Why would you buy a McIntosh Pre-Amp?

[C220MC275]

And why buy a MVP871 when an Oppo 870 only costs $150?

Yeah, right.

My friend, do yourself a favor and go LISTEN to a McIntosh Pre Amp. You will be amazed.

Absolutely right !
Stop reading specs ! Start listening !!

Jerome

 

[MikeSp]

Not another HT feature fishing expidition

Plain & simple,if features & connections are what your after buy an Onkyo or some other throw away peice that will be outdated in 2 years or less,then buy another Onkyo so you can have version 57.9 whatever, & on & on & on:yes:.,after going through the HT feature/connection chasing merry-go-round for 10 years,come back & report just how much money you saved chasing version 46.9:tears:.

Let's see how much money I saved with my obsolete MX134 that I have had since it was new -- you seem very sensitive against those of us that are HT fans.

If you want build quality,the best in circuit intergration & implementation,sound quality that will EXCEED its listed specs for decades(try that with your feature loaded Onkyo),analog based tone controls which are the best tone control circuit in use of any manufacturer today,asthetics that dont look like every other peice of BPC on the market,a peice of gear that excells in sound quality when being used as a 2 channel preamp (again,try that one with the Onkyo),customer service that will follow the peice of gear decades after its release(another good one to try with the Onkyo),your Onkyo customer service rep named iskibibble over in turkshmukenstien wont even be able to find a model # or a schematic on it, let alone get the unit serviced.

Kinda sensitive are we?? Again, not all of us are restricting ourselves to stereo and there is nothing wrong with stereo and neither is there anything wrong with HT -- to each his/her own. Mc quality is fantastic and what you indicated about that in the first part of the paragraph above is correct about McIntosh.

We go through this with the HT guy's all the time,the fact is that HT is a secondary issue with most Mcintosh owners & is obviously not of a priority market to Mcintosh,,why on earth would any niche manufacturer like Mcintosh invest so much capital into such a small percentage of its market share, just so it can have a version of something that has been proven to become obsolete before the paint dry's on the case of the unit ?

Which is why we must turn to Onkyo and other far lesser brands in order to obtain modern HT products -- but then again, there have been a continuation of the MX series pre/pros, so McIntosh must feel that segment of the market is at least somewhat important. Just because HT is of a secondary issue with most Mc owners does not mean it is a secondary issue with all Mc owners -- isn't there room for both?

If you know that Mcintosh does not offer the features your after why in the world are you even looking at the product line, whining about them not having what you want?,its pretty simple,find the manufacturer that has features you crave & buy from them,again & again & again.

I would rather purchase from Mc for a pre/pro and not buy from the others "again, again, and again." BUT IF Mc cannot supply the needed HT gear, then what choice do we have but to do exactly that. Why do you bear HT fans such ill will -- again-- isn't there room for both analog, stereo and digital/HT among Mc fans?

Obviously YMMV

MikeSp

 

[panhead]

I would rather purchase from Mc for a pre/pro and not buy from the others "again, again, and again." BUT IF Mc cannot supply the needed HT gear, then what choice do we have but to do exactly that. Why do you bear HT fans such ill will -- again-- isn't there room for both analog, stereo and digital/HT among Mc fans?

Obviously YMMV

MikeSp

Theres nothing sensitive at all about any of my posts,just because i dont list it dont mean i dont own Mcintosh HT products.

I dont wish anybody ill will either but it does get old hearing the HT guys complain,and i allready own Mcintosh HT gear,only i dont care about the latest features,im happy with my MX130 & the outdated features it has,newer never equals better in my book,the proof is in the listening & with the MX's performance in my HT rig all the new features on the market wont beat its sound quality or movie watching experience,maybe equal but not beat,so whats the point of me getting all worked up over HDMI or the like.

My feelings about the whole HT deal & Mac are this, Mcintosh has shown time & time again that it does not chase HT features,what ever their company business model is its highly aparent that HT features are not a large part of the model,when has Mcintosh ever had the latest & greatest HT features all built in one unit,never that i know of.

Why Mac has chosen to not jump on the HDMI merry go round, along with all the other features added yearly to HT is known only to them,but what we as Mcintosh owners do know is that they are not going to be an industry leader in HT features,so why expect something from Mcintosh or any manufacturer that does not produce the features your after ?

Being upset over Mac not offering these features you want so badly is the same as being upset that Onkyo dont use autoformers in their amplifiers,or that they dont offer amps with powerguard,if you want these features you go to Mac,if you want HT features you go elsewhere,pretty simple.

 

[CTBob]

Hey don't get all excited. I have been a loyal Mac fan since purchasing my first pieces in 1968, a MR67 and a MA5100. I love their products and have often said if McIntosh built a car, it buy it; for it probably would last forever! All I'm asking is how to adapt my existing gear to accommodate the current HT equipment without detracting from the performance of the McIntosh. Sooner or later (from what I hear sooner) there will be a MX121 or a MX137 that will satisfy all the HDMI and decoding needs of folks who enjoy Mac equipment , but also spend as much time with video as they do with 2 channel audio. After all we are in a change now were video sales outstrip audio. Mac like every other company is in business to make money and like it or not will have to meet the demands of their fans. Granted they are slower to adapt and do so only after making sure the market is right. Remember all the hype for quadraphonic sound several years ago. Mac sat back and let it pass, realizing it was just a fad. But HT is not fadding, only growing, otherwise they would not have come out with a $30K projector system.

 

[missing_eric]

egads

...also it's made in the usa and if it does break, it can be fixed. Not a throw away. quality, sound, etc etc etc....


Its a MAC:thmbsp:

 

[Vinyl Rules!]

[snip]
Why Mac has chosen to not jump on the HDMI merry go round, along with all the other features added yearly to HT is known only to them,but what we as Mcintosh owners do know is that they are not going to be an industry leader in HT features,so why expect something from Mcintosh or any manufacturer that does not produce the features your after ?
[snip]

I wonder if McIntosh has chosen to ignore the HDMI connector because it is so poorly engineered? You're dealing with 19 pins and you have to be really careful when plugging it in so as to not bend or break one of the connectors.

It could be the Mac engineers looked at the fragile nature of this connector and chose not to use it so they would not have to deal with broken sockets and HDMI socket repair issues down the road.

Every A/V installer I know really hates HDMI connectors because of their fragility - An HDMI socket is not as durable as the ubiquitous old RCA phono plug socket!

There are numerous component video/HDMI adapters on the market now and you can look at some at http://tinyurl.com/2obgty

The big issue with these, as I understand it, it that the content companies control the DRC flag in their content and if you are playing a high resolution 1080p DVD on your high-rez player, the external converter may downconvert it to 480p or 720p on the pass through.

Personally I think HDMI will only be around for a few more years before it is replaced by a more robust connector.

And you can be sure Noel Lee at Monster (and all the other exotic cable companies) are not happy with HDMI when one HDMI cable can replace 6, 7 or 8 of their very expensive analog cables.

 

[mulester7]

.....I've tried other pre-amps with McIntosh amps, and other amps with McIntosh pre-amps, and for me, I want only McIntosh between the sources and speakers....but, if I had to go with one not being McIntosh, it would be the amps....I've seemed to get so much more realism-per-ambiance from the McIntosh pre's I've had, and I think a good 75% of The McIntosh Realism comes from their pre-amps........but you do what you want to, Tr@nz, it's your money and sound-quality-realism at stake here, and no one is pointing a gun at your head to buy new.....

 

[salm]

Rather than insert a bunch of quotes I'll just say I completely agree with panhead, CTBob and Vinyl Rules! comments above. I think it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint to tread carefully in the HT market given the tentative nature of the format wars and their potential to cause long term business problems if not addressed properly. I think we'd all agree that two of the other 800 pound gorillas in digital audio/processing are Wadia and Theta. Look at how slow they've been to announce new products and provide updates. And these two companies touted from the beginning the "obsolscence proof" concept of their modular designs. I'm sure they had good intentions and really thought they could accomplish that, but too much of the technology was out of their control and holding them hostage. So McIntosh's cautious approach is not unique among the manufacturer's. Hell, Wadia doesn't even make a DVD player/transport to this day. And I haven't looked at Theta's players for a while but I'd guess they still don't have HDMI capability or support for anything better than 720p, if that. And I also agree HDMI is a completely inadequate mechanical connection. Totaly bogus, especially since the earlier DVI connectors were so much more robust. Anything to save 20 cents during manufacturing I guess.

Two-channel AV for me!

 

[mulester7]

Two-channel AV for me!

.....two-channel "hall" surround-HT for me, and I'm done also, Salm....the only thing left is that stuff zippin' by ya'.....

 

[MikeSp]

I dont wish anybody ill will either but it does get old hearing the HT guys complain,and i allready own Mcintosh HT gear,only i dont care about the latest features,im happy with my MX130 & the outdated features it has,newer never equals better in my book,the proof is in the listening & with the MX's performance in my HT rig all the new features on the market wont beat its sound quality or movie watching experience,maybe equal but not beat,so whats the point of me getting all worked up over HDMI or the like. <SNIP>

I have to question your statement above that "all the new features on the market wont beat its sound quality" in regard to your MX130 -- especially using its HT audio capabilities when compared to the newest high definition, high bitrate DD TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio. I am in no way "dissing" your MX130 -- it is a fine component, BUT 1080P high def video (either format) is a quite a step above the PQ of regular video and likewise, I truly believe from my experiences listening to the equivalent step up in audio (DD True HD and DTS HD Master Audio) make an equally major difference in HT enjoyment. I can even distinguish an improvement in audio performance in most high def DVDs (both formats) over optical in my MX134 when the bitrate is a meager 640K or as in the case of the DTS core rate of 1.5 Mbps -- moving up to several times that bitrate with HDMI in audio makes for a major audio improvement. Thus, even though you feel it gets old hearing us "HT guys" complain, modern improvements in high definition audio and video are here to stay and so are some of us "HT guys" as we impatiently and eagerly await the newest Mc pre/pro that can be proudly added to our HT systems which has not only the pre/pro capabilities of every current and future $1000+ CE receiver BUT the oustanding quality, appearance and pride of ownership of a piece of fine Mc gear.

MikeSp

 

[carlthewave]

In defense of tr@nz...
While I am more interested in 2 channel audio, I have a home theater system which covers both bases. I would probably watch more movies if it wasn't for the lo-fi dolby digital bitrate. So, with the the fat lady singing about hd-dvd, I want to integrate a blu-ray (with lossless audio) into my system. There the problem begins.
I guess short-term, I could
1. Get a 6 channel switcher to switch between a blu-ray and the Esoteric DVD-A/SA-CD player (assuming I can find a blu-ray that decodes ALL lossless formats.)
2. Mate a C45 with my MX-134, which I am considering
3. Buy some 'lesser quality, feature laden' pre-amp (Onkyo, Marantz, Anthem) and wait for a 137.
4. Or, just wait in frustration!:scratch2:

I agree with everyone (and heck, even McIntosh) with waiting things out. I am still surprised Mc made a laserdisc player! (Yes, I do own a 7020 still to this day.)


System: MC352 MC206 MX134 MLD7020 / Esoteric DV50 / B&W N801 NHTM1 M805 / Velodyne ULD-15II / Pro-Ject Expression Turntable / Sony SLV-R1000 / Pioneer Elite PRO-730HD

 

[Jfall]

I think McIntosh is a leader in high end home theater. But as Panhead has said, things move quickly in this field. McIntosh is wise to let things play themselves out. Anyone regret paying 6000$ for a McIntosh HD-DVD player?

I think HDMI (for better or worse) is going to be with us for awhile. I was hoping for something along the lines of a MAC3 that would process HDMI to 5.1 or 7.1 analog, but it doesn't look like this is going to happen.

I'm certainly not suggesting that an Onkyo or similar product is in any way a substitute for McIntosh, I am simply trying to find the best solution available now.

 

[tr@nz]

This has turned out to be a very lively discussion! :thmbsp:

carlthewave - That is why right now I am eagerly awaiting Ron's reply on another thread to see whether I can use the C45 in some workaround to set it up in a 7.1 situation using either the Tape In/Out or some other way. Perhaps you know?

Regarding the 6-channel switcher, you would need an 8 channel switcher to get the full 7.1 benefit. Zektor perhaps?

1. Denon 3800BD - this bad boy will do all your D/A conversion including all the new lossless formats (DD TrueHD, DTS HD MA), and provides 8 analog outputs. Since it is owned by the same company as McIntosh can we assume quality?

2. C45 with the first set of 6 analog inputs connected to the SACD player

3. What to do with the other 8 analog connections required? As a temp solution, use just 6 out of 8 from the Blu-ray going to the second set of 6 analog inputs on the C45.

 

[mcgermany]

Resale price

I bought a Mc integrated amplifier 1999 for about 3067 EURO.
That piece of hardware gave me nearly 10 years of emotional listening fun.
Last month I looked at an ebay auction. The same amplifier was sold for 2980 EURO!

It seems that a McIntosh is like a good wine: it´ s more expensive, the older it is.

Greetings from Germany

 

[ron-c]

Many think that DTS and Dolby digital, which all films are mastered in, have poor sound quality. The truth is these are both 20 bit formats with sound quality that often betters lossless 'redbook' CD, 16 bit performance.
After listening to many home theater decoders it is true that most of them sound poor but there are technical reasons for this. They are not designed to sound good, just a bunch of bells and whistles.
Certainly the recent MX136, 3-501 with XRT-1K and XCS 1K speakers that were used in the CES booth proved that most have been listening to compromised Home Theater systems. I repeatedly observed folks jumping in their seats from the dynamic range. This is due to the nature of dynamic soundtracks using 5.1 EX Dolby Digital.
Commonly used amps and speakers are incapable of swinging the dynamic range of the soundtracks and limit the peaks. Having a new 'lossless' soundtrack will not repair the dynamic deficiencies in existing gear. All in one receivers with poorly implemented audio sections will always sound false when compared to the MX120 and MX136.

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

[dolstein]

I think you need to distinguish between a stereo analog preamp and a mulitichannel A/V preamp/processor. I think it's much easier to justify the purchase of a McIntosh stereo analog preamp, at least when you think of it as a long-term investment. I have a much harder time justifying the purchase of a McIntosh A/V preamp/processor that cannot be upgraded. If I ever put together a McIntosh multichannel system, I'd probably skip the A/V preamp/processor altogether and buy the C45 analog multichannel preamp, a stereo amp (for the front left and right), a multichannel amp for the surround channels, and a source component with built-in decoding capability.

 

[MikeSp]

Many think that DTS and Dolby digital, which all films are mastered in, have poor sound quality. The truth is these are both 20 bit formats with sound quality that often betters lossless 'redbook' CD, 16 bit performance.
After listening to many home theater decoders it is true that most of them sound poor but there are technical reasons for this. They are not designed to sound good, just a bunch of bells and whistles.
Certainly the recent MX136, 3-501 with XRT-1K and XCS 1K speakers that were used in the CES booth proved that most have been listening to compromised Home Theater systems. I repeatedly observed folks jumping in their seats from the dynamic range. This is due to the nature of dynamic soundtracks using 5.1 EX Dolby Digital.
Commonly used amps and speakers are incapable of swinging the dynamic range of the soundtracks and limit the peaks. Having a new 'lossless' soundtrack will not repair the dynamic deficiencies in existing gear. All in one receivers with poorly implemented audio sections will always sound false when compared to the MX120 and MX136.

Thanks,
Ron-C

Ron--help my thinking out here. Assume decent amps and speakers and audio decoding done in the players. IF lossless is lossless is lossless in terms of the newer DD TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio movie soundtracks -- then wouldn't the only variable be the DACs once the digital audio has been handed off to them which would be another reason why the MX136 would shine?

MikeSp

 

[tr@nz]

MikeSP - If you are doing the D/A conversion in the player, why would you need all the extra functionality of the MX136?

Could you in that case not go with the 'cheapest' McIntosh pre with 8 analog ins? Or a stereo pre (C220?) plus a pre with 6 analog ins (C45?) This way at least the analog audio path is future proof and without any d/a or video interference.

Ron-C - Are the D/A conversions done in the MX136 that much better than lets say having a blu-ray player do it?

Is there that much noise added to the audio path from when the audio exits the D/A conversion and exits through the analog out of a blu-ray player to the input in the McIntosh pre? So much so, that it is better to keep it all digital until the Mc does the D/A conversion? And if the latter is the case, we once again can not listen to the 24bit/48Khz or 96Khz lossless masters from the blu-ray. Am I missing something in my naivete?

I thought that the new format, e.g. Dolby TrueHD can easily handle 8 channel 24bit/96Khz and that most film audio is recorded at 24 bit/48Khz.

Thanks for posting on the other thread regarding the C45. I guess that confirms that there is no workaround available to have 8 analog signals be output at the same time. Too bad. Any plan for an audio analog only 8 input Mc Pre-amp? I guess now I have to start looking at a stereo pre plus the C45 to keep all the audio and video separate.

 

[MikeSp]

MikeSP - If you are doing the D/A conversion in the player, why would you need all the extra functionality of the MX136?

Could you in that case not go with the 'cheapest' McIntosh pre with 8 analog ins? Or a stereo pre (C220?) plus a pre with 6 analog ins (C45?) This way at least the analog audio path is future proof and without any d/a or video interference.

Ron-C - Are the D/A conversions done in the MX136 that much better than lets say having a blu-ray player do it?

Is there that much noise added to the audio path from when the audio exits the D/A conversion and exits through the analog out of a blu-ray player to the input in the McIntosh pre? So much so, that it is better to keep it all digital until the Mc does the D/A conversion? And if the latter is the case, we once again can not listen to the 24bit/48Khz or 96Khz lossless masters from the blu-ray. Am I missing something in my naivete?

I thought that the new format, e.g. Dolby TrueHD can easily handle 8 channel 24bit/96Khz and that most film audio is recorded at 24 bit/48Khz.

Thanks for posting on the other thread regarding the C45. I guess that confirms that there is no workaround available to have 8 analog signals be output at the same time. Too bad. Any plan for an audio analog only 8 input Mc Pre-amp? I guess now I have to start looking at a stereo pre plus the C45 to keep all the audio and video separate.

Perhaps I am confused here (nothing new I realize--blame it on AAADD -- Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder )

BUT--when a high def player decodes either DD TrueHD or DTS HD Master Audio, it outputs it as LPCM -- isn't that still in the digital domain which is taken into the MX136 and then converted to analog in its DACs??

MikeSp

 

[CarlV]

OK, it is cleaned up and left open...for now.



Carl