No not at all,I like the weekend when I make some good time to listen.
New vs Vintage McIntosh equipment
- Thread starter strat10
- Start date
twiiii
Lunatic Member
As I have said in the past my first experience with XR 290 was not pleasant. A 2600 on the bottom and a 7300 on top. I just don't get what they were trying to achieve. But after hearing them pushed by two 2600's my opinion changed completely. We have talked about your 290's, amps, etc before. I'm so glad you are still happy with them. Some people ask us are we stuck in the past? XR 290's are one big reason. MC 1000's or 501's could be another. I won't say stuck. I just haven't seen, heard, a better mouse trap.
Last edited:
damacman
Resident Psycho
Everyone needs two 2600s twiiii . . .
twiiii
Lunatic Member
I would rather have two 1201/1.2K. I could Read the meters clear across the room. Thats why I keep my power amps by my side with the smaller meters . I can read the meters easily and they don't shine in my face while watching movies..
But your right I wouldn't need 1.2 K's with 290's. 12 watts would be plenty for my average listening with maybe 100 watt peaks. For HT I seldom go over 100 watt peaks now which would mean 400 for 290's. I bet that new 462 would be all that I need. It has the same peak capability as a 601's and I imagine can out perform my old favorite 501's. The issue is what do you use for a center channel? 1/2 a 290 with the missing drivers being replaced by resistors?
I know the perfect solution would be to have 3 behind a roll down screen when viewing video.
You could use the Room perfect in the MX 151 with the screen down, and have a MEN 220 for in the stereo mode with the screen up. using the pass thru feature I guess. I wonder if the freq response would be smooth enough by just having. C-52 and use its controls.
But your right I wouldn't need 1.2 K's with 290's. 12 watts would be plenty for my average listening with maybe 100 watt peaks. For HT I seldom go over 100 watt peaks now which would mean 400 for 290's. I bet that new 462 would be all that I need. It has the same peak capability as a 601's and I imagine can out perform my old favorite 501's. The issue is what do you use for a center channel? 1/2 a 290 with the missing drivers being replaced by resistors?
I know the perfect solution would be to have 3 behind a roll down screen when viewing video.
You could use the Room perfect in the MX 151 with the screen down, and have a MEN 220 for in the stereo mode with the screen up. using the pass thru feature I guess. I wonder if the freq response would be smooth enough by just having. C-52 and use its controls.
Last edited:
Exactly, This accurately reflects my observations from my recent upgrade to the MC452 (from a pair of 2205s)as well.
Last edited:
That Spartan icon is simply awful.
My ears are not great. What my brain now receives from my ears (through my hearing aids) is reality. I moved up in wattage over time and ended up with an MC300 by rolling the dice and winning on a $700 ebay damaged unit. My previous unit was an restored MC2200. I have never heard anything newer than this 1998 vintage amp and I can't afford the new ones anyway. My 1998 system sounds wonderful.
The big problem now is that the going prices for vintage amps and preamps have skyrocketed. It's impossible to find any autoformer amps at reasonable prices.
The big problem now is that the going prices for vintage amps and preamps have skyrocketed. It's impossible to find any autoformer amps at reasonable prices.
Last edited:
I'm in basically the same situation although I have kept several tuners for nostalgic reasons. I discovered a way to strip the audio from YouTube videos and now have a collection of almost 500 songs on an old Win98 laptop. Don't ask me what the bit rate is.
Velocityboat
Super Member
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now back to the regularly scheduled program.
Does this mean it's excessively low? LOL
192K.
Two Socks
Active Member
I'm a total rookie in this hobby. Ive burned through many vintage receivers and amps in the last 3 years. My stash keeps getting smaller as I discover what I like. In my keeper stack is a MC225/C11 combo..and a MC462/C70 combo.
Like I said I'm a Newb and don't know **** that said I swear those two old and new combos both share a distinct sound..I like it a lot.
Like I said I'm a Newb and don't know **** that said I swear those two old and new combos both share a distinct sound..I like it a lot.
That stash as noted in your signature is pretty swank.
ODS123
Super Member
Today's Mac gear is probably more reliable, quieter, and lower distortion. But the older mac gear was more fun 
...Just look at these two Mac components. Which would be more fun to own? The one with a push-scroll knob to wend your way through lots of digital menus? ..Or one that puts solid-feeling knobs and switches for those functions right on the faceplate?
...Just look at these two Mac components. Which would be more fun to own? The one with a push-scroll knob to wend your way through lots of digital menus? ..Or one that puts solid-feeling knobs and switches for those functions right on the faceplate?
Last edited:
kevzep
Its all about the Music
and.....top one has TAPE MONITOR inputs, the bottom one does not!! Its the one thing which annoys me about the newer generation McIntosh Pre-amps...Today's Mac gear is probably more reliable, quieter, and lower distortion. But the older mac gear was more fun
View attachment 2089202 View attachment 2089203
twiiii
Lunatic Member
The 49 doesn't have loudness control or a full function mode selector either, No HF or LF filters for warped or noises records or sources. Having split tone controls is nice too. That said I would rather a C-29 as I am just not into tubes. I have a full functioning C-34 which works great and almost all I want. I did have to add a MP 100 for MC cartridges which a C-22 doesn't have either and a C-49 does. Having the ability to match the levels of the different inputs is a nice feature, but as my tuners and CD's have volume controls I have no level matching issues, even with the MB 20.. I use a professional Marantz CD recorder to replace My Revox and Nakamichi tape machines.
I have been an audio enthusiast since the early 1950s as soon as my parents would let me touch their Magnavox "hi-fi" (mono) record player. In the early 1960s I was assembling amps & tuners from kits. I "discovered" McIntosh about 1964. But making about $1.50 an hour I could not afford any.
I would go to the local electronics store and "drool on the carpet" standing in front of their McIntosh gear.
I wanted to be a jazz musician (a'la Art Van Damme) but found out I did not need to give up my day job.
For a while I worked as a music teacher giving private lessons, starting with Ludwig Music House in St. Louis, and then on my own in Pensacola, Fla.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s I worked with a volunteer orchestra (about 50 pieces) as director and ersatz recording engineer.
These early experiences taught me how to recognize instruments in their native acoustic range.
I much prefer pure acoustic music.
It wasn't until the late 1990s that I could afford even used McIntosh gear.
My first Mac gear was a power amp (MC7270). At first I thought it was weak in the treble. Then I tried some source material with plenty of treble. It came through the 7270 VERY clear. Then I realized the Luxman and Carver gear I was accustomed to was weak in the middle and lower ranges.
Since then I have been a little "carried away" with acquiring Mac gear. I have eleven Mac power amps, and several other pieces. If I count correctly I currently have 21 Mac pieces (obviously many in the closet).
I have always purchased Mac gear used. Even after over 50 years in the CPA business, I still cannot afford new Mac gear.
Yes, I have been forced to find a local technician that used to work in the repair shop for the same McIntosh dealer where I would drool on the carpet. He has been able to affordably work on and fix every piece of my Mac gear. He knows all McIntosh gear so well that he does not need to look at a schematic or service manual. My only "complaint" is that he has such a backlog of work, it sometimes takes a long time for him to get to a piece of gear.
As a quicker alternative I have found Audio Classics to be just as good as my local guy - but obviously more expensive.
My most recent addition to my system has been a pair of 50 year old KLH Model Nine full range electrostatics. I sent them to David Janszen for the top-of-the- line rebuild & refurbishment.
The KLH Model Nines have been just as much as an improvement in my system as the Mac gear was.
With my musical background mentioned before, I know how instruments are supposed to sound in their native acoustic environment. My vintage (30 to 40 year old) Mac gear generates a clean enough signal to the Model Nines that I can tell the difference between (1) a violin and a viola, (2) an alto sax from a tenor sax, (3) a "stand-up" bass and a electric bass, (4) a trumpet and a coronet, (5) a flute and a piccolo, (6) a grand piano and an upright piano, etc.
Stereophile, in their reviews of the Model Nines, said that they had enough resolution and detail that the Model Nines would reveal any differences in the recording and mastering process. They were certainly correct!
The Model Nines even tell you how different TV programs have processed their audio.
The detail and resolution coming the Mac electronics is good enough to still hear the differences mentioned earlier. Although I am 78, and my hearing is not as good as it was 60 years, my old Mac electronics are good enough to pass a clean enough signal the the Model Nines to give the resolution and detail they give, It is hard to believe it could be much better.
I know the newer gear specs out better on the test bench, but with proper source equipment and proper speakers, the vintage gear passes out just as good a signal as newer gear.
I have no hesitation in recommending vintage Mac gear.
To me it is significant that "hard core" audiophiles like old tube Mac gear.
Of course, if one is in to 105 db sound, especially in the low bass so one can feel the pressure wave in the chest, then some of the newer gear may suit their needs.
And do not use electrostatics. They have a hard time giving 105 db sound levels.
You need large cone speakers to generate 105 db in low bass (at least the the point electrostatics have matured by now).
Since my taste is mostly Classical and Jazz, I do not listen at 105 db. In my small 1200 sq ft retirement center apartment the vintage Mac gear and Model Nines give me all of the db I need.
Even if 105 db music is your choice, remember that Woodstock and The Grateful Dead were powered by early McIntosh tube gear.
Also, earlier gear did not force you to go through confusing and illogical menus to get the sound you want. Everything is controlled by a dedicated switch or knob!
Thanks,
Jim
I would go to the local electronics store and "drool on the carpet" standing in front of their McIntosh gear.
I wanted to be a jazz musician (a'la Art Van Damme) but found out I did not need to give up my day job.
For a while I worked as a music teacher giving private lessons, starting with Ludwig Music House in St. Louis, and then on my own in Pensacola, Fla.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s I worked with a volunteer orchestra (about 50 pieces) as director and ersatz recording engineer.
These early experiences taught me how to recognize instruments in their native acoustic range.
I much prefer pure acoustic music.
It wasn't until the late 1990s that I could afford even used McIntosh gear.
My first Mac gear was a power amp (MC7270). At first I thought it was weak in the treble. Then I tried some source material with plenty of treble. It came through the 7270 VERY clear. Then I realized the Luxman and Carver gear I was accustomed to was weak in the middle and lower ranges.
Since then I have been a little "carried away" with acquiring Mac gear. I have eleven Mac power amps, and several other pieces. If I count correctly I currently have 21 Mac pieces (obviously many in the closet).
I have always purchased Mac gear used. Even after over 50 years in the CPA business, I still cannot afford new Mac gear.
Yes, I have been forced to find a local technician that used to work in the repair shop for the same McIntosh dealer where I would drool on the carpet. He has been able to affordably work on and fix every piece of my Mac gear. He knows all McIntosh gear so well that he does not need to look at a schematic or service manual. My only "complaint" is that he has such a backlog of work, it sometimes takes a long time for him to get to a piece of gear.
As a quicker alternative I have found Audio Classics to be just as good as my local guy - but obviously more expensive.
My most recent addition to my system has been a pair of 50 year old KLH Model Nine full range electrostatics. I sent them to David Janszen for the top-of-the- line rebuild & refurbishment.
The KLH Model Nines have been just as much as an improvement in my system as the Mac gear was.
With my musical background mentioned before, I know how instruments are supposed to sound in their native acoustic environment. My vintage (30 to 40 year old) Mac gear generates a clean enough signal to the Model Nines that I can tell the difference between (1) a violin and a viola, (2) an alto sax from a tenor sax, (3) a "stand-up" bass and a electric bass, (4) a trumpet and a coronet, (5) a flute and a piccolo, (6) a grand piano and an upright piano, etc.
Stereophile, in their reviews of the Model Nines, said that they had enough resolution and detail that the Model Nines would reveal any differences in the recording and mastering process. They were certainly correct!
The Model Nines even tell you how different TV programs have processed their audio.
The detail and resolution coming the Mac electronics is good enough to still hear the differences mentioned earlier. Although I am 78, and my hearing is not as good as it was 60 years, my old Mac electronics are good enough to pass a clean enough signal the the Model Nines to give the resolution and detail they give, It is hard to believe it could be much better.
I know the newer gear specs out better on the test bench, but with proper source equipment and proper speakers, the vintage gear passes out just as good a signal as newer gear.
I have no hesitation in recommending vintage Mac gear.
To me it is significant that "hard core" audiophiles like old tube Mac gear.
Of course, if one is in to 105 db sound, especially in the low bass so one can feel the pressure wave in the chest, then some of the newer gear may suit their needs.
And do not use electrostatics. They have a hard time giving 105 db sound levels.
You need large cone speakers to generate 105 db in low bass (at least the the point electrostatics have matured by now).
Since my taste is mostly Classical and Jazz, I do not listen at 105 db. In my small 1200 sq ft retirement center apartment the vintage Mac gear and Model Nines give me all of the db I need.
Even if 105 db music is your choice, remember that Woodstock and The Grateful Dead were powered by early McIntosh tube gear.
Also, earlier gear did not force you to go through confusing and illogical menus to get the sound you want. Everything is controlled by a dedicated switch or knob!
Thanks,
Jim
This is beautiful post. Thank you very much.
Looking at what I'm guessing is your current fantastic collection of Mc gear in your signature, I'm wondering if you have heard, or owned some of the classic tube amps like MC30, MC225, MC60, or MC240? Would like to hear your thoughts on them, and perhaps if you did own them, and now don't, why?