Matte Grey
Active Member
Who knows this potentially could be the best amp make ever produced. It's the bomb.
Mcintosh MC901
- Thread starter motorstereo
- Start date
I 100% agree with you.
The look of the recent products is hideous. The MC901 is continuing the trend. For me, the rep tarnishing started with the made in China lifestyle products.
beans
Got arth-a-ritis
Very true. But just to be clear, the MC901 is not a hybrid. A hybrid has a tube front end and a SS output section in one amp circuit. This is a dual mono concept.
Either the driver section is tube or solid state. Since the output is both tube and solid state, I cannot see how it can't be a hybrid - at least partially.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
2301 is not a new 3500. its a bigger quad balanced 275 and sounds like. 275. A 3500 sounds different and measures different in all respects. If you have never heard a 3500 when in top condition or new you are really missing out. Over 450 watts of non clipped out put. We used three of them for a time driving big Altec bi-amped. 210 enclosures with 515 woofers and 1003B and 203 horns with multiple drivers. We used either Altec or JBL floor monitors. White passive EQ's, and either Ampex or Langevin mixers. All the mics were condenser mics. You have never heard a pair of Concert Grands at their best until pushed by a pair of 3500's. There is a transient quality I still can't achieve with my 207 tri amping my Grands. Yes the highs are better with the added superr tweeters and there -is a little less tube bloom in the bass, but the over percussive impact does not even come close to a pair of Grands with a passive crossover pushed by a 3500 with the meter indicating levels of 35 watts. And you can -just keep turning up the volume with no sign of stress or strain. I have had 2301's start getting edgy and changing personality. driving Magico S5, Snell a7 Illusion, and M cintosh XRT 28 and 1K. Dealers who reconditioned 3500's and sold 2301's always told me they preferred the 3500, too. Yes the 2301 is supposed to be quieter because of being Quad balanced, but then they use the A weighting for the measurement as opposed to the full spectrum they used with the 3500. And yes a 3500 will be noisier because of short cuts in the power supply. But other than that I'll stick with the 3500. Some folks prefer the 240 and the little 225 because of the sound differences between the output tubes over the 275. I don't agree when it comes to the 240 but do agree with the mighty little 225. My favorite Mac tubes amps are the 225 and 3500. The little 225 was always my Choice for Klipsch, Altec and efficient JBL in the 60's.
kevzep
Its all about the Music
I realise that, but it is hybrid in my book at least as its combining the two different topologies...
damacman
Resident Psycho
Not what I said. There are a great many things that make the MI350 / MC3500 forever unique. For example, I don't ever see a time at which anyone will develop another audio amplifier with a bevy of horizontal output tubes. I know one amplifier designer (Stephen Mantz - http://www.oestex.com/tubes/Mac/ZED-MI350.html ) that claims the design may never be improved upon. He speaks eloquently of its designer, Mile Nestorovic. Not everyone shares our passion for vintage and some would like to buy new with a warranty. So, walk into a McIntosh dealer today and desire to own the largest tube mono offerings in the line? No problem sir - let's show you the MC2301s. In addition, a pair of MC2301s are far more at home in a swanky Manhattan apartment while the MI350 / MC3500 are perfectly suited for the racks of Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. While the latter appeals to you and I, we are most certainly in the minority.
I've heard MC2301s / MC1.2kws driving some BIG ASS MBLs biamped and the sound was to die for. I have not yet heard the MI350 / MC3500, but a local guy has four. I've been trying to make time to hear them for a while now . . .
Vinyl Rules!
Well-Known Member
I applaud McIntosh for thinking outside-the-box with an innovative design. While these amps are out of my price range, I hope they are a success for McIntosh. However, I believe I would have selected a number different from “901,” as we are all too familiar with an infamous speaker with this model number from a well-known speaker company.
It would have been a Porsche model also, but Peugeot had copyrighted three-digit car model numbers with a zero in the middle, enter the 911.
Nope, because it doesn’t make a difference, especially in blind ABX tests I’ve conducted
.How many watts were you using on that MC1.2kw?
jblnut
Don't Overthink It
Nope, because it doesn’t make a difference, especially in blind ABX tests I’ve conducted
I beg to differ - it makes a huge difference, unless you think that all amps sound the same. And if you do, what are you doing here ? Buy some cheap old Adcoms and live happily ever after.
jblnut
Nope, because it doesn’t make a difference, especially in blind ABX tests I’ve conducted
so you are saying all amps sound the same? or are you just being a troll and thats what the wink emoji is for?
I tried to watch the whole video of the dealer justifying biamping......could not watch it all because it just seemed like too much " bench racing" audio drivel.
Stepping away from professional system multi or biamping with external crossovers and such I again assert there were two reasons passive biamping came into the audio scene back in the late 80s.
Number one) COST compromise.....a new owner spent more on speakers less on a amp until he could add a second amp, that he really wanted to buy in the first place.
Number2) really stupid speaker designs that had such current sucking bad driver design that one driver would pull down the whole amp's current delivering ability.
The B&W 800 series matrix designs had this issue with the midrange driver not the woofers. They were 3 ohm speakers over the critical midrange. I understand that many Infinity designs had a similar issue.
Talking about "sweet" sounding tubes and "holographic" imaging just made my eyes roll up and glaze over. I do know that scribes who need to spew out such verbage to keep getting paid by the word need to spread such nonsense, but speaking such non repeatable nonsense on a audio sales floor will lead to unhappy results.
I do believe that many listeners can hear amp differences, defining what sounds better is the rub.
Stepping away from professional system multi or biamping with external crossovers and such I again assert there were two reasons passive biamping came into the audio scene back in the late 80s.
Number one) COST compromise.....a new owner spent more on speakers less on a amp until he could add a second amp, that he really wanted to buy in the first place.
Number2) really stupid speaker designs that had such current sucking bad driver design that one driver would pull down the whole amp's current delivering ability.
The B&W 800 series matrix designs had this issue with the midrange driver not the woofers. They were 3 ohm speakers over the critical midrange. I understand that many Infinity designs had a similar issue.
Talking about "sweet" sounding tubes and "holographic" imaging just made my eyes roll up and glaze over. I do know that scribes who need to spew out such verbage to keep getting paid by the word need to spread such nonsense, but speaking such non repeatable nonsense on a audio sales floor will lead to unhappy results.
I do believe that many listeners can hear amp differences, defining what sounds better is the rub.
W9TR
Super Member
The 901 is pretty much a 2301 and a 611 in a single chassis at a significant discount over buying the two amps separately.
Low cost to engineer - mostly a mechanical packaging job with new meter and meter drive circuits and a new screen grid protection scheme not offered on the 2301.
And no, the 2301 does not sound like the 275. I own both.
Low cost to engineer - mostly a mechanical packaging job with new meter and meter drive circuits and a new screen grid protection scheme not offered on the 2301.
And no, the 2301 does not sound like the 275. I own both.
I can not think of a way to say it better.
The ABX demo test that I hosted was fixed by the presenter, Clark, who was the proponent of the whole ABX snow/ sales job.
He manipulated the data we aquired to "prove" listners on the whole could not hear difference even though 1/3 of the listners were correct in 5 or 6 of the 6 trials.
I kept track of the listner's names, their seating postion, and their profession in the audio business to justify their being AES members.
I presented my data and experience with Larry Archibald as he had been back and forth with Clark, but he bailed out on calling him out.
He manipulated the data we aquired to "prove" listners on the whole could not hear difference even though 1/3 of the listners were correct in 5 or 6 of the 6 trials.
I kept track of the listner's names, their seating postion, and their profession in the audio business to justify their being AES members.
I presented my data and experience with Larry Archibald as he had been back and forth with Clark, but he bailed out on calling him out.
Last edited: