamp is Dyna in look, only. From Erhard Audio. Their boards/kit use a solid state rectifier. The phono input is JFET based with tube followers. For low noise.

http://www.erhard-audio.com/PAS-NG.html

 

[AudioTodd]

Thanks for asking. They are 'NOS clones' of a MkIV. The difference is the predriver tube. The original Dave Hafler-Ed Laurent design used a 7199 which is no longer made. Mine uses a 6GH8A w/adapter. The 'sound' is pretty much vintage 1960. I did change out the speaker terminals. The original spade lug contact points were ridiculous. But that's the way it was in 1960.

https://www.dynakitparts.com/shop/mark-iv-kit-120-vac/

The preamp is Dyna in look, only. From Erhard Audio. Their boards/kit use a solid state rectifier. The phono input is JFET based with tube followers. For low noise.

http://www.erhard-audio.com/PAS-NG.html

Very cool. I was going to ask about that tube adapter, but forgot to. I noticed the dynakitparts.com pics didn’t seem to have them. Thanks!