SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
Another blanket statement. Add qualifier "to me".
Scott 299 or McIntosh?
- Thread starter reverend13
- Start date
Another blanket statement. Add qualifier "to me".
B&W Driver
Member
I think I get the gist of what Twiii is saying here. An A/B test can only be relied on if both units under test are known to be functioning properly.
Although some of the negative "blanket statements" in this thread about 70s-era Mac gear are just as general in nature, it would probably be
a great idea to see what Audio Classics can do for you. They know Mac, so you might be surprised in the end.
Although some of the negative "blanket statements" in this thread about 70s-era Mac gear are just as general in nature, it would probably be
a great idea to see what Audio Classics can do for you. They know Mac, so you might be surprised in the end.
Yeah, it should arrive back to them on Wednesday where it’s covered under their warranty. However, I will mention even when the right channel was engaged, some frequencies sounded muffled or with a blanket thrown over. Strange given my old speakers worked well with the Scott and a JVC receiver I purchased when I bought those speakers. Anyway, trying to reserve judgement until it comes back fully functional but really enjoying the Scott for the time being with the Marantz TT and the Klipsch’s.
biscuithead
Me likes the eargasm retroplasm...
is it fair to say that not every 6100 is the same and not every 299 is the same?
depending on level of restoration, each comparison is different.
when brand new, I would choose the 6100 every time...
B&W Driver
Member
I, too, have only heard good things about the MA 6100 integrated. When I look at the internals of it -- in the McIntosh Compendium -- I see a lot of similarities to an old favorite of ours: the Mac MAC4100 receiver. I suppose it's true, any stereo amp or integrated could be beat on and, in the end, it has a lot to do with how much heat it's been subjected to over the years. Our MAC4100 and our MAC 4200 still sound fantastic and they're nearly as old as the subject of this thread. We've moved toward Mac separates over the years, but, if not abused, most of their stuff should provide great service for many, many years.
On the other hand, I haven't heard a Scott 299, so I can't really make a fair comparison. I suspect that Audio Classics will do a great job...they usually do...so I wish the reverend all the best with his A/B testing. It would also be interesting to read his results.
Last edited:
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
True, examples of the same model are different. My LK-72B (299D) has been re-capped and restored. At one time, I had MC275V (x2) and 2300 pre which is what I compared against.
Equally true, every listener is different and every listener can have different personal preference. As long as the preference is informed through comparison, it is valid.
biscuithead
Me likes the eargasm retroplasm...
I am lucky enough to have a tech, just 10 miles away, who has been working on Macs for almost 60 years. So I am spoiled on “new” Macs no matter how old.
In audio, where subjectivity is a marketing strategy, of course preference is valid.
Aren’t we lucky that there is 75 years of products, and 750 million choices out there?
Update on this as I got the MA6100 back from Audio Classics and had a chance to A/B with the Scott 299a with the Klipsch’s. It was better than before but notice that I had to EQ a few LP’s on the MA6100 whereas I could leave them flat on the Scott, which maintains a great balance of presence and bass without tweaking. Here’s what I listened to —
Perhaps I need more time with the MA6100 to figure it out. Is having to EQ differently for each LP a common or a bad thing?
- Rolling Stones Let It Bleed — Had to heavily EQ it on the MA6100 by turning the bass and treble up 3/4 of the way on the flat setting. Tried the Loudness setting and the bass was pretty boomy. Sounded great on the Scott with the bass and treble flat.
- Janos Starker / Bach: Suites For Unaccompanied Cello Complete 45rpm — Sounded great on the Scott. Sounded great and slightly better on the MA6100 with everything flat. Perhaps the MA6100 had more bass coming though that sounded great with the solo cello.
- Dean Martin - Dream With Dean 45rpm — Similar to the Starker above with the MA6100 sounding a little better with all the EQ flat.
- Horace Silver - The Cape Verdean Blues 45rpm — Sounded muffled in some frequencies. Toggled between the Presence and Flat settings, tweaking both the bass and treble up. Got it sounding pretty good but took some time, whereas I could leave the bass and treble flat on the Scott and have it still sound good.
- Getz/Gilberto 45rpm — Sounded great on the MA6100 with the EQ flat. Very similar to the Scott with its EQ flat.
Perhaps I need more time with the MA6100 to figure it out. Is having to EQ differently for each LP a common or a bad thing?
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
If the HH Scott is driving super efficient cornerhorns, yes. If the Scott is driving inefficient acoustic supension loudspeakers, McIntosh wins. I like both.
GD70
Lunatic Member
You’ve heard this a million times before, but it’s synergy.
I love my LK-72. It sounds sublime, regardless of which speakers I’ve tried it with. I also love my SS gear, also connected to the same speakers. Regardless of the amp, I’m not needing to adjust the tone controls at all. I have a McIntosh C34V preamp, and I LOVE it sound. Not at all dark, bass is tight, punchy and deep. The mids and highs are there in spades. The same with the Scott. I have found it’s best connected to my KLH Six’s. Not efficient, sealed speakers. But they are made for each other.
Based on your sonic description of your Mac, it seems it’s not quite right, but I will say my Mac MC502/C504 is darker sounding. I do need to boost the treble, and mid to equal my other setups. Maybe they need a recap, maybe, that’s the sound of these pieces. They sound good, but best when the mid and treble is boosted fully. And this is with all my speakers.
Glenn
I love my LK-72. It sounds sublime, regardless of which speakers I’ve tried it with. I also love my SS gear, also connected to the same speakers. Regardless of the amp, I’m not needing to adjust the tone controls at all. I have a McIntosh C34V preamp, and I LOVE it sound. Not at all dark, bass is tight, punchy and deep. The mids and highs are there in spades. The same with the Scott. I have found it’s best connected to my KLH Six’s. Not efficient, sealed speakers. But they are made for each other.
Based on your sonic description of your Mac, it seems it’s not quite right, but I will say my Mac MC502/C504 is darker sounding. I do need to boost the treble, and mid to equal my other setups. Maybe they need a recap, maybe, that’s the sound of these pieces. They sound good, but best when the mid and treble is boosted fully. And this is with all my speakers.
Glenn
twiiii
Lunatic Member
Scott with even new tubes has 20 times the distortion above 10,000 and 5 to 10 times the distortion below 50 hz. The signal to noise is less too. I know I have owned Scott Fisher and Mac. 222c, 299 b and D. Fisher 500. owned mc 60's 240's 275's and MA 230. C-22, MR 67 and 71 tube units. And should have bought MC 3500's when I had the chance. The scott is especially sloppy with infinite baffles and ported speakers. Bozak, Altec, Klipsch, JBL and Stephens. Owned those too. But if you want a Euphonic sound and won't be using more than a 1/10th the rated power Scotts are listenable. But try them with AR or KLH speakers and the Scotts will say uncle every time a loud passage comes along. Then you will want MC 60's, MC 75's. They have real strong power supplies. The 75s put out cose to 100 watts before clipping as do the MC 60's with Gold Lion KT 88's. Here are two examples. MC 240's will meet specs at 55 watts, too. For over all performance for the money spent the 240 was the best deal. I used them till I got my Concert Grands and wanted to bi-amp and then stepped up to two 275's. If you want another choice you want Dyna kit Model III, 60 watts per channel.
Last edited:
Interesting comparison and that's quite a difference between those 2 graphs with a heck of a canoe and a very poor showing for that 222C.....ouch I guess I know the reason now the 222C that I owned years ago didn't stay here very long.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
All Scotts, Fishers and Dyna Kits have curves like my 222c did. Dynas were not quite as bad. A Marantz 8B just barely made new out of the box with fresh tubes putting out 35 watts. While a MC 240 could could put out 55 watts per channel simultaneously. Mac always made the Best Tube amps. They had stronger power supplies and that unique unity Coupled circuit back then and even today with their 2301 quad balanced tube amp which has 20 db better signal to noise than their first generation tube amps. The new 1502 which is basically a pair of further upgraded 275's running mono on one chassis. Or you could say almost two 1/2 2301's on one chassis.