More Classic Mac reissues

[Number 9]

I don't know if the reissues of the C22 and MC275 were big sellers for Mac. Certainly, there seems to be high demand in the resale market even now. They look classic and beautiful IMHO.

I think Mac should perhaps give it another whirl in 2004, but this time target for a little lower price points given that so many people seem to hanker tube gear on a budget.

I vote for these two: the MX110 + MC30 (or MC250).

I think reissues of these would be just as collectible, and could be at very competive to the price-points of some of the other tube gear out there (C-J, ARC, etc..) if sold as a package. If Mac can deliver these as reissues at a $3500 price point, I think there will be a hell of a lot of takers.

Steve Hoffman on his website just can't seem to say enough good things about the MC30s, and obviously, we've got quite a few MX110 users on the board here. MC250 - well, that's been talked about hasn't it?

Just a thought anyway. Mac could even sell these direct from their web site as an exclusive. Given so many people have had bad experiences on eBay and Audiogon with vintage gear, reissues of classics (done right as with the C22/MC275) will attract certain people.

 

[ron-c]

Number 9,

Is that $3500 each?
Yes the MC275 reissues sold well, almost as many as all of the original 275s. The C22c did fine but it was not a big a hit as the C2200 has been.
The MC30s are a nice amp but 30 watts is iffy power wise for high dynamic range software and two chassis double the cost so why not stay with stereo? Many 10s of thousands of MC30s were sold over the years so finding nice clean ones should not be hard.
Any new tube products need to have modern signal to noise ratios, low distortion, as well higher power. New tube product will be introduced in 2004, like at CES next week.

Ron-C

 

[Number 9]

Ron. $3500 for the shooting match.
The MC30 circuit is very, very simple.

As for MC30s being cheap and abundant ... well ... take a look at Audio Classics or Terry De Wick's site and see what they are selling for each (currently). Ain't cheap IMHO.

Given the age of MC30s. invariably all need to be upgraded, you also have to factor that in to the prices too.

If you can build them in the same spec range as the Cary or ASL gear, you should be fine. People are buying these for the sound, despite the less than stellar specs. Ditto for the MX110.

30 PP watts is a bonanza to the SET crowd living on 45 or 2A3 tubes!! These are not going to go into HT setups.

 

[ron-c]

Number 9,

A redo of the MX110 would cost lets see, no tuning capacitors or IF transformer suppliers..so to build small quantites of these would be very expensive. Somewhere north of $5000 for sure.
The cost betweeen the various amps is not the power but the material and actual number of parts so would two MC30s cost more to make than one MC275 as an example? Yes they would and why not make more powerfull units to use with a wider selection of speakers? Having a healthy selection of output tube types is another factor and the KT88/6550 family is very popular.
We hope the new unit is recieved well and it is an original not a reissue. It will have all of the latest functions, great appearance and offer a good value in today's market.
Report after the CES show forthcoming.
Ron-C

 

[Tangent]

Dunno about that!

Last weekend I saw a pair of good condition (great chome, all lettering intact) MC30's for $2,500.00. I actually bought a MX110 for $500.00. Both sounded and look wonderful.

The same place had a MC240 for $3,000.00. Better condition.

And this is in CAD dollars.

Somehow I am not sure that McIntosh would make all that much off of reissues of these. Interesting idea, though...

The MC275 is a hot item in the Asian market - they want McIntosh and they want power! I'll bet they'd still sell!

 

[Number 9]

OK ... so much for that idea.

 

[Brian]

Hmmm. A reissue of the MX110 limited edition at $5,000. Maybe 1 based on the original design but updated as to functionality would do it - like delete the tuning eye tube and sub the guts of an MPI-4. Or how about a reissue of the MR67 (just b/c I liked the sound and the simplicity beter than the 71). Oh heck, just stop making all the current line, dig up Frank and Gordon and go back to the 50s.

 

[radioactive]

c'mon brian,it would have to have the tuning eye or it would just not seem right.
i would love to see a re issue of the mx110 and mc30 as this is the system im currently going after.i already have a mc30 and hopefully soon a mx110.
hell id probally take out a loan to get it.
chris

 

[Number 9]

radioactive ... have you been to Steve Hoffman's site? Is that how you settled on the MC30s?

They're one of his favourite amps, and he's got primo gear to choose from given he works as a mastering engineer.

Maybe that's why their price keeps on going up and up. Ron-C check again - definetly not cheap and abundant. I wish. Very simple design. Can they still build transformers like that today?

If Mac had to do one more reissue - I would say its the MX-110. Though, I think $5K is a steep price-point. For die-hards only. At $3k - in the range of Magnum-Dynalab receiver - it could sell like hotcakes. Can you outsource the manufacture to China?

 

[Rich Andrews]

I say do a modern version of the 3500. Drive the distortion and noise down to MC1000 levels. Then offer a special preamp to match. Something like a C2200 on steroids. Might as well offer financing too 'cause that is the only way that I am going to get one anytime soon. <) The preamp would have a Parametric EQ built in and switchable in and out of circuit or course.

Make the amp a hybrid with SS drivers and an all tube (field changable) design. The SS driver board would be normally installed for lowest distortion, but the tube board comes with it for those tube lovers. You already have a 8k+ CD player, might as well have a 16k+ amp to match. At levels like that, have a framed certificate with the names of all the people that had a hand in building the beast. I can see the frame now with it in black and 14K gold trim. Print a book to go along with it describing what had to happen to bring such a work of art to fruition.

 

[Kamakiri]

Financing plans for McIntosh gear make a hell of a lot of sense. I mean, what the heck, I had a payment book on my Kirby vacuum when I first got married ($1800 IIRC).

 

[ron-c]

Financing the gear? That is a good idea if it would make it easier for everyone.
Mc did the MC2000 which fits some of Rick's outline. The 2000 is a wonderfully sounding amp by the way.
Number 9, McIntosh winds the output transformers in house on the same machines used back in the 50s. Two ladies do nothing but wind these all day everyday of the week. The SS amps use autoformers and the tube units use the Unity Coupled output transformers. After being wound they are set in a can and the can if filled with melted roofing tar. Some use epoxy but it will harden and then the buzz can be heard so Mc sticks with the tar. The tar is in a big gas fired vat with a spigot at the bottom. It looks like something out of a brewery.
A higher percentage of the product is built in house now as compared to any other time in Macs history. If you guys ever are down by the factory you have to get the tour. Building the product off shore is not a good plan as export buys a lot of McIntosh and they want made in the USA.
As far as tube distortion it can be very low. The new model is rated at .2%, THD and the lead engineer told me he could not get more than .02% out of it. The units are rated for worst case as tubes do vary somewhat.
Ron-C

 

[Kamakiri]

I sure as heck know if Mc did financing, I'd plunk down for some new gear right this minute.

Gives me an idea for a thread.....hmmmm

 

[Number 9]

Originally posted by ron-c
McIntosh winds the output transformers in house on the same machines used back in the 50s.

Well that dispells some BS I heard from an "expert" I spoke to recently. He was saying that Mc transformer iron today is not as good as in the '60s.

His favourite amp BTW is the 3500 (there you go Rich), and said one of the reasons this amp sounded so good then was the transformers, and then, as far as he's concerned, transformers went downhill from there. I can't see why they would be of to a different standard today, espescailly with the commerative editions.

 

[ron-c]

Number 9,

The two ladies who wind transformers have been doing it for like 30 years. They love their job. Back in the 60s the wire used in the transformers had lacquer insulation which can fail if the amps are subjected to vibration as this gets brittle over the years. The new insulation will not get brittle with age. Mc uses a higher grade of steel now which is also grain oriented. The big transistor amps like the 1201, 602, and 501 use C-core autoformers which are impressive pieces.

Ron-C

 

[CarlV]

Ron, If McIntosh still has the same tooling for transformers, why don't they do occasional production runs like they do with the glass faceplates as there is no aftermarket supply for these?


Carl

 

[Number 9]

Originally posted by ron-c
The two ladies who wind transformers have been doing it for like 30 years. They love their job.

What a great story. Their pictures should be on the Mac website somewhere. The "transformer gals".

 

[ron-c]

Carl,

No room for the large parts. The folks up in Wis. can do a nice rewind on the old transformers for a resonable price though. I have worked on many amps over the years that were described as having bad transformers but only one turned out bad. The rest had bad caps, bad mods, etc.

Ron-C

 

[CarlV]

Thanks Ron-C, If you could, some here may be able to use contact info
if you could post it. Trustworthy referrals are a godsend.
Thanks
Number 9, off topic but after all these years my city did right by Rosie:

http://www.rosietheriveter.org/


Carl