monkboughtlunch
Super Member
You're right. The text was so small I missed that. So this 500B didn't meet Fisher's own published specs for harmonic distortion. It would have been 7 years old when tested and may have had out of spec tubes.
Fisher vs Mcintosh
- Thread starter AlTinkster92
- Start date
You're right. The text was so small I missed that. So this 500B didn't meet Fisher's own published specs for harmonic distortion. It would have been 7 years old when tested and may have had out of spec tubes.
Fred; I'm reading that graph on page 3 as it goes above .5% @ 50Hz not 40. And on the high side crosses .5% @ 15kHz.Is there another blue line just under this that crosses .5% @ 20kHz? I'm not sure even with a magnifier.
But the thing to consider here is that this is only representative of ONE Receiver, not a group avg. There may be numerous reasons this unit apparently did not meet FISHER's own spec's for it. Age, LAck of Maintenance, Heat, worn parts, worn tubes, etc., etc., etc. AND it's NOT under laboratory conditions where units will usually do better than a quick sweep "on the street" as it were.
But the thing to consider here is that this is only representative of ONE Receiver, not a group avg. There may be numerous reasons this unit apparently did not meet FISHER's own spec's for it. Age, LAck of Maintenance, Heat, worn parts, worn tubes, etc., etc., etc. AND it's NOT under laboratory conditions where units will usually do better than a quick sweep "on the street" as it were.
Last edited:
If I may -- Fisher never specified the frequency at which the distortion specification was made at -- they just gave their specification, and a power level the specification was made at. In this case, and as was common practice back in the day, it is understood then that in the absence of any stated frequency range, the distortion specification is based on a test frequency of 1kHz. It was also common practice that the specification for power and distortion was made with a single channel driven. That's why it was tested at 25 watts per channel, versus the rating being shown to be 30 watts per channel. That the Mac gear could produce their rated power from 20Hz to 20kHz with no more than .5% THD at any frequency within that range, and with both channels driven, is what set them apart. Part of their secret in being able to do that, is they significantly underrated their products. For example, it is not uncommon for a properly operating MC 240 to supply 50 watts in both channels at the same time, while meeting full McIntosh specifications as well. But by only rating it at 40 watts per channel then, it allowed for significant tube deterioration while still performing to spec.
The 25 Hz to 25 kHz specification for the Fisher regards its frequency response only, and is commonly made at a 1 watt power level.
Dave
The 25 Hz to 25 kHz specification for the Fisher regards its frequency response only, and is commonly made at a 1 watt power level.
Dave
During the tube era days of the Clinic program, I believe that non-McIntosh products would also be serviced.
In any case, its probably fair to say that no Fisher tube receiver capable of making 30 wpc RMS, 20-20K @ 0.5% THD or less, both channels operating. By FTC standards of '74, they're probably good for the upper teens to low 20s which was still plenty for most popular loudspeakers at the time - except maybe for an AR 3 and a few others.
In any case, its probably fair to say that no Fisher tube receiver capable of making 30 wpc RMS, 20-20K @ 0.5% THD or less, both channels operating. By FTC standards of '74, they're probably good for the upper teens to low 20s which was still plenty for most popular loudspeakers at the time - except maybe for an AR 3 and a few others.
Last edited:
fred soop
Super Member
Don't try to read too much into the fine print on the graph. These were not automated sweeps across the band but manual measurements made only at the points where you see a dot (100, 40, 25, 1k and 15k). The lines connecting the dots were a freehand sweep of Dave O'Briens hand and sometimes based on their experience with many samples of a more popular unit. My Heathkit AR-15 was only measured at 1kHz, 20 Hz, and 20 kHz. At 20 k, distortion was around 1% and the line was simply drawn below the 0.5 % level (they did use a straight edge for most of it rather than totally freehand) out to about 15 K, then curved up. Also, with lines of people holding heavy amplifiers, they would spend about 2-3 minutes total per unit unless there was an unusual situation.
sunrayjack12
Active Member
I have many pieces of mc gear and Fisher, I wish I had not wasted my time with Mc and just bought more of the best,Fisher.
Nothing wrong with having that opinion
Fisher made some excellent gear.
I've had several Fishers. I still have one.
I don't know what mac gear you felt you wasted your time on. If you really don't enjoy it you should sell it.
Life is too short to waste time. Unless you overpaid, you should be able to sell the mac stuff for as much as you paid or more.
I enjoy both Fisher and McIntosh. I've been selling off most of my duplicate items and found that tube gear in general does well in sales. I prefer separates and
found the McIntosh C22, MX110 and Fisher 400-CX2 to be my favorite preamps. I do notice a difference in the sound of different preamps and found several that I didn't care for at all. As far as amplifiers go, personally all of the Fishers and McIntosh amplifiers sound very good and although a few stand out for one reason or another, I haven't really found one I don't like. Marantz made some great amplifiers as well. The Fisher receivers are exceptional too. As far as looks I lean towards McIntosh but listen to a Fisher system almost nightly.
These are the restored McIntosh amps I had decided to keep. All are great amplifiers and I don't really like one more than the other.
found the McIntosh C22, MX110 and Fisher 400-CX2 to be my favorite preamps. I do notice a difference in the sound of different preamps and found several that I didn't care for at all. As far as amplifiers go, personally all of the Fishers and McIntosh amplifiers sound very good and although a few stand out for one reason or another, I haven't really found one I don't like. Marantz made some great amplifiers as well. The Fisher receivers are exceptional too. As far as looks I lean towards McIntosh but listen to a Fisher system almost nightly.
These are the restored McIntosh amps I had decided to keep. All are great amplifiers and I don't really like one more than the other.
OutlawSun
Well-Known Member
Personally I think some of the Fisher surge aside from the fact they made good gear and it's getting recognized is the general resurgence of mid century styling. Fisher really had an eye for aesthetics with their tube and early SS gear. Early Scott gear is the same way very unique and good looking aesthetics to go with quality sound. I think looks are a big factor in Marantz gear selling like hotcakes.
Yeah sherwood's coloring choices were interesting to say the least. I do like the look of the red S1000s I wish they'd stuck with the red and gold color option through their line.
I'd definitely like to read that book if it's ever been written. I'd love to see compilations of older hifi magazine articles there's some great stuff buried in the various scans out there.
Yeah sherwood's coloring choices were interesting to say the least. I do like the look of the red S1000s I wish they'd stuck with the red and gold color option through their line.
I'd definitely like to read that book if it's ever been written. I'd love to see compilations of older hifi magazine articles there's some great stuff buried in the various scans out there.
Go Giants
Well-Known Member
Not the first time Ive heard that Mcintosh actually understates specs. I own a Mac1700 receiver rated at 40wpc. Another 1700 user mentioned his benches at 58wpc.
OutlawSun
Well-Known Member
Fisher seems like they targeted a broader audience earlier with their SS gear than a lot of their other competitors. I have no doubt Avery Fisher was chasing the audiophile though especially with gear like the FM-1000 or the X-1000 amp. Their gear was pretty well designed and laid out. The fact a lot of it still works 50+ years on is a testament to their quality. It's a shame they go bought out by Emerson and Sanyo.
“I knew most of these people on an industry basis and they wanted to know why we prevailed and why they failed. I told them, very frankly, ‘You went out for the bottom line and we went out for top quality. And the bottom line somehow took care of itself.”‘ -Avery Fisher
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/a-conversation-with-avery-fisher-56745/
In addition to all the above criteria, McIntosh also guaranteed output into 16, 8 and 4 ohms loads. In a mid-2000 review in which FIsher 800 was revisited (Stereophile? IIRC) found maximum "clean" power was significantly reduced into 4 ohms; into 2 ohms, tubes would red plate at only a watt or so.
This is what the extra $150 got you in a MAC1500 compared to a Fisher 800C back in 1966. ($1,189 inflation adjusted).
High sensitivity speakers from the likes of E-V, Klipsch and Altec would be no problem for a 7591 Fisher receiver; probably less than happy with a pair of AR3.
Last edited:
They only had different impedance taps if they had output transformer. The MAC 1700 didn't (like most SS gear.)
I suspect it'd push a 4 ohm load fine but not lower and not one of those crazy drop to 1 ohm impedance at certain frequency speakers
Yes some very fine sounding Sherwood and Eico pieces had faces only a mother could love.
No idea what they were thinking
No idea what they were thinking
62 -- Total respect for the MAC 1500 and its performance capability. But the Stereophile review on (I believe it was) a Fisher 500C receiver was conducted under questionable test conditions (for example, measuring phono EQ response at the Reverb Output jacks), with clearly something wrong with the receiver tested, or the test conditions used -- yet the results were not questioned, but taken as a representative example. It really didn't get a fair shake. The 500C will regularly produce 30 watts RMS (1 kHz, single channel driven) into 4, 8, or 16 Ohms, with more typically today, THD coming in at no less than 0.5% at rated power output under the stated conditions. With a fortunate set of decently matched American output tubes however, it will come in lower.
The Common output terminal of the 500C operates above ground level. I can't help but think that with glowing output tube plates, the published results were more the result of (possibly again) improper test connections/conditions than anything else.
Dave
The Common output terminal of the 500C operates above ground level. I can't help but think that with glowing output tube plates, the published results were more the result of (possibly again) improper test connections/conditions than anything else.
Dave
Similar threads
