Fisher vs Mcintosh

AlTinkster92

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Being a huge Fisher fan and own a great 800C which I love, I have been looking at Mcintosh receivers and wonder why if they are so great (which I'm sure they are), Fisher tube receivers seem to go up in value but MAcs solid state goes down? Been looking at a MAc 4100 that supposedly sold for 2K back when new, now these go for around 700.00 Never owned a Mac, any advise here? I love my Fisher!
 
you're comparing apples and oranges. Tube gear tends to go up, as the Post baby boomers are discovering them and Solid State is getting left by the way side. I'd say if you can get a 2K Mac for $700, I'd be all over it like stink of shit. Plus they still have Factory Service from what I understand.

Larry
 
and while this is not tube gear, from what I have seen lately a MC2105 now gets 1400 dollars or more, they used to only get 700-800.
 
Fisher was known for their tube gear. McIntosh made a few receivers but they weren't their best units, and it's not what they made their name on. Look at some McIntosh tube gear, and it's gone up more than the Fisher tube gear. IMHO even $700 is way too much for a Mac4100. I had one, there was nothing special about it except the price (again, my opinion).
 
Hiya,

Well Fisher is the flavor of the month and what is "Hot" right now.

Mac stuff is "Warm" to "Red Hot" all the time.

I don't think anything Fisher has made since 1965 can touch anything Mac related.

And most Mac Amps run rings around equivalent Fisher gear.

Now is it worth the difference. Well that is a matter of personal opinion.

Frannie
 
Thanks you guys, you all are a wealth of knowledge for me. I grew up with Fishers and will stick with them. Hard to fight the bug to explore MAc's though and frankly I can't listen to more than one at a time anyway!
 
Thanks you guys, you all are a wealth of knowledge for me. I grew up with Fishers and will stick with them. Hard to fight the bug to explore MAc's though and frankly I can't listen to more than one at a time anyway!

MC240/SA100 and four speakers :music:
 
I grew up with the opinion that McIntosh's were for guys who didn't have to ask that question................"How much is it"?..........and could afford to pay to have the work done by the factory if it broke, without thinking about the bank accounts.
 
Forums like this have drawn a lot of attention to Fisher gear lately...I would say that's a big part of the recent Fisher price increase. It was super-expensive back in the day and very under-valued in the used market until recently.

Trends change & the Mac SS stuff will pick up steam again. I think the weight (expensive shipping) may be a factor in lower selling prices for the Mac gear.

My MX110 + MC2505 blow my 400CX2 & SA-300 outta the water...just sayin'
 
I grew up with the opinion that McIntosh's were for guys who didn't have to ask that question................"How much is it"?..........and could afford to pay to have the work done by the factory if it broke, without thinking about the bank accounts.

I grew up getting my Mc stuff fixed free of charge at the Mac clinics if needed.
When I did have to pay for repairs, McIntosh sent free parts for the other section that would need attention in the future.

I have nothing but good things to say about the good old, far gone days of McIntosh. :yes:
 
Both are good.
Both were way overbuilt.
Both used top quality components.
Fisher is a lot less expensive now.

I have no idea how both brands, when fully restored and optimized, would compare.
 
Both excellent, the McIntosh better in some ways. I have owned and loved both and enjoyed both makes. The Fishers are still great tube bargains though getting pricey and they are reliable if kept serviced. And they are also sweet sounding. Love their sweet midrange and highs really well.
 
My first "real" piece of gear was an 800B given by my grandfather. It was very heavy and very well made. It even had FM/AM stereo which allowed you to tune seperately and play AM and FM through each channel. I believe a few stations broadcast "mostly" left and right through AM and FM. There was even a stereo reverse switch in case the transmitters got them backwards. It even had a "phase reverse" switch- in the event you wired your speakers wrong- I'm assuming. I used to get Sylvania 7591s for $20 which was a lot of money back in '79 (to me). None of the other tubes seemed to go bad.

It's interesting the similarities in design between that receiver and the MAC 1500. I believe the prices were about $350 for the Fisher and $500 for the MAC and I think they both used 7591s for the outputs. I could be dead wrong here but I'm guessing the same percentage difference between the two exists today valuewise, all other things equal.
 
I like the 800B actually better than the MAC 1500. And a receiver I would love to own. I love Fisher tube and early SS gear. And the Fisher 800B is all tube, the MAC receivers were all hybrids and the MAC 1500 has a SS preamplifier section.
 
It's pretty fortunate that pricing is affected by rarety as well as performance. Fisher sold stuff by the boatload, unlike Mac. We are pretty lucky to have such a huge choice of 50 year old Fisher receivers to get. I remember having a friend who had a MAC1500- it looked and sounded nice but it was not significantly better (if at all) than a comparable Fisher.

It's equally amazing that the Fisher stuff still looks great after 50 years. My kids will still be using my 400 in another 50 years, if there is still decent FM to listen to by then.

Still I do love the vintage patina of the MAC's, too. Is there such a thing as MAC tarnish? They all seem to have that same interesting color patina on the chrome.....not sure that I can describe it. No other brand seems to look like that as it ages.
 

Attachments

  • Fisher.jpg
    Fisher.jpg
    59.9 KB · Views: 74
You need to compare apples to apples. Mc never made a all-tube receiver or integrated amp while Fisher did. Years ago, and even recently, Fisher tube gear hald little value. I remember the time when a used tubed Fisher and early SS units were not worth the shelf space for resale value. The depreciation finally bottomed out and prices started to rise.

Mc recievers do not go back into time, the period of when hybrid tube/ss was out. The 600-T receiver is the only comparable in the Fisher line up so research the market for these and then compare it to the 1500 and 1700. I think you'll fine the Mc has not depreciated compared to the depreciation on the 600-T and current values.

Mc does depreciate but at least the vintage gear the depreciation bottomed earlier than most competition and prices stabilized and tend to for at least some period and before stating to appreciate. Mc has less a collectors market while having more of a user market so appreciation may not be as rapid except with the earliest tube units and only more recently has it seems the early ss units are finally crossing the line into the collector status.
 
Hiya,

Lets take a comparison

Fisher FM-1000 (Near 2000 restored with the crazy prices)

Mac MR71 (Around the same price)

To be honest the Mac is better laid out and a better deal.

The Fisher is massively inflated and maybe 6 years ago when it was 300 or so a GREAT deal.

Anyhow .. many many ways to slice this.

My point is that the Mac stuff has been consistent in price and Fisher stuff is over priced.

And to echo something. Which one of you is lining up to pay top dollar for anything Fisher Hybrid. ??

You keep trotting out Mac hybrids and comparing them to all tube Fishers.

Fisher was a better value and a excellent performer for the dollar but rapidly that is changing and its not because Fisher is better. Its because of a certain level of crazy speculation being done over seas.

Frannie
 
Last edited:
Lots of valid points here.

I suspect the only accurate comparison is on monoblocs and stereo amplifiers.
Both would have to be restored for the comparison to actually be true and probably have a comparable tube complement.
So, compare a 6L6 output to a 6L6 output and a 7591 output to a 7591 output.
 
I agree with Brian's statement- values of tube Fisher seem to have been increasing lately. It's curious thing that they took so long to do so as we're talking 50 year old gear here. Very underappreciated and undervalued likely due to Fisher's relatively high product output and little to due with a lack of performance (IMHO).

My curiosity having been piqued by this discussion, I took another look at some 800s and found two that were sold for over $1,000. Almost unheard of a couple years ago. (They were the C model, not the B which seems less common) The 500s were a lot less though.
 
As I said comparing hybrids to all-tube or SS is not apples to apples.

As to the price increasing of Fisher, part collector feaver, part realization that Fisher units both tube and SS were quite innovative and very good to excellent while Mc really did not concentrate on other than the separates and the tuner/preamps. It only was in the receiver and integrated amp market to have exposure and an entry point. Where as Fisher used the receivers more as an equal to its tuner, amp and separates lineup.

I've do love the 1700 and 1900 but would go with a 4100 if I were to go with and want a Mc receiver but, would first go to the early high end Sonys that were as well built and sound better. I had the Fisher 600-T receiver but it needed caps so gave it little time in system to prevent damage. It was good but from experience even with the capping, I do not doubt it would come up to the 1500 or 1700 for the most part. I did part with it before having it done but kept the TFM tuner and TX300 amp that makes up the 600-T and maybe one day will have them go through as both need recapping and I'd have them totally recapped due to age and reputation of the German caps they used.

As for values of the Fisher; I think you have to look at the engineering and quality of construction. 1st rate. As good and in some cases I think better than Mc. The company especially when they introduced their SS units with varactor tuners and presets and things like shielding. Their short comings were German sourced caps, early adoption of wave soldering that left cold solder joints until they nailed it down and in some cases plug in transistors that sadly are higher maintenance as to needing cleaning. Also, their early units used germanium transistors that were more failure prone than the later silicon. Working units tend to be fewer per thousand than Mc. as to the SS but they came out earlier than the Mc units.

As Mc did not have all-tube receivers, the contest is between Sherwood, Fisher and Scott. Scott and Sherwood were smaller companies and tended to be more regional based though of course Fisher's primary market was NYC but just NYC was larger than the Boston and NE market population wise and Chicago and region. The west coast was pretty much H-K, a consideration the hipping costs increases and product pricing when crossing the rockies in either direction. Also, Fisher covered more price points than either Scott or Sherwood. Sherwood for instance had only 1 fm and one am-fm receiver. I do think in absolute terms the Sherwood actually is the best of the all-tube receivers including the 500c and 800 Fishers while as a New Englander I also prefer those beautiful rotary dial Scotts, especially when there is soft illumonation on them. Scotts are between under the radar and coming out of the closet while the Sherwoods are a bit more out of the closet but not by much; they are hard to accpt because of the faceplate, love it or hate it, not being tall like the others and their simplicity of design that makes some think they were Muntzed which is far from the truth as they were the results of a purely engineering company with little spent for marketing.

I find the Fisher receivers good value for the money even at today's going prices that is a mix of collector and user pricing, whether tube, hybrid or SS but not necessarily the best sounding in any one category.
 
Back
Top Bottom