McIntosh Turntable Poll
- Thread starter TONEPUB
- Start date
I think that if MAC is going in the direction its going with, the design of the MT10 should probably have more meters. At least 3. Left, right channel, and a speed indicator meter (the old strob one). A knob on the left and right side.
The front panel should be the thick glass that is used on the MC 501's.
And probably a better integration of the size of the front panel
The front panel should be the thick glass that is used on the MC 501's.
And probably a better integration of the size of the front panel
1coastbluz
Member
The acrylic platter at 70-80 mm is standard for $7k tt and glass is totally unacceptable sonically. If sourced from clearaudio black is unavailable, however the CMB (ceramic magnetic bearing) is a $1200 option and is the quietest bearing available, the platter will spin for hours. No rumble no wear no oil and certainly no bounce as someone incorrectly assumed. As far as looks german kilobuck TA has a very similar looking table but has the option of builtin phono section. A massive plinith works with this type platter and is easier to level than enviromentally sensitive suspensions. Seperate pods for motor and tonearm are premium and better than cheap acrylic mounts. Whats the problem, give it a chance even the tonearm is a good place to experiment as clearaudio tonearms are the weaker sister of the line(unless you count the cheaper all acrylic pliniths.
My dealer just returned from CEDIA, and says that the glass platter will light up with the same color blue as the meters, and will look very cool. This effect sure doesn't show in the pics, so far, which is too bad.
Cadillac Kid
Addicted Member
That thing is gonna look awesome...with the room lights turned off.
Jem666
Well-Known Member
Ron posted some additional pictures in another thread...speaking for myself, the stereophile shot doesn't do the TT justice...go and check it out.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125612
If it outperforms a Michell Engineering Orbe, and for the price of admission this would be a conditio sine qua non, than I think we all could be pleasantly surprised.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=125612
If it outperforms a Michell Engineering Orbe, and for the price of admission this would be a conditio sine qua non, than I think we all could be pleasantly surprised.
jt1stcav
Up and Coming Bottlehead
carbonman
It's All About The Music
Why doesn't McIntosh just design their MT10 like this and get it over with? Put the knobs up on top and do away with the meter (or reduce it considerably and place it on top somewhere).
It'll make everyone happy (at least me anyway).
I have to agree with your design suggestion. A plain front face with the current style backlit McIntosh logo would give the TT an understated style. Everything else can be top mounted a la Thorens TD126 series. The blue meter on the front is too gaudy.
nsgarch
McStatic
TT only?, and how about a nice MC headamp for 2200/220 owners?
McIntosh would be very VERY smart to offer a version of the MT-10 without the tonearm or cartridge -- for 3 excellent reasons I can think of (without even thinking) One reason being they'd sell more MT-10's :yes:
McIntosh should also offer the 2300 and the 500 without the phono sections, for those who don't want/need them -- why make the customer pay for something they'll never use? Levinson has provided that option in their preamps for years now.
And for those who want to add phono later, or want to add MC capability for their 2200 or 220, but stay within the brand, McIntosh should offer a separate MC phono head amp -- an updated version of the MCP-1. That way, for example, if a person wanted to buy the MT10, but it meant keeping their 2200 (or 220), they could add MC capability to the MM section of the 2200/220 without having to buy a 2300 or a 500. It could make the difference between buying the MT-10 or not.
What do you think Ron?
McIntosh would be very VERY smart to offer a version of the MT-10 without the tonearm or cartridge -- for 3 excellent reasons I can think of (without even thinking) One reason being they'd sell more MT-10's :yes:
McIntosh should also offer the 2300 and the 500 without the phono sections, for those who don't want/need them -- why make the customer pay for something they'll never use? Levinson has provided that option in their preamps for years now.
And for those who want to add phono later, or want to add MC capability for their 2200 or 220, but stay within the brand, McIntosh should offer a separate MC phono head amp -- an updated version of the MCP-1. That way, for example, if a person wanted to buy the MT10, but it meant keeping their 2200 (or 220), they could add MC capability to the MM section of the 2200/220 without having to buy a 2300 or a 500. It could make the difference between buying the MT-10 or not.
What do you think Ron?
Why doesn't McIntosh just design their MT10 like this and get it over with? Put the knobs up on top and do away with the meter (or reduce it considerably and place it on top somewhere).
It'll make everyone happy (at least me anyway).
Now that it's been a few days of seeing the MT10 with the dial, I don't like the all black version you imposed.
I think 3 medium meters in front, with a couple nobs and buttons would make it look like it belongs in a studio. Proportional face though to the deck.
Has anyone figured out what the surface material is which the arm, motor and platter are on. Glass, black metal??
restorer-john
Addicted Member
Although they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are universally attractive people just as certain pieces of hifi gear are regarded as aesthetic classics. This eye-assaulting fiasco does nothing for a brand not exactly endowed with pleasing lines to start with. Wife acceptance factor would be close to, or below zero here. Imagine 'honey I spent 7k on a new turntable...look'. And she says, "oh, I didn't know mcintosh made potter's wheels.."
markc2
Super Member
That much money gets really close to getting me a 2nd mc275 and a mvp871, but then again, I only have 3 records so far.
The more I look at it, and given its placement in some peoples racks, and sitting position, you might not be able to tell it's a record player, there would be no visible clues. That glass faceplate would hide all of that, and depending how much the glass platter "glows" it might make changing records really easy in a dimly lit room...
Though the thickness of the platter reminds me of a Big Mac or Whopper. I am guilty of really liking the Sondek LP12 or the Thoren's just based on it's looks. Old School I guess.
The more I look at it, and given its placement in some peoples racks, and sitting position, you might not be able to tell it's a record player, there would be no visible clues. That glass faceplate would hide all of that, and depending how much the glass platter "glows" it might make changing records really easy in a dimly lit room...
Though the thickness of the platter reminds me of a Big Mac or Whopper. I am guilty of really liking the Sondek LP12 or the Thoren's just based on it's looks. Old School I guess.
and the meter is ridiculous. at first i thought it was a joke but i see they're not kidding. it's almost a parody of mcintosh equipment. does it really need that huge platter? please...
I sure am happy to have the 1988 vintage LP12 with the full works .... indeed old school ....:thmbsp:
But then, IF what is being said is true, there will be "refinements/enhancements" along the way before the final product is released. Just keeping fingers crossed the end result would be more acceptable .... :yes:
