LaFrenchy 2
Tape Head
I was wondering what amp was better the Macintosh is 105 watts per channel Heathkit is 125 W per channel so what amplifier is a better amp.
Thanks
LaFrenchy
Thanks
LaFrenchy
Which is better Mac 2100 or Heathkit AA-1600
- Thread starter LaFrenchy 2
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Rob41
Don't stop believin'
Watts alone really aren't indicitive of a better amp. I have not owned a Mac 2100 but I have auditioned them in others systems but I can tell you a bit more about the Heathkit AA-1600 as I use one in my current main system.
The 1600 is a Leach design and although it's rated at 125 watts per channel into 8 Ohms, it's closer to 150. It is 4 ohm stable and is an excellent sounding amplifier that does not color the source.
If you can, try to listen to both on the same system. IMO, the 1600 gives up nothing to the Mac and I would not be able to reconcile the cost difference.
The 1600 is a Leach design and although it's rated at 125 watts per channel into 8 Ohms, it's closer to 150. It is 4 ohm stable and is an excellent sounding amplifier that does not color the source.
If you can, try to listen to both on the same system. IMO, the 1600 gives up nothing to the Mac and I would not be able to reconcile the cost difference.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
McIntosh by miles. The Heathkit is good but nowhere near a MC 2100 or MC 2105. The latter two can drive many a tough load without issue dependably too
Rob41
Don't stop believin'
Both amps would indeed serve you well. Although the 2100 is a fine amp, you are also paying a huge premium for the name as well. Mac components always fetch higher premiums than similiarly performing components, including the Macs from an era when they were sold at Radio Shack.
Since you are considering both the Mac and the Heathkit, it would seem that your primary concern is centered soley around sound quality and a direct comparison by yourself would ensure you make the correct choice.
Since you are considering both the Mac and the Heathkit, it would seem that your primary concern is centered soley around sound quality and a direct comparison by yourself would ensure you make the correct choice.
barkerd
Super Member
No offense to anybody but I am getting frustrated with recommendations of one brand over another when the poster hasn't heard both. Evident here but not nearly to the extent I've witnessed lately around these parts.
What has been answered here is why the Mac is more "popular" and fetches WAY more money ........people are willing to give it the edge not having heard both......
Go listen to both and make your choice ........... I know people who love and recommend a certain brand of "popular" vintage speaker ...... I don't .....thank goodness I used my ears and made the choice I did .....ymmv
Anybody heard of "expectation bias" ? The older I get the more I think it's the root of our hobby.
What has been answered here is why the Mac is more "popular" and fetches WAY more money ........people are willing to give it the edge not having heard both......
Go listen to both and make your choice ........... I know people who love and recommend a certain brand of "popular" vintage speaker ...... I don't .....thank goodness I used my ears and made the choice I did .....ymmv
Anybody heard of "expectation bias" ? The older I get the more I think it's the root of our hobby.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
I have McIntosh MC 2100 and 2105 power amps powering studio monitors in my care and always reliable with regular maintenance. They are superb, trouble free amplifiers and serve us well. Usually drive JBL 4311b control monitors. Never turned off.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
The McIntosh I can listen to all day without fatigue. It is not lacking in any area. It's honest sounding.
Pio1980
AK Member
The MC50/100/250/2100 were 1st-gen SS Mac, yes? Your observations are interesting, how do they sound transparency-wise compared to other good stuff (and what ) you've lived with?
Rob41
Don't stop believin'
Thank you! My feelings were the same as yours but you laid it out much more clearly.
My whole point was for him to listen to both HIMSELF as I have. The OP never asked about popularity or resale value.
I have auditioned both and found the Heathkit more pleasing to my ears. Maybe the OP will feel the same and maybe he won't.
LaFrenchy, all I can say is to trust your own ears. Just like a spec sheet, popularity and resale value are not the definitive measure of an amps worth. :thmbsp:
Pio1980
AK Member
I also understand that the '535 'smokes' the '555 SQ-wise in spite of power differences and similar toplogy.
LaFrenchy 2
Tape Head
I am in the process of trading my Mac for the Heathkit amp AA-1600, AP-1800 preamp and the AJ-1600 tuner. This is what I'm getting at so actually is this a good deal.
BTW thanks for the replies it's helpful.
LaFrenchy
The fact that you are getting an amplifier, preamplifier & tuner in exchange for single amplifier does not necessarily mean it's a good deal.
The fact that McIntosh is highly sought after, collected and enjoys excellent resale value - is not without good reason.
The fact that the other party is willing to make the 3-for-1 swap should also be interpreted as a duplicate expression of the above.
All the same, I hope you enjoy your new equipment.
Your satisfaction with the transaction is all that matters in the final analysis.
Last edited:
reggaenaut
Addicted Member
sheltie dave
Addicted Member
I recently picked up a leach 4.5 kit built amp, and it passed the bench test, the cheap speakers test, the good speakers test, and is going on the Altec 19s tonight.
Is the Heathkit similar to the 4.5?
Is the Heathkit similar to the 4.5?
Pio1980
AK Member
He miss the point that you were referring to 535.
The folks at Adcom asserted that all the early amps were supposed to sound similar but the '535 gets constantly singled out as the best SQ of that breed by users.
