New vs Vintage McIntosh equipment

[strat10]

I have a lot of vintage McIntosh gear and was wondering how it compares to modern gear in sound does modern Mac gear have the warmth of vintage gear.I have never listened to modern gear I live in a town that has no high end stores so I can't compare.thanks for your replies

 

[damacman]

The biggest difference is the noise floor of modern components, which can be substantial. I personally don't subscribe to warmth when we're talking about components designed for flat frequency response.

 

[4-2-7]

Well lets see, most people use the term warm sounding when it comes to tube equipment. What tube equipment really gives is distortion, generally the older type gear and lower quality types of gear will give even more distortion. Now I have newer mac in tube and SS and they are not distant cousins, they sound about the same. But they also don't have worn switches or tarnished contacts. They don't know what deox-it or service looks like, they are still all mac.

I'm looking at your sig line here
McIntosh C33,Mc30,Mc2105,Mc2205

What do you feel your missing with your equipment?

 

[strat10]

I just have to much vintage gear and I was thinking of a Mcintosh 452 and a Mcintosh tube pre-amp I haven't researched that yet
.I have a mc 30 240 and a c-11 and was thinking why do I need all this when 1 system can do it all.No restoration no shipping more closet space.I have never listened to modern stuff but I'm willing to change my speakers and my system if I get the sound.I don't want sterile and I like warm and I don't play my music loud but my gear runs from 6 am to 7pm 7days a week.thanks for the replies

 

[damacman]

Well, my journey began with McIntosh in 1990 with an MX-110 and an MC240. For the next decade, I tried nearly every flavor of vintage Mc (and some vintage Marantz) there was. It was certainly a fun ride, I had some great pieces, and always had great sound. Today, I'm no longer messing with tube gear as I simply don't have time for the maintenance. [My MC225 is once again collecting dust . . . ] It will always have a special place in my heart though - especially the MC60s and Marantz 7c preamp.

Personally, I never recommend purchasing gear based solely on what you've read on the 'net. We all have different preferences. You really should consider a road trip to visit a Mc dealer and see, feel, and hear the stuff in person. A C2600/MC452 would be about as far from a C11/MC30s as you could get. You may not like the pair at all compared to what you're used to. OTOH, you may fall in love with the stuff. Keep in mind that many consider the MC30 to be the pinnacle of McIntosh amplification of all time.

Have you considered simply buying a modern preamplifier and using it with the amplifiers you do have? [Even today, I think the MC2105 is still a very capable SS amplifier.] That would allow you to get your feet wet. If your amps are performing to spec, there is no question that a modern Mc preamp would best any of the vintage preamps - noise, switching, ergonomics, etc. - and your amplifiers would have never sounded better. Only you could say if an MC452 was better than your MC240, MC30s, etc. in your system in your space.

Modern gear won't need you. Set it up, turn it on, and listen. When you're done, turn it off. Even the new tube preamps are very low maintenance. Have you considered how boring that may be compared to owning gear that requires your constant attention to perform to its fullest?

 

[kevzep]

New Mc gear all day long, I sold my MC2205 and C33, every time I'd listen to my new system you see in my Signature, I'd ask myself why I had the 33 and 2205, the new gear just sounds so much better to my ears, warmer, faster, smoother, easier to listen to.....
Turn it on an enjoy....

 

[twiiii]

because of the increased signal to noise there are gains in clarity and definition. About warmth. Amps with low damping factors are easily influenced by reactive loads of speakers and there fore the sound balance changes . A 275 might match up with a speaker in a very complementary way where a 7200 or a 207 may not and vice versa. I know 2000 and 7000 series amps didn't match up well with my speakers. The exceptions being the 7100, 7106 and especially the 7200 which sounded the best. They don't have autoformers, which is a plus for me. Re member I tri amp so the amps connect directly to speakers with out passive crossovers to interfere. My speakers also like my MC 207's and 206, and assume they would with the 205 and other amps with out autoformers. If I still were using my passive crossovers and operating full range the differences would not be as obvious.

My MX 151 easily outperforms my MX 119, MX 120 and also the C-34. By using the MP-100 driving the C-34 thru a line input and the MX 151 via an optical connection the MX 151 is definitely a big step up. But I need those graphic tone controls and flexibility of the C-34 the MX 151 and no other current Mac stereo pre-amp have. The record selector, the input selector allows me to monitor multiple recorders simultaneous ly. The insert control that allow me to install the graphic tone controls and other processors in the record loop. The mode selector for reverse mode, yes I find recordings with the Ist violins or clarinets on the wrong side. Yes, I could easily reverse my TT connections, but why should I? The one thing I really mis is being able to add a little treble or bass to one channel only. For that issue alone I wish I had my C-29. or the third Crown EQ 2. I guess that should be my next addition.

 

[4-2-7]

I just have to much vintage gear and I was thinking of a Mcintosh 452 and a Mcintosh tube pre-amp I haven't researched that yet
.I have a mc 30 240 and a c-11 and was thinking why do I need all this when 1 system can do it all.No restoration no shipping more closet space.I have never listened to modern stuff but I'm willing to change my speakers and my system if I get the sound.I don't want sterile and I like warm and I don't play my music loud but my gear runs from 6 am to 7pm 7days a week.thanks for the replies

Yeah I understand all that and thinning the heard doesn't hurt. You could sell a few power amps and your two preamps and buy used but much newer and It may not even cost you anything. I think I would hang onto the MC30s for a bit of tube action, get some newer 400+ watt SS amp/amps and a more modern preamp.

 

[quartersaw]

Yeah I understand all that and thinning the heard doesn't hurt. You could sell a few power amps and your two preamps and buy used but much newer and It may not even cost you anything. I think I would hang onto the MC30s for a bit of tube action, get some newer 400+ watt SS amp/amps and a more modern preamp.

I sold one of my Mc2300's, and the buyer wants to buy my second '2300.
Here I am thinking about buying a Mc602 if the second deal goes through......

 

[motorstereo]

With the sole exception of tuners I'm onboard to with newer gear being much much better than the vintage gear. A C100 replaced my C33 and that 33 hasn't been used now in months. A pair of MC1201's also replaced my pair of MC2500's which I still consider my best upgrade ever. But my MR7084 is greatly lacking when compared to either my MR74 or MR80.

 

[twiiii]

1201's and MC 1.2 k are my favorite Mac for auditioning any speaker, whether it only needs 30 watts, 300 watts or close to 2000 watt peaks. I have never heard them strain, where 352's 402's and 601's kind of roll over on their backs and die quietly. 452 is my favorite medium power amp, I haven't heard a 462 yet. Imagine saying a 452 is medium power. I can remember when we thought that using two MC 3500's was beyond description and why would a consumer need almost 500 watts. You haven't heard Bozak Concert Grands until you have heard them pushed with two 3500's. If you are not going to bi-amp that was the amp to choose back in the 70's. Speakers are less efficient today. We only had maybe a dozen or so that were 85 db 4 ft 1 watt back then. Most were at least in there middle 90's or higher. No need for 500 watts there. A 275 was the perfect choice and for speakers rated at 100 db or higher the little 225 and the 240 were perfect choices.

But back to the 1201. With its high signal to noise its quieter than my 2505 or 2100's I used. Better signal to noise mean more revealing capabilities. Imagine choosing a 1201 to drive a pair of super efficient Klipschorns because its quieter than a 7150, or MC150. a 1201 will sound better at 1 watt than almost any previous Mac amp. Of course MC 501 owners might disagree. And to tell the truth the 501 was my favorite amp till the 1201 came along. The 1.2 K had to grow on me, its a little more revealing and with a bright speaker and a not to cool tube pre-amp turns me off. But driving a pair of Snell A7 or Magico S series then using a C500T a 1.2k is a real delight. I haven't liked the latest series of Mac speakers, just to to bright for me, and neither the 1201 or 1.2K amps did them any favors. It wasn't the amps fault, just the speakers. I would love to hear a 1.2K or 1201 driving a pair of XR 290's. Its something that is still on my bucket list. The most advanced amp I ever heard driving 290's was a 2600, and thats definitely sounds from the past. Great sound , but not the sound created with a 1201 or 1.2 K. I hope no one is offended that I group the two together, they are both gifts from electronic heaven to be enjoyed and used to their full potential.. Wonder how they would sound with a C-1100 driving a pair of Q7's. I usually find big Infinity speakers a little to much for me, but I did hear a pair being pushed by 501's in Houston some Time ago and it just proved how really good a Mac amp was compared to Krell. There's a smoothness a 501 and 1201 have that other amps don't have. We weren't playing the speakers loudly, under 50 watts as I remember in a fairly large room. But the sound, considering the speakers, was very nice.

I'd still like to see Mac recreate a 500 watt version of the MC 3500 to give ARC a run for their money. It would have to be quad balanced and use the original output tubes and be capable of 700 watts rms, with 2301 signal to noise ratios. It would be truly the king of the hill as it was 50 years ago. Remember a 3500 was rated at less than 0.15 % THD, not 0.5 % THD like the rest of the tube amps then or now!!!!!!!!! Thats almost 10 db less distortion. Thats significant.

 

[strat10]

I8

With the sole exception of tuners I'm onboard to with newer gear being much much better than the vintage gear. A C100 replaced my C33 and that 33 hasn't been used now in months. A pair of MC1201's also replaced my pair of MC2500's which I still consider my best upgrade ever. But my MR7084 is greatly lacking when compared to either my MR74 or MR80.

I had a MR 78 and about a year after I got my Squeezebox touch I sold it.I gained more real estate on my shelf and to be honest I don't miss it but I do miss the looks.

 

[motorstereo]

Imagine choosing a 1201 to drive a pair of super efficient Klipschorns because its quieter than a 7150, or MC150. a 1201 will sound better at 1 watt than almost any previous Mac amp

I have actually thought about doing this. If it does ever happen I believe it will be easier to move the khorns than it would be to move the 1201's. One thing for sure is I'd never get to see the meters move.

 

[Velocityboat]

I have the MC1000s the first of Quadbalanced. driving XR290. They are cleaner than MC2500 bridged, up top and a higher dampening factor of greater than 200. The dampening not a factor on sealed non ported XR290. The higher SNR can be noticed at higher wattage on XR290.

I have run XR290s with a less powered Lyngdorf TDAI 2200 with a great performance. . The bridged MC2500s effortless power will trounce it aftter SPL gets higher and deep bass is in the source. . It also trouncess Yamaha Pro amp PC2602 which the Lyndorf integrated sounds better than. . To get a cleaner sound out of older amps use a MEN220 or MX150 or 151 with room perfect to correct accoustics if you do not use master set on speakers and can stand the speakers out ito your listening room and have a well shaped room with treatments.

The older Mc amps souund great woth newer preamps. It comes dow to how you like highly resolved sound. Do you want to be able to discern different instruments and voices or like them more blended. The newer electronics and resoving speakers do better with the separation of voices and instruments. Probably more resolving than live performance in some areas since they bring you closer up front seating with less blended sound from acoustic overlays of the room. At least that is what I have heard on line array speakers swapping electronic. One can argue all my stuff is vintage with newest pieces 2013 or 2014. Would I like to try MC1.2KW or MC1.25KW andand MC2.1K of course. Maybe in ten years that reality happen once the arm and leg is not so new and deprecated.

My choice is get best speakers you can afford and like first. Electronics just add more resolution after that.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Well, my journey began with McIntosh in 1990 with an MX-110 and an MC240. For the next decade, I tried nearly every flavor of vintage Mc (and some vintage Marantz) there was. It was certainly a fun ride, I had some great pieces, and always had great sound. Today, I'm no longer messing with tube gear as I simply don't have time for the maintenance. [My MC225 is once again collecting dust . . . ] It will always have a special place in my heart though - especially the MC60s and Marantz 7c preamp.

Personally, I never recommend purchasing gear based solely on what you've read on the 'net. We all have different preferences. You really should consider a road trip to visit a Mc dealer and see, feel, and hear the stuff in person. A C2600/MC452 would be about as far from a C11/MC30s as you could get. You may not like the pair at all compared to what you're used to. OTOH, you may fall in love with the stuff. Keep in mind that many consider the MC30 to be the pinnacle of McIntosh amplification of all time.

Have you considered simply buying a modern preamplifier and using it with the amplifiers you do have? [Even today, I think the MC2105 is still a very capable SS amplifier.] That would allow you to get your feet wet. If your amps are performing to spec, there is no question that a modern Mc preamp would best any of the vintage preamps - noise, switching, ergonomics, etc. - and your amplifiers would have never sounded better. Only you could say if an MC452 was better than your MC240, MC30s, etc. in your system in your space.

Modern gear won't need you. Set it up, turn it on, and listen. When you're done, turn it off. Even the new tube preamps are very low maintenance. Have you considered how boring that may be compared to owning gear that requires your constant attention to perform to its fullest?

Well put D-M-M !!

 

[bsandovalb]

I have had newer electronics .... and also vintage.... If I want to just enjoy music, I put my restored MC40’s with the mx110z (or other preamps) relax and listen..... with newer gear I feel I am more focused in listening to my equipment rather than the music....

 

[4-2-7]

with newer gear I feel I am more focused in listening to my equipment rather than the music....

Why would your listing to music be different?

Also what is this newer McIntosh equipment?

I find it odd your stating the old mac equipment by name but when you talk about new mac equipment, nothing just "Newer".

Your signature is full of all type of old equipment brands including the mac pieces you mentioned, however no sign of this newer mac gear.

 

[bsandovalb]

Why would your listing to music be different?

Also what is this newer McIntosh equipment?

I find it odd your stating the old mac equipment by name but when you talk about new mac equipment, nothing just "Newer".

Your signature is full of all type of old equipment brands including the mac pieces you mentioned, however no sign of this newer mac gear.

was referring to ma7900, mc275 VI with Mac c22 preamp.... all good, but don't know... something was missing....

In respect of the way I listen, I always remember when I had the Viva Solista, it produced orgasmic music, with a texture only set amps can give.... but it was so revealing on the source that I could only enjoy the better recordings.... so I was listening to only music that sounded good in the equipment, otherwise, was a pain to listen to........

I guess to each, their own... my point was that the "best" does not equate to "more enjoyable", but hey... just speaking for myself!...

happy listening!

 

[4-2-7]

but it was so revealing on the source that I could only enjoy the better recordings.... so I was listening to only music that sounded good in the equipment, otherwise, was a pain to listen to........

I can understand that but I listen anyway because it's about the music. I love when I put something on that makes you jaw drop. But I can put a dirty record on with a little dusting that I just got from the record store. I want to hear it with all it's flaws, it doesn't matter because I'm listing to the music always.

 

[Pio1980]

I can understand that but I listen anyway because it's about the music. I love when I put something on that makes you jaw drop. But I can put a dirty record on with a little dusting that I just got from the record store. I want to hear it with all it's flaws, it doesn't matter because I'm listing to the music always.

You get as much time as you'd like to just sit and enjoy?