Time to review the thread title.
I’ve been told that increasing filter cap values in the MC30 can enhance things like bass response..
- Thread starter angelaudio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- filter capacitor mc30
The qualitative character of dynamic impact. Perhaps you might contact McIntosh and let their engineers explain it to you. Refer to post #35.
Think of it like torque: the ability to instantaneously deliver power.
Learned that lesson in the 70s when I followed Frank Van Alstine's lead with the Double Dyna 400 and quadrupled the power supply (along with replacing the bridge) on an Audire amp. The difference wasn't subtle.
Last edited:
Reposted here for reference: "The MC611 has received numerous updates and improvements compared to our previous 600 Watt monoblock model. Chief among them is that filter capacity has been doubled which has resulted in a dramatic 55% increase in dynamic headroom from 1.8dB to 2.8dB. This twofold increase in filter capacity also helps improve the performance of low end bass frequencies."
OP was not talking about increasing the MC30's headroom. For the sake if this discussion, it is assumed the LF response is for the amplifier operating at its rated output up to 30W with any with combination of frequencies of 20-20k into 4 ~ 16 ohms.
As far as "improving the performance of low end bass frequencies" is concerned is an indefinite statement since no reference or measurements are provided to document what exactly what the "improvement" is.
C'mon caddy, didn't you know that the marketing piece referenced for the 611 also applies to everything that McIntosh has built since the beginning of time?
Apparently you need a lesson in winning arguments regardless of substance.
I expect more supporting "research" to follow ad naseum.
Apparently you need a lesson in winning arguments regardless of substance.
I expect more supporting "research" to follow ad naseum.
Correct. For others who may have forgotten the post title, it is about enhancing bass response.
More lifelike transient response. Play the opening track from the 96/24 soundtrack to "Rogue One" called He's Here for Us. The explosive wave front in the opening second can startle you...
You might then note that the title was also about the MC30, not the 611 (as long as we're continuing to bring this up). Do you have measured & documented data showng that there is a significant change or improvement in bass response of the MC30 consistent with the post title?
The audible effect of power supply stiffness to transient response applies to all amplification stages. My preamp has more energy storage than a 2505 power amp.
By all means ask McIntosh why their engineers (not marketing staff) made the changes. I am more concerned with what I hear than read.
So back to my question and the OP regarding the MC30: Do you have measured & documented data showng that there is a significant change or improvement in bass response of the MC30 consistent with the post title?
You seem to prefer to redirect which indicates a clear desire to win an argument, not to present complete and factual information. You have not even shown any evidence that the MC30's weakest link in the power supply is filter capacitors, much less whether increasing that will "enhance bass".
You seem to prefer to redirect which indicates a clear desire to win an argument, not to present complete and factual information. You have not even shown any evidence that the MC30's weakest link in the power supply is filter capacitors, much less whether increasing that will "enhance bass".
The one thing that no one has mentioned that at the time the MC30 was designed electrolytic capacitors were not economically or commonly available in the values and voltages that came later...power supply design basically followed pre-war models of design and economy...multi-section caps were part of this design philosophy.
That would be my take on why McIntosh engineers did what they did...it's kind of like what I think about my original Dyna ST-70's and their multi-section can capacitors and my later Sound Valves VTA-70i having all discrete caps...
That would be my take on why McIntosh engineers did what they did...it's kind of like what I think about my original Dyna ST-70's and their multi-section can capacitors and my later Sound Valves VTA-70i having all discrete caps...
Correct. For others who may have forgotten the post title, it is about enhancing bass response.
More lifelike transient response. Play the opening track from the 96/24 soundtrack to "Rogue One" called He's Here for Us. The explosive wave front in the opening second can startle you...
The quote from Mc's advertising said nothing specifically about transient response, only that performance of bass frequencies had been "improved" in some undefined manner (over their earlier 600 W monoblock) - which it may well have been.
But OP asked about improving LF response only in an MC30. Transient response is another matter - why stop there? What about noise, THD and a bunch of other things that are just as important? What if the speaker impedance drops to 2 ohms and is too difficult for the MC30 are you going to hold that against it too? You are trying to base your argument on something that wasn't asked.
Last edited:
I am trying to help you understand the significance of the stated improvements and what you'll likely hear. It really shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Don't know about you, but I find improved transient response at the bottom end, aka bass impact falls into the category of enhancements.
My comments relate only to the thread topic about increased filter cap values.
At the expense of repetition, increased filter cap values can enhance bass response with improved transient response, aka impact.
Sheesh!
Last edited:
There is no need to explain further. Improving transient response doesn't improve the LF response of an amplifier. It may make the amplifier sound better in some way, under a specific condition, ie musical passage- but whatever it is, it is for reasons having nothing to do with what its inherent bass response is. .
All it boils down to is that I see it as two distinctly separate issues; you do not. So on that we will have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
Speculate however you will.
Maybe you know more about amplifier design than the engineers at McIntosh (along with a host of other companies)
Speculate however you will. Maybe the engineers at McIntosh (and a host of other companies) don't know what they're doing.
Nothing they said (to my knowledge) contradicts anything I said including that tidbit of yours I reposted.
But if that changes, I would be only too eager to hear of it - and will be even more eager to have a discussion with them of what the definition of "bass response" is - on my next visit up there.
Last edited:
By all means, let them explain to you the nature of improved performance of low end bass frequencies.
My guess is shared knowledge between former WOM companies was responsible.
Where's Damacman? Having a 500 joule power supply is like putting a blower on a motor!
Last edited:
Bill Ferris
Lunatic Member
But with the, at the time frame, limited dynamic range of Records, and tube rectification(capacitor input value limited), which was the most economical method, the engineers used what was practical at that time, but still using these limited technologies afterwards as dynamic recording/playback technologies improved/progressed, maybe it`s reexamined modern stiffer power supplies cap value boosting to enhance/reproduce later much more accurate dynamic responsive amplification..
But if the playback dynamic smearing from sluggish/older power supplies is desired, well to each their own !
Engineer`s are driven/limited by the, CEO and current, and at the time economical & practical components available..
