Mac vs the Japanese
- Thread starter TejasRichard
- Start date
Brian
An Old Geezer
I'm not trying to convert anyone. Read what I said above. There are a lot of good units out there and for the difference in money between they and Mc, the Mc may not be worth it. If I can get 100% of what I want for $10,000 and 97% for $1,000 I'm not sure the $9,000 is worth spending for that 3%. I'm happily listening to the Sherwood S3300/S9500c pair on my Wharfedales and Heresys and enjoying it almost as much as the Mc system on the Bozaks. Not as good in absolute terms but just as enjoyable for me to listen to the Sherwoods go for about $100 and add about $300 for a complete refurb and the Wharfedales go for about $120 while the Mc system today is fetching about $2,000, plus a refurb is about 1,200 and the Bozaks about $800. Is the sound difference worth spending about $4,000 vs $520? For that difference I could upgrade the speakers to say a sept of Quad 989s or M-L CLS and have quite a bit of change left over and come even closer.
Yes, I recommend Mc to all but also Sony, Quad and Philips Laboratory and a number of other brands. Heck, I've even recommended a Radio Shack receiver to some, it just depends on budget, goals, associated equipment, music type and other factors. Oh, to prove it. Anyone thinking of a 1700, go get a STR6060FW, and have it gone through. For less money, just as good. If you don;t like it, go buy a 1700 and send me the 6060. I only have 3 and could use more.
In fact I'd wish far fewer would want the danged things and drive the price down so I could buy even more. I'd love the buyers' market for say the MC3500 to dry up so I could buy maybe enough for a HT and 2-channel stereo for say $120 each and maybe MPI-4s for $45, oh and MC225s for $10 like in the old days. Heck, I'd even settle for a half dozen mint condition MC2300s for $75 each.
Yes, I recommend Mc to all but also Sony, Quad and Philips Laboratory and a number of other brands. Heck, I've even recommended a Radio Shack receiver to some, it just depends on budget, goals, associated equipment, music type and other factors. Oh, to prove it. Anyone thinking of a 1700, go get a STR6060FW, and have it gone through. For less money, just as good. If you don;t like it, go buy a 1700 and send me the 6060. I only have 3 and could use more.
In fact I'd wish far fewer would want the danged things and drive the price down so I could buy even more. I'd love the buyers' market for say the MC3500 to dry up so I could buy maybe enough for a HT and 2-channel stereo for say $120 each and maybe MPI-4s for $45, oh and MC225s for $10 like in the old days. Heck, I'd even settle for a half dozen mint condition MC2300s for $75 each.
I could own McIntosh, but I prefer Yamaha.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I would like to spend a bit of private time with Mac to check it out on my terms, in comparison to what I have, just like any variety of different gear.
But, if the point is, do I have "Mac Envy", the answer is no. At this point in time, I have no more or no less desire to own it than I do similarly priced gear from other high end audio mfgs.
sauuuuuce
...In a bottle or a can
bre's dad
I drank what?!?
I've got a mix of McIntosh, Marantz, Pioneer, Creek and other stuff both new & old. Mc gear has a sound in its own and Mc users will swear by it just like hard core Marantz or Sansui guys. Two pieces I listen to quite abit include a Marantz 2226B & Mac 1900 receiver. I think the Mac has a warmer tube like sound, though the Marantz looks cleaner, more modern and can't beat that classic blue dial. Not that its better, just different.
As far as preamps go, I've recently had a Denon PRA-1000 and McIntosh C26. The C26 had an overall smoother sound. The Denon had a much better phono stage and had an MC input where the C26 only can handle MM (which doesn't matter to me as I only have MM carts.) I ended up keeping the C26, but I wouldn't say it was better than the Denon. The Denon has a more neutral sound. The C26 looks way cooler in the dark too, as do most of the all glass faced McIntosh gear, but that's not why I kept it.
I also auditioned an Onkyo M504, Denon POA1500 and McIntosh MC2105. I passed on the Denon as it just sounded, well, blah. The McIntosh was too $$$ but sounded good. The winner? The Onkyo.
McIntosh is good stuff, but there is stuff out there that's as good for less. To me, its like having a Harley or a Corvette. There's stuff out there that is cheaper and will do just as good of a job if not better, but there's a certain clout that goes along with it if you're looking for that kind of thing.
There is one thing that is hard to beat with McIntosh: MADE IN USA
As far as preamps go, I've recently had a Denon PRA-1000 and McIntosh C26. The C26 had an overall smoother sound. The Denon had a much better phono stage and had an MC input where the C26 only can handle MM (which doesn't matter to me as I only have MM carts.) I ended up keeping the C26, but I wouldn't say it was better than the Denon. The Denon has a more neutral sound. The C26 looks way cooler in the dark too, as do most of the all glass faced McIntosh gear, but that's not why I kept it.
I also auditioned an Onkyo M504, Denon POA1500 and McIntosh MC2105. I passed on the Denon as it just sounded, well, blah. The McIntosh was too $$$ but sounded good. The winner? The Onkyo.
McIntosh is good stuff, but there is stuff out there that's as good for less. To me, its like having a Harley or a Corvette. There's stuff out there that is cheaper and will do just as good of a job if not better, but there's a certain clout that goes along with it if you're looking for that kind of thing.
There is one thing that is hard to beat with McIntosh: MADE IN USA
Last edited:
Fast996
Mod that Vintage Gear
Isn't that a kicker.......and the Japanese buy it like crazy.....
TejasRichard
Babies taste of chicken..
Brian, as far as speakers go, I already have a stacked set of large advents, refoamed and the crossover redone (by yours truly! w/ lots of advice from others here. jeez what a great bunch of folks we have gathered together!!!)
and i already have an idea of the spec's I'm lookin for. I am setting a budget limit for myself of $1500 (through scrimping and saving and tax-refunding
)
I'm shooting for seperates. the 2 biggest requirements that I have are:
the amp must have multiple inputs.
the amp must be at least 200 wpc and stable into 3 ohms
reasons being that, i will be using the amp for my 2channel rig, but also as the mains in my ht setup. having multiple inputs on the amp is the easiest way I can see to do this.
200wpc and 3 ohm stable, because the stacked OLA's hit 3.3 ohms, and I have heard they really "come alive" over 200 watts.
That being said, if I can find an 2 channel amp @ 100wpc that could be run mono into 3 ohms, I could start with the one amp, and then save up again for the second matching amp.
Thats where my head is now.
i'd been thinking proamps, at least to start with, and but have heard a lot about hum and graininess which has me second guessing myself. it seems like everytime you hear an idea which sounds promising, 2 people pop up to poop on it. having no real experience buying gear, its hard to know whose advice to take
I also considered integrated amps with pre out/main in- running a "y" out to a seperate amp, but i wasn't sure how hard it would be to find a seperate amp w/ the same voicing as the integrated
and i already have an idea of the spec's I'm lookin for. I am setting a budget limit for myself of $1500 (through scrimping and saving and tax-refunding
)I'm shooting for seperates. the 2 biggest requirements that I have are:
the amp must have multiple inputs.
the amp must be at least 200 wpc and stable into 3 ohms
reasons being that, i will be using the amp for my 2channel rig, but also as the mains in my ht setup. having multiple inputs on the amp is the easiest way I can see to do this.
200wpc and 3 ohm stable, because the stacked OLA's hit 3.3 ohms, and I have heard they really "come alive" over 200 watts.
That being said, if I can find an 2 channel amp @ 100wpc that could be run mono into 3 ohms, I could start with the one amp, and then save up again for the second matching amp.
Thats where my head is now.
i'd been thinking proamps, at least to start with, and but have heard a lot about hum and graininess which has me second guessing myself. it seems like everytime you hear an idea which sounds promising, 2 people pop up to poop on it. having no real experience buying gear, its hard to know whose advice to take
I also considered integrated amps with pre out/main in- running a "y" out to a seperate amp, but i wasn't sure how hard it would be to find a seperate amp w/ the same voicing as the integrated
Elroy
was here.
In answer to the question originally posed. I tried out some vintage Mac SS gear one time and was frankly quite suprised at how mediocre those particular units sounded; they were a MC-2205 amp and a MX-118 tuner/ preamp. The dissapointment was primarily with the MX-118- it just sounded "muddy" and veiled to me. Now of course I realize this is not indicative of Mac gear in general but for me personally I saw no reason to pursue my relationship w/ Mac gear any further. 
However, when I started checking out Accuphase gear I was instantly hooked as I was with the high end Yamaha gear and I have never looked back. That's just me though. My personal opinion is that at least the older Mac gear has a better reputation than it really deserves. I have no experience with Mac gear other than that though.
However, when I started checking out Accuphase gear I was instantly hooked as I was with the high end Yamaha gear and I have never looked back. That's just me though. My personal opinion is that at least the older Mac gear has a better reputation than it really deserves. I have no experience with Mac gear other than that though.When I was buying my first seperate amp a few months ago, I was looking at a vintage McIntosh MC2200 and a pretty obscure vintage 100wpc 'high current" amp by Robert Grodinsky Research (very well built, simple layout). The RGR amp was cheaper, and a friend of mine who used to sell audio recommended it. I had looked at both of these units at the same place, and after I paid the I mentioned that I had been leaning towards the Mac but wanted to save money. The owner of the store whispered that the RGR was a much better sounding amp.
I don't say this to bash McIntosh..I still plan on owning Mc (hopefully tube) as I think they're beautiful and like their sound signature..I just wanted to say that there may be more to it than just outright sound. There may be a lot of things out there that sound great, but there's just 'something' about McIntosh.
For now, my RGR model 5/Yamaha C85 combo makes some of the sweetest music I've ever heard.
I don't say this to bash McIntosh..I still plan on owning Mc (hopefully tube) as I think they're beautiful and like their sound signature..I just wanted to say that there may be more to it than just outright sound. There may be a lot of things out there that sound great, but there's just 'something' about McIntosh.
For now, my RGR model 5/Yamaha C85 combo makes some of the sweetest music I've ever heard.
Last edited:
Chazb11
Vintage Human
Speaking as an individual that has had both a McIntosh receiver (sold very recently due to a need for cash) and several of the big boy Japanese receivers I feel qualified to chime in here.
The Japanese units sound great and you wouldn't think they lack anything UNTIL you compare it to McIntosh. Then the Japanese stuff starts to sound kind of thin and lacking realism.
There is really nothing that compares to the McIntosh sound! You can spend more money on super high end gear and at best you might equal a McIntosh but you're not going to surpass it. There does come a point where more money does not buy better sound and McIntosh knows exactly where this point is!!!
Just as a side note the next best thing in my home to the MAC receiver is a "made in the USA" Philips 7871 receiver. The Philips is the only unit I will not sell. I might sell it if it would bring the money it is truly worth, but it never will. Perception (or hype) is everything when it comes to what people will pay.
EDIT> I chose to sell the MAC rather than a Jap unit because I knew it would sell quick. If I had a dozen of them I could have sold them all. That should tell you something about the REAL resale value of a Mac.
The Japanese units sound great and you wouldn't think they lack anything UNTIL you compare it to McIntosh. Then the Japanese stuff starts to sound kind of thin and lacking realism.
There is really nothing that compares to the McIntosh sound! You can spend more money on super high end gear and at best you might equal a McIntosh but you're not going to surpass it. There does come a point where more money does not buy better sound and McIntosh knows exactly where this point is!!!
Just as a side note the next best thing in my home to the MAC receiver is a "made in the USA" Philips 7871 receiver. The Philips is the only unit I will not sell. I might sell it if it would bring the money it is truly worth, but it never will. Perception (or hype) is everything when it comes to what people will pay.
EDIT> I chose to sell the MAC rather than a Jap unit because I knew it would sell quick. If I had a dozen of them I could have sold them all. That should tell you something about the REAL resale value of a Mac.
As far as hi fi gear goes, buying Mcintosh isn't really spending money. You are just parking it there for a few years and then you will be able to sell it used for the same price you paid for it new. Over time some pieces have are even selling for more than they were new. Now i am not saying this is a reason to buy mcintosh but it proves they are desirable because of they sound great and have a hand built made in the USA quality that is extremely rare. I just purchased my first Mcintosh system this year and I have had lots of different systems. You may laugh at what I am about to say. I was looking for just a replacement pre-amp because one of my channels blew on my old citation. I was in a hi fi store and heard a amazing sounding system that made me stop dead in my tracks. It was Mcintosh and B&W. I could not bring myself initially to spend that much money...after all I came in to just buy a new pre amp. I bought the mcintosh c220 pre amp and brought home the speakers I heard as well . My stereo sounded good but not what I had heard. I waited a few weeks and broke down and bought the mcintosh mc252 amp. and the Mcintosh cd player with base management. I am not trying to convert anyone or brag... I am just telling you what happended. Since I have not bought a stereo in 20 years I figured I might have this a long time and I probably would have had I not become addicted to this website. The people on the mcintosh forum are a bad influence.
whoaru99
Epic Member
I read this quite frequently.
Do you mean Mc imparts its own signature to the music music more or less than other brands?
The people on the mcintosh forum are a bad influence.:grnbounce
Quoted from 2uberoller
Last edited:
jstang
Honey,I can't hear you...
Just what I did not need to hear.... now I have to try to control myself.....
A few months back a set of re-release 9s from a seller in China went for 3200$ on eBay... I was so tempted to bid.... But had a hard time thinking about them being shipped from china and if it was a real auction......
How much do a set of re-release 9s sell for ? Cause originals seem to go for well over 10,000$..... Which I think is 10 times the original price in the sixties....
johnk
Brian
An Old Geezer
I have not tracked the Marantz tube stuff in years other than from time to time seeing something for sale as I cruise the auction site. Last time I saw a set of 9s for sale they were on the $20k range. Not sure if they were originals or reissues. I think the reality is that 9s and McIntosh MC3500s are only going to be owned by guys with Rolls, Ferrarri and Monets haning around the homestead, though the MC3500 is still cheap in comparison to the 9s.
Each company has a sonic signature. Mc is probalby closer to what today is perceived as the classic tube sound though the difference between Mc generations is significant, listen to a 1st gen SS and then the newest and you'll identify the signature but realize they've moved from quite a bit away from the sound that they were so well recognized for in their tube days. When the transistion from tube to SS happened the top companies were careful to try to voice the SS units to come close to the tube units, remember this was a mature sound well accepted as correct by the public. SS with no voicing was pretty bad as can be attested to by some early owners of lesser company units. Fisher, Scott, Mc, Marantz, Sherwood and most other did it. Mc was later in coming out with SS as it spent more time in developing their SS units and Frank came closer to maintaining the signature of the Mc sound.
Other companies after the 1st couple of generations discarded the bridging to their tube signature possibly as it took too much effort to design to it but, Mc continued. Possibly it was easier for them as a result of using the autoformer though experiments some years ago seemed to disprove it. I read where a tech had a Mc amp and after listening pulled the autoformers and directly wired the speakers and there was no difference in sound signature (not the same as sound quality) and it exhibited the very issues Mc claims to use the autoformer to avoid. He rewired the unit with the autoformers as it sounded better.
Each company has a sonic signature. Mc is probalby closer to what today is perceived as the classic tube sound though the difference between Mc generations is significant, listen to a 1st gen SS and then the newest and you'll identify the signature but realize they've moved from quite a bit away from the sound that they were so well recognized for in their tube days. When the transistion from tube to SS happened the top companies were careful to try to voice the SS units to come close to the tube units, remember this was a mature sound well accepted as correct by the public. SS with no voicing was pretty bad as can be attested to by some early owners of lesser company units. Fisher, Scott, Mc, Marantz, Sherwood and most other did it. Mc was later in coming out with SS as it spent more time in developing their SS units and Frank came closer to maintaining the signature of the Mc sound.
Other companies after the 1st couple of generations discarded the bridging to their tube signature possibly as it took too much effort to design to it but, Mc continued. Possibly it was easier for them as a result of using the autoformer though experiments some years ago seemed to disprove it. I read where a tech had a Mc amp and after listening pulled the autoformers and directly wired the speakers and there was no difference in sound signature (not the same as sound quality) and it exhibited the very issues Mc claims to use the autoformer to avoid. He rewired the unit with the autoformers as it sounded better.
whoaru99
Epic Member
Quite a few still say this about any amp with no particular "character"...i.e., the proverbial "straight wire with gain".
I don't know if Mc is the gold standard, but in my own system, the sound I've been trying to achieve is that of what I'm used to hearing at the Mc dealer down the street, where I listen to a Mc system every weekend. I have to say that I've gotten about as close as I can without dropping the cash for the real thing. It's 100wpc of mc tubes that I like listening to their, and that is WAY out of my price range.
Brian
An Old Geezer
There is a difference between straight wire with gain or without and what these early units sounded like. No voicing is not the same as voicing for a straight wire with gain. This early stuff was harsh, colored, lacked detail, and just about every other adjective you could use to describe a really bad experience. Circuits and components have come a long way and matured since then. "Straight wire" is actually a voicing. Actually, in thinking (probably should go back to my tax research as it makes more sense to me), if I take a source and plug it into the power amp and adjust the output level controls of the source or leave them wide open and adjust the input level controls of the power amp, one thing being changed it the output impedence to input impedence ratio and this effects the sound. To have a truly transparent preamps it would need to somehow compensate to duplicate this but I know of none that do except for the Mc C28 with the output attenuators that come after the volume control. Maybe this is why Mc used them. Hmmm.. food for thought. I'm not an engineer so maybe I'm chasing my tail or a ghost or something.