Mac vs the Japanese
- Thread starter TejasRichard
- Start date
Not a completely fair comparison:
1) Unlike mechanical devices, electronic devices have no mechanical wear because of friction, vibration and corrosion (not counting potentiometers, CD transports, speakers, other with moving parts).
2) Vacuum tubes have not changed since 60th, transistors used in amps are essentially the same as in 70th and 80th.
3) Single-microchip amps are hell cheap, but they have quite poor sound quality compared to discrete solid-state devices.
4) Electrolytic and film caps become smaller but this not affect sound quality.
5) The number of schematic tricks available for 10-tube or 30-transistor devices is already reached its limit.
6) Different CD DACs - where are REAL blind tests which could proof any audible difference ???
Again, I have nothing against people selling and buying $6500 CD players if they wanted to, but there are no direct correlation between price and real-world performance at all in the world of audio equipment. Even DACs prices at 30,000 pounds like AudioNote (approx $50,000) are driven by Analog Devices chip available at any radio parts store for $29. So where all the rest $49.971 come from ???? From people blind belief that extraordinary price means truly outstanding performance. Yet no matter of finished product prices, devices based on $29 Analog Devices chips are essentially the same in terms of quality of unaltered sound (some manufacturers use dirty-cheap tricks with filters and buffers to change coloration of sound and presenting that as outstanding achievement).
So, concerning poster's original question - assuming source as constant, and all components of decent quality, 90% of sound quality is determined by speakers and room, not amplifier. Really high-quality amp for $1,000 does not have 90% "features" compared to another priced at $10,000; in terms of real-life usage they are simply put equal.
So, TejasRichard, any particular brand/model of amp does not matter for you. Take whatever you like visually and sonically. Pay attention to speakers, they are cornerstone to the path of outstanding audio reproduction.
onepixel
.
Thanks for responding.
What are the sound characteristics of the MAC-1900? Is there anything Japanese or American comparable to the sound?
And what would be a TOTL Mac of that period. I like the looks of the MA-6100.
Thanks!
Elroy
was here.
Dude, I'm sorry but I aint buyin it. It sounds like a High Fidelity conspiracy theory!:screwy: My ears don't lie. You might want to consider that the overwhelming majority of high end buyers might be right and you may be mistaken in some of your "audacious" conclusions. :scratch2:
Not at all, pure science. Sound perception of human brain is very prone to auto-suggestion. Double-blind tests shown that people cannot distinguish decent quality solid-state amps between each other and vice versa if they are calibrated +/-0.1dB.
Amps MAY sound different mostly because of different loudness/tone control schemes. Once you bypass them they are barely recognizable in blind tests.
In audio for average living room (15 - 25 m^2), terms like high-end, audiophile, professional, high-fidelity have marketing meaning with no sound technology background. If not, please describe with laws and formulas of physics what is the difference between mentioned above categories of amplifiers.
Well, I am not going to dissect your head and study how influence of Accuphase will be different of let's say Marantz :scratch2:
. Although, to be honest, it would be very interesting research 
Probably I could win Nobel prize for something like "interconnection of visual, sonic, and social factors and activity of human's brain"If serious - music is an art
, audio is the science. I see no collision of interests.Boxers or briefs.......who cares. Listen to what pleases you. No one is right or wrong on this subject (remember the tread subject?). If your sound systems makes your toes tap, your head bob, and a smiles comes across your face, then you are on the right track. What anyone else thinks is irrelevent. It's certainly not worth the energy to argue over. This is a hobby, not a battle. It's about having fun, right? :yes:
Elroy
was here.
Mr Dandy you're preachin' to the choir and I for one never said anything otherwise and wouldn't be here if it wasn't fun.
perryinva
IS it vintage????
I owned Marantz SS (as well as Yamaha, Kenwood, Pioneer, and Sherwood) when it wasn't vintage, just high end hardware, and then (1976, about) the buzz was how Marantz wasn't what it used to be. (which was pretty much true for all the jap brands). By 1980-5 that was pretty obviously true. Plenty of high end dealers carried Mc and high end Jap systems, and they were often A-B'ed. It had nothing to do with $$$, the Mc stuff just always sounded fuller and complete. It's nothing new. You listen to something that sounds great until you compare it to something better, then you can't figure out how you thought it sounded great before. I mean, it's easy for a music lover to tell the first 85% is bad, but when you hear 95% on it's own it sounds great until you hear 98% next to it. These are jsut made up numbers of course, and depends on your ears and age, I'm just trying to make a point. My wife HONESTLY thinks there is nothing wrong sounding AT ALL with set ups you couldn't give me. Mc is certainly not the be all and end all if just the sound is your only criteria, but OBVIOUSLY you don't buy vintage JUST for the sound. It's a pretty personal and complex set of combinations, with great sound being the objective while meeting your other desires. Many of us are "back" into vintage becuase of the ability to finally own the elusive gear that was clearly unobtanium in our younger days. At 50, I know I can't POSSIBLY hear as well as I did in my 20s, but you'd be hard pressed to comvince my brain that!
To answer the original question, Mc holds up very well or better to the best of the VSS jap gear, and whether or not it is "better" is a combination of what you want to spend (which is distincly different from what you can afford) and what your objectives are. I have a bit of Mc gear, nothing newer than 1984, all bought used, some locally, some from ebay. Lately I wanted to upgrade to a C33 preamp from the C28 I have because of the flexibility and lower noise floor. I finally landed one at a good price ($730 delivered) and am extremely happy with the sound and every aspect of it. It is sonically better my C28 in almost every way. There is maybe 10 years between their production dates, so here I have 2 sets of VSS that were both TOTL in their day, yet I would be pretty sure that there is a better VSS jap pre out there over the C28, while the C33 would be harder as it is supposed to be the pinnacle of their analog pre's. The only difference between VSS collectors who are considered "snobs" and those that aren't are that the "snobs" pay more for and insist their gear HAS to be the best. I know I paid more for what I own than many VSS collectors, but I'd never say my setup was better unless I could A-B it to someone elses. It IS however (almost) what I've always wanted, and gives me great pleasure to own and listen to.
I also own a Mac1900 receiver (one of 3 I've owned over the last few years) for a 3rd system, and it is definitely NOT the same "Mac" sound as the separates, but it IS very musical, has an incredible tuner and phono pre, and I love the retro look. Better than a Marantz or Pioneer TOTL receiver from their height of design? I doubt it, but it is pretty perfect for what I'm using it for, and I have maybe $300 in it.
To answer the original question, Mc holds up very well or better to the best of the VSS jap gear, and whether or not it is "better" is a combination of what you want to spend (which is distincly different from what you can afford) and what your objectives are. I have a bit of Mc gear, nothing newer than 1984, all bought used, some locally, some from ebay. Lately I wanted to upgrade to a C33 preamp from the C28 I have because of the flexibility and lower noise floor. I finally landed one at a good price ($730 delivered) and am extremely happy with the sound and every aspect of it. It is sonically better my C28 in almost every way. There is maybe 10 years between their production dates, so here I have 2 sets of VSS that were both TOTL in their day, yet I would be pretty sure that there is a better VSS jap pre out there over the C28, while the C33 would be harder as it is supposed to be the pinnacle of their analog pre's. The only difference between VSS collectors who are considered "snobs" and those that aren't are that the "snobs" pay more for and insist their gear HAS to be the best. I know I paid more for what I own than many VSS collectors, but I'd never say my setup was better unless I could A-B it to someone elses. It IS however (almost) what I've always wanted, and gives me great pleasure to own and listen to.
I also own a Mac1900 receiver (one of 3 I've owned over the last few years) for a 3rd system, and it is definitely NOT the same "Mac" sound as the separates, but it IS very musical, has an incredible tuner and phono pre, and I love the retro look. Better than a Marantz or Pioneer TOTL receiver from their height of design? I doubt it, but it is pretty perfect for what I'm using it for, and I have maybe $300 in it.
jstang
Honey,I can't hear you...
Not to get in the middle....
Electronic devices do degrade over time....resistors drift, caps change in a lot of different ways... semi-conductors degrade... Solder connections degrade....and many other strange things happen to degrade sound quality....
Manufacturing techniques for caps and transistors have improved...tolerances are held much tighter at a lower price.....this has allowed the engineers to take different approaches. Additionally the actual manufacturing of the card assemblies has vast improved in the last 30 years. Most of this leads to better performance at lower prices...
On the flip side copper cost more...metals cost more....labor is more....on and on.... I still like amps with big transformers...and that costs money.....
So its very important in any discuss of "Vintage" solid state devices to really COMPLETELY refub the boxes before considering a comparison....
This is why I have been using the word VINTAGE OVER & OVER... We are on a vintage forum... We should be careful not to blend in the current Mac tech & products with 35 year old units.... Even though I still think my 40 year old stuff is better....
johnk
Electronic devices do degrade over time....resistors drift, caps change in a lot of different ways... semi-conductors degrade... Solder connections degrade....and many other strange things happen to degrade sound quality....
Manufacturing techniques for caps and transistors have improved...tolerances are held much tighter at a lower price.....this has allowed the engineers to take different approaches. Additionally the actual manufacturing of the card assemblies has vast improved in the last 30 years. Most of this leads to better performance at lower prices...
On the flip side copper cost more...metals cost more....labor is more....on and on.... I still like amps with big transformers...and that costs money.....
So its very important in any discuss of "Vintage" solid state devices to really COMPLETELY refub the boxes before considering a comparison....
This is why I have been using the word VINTAGE OVER & OVER... We are on a vintage forum... We should be careful not to blend in the current Mac tech & products with 35 year old units.... Even though I still think my 40 year old stuff is better....
johnk
Arkay
Lunatic Member
Lots of good points made throughout this thread (along with some...never mind! ), so I'll skip my opinions which would only reflect many already made, and point out ONE fact that hasn't yet been mentioned:
Macs are made with American labor. American labor is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than Asian labor. Is it better? Well, it used to be, and in the case of McIntosh employees, I believe it still is, when compared to labor in China or Thailand or Malaysia, but not when compared with the best Japanese manufacturing (a la Accuphase).
But it IS a lot more expensive, and the Mac pricing reflects that. You pay a big premium for the citizenship and location of the people holding the soldering irons!
Incidentally, I see that same quality of workmanship in my old Soundcraftsmen gear... little doubt can exist that American workers used to be excellent, and in some instances still are. Whether that labor is worth the premium you pay for it is your decision, but recognize that it is there, built into the price.
I see a lot of quality control problems in Chinese factories, and attitudes among senior management that mean they will never --until real change sets in-- achieve the quality levels of Macs... but the old Japanese factories came darned close, at least sometimes. In automotive manufacturing, they beat the Americans, hands down... except in the American factories owned and run by Japanese! Different cultures.
), so I'll skip my opinions which would only reflect many already made, and point out ONE fact that hasn't yet been mentioned:Macs are made with American labor. American labor is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than Asian labor. Is it better? Well, it used to be, and in the case of McIntosh employees, I believe it still is, when compared to labor in China or Thailand or Malaysia, but not when compared with the best Japanese manufacturing (a la Accuphase).
But it IS a lot more expensive, and the Mac pricing reflects that. You pay a big premium for the citizenship and location of the people holding the soldering irons!
Incidentally, I see that same quality of workmanship in my old Soundcraftsmen gear... little doubt can exist that American workers used to be excellent, and in some instances still are. Whether that labor is worth the premium you pay for it is your decision, but recognize that it is there, built into the price.
I see a lot of quality control problems in Chinese factories, and attitudes among senior management that mean they will never --until real change sets in-- achieve the quality levels of Macs... but the old Japanese factories came darned close, at least sometimes. In automotive manufacturing, they beat the Americans, hands down... except in the American factories owned and run by Japanese! Different cultures.
Chazb11
Vintage Human
The MAC1900 was by no means TOTL. Closer to BOTL! I know of no other manufacture's equipment that would sound all that similar. A Setton receiver sounds kinda similar to me but the MAC is a bit more "tube like".....sorta.
Trying to describe what something sounds like is futile. Not only are the terms used open to interpretation but the room the listener is in makes a big difference.
onepixel
.
So then... what would be a TOTL vintage MAC '70s receiver or amp? I've been asking with no definitve answer.
The OP's original question was "how does vintage mac stack up against yammie, marantz, pioneer et al. any takers?"
I realize descriptions, especially of what we hear can be open to numerous variances. You say "tube like" does that mean sorta like Marantz 18 or a Sansui and not like a Pioneer? I'm just looking for a reference point.
The only vintage MACs I've heard was an all tube set up with horns.
Cheers
jstang
Honey,I can't hear you...
That is the point.... keep the units from the vintage timeframe....like for like. Oh and include some nudes...
jk
Brian
An Old Geezer
Actually, the 1900 was totl the, middle or the road and botl as it was the only Mc receiver. Frank was not a lover of the receiver format and the receiver line was to have a presence in the market and while not equal to what Frank felt was where entry levels persons should be, the tuner/preamp and separate power amp, it was an excellent receiver in sound and construction and did introduce a larger market to McIntosh. No, it was not a power house, the Mc specs were min/max guarenteed rather than the more "typical" used by almost all other manufacturers and hence putting the spec pages next to each other the 1900 did not look good.
As for a Japanese receiver alternative, look at the Sony STR6060FW and STR6120. Sony decided to set its sights on Mc when it decided to enter the US market with its audio line. Superscope had been bringing in the tape equipment but Sony kept the audio line to itself. As it was in a dispute with Superscope, it also wanted to be better than their line, Marantz. The STR6060FW was the first entry and it is 1st class in construction and near equal to Mc in construction. Sound is very close to the 1700 that it went against on entry. At Cramers, the 6060 was sold to a large number of Mc owners who found it to be so Mc like in sound but less expensive. It was the totl until the entry of the 6120 that that in some ways better designed and constructed and in some ways not quite as good. The 6120 is a cap output unit and was replaced by the 6200 that look just like it but is direct output. Today, I am not sure which is a less expensive buy as the Sonys, especially the 6060 need tlc to get to spec and the 1900 should be looked at but seems to need less tlc. The 6060 has a weakness in the mpx circuit and most seem to need work to get the stereo to work. The tuner of the 6060 sounds so good a number of persons are just using the receiver in mono FM mode. The tuner section is excellent.
Look up Sony in the search system and you'll find a number of discussions on the 6060, 6120 and 6200.
As for a Japanese receiver alternative, look at the Sony STR6060FW and STR6120. Sony decided to set its sights on Mc when it decided to enter the US market with its audio line. Superscope had been bringing in the tape equipment but Sony kept the audio line to itself. As it was in a dispute with Superscope, it also wanted to be better than their line, Marantz. The STR6060FW was the first entry and it is 1st class in construction and near equal to Mc in construction. Sound is very close to the 1700 that it went against on entry. At Cramers, the 6060 was sold to a large number of Mc owners who found it to be so Mc like in sound but less expensive. It was the totl until the entry of the 6120 that that in some ways better designed and constructed and in some ways not quite as good. The 6120 is a cap output unit and was replaced by the 6200 that look just like it but is direct output. Today, I am not sure which is a less expensive buy as the Sonys, especially the 6060 need tlc to get to spec and the 1900 should be looked at but seems to need less tlc. The 6060 has a weakness in the mpx circuit and most seem to need work to get the stereo to work. The tuner of the 6060 sounds so good a number of persons are just using the receiver in mono FM mode. The tuner section is excellent.
Look up Sony in the search system and you'll find a number of discussions on the 6060, 6120 and 6200.
pmsummer
simul justus et peccator
I was hinting that the MAC-1900 was not a TOTL unit, even though it was their only receiver, and therefore TOTL.
Carl, look for an MA-6100 (with a slant-leg case). You won't be sorry. :yes:
Brian, I have neglected to comment what a GREAT contributor you are to AK. Really. Depth, breadth, humility, fairness, and knowledge. Really. Thanks. :thmbsp:
onepixel
.
Thank you PM and Brian.
I'm a total newbie when it comes to Macs. As for the other half of this question I've owned and have experience with numerous brands/models. I will start looking into a MA-6100.
Carl
Brian
An Old Geezer
When I suggest an entry level Mc unit I bypass the receivers and integrated amps and start with one of the tuner/preamps and a power amp. There is something beautiful about the looks and sound of either a MX110 and MC2505 sitting in their cases. Can not afford a 110 or do not want tubes, then either a MX112 or MX113. On a bit more of a budget, sub in a MC250 for the 2505. They are the same amp but the 250 is on a chrome chassis with no glass front and meters. I used a 250 for some 30 years as my main system amp and still have it. Only subbed in the big brother MC2105 with 2x the power a few years ago when I bought the Bozak Symphonys and got the urge to spend some money. The 2105 is the same vintage as the 2505, 250 and the unmetered version is the 2100. If you don't care about meters, a 2100 is about the same price as a MC2505 so a trade of 2x the power for the meters.
I think the 1700 was made for a brif period while the 1900 was produced but other than then, Mc only made one receiver model at a time starting with the 1500, then 1700, 1900, 4100 and 4300. Oh, while the 1900 was produced they started the Stereotech program and they had the Japanese produce 1200 receiver that was a poor person's Mc rceiver. Owners of the 1200 who also own(ed) a 1900 seem to have a split of decisions as to which they liked better. I think it was built by Foster that built many really good Japanese units for other companies. The 1200 was not a bargain as Mc designed and spec'd it and the components and had a 100% qc program so final costs savings was labor that was setoff by shipping costs. The 1200 showed the Japanese could build to the highest standards if they wanted to. Just how good, well I prefer my Minolta built Leica CL to the M series in everyday use.
I think the 1700 was made for a brif period while the 1900 was produced but other than then, Mc only made one receiver model at a time starting with the 1500, then 1700, 1900, 4100 and 4300. Oh, while the 1900 was produced they started the Stereotech program and they had the Japanese produce 1200 receiver that was a poor person's Mc rceiver. Owners of the 1200 who also own(ed) a 1900 seem to have a split of decisions as to which they liked better. I think it was built by Foster that built many really good Japanese units for other companies. The 1200 was not a bargain as Mc designed and spec'd it and the components and had a 100% qc program so final costs savings was labor that was setoff by shipping costs. The 1200 showed the Japanese could build to the highest standards if they wanted to. Just how good, well I prefer my Minolta built Leica CL to the M series in everyday use.