McIntosh's Best Kept Secrets

[Number 9]

OK, some McIntosh products are legendary: the C22, C28, MR78, MR71, MC275, MC240, MC30, MC225, MX110, MC2105 and MC3500 come to mind. They all seem to get frequent mentions here (and steady demand on eBay). I'm sure I missed a few.

Some of the stuff available today are destined to be classics too: the C2200 and MC2000 for example.

I'm curious as to which Mac components that are great but just don't seem to get their due? What are McIntosh's best kept secrets over the past 25 years?

 

[Brian]

The only groupings I can think of are the earliest ss preamps C24 and 26 and the tuner/preamps based on these as well as the early (well most of their) speakers. FWIW, IMHO, these preamps were very decent in relation to their ss competition back then but not really hot keepers today (nor is the competition from that time period) except possibly in a period system. As for the speakers, I liked the ML series and some individual later models with the line arrayed tweeters but was never really impressed enough to want any of them in a system, especially in a main system other than the ML-4 and they only b/c I like big speakers more than just for their sound quality. Only other sleepers are again more period units such as the 1500 receiver and MA230 integrated amp.

The 1 segment of the McIntosh history that does not seem to get noticed is the Stereotech badged lineup which existed for a few years. Pretty decent stuff but it really seemed to fill a marketing niche that in fact did not exist.

 

[Number 9]

Here are some that I would be curious to know more about:

Preamps: C34, C38 and C40
Integrateds: C6800
Tuner: MR80
Amps: MC300, MC7200

In general, the early "Clarion" period products from about 1989 to 1997 don't seem to get much mention. Neither do the "7" or "5" series components.

There must be some gems in here somewhere?

 

[ron-c]

Some missed in the list are-

MI200, MI60, MI75 and A116 as far as industrial tube amps.

MC7200 for pure direct coupled overkill

MPI 2,3 and 4 of course.

89 to 97 models such as the MC500 and MC1000 and MC7300 will all be classics.

Ron-C

 

[carbonman]

I know that hardly anyone will agree with me, but the C712 preamp is a great piece of gear. Just because it's small doesn't mean it doesn't perform. I've seen some comments online that it sounded better than the C15 that followed it.
Like mine and intend to keep it!
The MC7270 seems to be highly regarded as well.

 

[Yamaha B-2]

I've owned and listened to the following Mac amps: MC-2205, MC-7200, MC-275II, MC-162, MA-6850, MA-6900, MC-300 & MC-500. To my ears the MC-500 was very clearly the best of the lot. It was quieter, quicker and produced microphonics better than any other amp, Mac or otherwise, I've owned. It is a superb sounding amp and can drive any speaker out there. Without a doubt, IMHO, a true classic.

 

[onemug]

Originally posted by gpdavis2
I've owned and listened to the following Mac amps: MC-2205, MC-7200, MC-275II, MC-162, MA-6850, MA-6900, MC-300 & MC-500. To my ears the MC-500 was very clearly the best of the lot. It was quieter, quicker and produced microphonics better than any other amp, Mac or otherwise, I've owned. It is a superb sounding amp and can drive any speaker out there. Without a doubt, IMHO, a true classic.

I agree with your findings on the MC-500. I've had mine for around 7 yrs. It's driven Duetta Sigs and Maggie 3.6's with excellent results. In my house, it was preferred over a Pass 350 and Krells FPB 300 and 600. Do you still have yours?

 

[spkrman57]

MX-113

I have one of these in less than ideal shape, and amazingly enough, really like the sound of this. MX-110 is my favorite though.
Ron

 

[Yamaha B-2]

Originally posted by onemug
I agree with your findings on the MC-500. I've had mine for around 7 yrs. It's driven Duetta Sigs and Maggie 3.6's with excellent results. In my house, it was preferred over a Pass 350 and Krells FPB 300 and 600. Do you still have yours?

Sorry to say that when we moved into our condo at the shore 3 years ago my listening room was greatly reduced in not only physical size but in equipment size to fit into same (the things one does to stay married - probably the least expensive alternative, tho). A Denon PMA-2000R & pair of delightful sounding Soliloquy 5.0s monitors. Now that my wife has come to her senses and we have moved back into a house this year I will start building my new listening room as soon as the kitchen renovation is complete. Should have another MC-500 by next year. Plan to try it with a Placette passive preamp. Truly a great sounding amp!!

 

[jt1stcav]

I also agree with the above posts...all great Mac gear that's not as well known throughout MacLand!:

Although I hadn't owned much McIntosh gear, and I thoroughly enjoyed each piece in my always-changing audio system, I think one of Mac's best kept secrets is also the direct-coupled MC7200! Not only does this non-autoformered power amp sound nearly as good as their finest products (and I loved my MC2100 and MC250), but the MC7200 just blows away its competition in its price/spec range...hands down! Plus IMHO, I still think it's one of the prettiest blue-eyed metered Macs I've ever seen, with it's split aluminum/glass faceplate...absolutely georgous!

Although I never owned one (due to my sudden interest in tubes, which resulted in my present non-Mac audio system...am I still allowed to partake of this forum?), and maybe it's only me, but I hardly ever see one on eBay/AudiogoN/AudioClassics, but I also think another unsung hero of McIntosh components is the equally sexy C36 preamp! If I hadn't gone the tube route and had kept my MC7200, I think the C36 would've been the logical choice.

 

[Tullman]

I really liked the MC 1052 speakers I used to have.

 

[Yamaha B-2]

A caveat to my earlier post is that I really do not like the sound of Mac preamps. I have had a C-36, C-38 & C-39. I find that they are anything but transparent to my ears. I would never recommend one to go with the MC-500 which I like so much. I did like my MR-78, MR-80 and MR-7082. They were good, though not great, tuners. I especially liked the MR-80 and its rather weird station setting memory routine.

 

[ron-c]

GP, so if the 78 and 80 are good tuners what is a great tuner? Curious minds want to know.
Ron-C

 

[dewickt]

If you want really great sound try the MR71, MR67, MX110 tuners, IMHO all are better sound than the MR78 or MR80, but then as a whole they all sound excellent. One of the locals just got an MR80 and was impressed enough that he retired his Sequera model 1, his comment was the sound of the 80 was not quite the Sequera but very close, but performance was superior especially for DXing.

 

[Yamaha B-2]

Originally posted by ron-c
GP, so if the 78 and 80 are good tuners what is a great tuner? Curious minds want to know.
Ron-C

Hmmmm.......Dare I say with Terry at the McIntosh factory watching (reading)? Ah, what the hey. He's a professional.

I prefer the sound of the Yamaha CT-1010, Sony ST-SA5ES and ST-SA707ES. I am hoping to pick up a Denon TU-1500RD, as I also thought it superior in the audition I had with it last year.

The "Shootouts" on the FMTunerInfo site list many better sounding tuners, most of which I am not familiar. But they seem pretty thorough in their evaluations.

I found the sound of the MR-78 and -80 a bit 'tubby' in lower female and tenor voice range. I purchased both from Audio Classics so can only assume that they were properly tuned and aligned. I found the MR-7082 'lean' sounding from top to bottom. But, I also owned the -78 and -7082 while listening to McIntosh preamps, so that may have been a bit of the problem, as I do not feel these preamps provide good sound (took me three different models to come to this conclusion). But, then again, I used the MR-80 with a Bryston BP-25, which I consider to be a much superior preamp for transparency and speed and it only sounded slightly better than the -78 (non-mod'd). On the plus side, I do think they are about as good looking as anything out there. And no question as to the build quality. I am thinking of getting an MR-65 in the not too distant future to give a try to tubes. I've never been a successful tube person, but may find tuners to be a bit different.

P.S. If Terry can get me a deal like no other on a MC-500 I would be happy to re-evaluate my tuner thinking.

 

[dewickt]

Each person has his own feel for what a tuner should sound like, best way is to audition one and make up your own mind, nuf said...
A quick note I am an independent shop that is certified for McIntosh warranty repair due to my close association with a McIntosh dealer, part of the certification is having the right test equipment and knowledge of audio equipment, both I have acquired through many years of repair work as a hobby - just so happens that this is a hobby that also pays the bills. Nice to be able to do what you enjoy and make living from it, best of both worlds.
gpdavis2 - if you want to get into a tube tuner start with a MR67, it is designed from the ground up as a stereo tuner not like the 65 that came to life as a mono tuner and had the MX5 demultiplex as an add on with no stereo indicator, one transistor in the audio path to make the channel levels match, and the output only at a fixed level. Overall the 65 is for the bargin hunter who wants good sound at a low cost without some of the features.

 

[Yamaha B-2]

Terry - Thanks for the info. An MR67 it will be. If you run across an MC-500 in the next few months, keep me in mind.

 

[pathologymd]

Quote from previous post:

"The "Shootouts" on the FMTunerInfo site list many better sounding tuners, most of which I am not familiar. But they seem pretty thorough in their evaluations."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "shootouts" on the FMTunerInfo site are the opinion of one man. I vehemently disagree with many of the conclusions drawn by this process. It bothers me that one man's opinion influences others to buy or not buy a particular tuner based on his rankings.

Listen for yourself. Do your own homework and take opinions with "grain of salt." I have owned many tuners in my life, and I can say that the MR78 is one of the finest "instruments" I've ever come across. No "tubbiness," no "rolled-off high end," no "electronic sound." But that is MY opinion. I also own two MR-71's and an MR-67 and they are incredible. Understand, I am not a DX'r and care mostly about quality of sound reproduction.

Feel free to take all of that with a grain of salt.

William

 

[Yamaha B-2]

Exactly. That is why I stated "to my ears". Just like I stated same about my experience with McIntosh preamps. It is my money so I really only care about what sounds good to me when I spend it.

 

[ron-c]

I guess everyone has an opinion on tuners but back when I was in retail The CT1010 was a good tuner but not in the super-tuner class. CT7000 yes but not the 1010 although I like its appearance and build quality. This is around the time Yamaha made a decision to go to a more mass market product mix.
Of course I was judging these tuners with big systems using big speakers, Mac, B&W, ADS etc. Your results may differ on other speakers.
The MR78 and 80 were and still are super-tuners by most owner's reports. The Sony stuff is nice and some think a lot of cheaper mass market tuners are better than the macs yet people are voting with their wallets on this.
Ron-C