• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Excellent review of MC 462

B

barsur

Active Member
In the new Hifi & Records - is like the german Stereophile - there is an excellent review of the MC 462.
Interessing were also the measurement results for the MC 462.
Power for 4 Ohm was 662 Watt and power for 8 Ohms was 618 Watt. This was a little bit better than the MC 452 which they reviewed some years ago.
Power for the MC 452 was: 4 Ohms 607 Watt and for 8 Ohms 581 Watt.
And the power results for the MC 462 were only a little bit less than for the MC 611, which they reviewed some month ago.
Power for the MC 611 was: 4 Ohms 761 Watt and for 8 Ohms 750 Watt.
Measurement for the MC 601some years ago were ca 800 Watts.

Now you have a stronger MC 462 than the MC 452 and a weaker MC 611 than the MC 601.
That is strange, in dB the MC 611 has only 0,6 dB more power than the MC 462.
So the MC 462 is the far better buy…

Best regards
Martin
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
Does Hifi & Records post reviews on line like Stereophile? If so, can you post links to these measurement results? Google did not find any such links.

Thanks,
 
Its not about the power differences. Its about better use of devices and better Autoformer implementations. Its about signal to noise and lower distortion products. Most folks can only determine a 3 db change with a reference. I can easily hear 1 db change of a tone control, which is not quite the same thing. So .6 db means nothing. When people were asking for more power or out put from their systems we always recommended a 5 db difference providing the speakers did not prematurely compress the sound output and all speakers compress sound in one way or another. Line arrays are the exception some times and is why they are so popular with large tour groups where tremendous power levels and controlled dispersion are required. The only reason I changed from my 240's running mono sonically was to bi-amp with 275's. I then changed to 2100's hoping to get further improvement and get away from tube maintenance. Turned out to be a bad move. I have since gone with Mac 206 amps as I have tri-amped and up graded to 207's. But I seldom use over 20 watts indicated. So its not about the small power differences its about the sound quality. As for SS amps the 207's work the best for me. What would I do with seven 302's or 14 301's. That said the most dynamic sound I ever heard from my speakers belonged to a friends matching pair driven by MC 3500's.
 
twiiii said:
Its not about the power differences. Its about better use of devices and better Autoformer implementations. Its about signal to noise and lower distortion products.
Click to expand...

Good Point.
S/N A weighted for MC 452 was 106,0 dB
S/N A weighted for MC 611 was 104,0 dB
S/N A weighted for MC 462 was 94,7 dB

Results for MC 452 and 611 are outstanding. For MC 462 is still very good, despite that it is10 dB lower.

Best ever measured amp for S/N in this magazine is Accuphase A 250 with 119,1 dB.
http://www.accuphase.com/review_pdf/A-250_04-2018.pdf

Best regards
Martin
 
Distortion is also absolut inaudible for all these products:

Mcintosh MC 452 0,001%
Mcintosh MC 611 0,002%
Mcintosh MC 462 0,004%
Accuphase A 250 0,0005%
 
Parsing measurement minutiae pretty much misses the point of McIntosh amplifiers. Thanks for the reference through, it's always interesting to read reviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom