Does anyone have thoughts on the difference between the MAC 4100 and MAC 4200. I have a 4100 and really like it. I have an opportunity to purchase a 4200 but I don't know anything about it, except in the picture, it doesn't look as good as the 4100. Is is better, worse, different? It would be used to run an older pair of Khorns for a high school dance team.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
MAC 4100 vs MAC 4200
- Thread starter Dr.K
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
No Mc is bad!..........sorta like a great Idaho spud....creamy and delicious!
chathamdad
Piano Trios Rule
You can find a spec comparison at http://www.roger-russell.com/rcvrs.htm#mac4200.
The 4200 is 100 watts into 8 ohms, the 4100 is 75. THD figures are slightly different (assuming that means something audibly, which is debatable). Features are about the same. The biggest difference is the appearance factor. I don't know anything about the reliability of the 4200, but I have never heard anything bad (unlike the 4275 and 4280 which were duds). If you are using it principally as amp to play loud for the dance team, I would think the wattage and ruggedness would be your principal issues. I have a 4300 and it is a gem, if that's any help.
The 4200 is 100 watts into 8 ohms, the 4100 is 75. THD figures are slightly different (assuming that means something audibly, which is debatable). Features are about the same. The biggest difference is the appearance factor. I don't know anything about the reliability of the 4200, but I have never heard anything bad (unlike the 4275 and 4280 which were duds). If you are using it principally as amp to play loud for the dance team, I would think the wattage and ruggedness would be your principal issues. I have a 4300 and it is a gem, if that's any help.
I'm no expert so correct me if I am wrong, but ...
Doesn't the 4200, 4275, and 4280 all use the same tuner: equivalent to the MR-7082?
Whereas, the 4300 uses the equivalent to the MR-7083?
I'm not sure about the amp sections on these receivers. I've read conflicting things.
Doesn't the 4200, 4275, and 4280 all use the same tuner: equivalent to the MR-7082?
Whereas, the 4300 uses the equivalent to the MR-7083?
I'm not sure about the amp sections on these receivers. I've read conflicting things.
This sure brings back memories...
With the MAC4100 Mac hit it out of the park. It was expensive ($1500 in 78 could pay for a year at Michigan's law school),but it looked good and performed exceptionally. It's amp section could drive 2.5 ohm loads, with a good antenna it's tuner could Dx 100 miles away. and people loved the 5 band EQ. We sold 50 of them a year.
It was a very important product to Gordon Gow and McIntosh, and I will never forget sitting in his ofice while he explained to me the facts of audio life. When Gordon would come to do a live vs. recorded seminar he would insist we use the MAC4100 and XR-16 speakers (always with a MQ107).
As I remember certain parts of the analog tuner went out of production from a key supplier before Mac had a true digital tuner to use in the new receiver so there were no MCIntosh receivers for 7 or 8 months.
Believe it or not I helped set the $2890.00 price for the MAC4200.
Mr. Painchaud (CFO) and I were on the phone dealing with invoce terms or whatnot and I asked him when would the replacement receiver finally come out and he replied that he had finally received cost data from all departments and proceded to start punching his adding machine. I can remember him saying "Now we add dealer markup and...cachunk cacunk.. what a stupid price." I asked him what and he said "2,886 and change." I convinced him that he was doing exactly what Mac customers expected Mac to do (not build to a price) so when the new price sheet came out with it priced at $2890 I knew my point won out.
The 4200 would not pull in the distant stations like the 4100 but for city listeners the digital tuner was more convinent. It did not have a remote, did have the same amp, followed the competion to black and had wood sides instead of vinyl.
Both excellent but with no remote both were supplanted by the MAC4300
With the MAC4100 Mac hit it out of the park. It was expensive ($1500 in 78 could pay for a year at Michigan's law school),but it looked good and performed exceptionally. It's amp section could drive 2.5 ohm loads, with a good antenna it's tuner could Dx 100 miles away. and people loved the 5 band EQ. We sold 50 of them a year.
It was a very important product to Gordon Gow and McIntosh, and I will never forget sitting in his ofice while he explained to me the facts of audio life. When Gordon would come to do a live vs. recorded seminar he would insist we use the MAC4100 and XR-16 speakers (always with a MQ107).
As I remember certain parts of the analog tuner went out of production from a key supplier before Mac had a true digital tuner to use in the new receiver so there were no MCIntosh receivers for 7 or 8 months.
Believe it or not I helped set the $2890.00 price for the MAC4200.
Mr. Painchaud (CFO) and I were on the phone dealing with invoce terms or whatnot and I asked him when would the replacement receiver finally come out and he replied that he had finally received cost data from all departments and proceded to start punching his adding machine. I can remember him saying "Now we add dealer markup and...cachunk cacunk.. what a stupid price." I asked him what and he said "2,886 and change." I convinced him that he was doing exactly what Mac customers expected Mac to do (not build to a price) so when the new price sheet came out with it priced at $2890 I knew my point won out.
The 4200 would not pull in the distant stations like the 4100 but for city listeners the digital tuner was more convinent. It did not have a remote, did have the same amp, followed the competion to black and had wood sides instead of vinyl.
Both excellent but with no remote both were supplanted by the MAC4300
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
The MAC 4100 in my opinion was the best McIntosh receiver ever made. The 4200 is excellent but not quite to 4100 level in daily reliability and ease of maintenance.
4100-4200
My experience is just the opposite. I owned a 4100 and had lost of trouble. My 4200 had one repair.
My experience is just the opposite. I owned a 4100 and had lost of trouble. My 4200 had one repair.
With respect to the 4275 being a "dud", I received one today and it seems to be doing quite well for a ~20 year old receiver. It sounds very good with the equalizer controls in the straight up position; whereas, I usually have to adjust the EQ controls on the 4100 to suit my liking. The 4275's tuner and the phono section both sound good. I am curious to know how the 4275 and 4280 received a bad reputation. I have performed a search but the results seem to be vague regarding specific problems. If the 4275 and the 4200 are similar then I must conclude that the 4200 also sounds good.
To build the MAC4200 to Macs expectations it came in at a price $900 over the last MAC4100 price.
The 4275 and 4280 were built to a price. Performance was traded to lower the price.
There were those who felt there was an opening for a badged receiver. Mac, as they did in the 70s with Stereotech made the plunge and had the boards subcontrated overseas. While the 4275 did not have the Stereotech issues, corner cutting by the sub-contractor, it will always have the stigma of being subbed out. I can not help, when looking at the boards, wondering who the sub was.
The 4275 and 4280 were built to a price. Performance was traded to lower the price.
There were those who felt there was an opening for a badged receiver. Mac, as they did in the 70s with Stereotech made the plunge and had the boards subcontrated overseas. While the 4275 did not have the Stereotech issues, corner cutting by the sub-contractor, it will always have the stigma of being subbed out. I can not help, when looking at the boards, wondering who the sub was.
Does the MAC4300 suffer from the same problem? Boards sub'd out and built to a price point?
Contracting out the boards did not mean a bad receiver. On the QT Mac found many issues with the OLD intial batch of the STEREOTECH 1200, back in the 70s, that Gordon promised us would not happen again. Dealers (like myself) were searching for value added product to fill in the gaps, as most imports raced to the bottom price, and companies like Kyocera and Luxman struggled.
Mac tried to fill the gap but line extension is a two edged sword. What makes a real Mac, and is it worth the extra $900?
The MAC4300 was a Binghamton Mac thru and thru.
Mac tried to fill the gap but line extension is a two edged sword. What makes a real Mac, and is it worth the extra $900?
The MAC4300 was a Binghamton Mac thru and thru.
Bigears
Manager of my own day
I had a 4100 and it was not impressive. Front mounted controls that would wiggle and cause audible drop outs, cold solder joints and even at its best was was not up to the Japanese TOTL standard. The tuner worked well but at that price, reliability was well below what I expected. Another reason to go with MAC separates...
I've been into mine and the workmanship was excellent. If the controls wiggled the nuts that hold them on had to be loose, mine are rock solid. It really sounds like you had a mistreated unit with dirty controls and or the cardboard insulator between the volume pots circuit board and the bottom cover had shifted and allowed unwanted contact. A Tandberg is the closest thing I've see to the Mac as far as thoughtful design.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
My son's 4100 does not wobble or drop out. Yours must be loose and need servicing. His is used daily and superbly reliable. My office 4100 has had only one servicing and tuner alignment. It's used every day. My 1900 had some issues when it was traded in. It's had 3 service visits and works as it did when new (none of it factory related). McIntosh does need attention from the tech every 12-15 years to perform best.
