• 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

Mcintosh MC901

Moderation Note:

This thread has been cleaned up of interpersonal back and forth, thread-crapping, and such like. More of this shall result in dissuasive measures.

Rich P
 
I wish I had the money for one of these, I am bi amping with a mc2500 on the bottom and keep trying different amps on the top and just can’t get the right combo of sound and power...some tube amps (300b and 2a3) sound amazing but crap out too soon, other amps with more power just don’t have the same sound ☹️
 
Edroom said:
I wish I had the money for one of these, I am bi amping with a mc2500 on the bottom and keep trying different amps on the top and just can’t get the right combo of sound and power...some tube amps (300b and 2a3) sound amazing but crap out too soon, other amps with more power just don’t have the same sound ☹️
Click to expand...
Have you tried the MC2500 full range?
 
Edroom said:
I wish I had the money for one of these, I am bi amping with a mc2500 on the bottom and keep trying different amps on the top and just can’t get the right combo of sound and power...some tube amps (300b and 2a3) sound amazing but crap out too soon, other amps with more power just don’t have the same sound ☹️
Click to expand...
Sounds like one of your amplifiers may be out of specification.
 
Edroom said:
I wish I had the money for one of these, I am bi amping with a mc2500 on the bottom and keep trying different amps on the top and just can’t get the right combo of sound and power...some tube amps (300b and 2a3) sound amazing but crap out too soon, other amps with more power just don’t have the same sound ☹️
Click to expand...

Been there Ed...swapping around all sorts of tube and SS amps on my JBL 250s to try and get "that sound". I'd steer you towards the more modern quad balanced amps as that finally freed me from trying to biamp in search of smooth highs and powerful bass.

Or you can buy some 901's...your call :-)

jblnut
 
c_dk said:
McIntosh needs to start building a product that their salespeople can expect to sell every week not once or twice a year.

That would be interesting creative engineering.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, this new unit is a misguided example of design.
 
I kinda like them. I think there is an application for them and it puts them in the same area a as some of the higher end boutique audio companies. Mac wants to compete with them and they feel they need a product that can. I hope they are a success and that the concept trickles down to a more affordable product.
 
almost all speakers being built are designed to be bi-ampable? Why? Not for some silly biwire cables but so separate amps can be used...
If all the speaker manufacturers deem this important there must be a reason.
I would think the people who frequent this site would be the ones playing with bi amping more than anywhere else.
Sure this particular piece is ridiculously expensive and out of reach of all but the 1% , I know I won’t be buying one but I think the concept certainly has merit and the design fits as a perfect solution for Bi amping.
Of course you need 2 of them...$35,000
 
Last edited:
JWJW said:
I would like to see a lower power solution for less $$$$....
150 w tube, 300 w ss .... 75 w tube, 150 w ss
For us poor folk. :)
Click to expand...
I like this idea. For those of us with very high efficient speakers that would be a realistic product
 
I am not a lawyer, so this is just hearsay, but I have heard that lawyers are taught to never ask a question in the courtroom that they do not already know the answer to......

In the same light, why would a audio salesperson demo a unit that almost certainly most prospective buyers could not hear a difference.

I have hosted a ABX demonstration put on by the designer and proponent of the ABX comparison device. Only 1/3 of the assembled listeners could hear a difference 5-6 of the 6 trials........1/3 heard no difference at any trial the other 1/3 were 50/50.

While I found interesting the 1/3 who were consistently right why would you possibly want to offend the 2/3s.

We did experiment with passive biamping and biwiring. Dangerous demos except for those based on economic upgrading......ie. a lesser amp purchased earlier but then the system SQ improved by adding a 2nd amp down the road.

I believe there are many manufacturers that are now relegated to the dustbin of audio history by building products that insulted the prospective buyer but certainly loved by the scribes who to paraphrase Van Morrison's line about girls dressing up, "the scribes were auditioning for each other"
 
Why can't there be equals in the audio world? If two different approaches provide the same experience what's wrong with that? If I can't tell the "difference", what's wrong with that? If bi-amping "sounds" the same as a single amp what's wrong with that? If the end result is the "same" what's wrong with that?
Unfortunately, I think the real problem (as per usual.), money. If the end results are the same and one way cost more it's a sin. Personally, I like being provided with different products / approaches no matter if I can or can't afford them.
 
The MC901 is for pikers!

Here's an amp: D’Agostino Relentless. Balanced, 1.5 KW monoblock, 570 lbs, $125,000 each and a meter. I recommend that you get 13 of these: 11 for your Dolby Atmos HT and two more for your patio speakers. I guess if you want to try-amp your HT speakers you'll need 35 of these.
 
My mother told me once, OK, well maybe she told me twice, If you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all. :) I can't say I always listened.

I am not fond of the looks, but if this fits someones needs and pocketbook, go for it. Enjoy the music and forgo the hate. :) So much emotion over a audio product. Wow.
 
I like the amp, I think its looks cool, nice idea doing the active crossover too.
A bit pricey for me, but if I did have the funds, I'd be considering it...I am sure that SS section will produce some nice bass, and the tubes might soften the top end..nice.....Hybrid technology can produce some great results...
It would be nice if there were some more options for crossover points though.....

I agree with chuckworb, Enjoy the music, forgo the hate.......Life is too short to waste on those kinds of emotions...
 
I think the 901 is a beautiful statement piece; and yes presently it's out of reach for me as well. But who knows what the future holds as 10 years ago I never ever thought I'd be able to afford any of the Mac gear I presently own either.
I also wonder if the people that poo on the 901 felt that Mcintosh had lost their way when they came out with the 2301's at 22G's or the MT10 tt at 8.5G's? Those aren't for the budget conscious either but they're selling and no doubt Mac took those sales figures into consideration when they designed this beast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom