• 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

The problem is if you over lap the crossovers on the 901 you are introducing at least 3 db boost to the signal over the band width of the combined filter and whether the boost will be in phase or out of phase with the output of the speaker for the area of interest could further cause more compromises. The MEN 220 can correct for this, a 901 can't as it doesn't have the 1/12 octave digital filters the Men 220 has. The analog guys with pre-amps with no tone controls that are purists are not going to like that at all. Even the digital purists are going to scratch their heads. Lets face it most speakers now days have very sophisticated passive crossovers not only separating frequencies for each driver but they also account for the reactive properties of the drivers. So even if you remove the passive sections of the crossovers like we did in the old days, Then results will not always be improved as we wished. But then to each his own. I tri-amp as it removes the tube bloom caused by amps with transformers or autoformers with low damping factor and improves transient response, and improves efficiency using SS 207 amps driving the speaker directly with the passive crossovers removed. . I am a special case. OH! No cup holders for me!
 
twiiii said:
The problem is if you over lap the crossovers on the 901 you are introducing at least 3 db boost to the signal over the band width of the combined filter
Click to expand...
I'm with you.

I experienced the same phenomenon fine tuning the subs with the HT. What I found measured the most linear was high passing the mains at 70 hz while low passing the dual subs at 40 hz. The xover slopes introduce blending above and below the configured cutoffs to fill the apparent "gap".
 
The 901 X-overs are designed to be used with the existing passive network in the speakers which is why they are designed the way they are, this way you wont get the boost at the crossover point, if you require another solution and want to use some active external crossovers you can then bypass the 901 crossover, which is what I would do if I was using a pair of 901's....
I think McIntosh has come up with a nice flexible solution here and I applaud their development of such things.

Personally, I use a Lake Contour processor which has Linear Phase Filters, so not only no boost at the crossover frequency, but also no phase shift.
 
I feel like if you have speakers that manage to use 300 tube watts in the top end , 600 isnt enough in the bottom , should be more like a 1kw . But i suppose where you set the crossover can change that theory. I kinda think they are trying not to be one upped for a while . Creating a buzz.
A 75/450 would be nice.
 
Was looking at AC website and what did I see on one of their Web-cams, a pair of cup holders on two MC 901's. I called Steve and asked how they sound. He said the tube section sounds great and much better than the 2301's. Seems the 2301 uses SS components in its input amplification stage. I know when I audition 2301 with Snell and Magico Speakers the little 275 sounded better. Any way he says the Tube section of the 901 is really special and is maybe a little better than the 2152 . So I thought you guys would want to know. So run right out and get you a pair of MC 901's. We were talking maybe they would come out with a smaller model, Something like having one channel of a 2152 for the top and an updated MC 301 for the bottom. With that combo I can see where a bunch of Altec and JBL owners would really be thinking about up grading.
 
I saw some pictures from the factory of the MC901's on the assembly line, damn they are HUGE!!
Oh man, I really want one!! Well, actually two!!
 
Be a pretty sexy set up with a c53 sitting between those bad boys and maybe some dd67000 everest . Be cheaper to fly a tech out to fix them then to ship them anywhere though.
 
They must have had to add iron to that chassis . Be like trying to carry a wedding cake on cardboard.
I would imagine these will be limited edition. Be nice to not have to wait for a used one.
 
Davekayc said:
They must have had to add iron to that chassis . Be like trying to carry a wedding cake on cardboard.
I would imagine these will be limited edition. Be nice to not have to wait for a used one.
Click to expand...
Looks like a two man lift for sure!!
 
You can see the blue scissor-lift table behind them, ... I doubt anyone there lifts more than a few pounds at a time.
 
I know I come from the dark ages. But I would want the 901's to be up at eye level so I could look at them closely. leaving them on the floor just scares me. I would be afraid they could be easily damaged at that level. I guess I would have to mount a mirror at 45 degrees so the the VU meters could be seen. But then the meters would be swing the wrong way from right to left. I told you all I'm in of contact. Id still rather have 4 3500's.
 
I have to lift 60 lb Transformers all day. Not too bad. The people who package the Units have to lift them. And there 170 lbs. There almost three feet deep. When I first saw the proto chassis I was wondering how it was going to work? They are quite innovative products. The finest of all !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom