Yamaha vs. McIntosh?

Look what I've started ;)


Bottom line, I wouldn't not buy McIntosh because of what I've learned - if anything, this experience has piqued my interest even more.

The search for "improved" sound continues :)

I can only 2. that, go with the sound you like - heck with the name.
 
Last edited:
Look what I've started ;)

So, as it happens - I checked out the Mac. Granted, it wasn't in my home and the speakers obviously weren't the same, etc., and while I thought it sounded really good, I passed. As I said, the unit was really beat up, and aesthetically it just wasn't "doing it" for me.

So, it's back home now to my Yamaha gear, which I still love - and perhaps - one day - I will have another opportunity to entertain a McIntosh purchase.

The 2105 had a "different" sound for sure, but to say "better" would be speculation on my part, as the conditions were so very different than what I have in my home.

Bottom line, I wouldn't not buy McIntosh because of what I've learned - if anything, this experience has piqued my interest even more.

The search for "improved" sound continues :)

Thanks all for participating!!
Regards,
Scott

Maybe if the Amp was given to you free, it would've maybe been a fun project, but often, life's too short to deal with basket case pieces of equipment that would need lots of time, and money thrown into them, regardless of who made them. Mark
 
Since McIntosh began in 1949, I think you have your first statement backwards. And as for the pitting, sure, if one maybe owned the Amp in Vietnam, with jungle conditions, sure pitting could occur over time. Not many would go through the trouble of chrome plating a chassis, something nobody ever sees.

Yes, often McIntosh didn't use the most expensive parts back then, but used at least Mil Spec that would stand the test of time. McIntosh isn't called "McIntosh Labs" for nothing.

Many years ago, I was of the belief, playing aound with lesser brands, that any piece of electronic gear I bought would typically last 6 months, to maybe a couple of years before the inevitable failure of some sort would occur, and then there I'd be, at the mercy of some tech, holding his hand out for boo coo bucks. I've been down that road plenty of times.

Never seemed to fail too, that I'd get the equipment back with a nasty scratch, or gouge somewhere as well. This usually pissed me off to no end, I freaking "hate" when that happens! :uzi: That they're handling your beloved $500-$700 Receiver like it was a $5 POS.

Evidently, McIntosh did have the "correct recipe" to success all these years, Amps, and other equipment that were many times simple designs yes, but provided very high quality sound, and because of their designs ran cool.
They were typically overbuilt, and typically under-rated as far as specs went.

Now will a 40+ year old design, and Amp compete with something like a newer Krell FPB-600? Heck no, no way on earth. But that Mac just might last longer. Krell has a reputation of being in and out of shops, and if you keep up with Krell, a recent recall, due to possibility of fire.

Levinson is another fine piece of gear, that is until you have a problem with it, and are now at the mercy of their repair flat rate policies. I like both equipment I mention, but would never own such for those reasons I mention.

The Mac clinics of the past were something that was pretty cool. They'd test, and calibrate your equipment free of charge. If there was a problem, it was then taken care of for free.

When I bought those two MC-2105 Amps back in '74, they came with a lifetime performance warrantee. When McIntosh re-negged on that policy, trust me, that it pissed me off to no end!

None the less, those two MC-2105's have been some of the finest, and the most reliable pieces of equipment I have ever owned, period. I strongly doubt any other make of equipment would've held up as well regardless of cost. Mark
 
Last edited:
Mark, I have six pieces of non-Mac gear from back then that are chrome plated, so Mac was neither the first, nor were they the best. Of the gear that is chrome plated, Mac actually did the cheapest job, which is why I noted it.

I also deliberately switched the Accuphase saying, but only as a tweak! :D

Mac didn't overengineer their gear, they designed it in a typically industrial fashion, and they have continued that philosophy for their corporate life, excluding some years during their car stereo ventures. By that nature, their specs are quoted as a minimum, not a maximum, so "underrated" specs is akin to "tube" watts...it either meets/exceeds quoted, or it doesn't.

As far as McIntosh authorized service in our area, they are the reason why I sold the seven pieces of Mac gear I owned. After the first MC250 went up in smoke following a service call, after I paid twice for the same repair on a 1900 in four months, and had a 6100 that would drop a channel whenever it got moved(a chassis rail flexing too much,) I realized my wallet could not support McIntosh.

A second Mac authorized tech successfully diagnosed the 6100 and fixed it, but enough was enough. Mac:thumbsdn: Accuphase and Levinson:thmbsp: at my house. :yes:
 
Mark, I have six pieces of non-Mac gear from back then that are chrome plated, so Mac was neither the first, nor were they the best. Of the gear that is chrome plated, Mac actually did the cheapest job, which is why I noted it.

I also deliberately switched the Accuphase saying, but only as a tweak! :D

Mac didn't overengineer their gear, they designed it in a typically industrial fashion, and they have continued that philosophy for their corporate life, excluding some years during their car stereo ventures. By that nature, their specs are quoted as a minimum, not a maximum, so "underrated" specs is akin to "tube" watts...it either meets/exceeds quoted, or it doesn't.

As far as McIntosh authorized service in our area, they are the reason why I sold the seven pieces of Mac gear I owned. After the first MC250 went up in smoke following a service call, after I paid twice for the same repair on a 1900 in four months, and had a 6100 that would drop a channel whenever it got moved(a chassis rail flexing too much,) I realized my wallet could not support McIntosh.

A second Mac authorized tech successfully diagnosed the 6100 and fixed it, but enough was enough. Mac:thumbsdn: Accuphase and Levinson:thmbsp: at my house. :yes:

You leave out much info though in regards to who was doing the repairs?
Some dickhead no doubt, who didn't know his ass from a a hole in the ground, and I know that feeling all too well, even when I lived in Chicago.

Had you dealt with McIntosh direct, you most likely would've had the gear fixed right the first time.

Personal expereiences often are not duplicates of one another. Your experiences are a total 180 degrees from mine. I truly wonder just how many in this thread have walked into a dealer, and bought brand new Mac Gear? Or have bought gear that was literally beat to hell, then wishes to pass judgement of equipment?

So, with that said, I then praise McIntosh, and you bash them. So, who's then opinion holds truth, or flaws? Yours, or mine?

And that's of course one of the largest problems with audio, the sifting through tons of crap, whether true, or hyped. One has to be a master to sift through what is diamonds, and what is bullshit.

What has happened, is most will make assumptions, when buying some delapidated piece of gear, or let's say a $4000 Koetsu Ccartridge that has 3000 hours on the Stylus, then bum raps the company as being crap, but one is most certainly in the dark, as for being a fair judge of such equipment.

You perhaps got lucky with Levinson, or Accuphase. Your story could've certainly been the other way around, had you gotten duped with your two fav brands.

The truth is, all equipment is crap when one has a problem with it. Whether you spent $300 for a basket case McIntosh MC-2105, or $20K for used Krell KAS Monoblocks that crapped out two weeks after you bought them.

Does the $20K expenditure make one feel any better? Or worse? Mark
 
Last edited:
Mark, the tech that did the repairs is McIntosh trained and certified, with over twenty years of benching. The shop owner counts job tickets and revenues every night, so in all likelihood that is the root of the problem. I wasn't going to spend any more money, stumbling around for a local answer.

In your eyes, ALL the equipment I buy probably would be judged as "beat to hell." I buy at a price point, and then depend on a good tech to get it back to reliable, sounding as it should, and then use the heck out of it.

I am NOT bashing Mac..I did not buy multiple Mac amps, preamps, tuners, both tube and SS, just to set Mac up and then bash them. Quite the contrary, EVERY time I purchased a Mac piece I first took it to the authorized service center for R&R, bench testing, and left with a large bill and the spec testing sheet.

As far as my favorite equipment, neither the Accuphase nor the Levinson hold that slot, so criticize away. The E202 and #27 are both superbly engineered, and both do play better with my Thiels than the Macs did, but that is a personal observation, and others may vary. Like the Mac gear, they went on the bench for a similar spa treatment, but theirs took. As far as the $20,000 you think I spent, you are off. Subtract a zero, and then keep going...south.
 
I'm not familiar with Accuphase, never hearing any, but have heard quite a few pieces of Levinson Gear. Probably the very best Levinson ever made. Models that come to mind, are the 331, and the #33 Reference Monoblocks. And I listened to many of them at length a number of times. Once i recall hearing those #33's with a pair of TOTL Apogee Ribbons. Another time paired with a $45K pair of MBL Radialstraulers. And the Levinson CD Transport/DAC front end, which I think was the 31.5? Memory is getting fuzzy after all these years. I do remember that Transport, and DAC were $25K

Were they heavenly? Of course they were, and in comparison to a McIntosh MC-2105, the 2105 would be like listening to a $2.00 Emerson reciever you found at a yard sale.
Of course all this equipment was brand spanking new-demo equipment at a Levinson Dealer in Chicago, called Paul Heath Electronics.

All I ever bought from them was a CAL Transport-DAC, but they always rolled the red carpet out for me, like I was Michael Jordan walking into the store.

Now, I know my opinions of this gear could be skewed had it been faulty, not performing properly.

i am aware of the Levinson 27, and 27.5, said to be some of the finest gear Levinson ever made period. Comparing them to a Mac Amp that came out in 1967 wouldn't be fair. maybe a comparo against a new pair of MC-501 Monoblocks would be a fairer match? At least a more current matchup.

As I said earlier, some may misjudge certain equipment by a opinion that may hold little validity. Hypothetically, had I bought a couple of Levinson 27.5 Amps, had bad luck with them, and then said they were not a good Amp, my personal opinions would be flawed, wouldn't they? Mark
 
Last edited:
I've had two Yamaha B-2s and a MX-1000. They certainly don't approach the top end yamaha's I suspect, but I found them thoroughly underwhelming after reading the yamaha hype brigade for years. I certainly would like to hear a MX-2000, PC5002 or MX-10000 to hear what the best of their amps can sound like. To be honest, there wasn't anything wrong with the yamahas, they just didn't stand out from a crowd of average amps in build quality or sound quality.

I've also owned a MC2105, 2 MC2100s, and a MC2200.

Frankly, I'm not sure which I would choose, but I think I would lean towards McIntosh. My lusting for McIntosh has been seriously curbed by some former members of AK, but I still do admire their build quality, customer service and the sound.
 
I've had two Yamaha B-2s and a MX-1000. They certainly don't approach the top end yamaha's I suspect, but I found them thoroughly underwhelming after reading the yamaha hype brigade for years. I certainly would like to hear a MX-2000, PC5002 or MX-10000 to hear what the best of their amps can sound like. To be honest, there wasn't anything wrong with the yamahas, they just didn't stand out from a crowd of average amps in build quality or sound quality.

.

My thought based on lower end Yamahas, CR400 & Ca600, is that one shouldn't look for a dramatic leap in sound quality or performance with Yamaha. It's just that they play it right without undue colour. I have used other amps which tend to stand out from the crowd & realised they sounded different because of colouration.

I've never heard any McIntosh gear
 
McIntosh - over rated

Yamaha - you'll never regret owning the high end offerings

I own a yamaha A-1000 which I love, and an M-4 that I still cant use cuz i havnt received my C-4 yet, but im sure ill love those too.

I've had several yammies lately and loved them all though, the A-25 and A-500 arent high end amps but they sure do sound sweet with their 70ish wpc.

I've never owned a Mc, but I have owned several yamahas, loved them all, had a kenwood kr7050 or something along those lines, it was ok, and pretty, I dont have that anymore though.

had nad, adcom, a handful of technics, handful of pioneer, those were all nice. but the yamahas are the only ones I still own.

that said, if an opportunity came up to buy a Mc at a good price in my area, i'd be all over it. just to try it out.
 
Last edited:
My thought based on lower end Yamahas, CR400 & Ca600, is that one shouldn't look for a dramatic leap in sound quality or performance with Yamaha. It's just that they play it right without undue colour. I have used other amps which tend to stand out from the crowd & realised they sounded different because of colouration.


Having a CR-1020 and the B-2/C-2x combo currently in possession, I can tell you that the 1020 build quality is crap compared to the separates. The CR-1020 compares favorably to other Japanese receivers of the era, but the B-2 and C-2x is several levels beyond.

I've never heard any McIntosh gear

Do so if you get the chance, preferably with your own source and speakers and in your room if possible. The listening rooms at the "stealerships" typically have an optimal environmental setup and can make an old all in one system sound great.
 
Having a CR-1020 and the B-2/C-2x combo currently in possession, I can tell you that the 1020 build quality is crap compared to the separates. The CR-1020 compares favorably to other Japanese receivers of the era, but the B-2 and C-2x is several levels beyond.



Do so if you get the chance, preferably with your own source and speakers and in your room if possible. The listening rooms at the "stealerships" typically have an optimal environmental setup and can make an old all in one system sound great.

I'd love to hear more expensive Yammie s & McIntosh - limited funds though & not many Mc's in UK that come up for sale - I've bought from Germany in the past & stand a better chance there.
 
How many high end Yamahas have you owned?

None.

Ever open up a C-2x, C-2a, B-2, or B-2x?

I've seen the guts of these units.

I have, and can tell you that no expense was spared in construction of these excellent amps and preamps.

No expense spared? The response sounds like a cross between a politician & and a salesman. You need to provide specifics to keep my attention.

Ever seen a MX-2000? There is no more beautiful piece of audio history, and the build quality is unmatched. PERIOD.

Yes. It's an impressive looking unit, and I would like the opportunity some day to give it a listen, although the comment about the build quality was a bold, general statement, without any build quality specifics to back it up. And no, I'm not saying or implying that the 2000 is not a quality unit.

I've recently owned three McIntosh pieces. I don't own them any more.

No mention of what Mac pieces you owned, so it's difficult to fathom what you used when making your comparison. In fairness, my initial mental comparison was using current Mac units with vintage Yammies, and I don't think that was a valid comparison, especially when this thread is on the vintage forum, so I'll take the hit for that one.

McIntosh - over rated

Another general statement, with no specifics to back it up. And no, I don't mean for this to be a bashing session. I (and other readers) are looking for an audio education. I seem to remember reading about Mac's switching technology that was the cat's meow, but I'll need to do a little research on the subject. I'm sure how recent the technology was invented. It may not apply to the 'vintage' equipment.
 
Last edited:
jetblack you aren't reading my comments then. I specified the pieces I've owned and gave my specific observations to back them up.

That said, I'm not really interested in keeping your attention if you don't read the thread in the first place.

/unsub
 
Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.

200 ohms for the input impedence of an amp just doesn't sound right, design-wise. I can believe a high input impedence of 200k, and a low output impedence of 200.
 
Last edited:
threads getting very negative and boring with the sniping going on:boring: I would love some high end Yamaha and or Mac equipment if the right deal came along they are both super equipment. I am leaving it at that moving on and deleting this thread chow for now:music:
 
200 ohms for the input impedence of an amp just doesn't sound right, design-wise. I can believe a high input impedence of 200k, and a low output impedence of 200.

It is a misprint. It should read 200K ohms. (so I was told)
 
the motorcycle thing prompted a comparison in my own mind to automobiles-i have owned and listened to, and worked upon both yamaha and mac stuff-they are both very good, and i want them both(although the best of harmon kardon gives either a run for the money, imo). now the cars i have in mind are the lexus for the yamaha and the totl packards(say, a '53 caribbean convt.) for the macs-and i have had my hands on both and i want them both in my garage(in my dreams)-the hk is probably a bmw(a model of which i was driving before the yuppies had caught on-1973)-so much good stuff to yearn for, so little time and money.
 
Back
Top Bottom