• 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

what's the best mcreceiver?

roseskunk

roseskunk

Well-Known Member
hi guys- i know some of you don't consider mcintosh receivers to be real mcintosh, but there are those of us who's pockets aren't terribly deep and i'm one of them. so to get my fix, i bought a sweet mac4100 that i just love. i like it so much in fact, that i'm considering selling all my other stuff to purchase two additional macs. the question is, which? i like the looks of the earlier ones, but have a chance at a 4200. so, which receiver was mac's best? i know, best in what regard, etc. well, for me, i don't really use the fm at all. i'm out just far enough for it to be impractical. i do like the eq on the 4100... so, opinions please?! thanks! oh, and if this has already been mulled over, if someone can point the way- my computer doesn't want to cooperate tonight. thanks! v
 
Register to hide this ad
Rose,

Congrats on the purchase!:yes:.........A Mc is a mc is a Mc.....all are fine and there are no bastard step children in the McFamily! At the family dinner table all are revered!:banana:

I personally have a 1900 in an original slant leg cabinet.....I just love the look of that cabinet....Oh, anyone who tells you that McIntosh receivers are not real McIntosh are fools:yes:




roseskunk said:
hi guys- i know some of you don't consider mcintosh receivers to be real mcintosh, but there are those of us who's pockets aren't terribly deep and i'm one of them. so to get my fix, i bought a sweet mac4100 that i just love. i like it so much in fact, that i'm considering selling all my other stuff to purchase two additional macs. the question is, which? i like the looks of the earlier ones, but have a chance at a 4200. so, which receiver was mac's best? i know, best in what regard, etc. well, for me, i don't really use the fm at all. i'm out just far enough for it to be impractical. i do like the eq on the 4100... so, opinions please?! thanks! oh, and if this has already been mulled over, if someone can point the way- my computer doesn't want to cooperate tonight. thanks! v
Click to expand...
 
There are a couple of threads on this subject. Search for "MAC Receivers". Everybody is entitled to his own preferences, but I agree that a blanket dismissal of receivers as inferior is baseless. There are tradeoffs in every design, but these things were designed to incorporate the best isolation characteristics possible, and I cannot really hear the difference berween any of my Mac receivers and their counterpart, contemporary separates. Plus I save on cabinet space and interconnects.

I have never heard the 4200 but I have heard good things about it over the years. Just stay away from the 4275 and the 4280, which are widely considered to be dogs, and very uncharacteristic of Mac' design/build criteria.
 
chathamdad said:
Just curious: if you don't listen to FM, why get a receiver? Why not an integrated?
Click to expand...

good point and i've been asking myself that too. i'd love to have a ma-6900, but i can get a mac4100 for 6 bills and they sound damn nice to me. i wonder if i wouldn't be disappointed spending 3k on an integrated compared to my 4100. would there really that big a difference in sound quality to justify the cost? bigger sound differences would come from a better cdp or speakers, yes? :scratch2:
 
bigger sound differences would come from a better cdp or speakers, yes?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I like your thinking on this. As I understand it, the 4100 is based on the MC752 which was a great, under-appreciated OTL amp from the same time period. In fact, if you matched a C30 preamp with a 752 amp you would have pretty close to the integrated section of the 4100 without the tuner, I believe. But the 752 is tough to find and the convenience of the receiver box is hard to argue with (I have 5 separate systems and they are powered by receivers), so I say go for it.

It would be worth sending the 4100 off to Ryan K. at AudioClassics for a tune-up. It will kick butt for years after that. Let us know how it goes.
 
So when I build a 5.1 HT setup, I should try to find a pair of 752s to use with my 4100 for the rears and sub/center, rather than the 2505s I was planning on? Shoot... I wanted *something* with the black glass and wattmeters. :-)
 
If you are comparing the 4100 receiver to integrated amplifiers, I believe the correct comparison is the MA6200. So if you don't use FM, the MA6200 would give you the same amplifier as the 4100.

While I like the McIntosh receivers, I would recommend a used MA6450, used MA 6500, or new MA6300 (in increasing order of cost and desireability) in your situation.
 
So when I build a 5.1 HT setup, I should try to find a pair of 752s to use with my 4100 for the rears and sub/center...
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that would be a great combo. I have a 754 that I use to bi-wire my 4300V (the 754 is the amp section of the 4300V) to my speakers and the amp is an absolute workhorse. Built like a bunker. Ron-C posted a while back that he once put a bunch of MC754s in a club set-up and then ran them to the stops every night for a long time, and nothing even got real warm. I bet 752s in an HT would rock. You could always shine a blue flashlight on them. :scratch2:
 
Hi, great thread! I wonder if we could help you get that " just far enough for it to be impractical" FM situation reversed. Then you could have even more fun, since the 4100 has a really fine FM section. I put up a pretty inexpensive outdoor antenna, and have been getting good to great reception on stations up to 90 miles out. I couldn't put up a nice big directional Yagi type due to neighborhood restrictions, so I went with a Fanfare FM-2G, which is almost invisible on our deck. There are many ways to get fine results with that FM section (if it interests you).
 
chathamdad said:
Absolutely. I like your thinking on this. As I understand it, the 4100 is based on the MC752 which was a great, under-appreciated OTL amp from the same time period. In fact, if you matched a C30 preamp with a 752 amp you would have pretty close to the integrated section of the 4100 without the tuner, I believe. But the 752 is tough to find and the convenience of the receiver box is hard to argue with (I have 5 separate systems and they are powered by receivers), so I say go for it.

It would be worth sending the 4100 off to Ryan K. at AudioClassics for a tune-up. It will kick butt for years after that. Let us know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Or the magician of Knoxville, Terry DeWick........:thmbsp:
 
i got the 4100 on ebay, bin 500 bucks. it's perfectly clean except for the fake wood veneer has some scuffing. one of these days, i'm going to replace that. (why in god's name they ever thought fake wood looked good on that receiver i'll never know...) i did take it to terry for a little work. he's a gem and i actually drove it there and picked it up, so we had a chance to talk some. definitely worth the drive. he didn't think that i'd really hear any better sound until i went to separates, which is why i hesitate buying an ma-6900. i'm thinking instead to get a 1900 for the library and the 4100 goes in the living room.

and as for an outdoor antenna- yes, i am interested. i think i could put one on the roof... the question then is- can i hook up more than one receiver to one antenna?

it's funny- the 4100 is similar to the 6200 integrated. for less money you get a free tuner. go figure. i guess some folks don't like the looks of the 4100...
 
I've never owned a Mac SS piece but would like to, I've got all Mac tube gear; MX110, MR67, MA230 (hybrid). How does the 1900 compare to Marantz of that era. I know Mac build quality is better. I have a recapped Marantz 2250B which I like but I still want a Mac.
 
Destructor said:
I've never owned a Mac SS piece but would like to, I've got all Mac tube gear; MX110, MR67, MA230 (hybrid). How does the 1900 compare to Marantz of that era. I know Mac build quality is better. I have a recapped Marantz 2250B which I like but I still want a Mac.
Click to expand...

I obtained a 2238 at a yard sale for $20 about 10 years ago. It's been doing yeoman work in my father in law's living room for most of that 10 years, into a pair of Klipsch. It's performed well. I'd figure a 1900 and one of the better Marantz would be roughly comparable, though as you say the Mc build quality is somewhat better. Mind you, I never cared for the horizontal-slider bass and treble controls on the 1900; thought it made it look too much like a Marantz. :-)
 
For looks you can't do better than the Mac 1700, afaic. no mistaking it for a Marantz--classic Mc styling all around. Sounds pretty damn good, too.
 
I love my Mac 1700 too! Looks and feel of use.
35 years of playing with No problemo's.


PS
My new MA2275 went in for repair within its first 24 months.
Can't beat the old stuff.
 
I always liked the looks and specs of the 4100. Never had one though.

Stick a cheap antenna on your roof and I'd bet you'll be amazed what the 4100 can pick up.
 
Mind you, I never cared for the horizontal-slider bass and treble controls on the 1900; thought it made it look too much like a Marantz. :-)
Click to expand...

I actually have always liked the look of the mid-70s Marantz gear. I have two Marantz receivers, a 2220B (my first piece of "high end" gear, purchased when I was 16 and still going strong) and a 2225. The blue dial/brushed aluminum faceplate is a classy look, and the Marantz script is just right. And in 30 years of knob-turning I have never found an FM tuning mechanism that rivals the Marantz thumb-wheel.

FWIW I do not recall a vintage Marantz unit that had horizontal-slider tone controls. I remember them having matching thick knobs for all functions across the face-plate, with a single slider for balance control. But then I did not keep up with the brand after around 1980. But I agree with you about the looks of the Mac1900 being the least impressive of all of the Mac receivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom