Since when has McIntosh been considered Hi-End?

[Dogberry]

Forty years ago, seriously? You’re commenting on how McIntosh is considered in a place you’ve not been for 40 years … that’s like the guys who bash Linn because they heard one in 1984 and they didn’t like it. Forty years ago there was hardly any high end market anywhere.

Defensive, eh? And forty years ago there was definitely a high end. Remember, if you can, that was the era when cheap Japanese music centres were going out of fashion, to be replaced by faux-separates. If you wanted cheap and good, it was NAD in Europe, but if you wanted high end, it was Linn, Naim, Grundig, Revox, B&W and Quad. I'm pretty sure McIntosh had few if any dealers in the UK back then.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Mcintosh was considered “the “ hi-end from the 60’s ..


Regards

 

[Audiohertz2]

Indeed they made some great stuff--in the last century!--I gave up on the brand after spending squillions on a MC2300--sounded as you described

perfectly!--shut down on every transient /etc--it was good as a Boat Anchor!

I've tried to like the demos of the latest stuff-- sorry not for this boyo!

BruceD

Vintage McIntosh will not disappoint like that , with the new stuff i would try the amps sans their pre-amps..

Mac today does seem to trade on gimmickry thou ..


Regards

 

[Another Johnson]

Mac today does seem to trade on gimmickry thou

One person’s gimmick is another person’s desired feature.

I abandoned McIntosh in disappointment when they entered their solid state only era.

I’ve journeyed through Conrad Johnson, ARC, Krell, Levinson, Marantz, … maybe some others … even Prima Luna …, and presently Burmester.

I’ve never lost my affection for my local salesmen friends and dealer, even as the franchise has progressed through three different companies. So I’ve auditioned a lot of McIntosh over the years.

What I’ve noticed is that their stuff covers a wide range. At the low end, it’s just lifestyle level. It perks up in the middle and is quite good on their high end.

As for gimmicks, take the MA9500 for an example. For $12k retail you get a 300 Wpc amp with nearly 3dB of headroom, a preamp with 17 inputs, an 8 band equalizer that can be removed from the audio path, an adjustable MM phono, an adjustable MC phono, a DAC module that can be replaced with upgrades when upgrades are developed. You can drive a second amp from the preamp. You can feed a different preamp into the amp. It has an excellent built in headphone amp. It has a full featured remote, and other control options six ways from Sunday.

Which of the above are gimmicks? Frankly, they are all useful to someone.

McIntosh, perhaps more than any other American high end audio company, listens to what we call in the Design Business, the Voice of the Customer. They have over 150 employees, and their worldwide sales figures dwarf their competitors’.

 

[Another Johnson]

Defensive, eh? And forty years ago there was definitely a high end. Remember, if you can, that was the era when cheap Japanese music centres were going out of fashion, to be replaced by faux-separates. If you wanted cheap and good, it was NAD in Europe, but if you wanted high end, it was Linn, Naim, Grundig, Revox, B&W and Quad. I'm pretty sure McIntosh had few if any dealers in the UK back then.

Defensive about what? Aside from a DAC and transport for SACDs, I don’t own any McIntosh.

I know what was going on in the UK at that time. I had been engaged in “the evolving high end” for many years. My personal Linn stockist is now Cymbiosis in Leicestershire. But I was directly connected to the US importer in Indianapolis in those days.

You sound like you're arguing that what was relevant 40 years ago is useful to describe what’s going on today. So you are equivalent to Linn bashers who know nothing about the current Linn product line, but consider themselves to be experts based on 40 year old experiences.

Where were the ARC, CJ, CH, Burmester, Clearaudio, Hegel, dCS, Brinkmann, TechDas, Sonus Faber, Wilson, Magico, deVoor, Krell, Levinson, AudioQuest, Transparent, Schnezinger, ad nauseam dealers in the UK in 1984? Obviously they weren’t really there … or in the US for that matter. I was a Clearaudio, VPI, Dynavector, Souther, Van den Hul, Straightwire, New York Audio Lab etc dealer in 1984. Small time. Not fully blossomed, even here.

No need to argue. I leave you to your own devices.

 

[Audiohertz2]

One person’s gimmick is another person’s desired feature.

I abandoned McIntosh in disappointment when they entered their solid state only era.

I’ve journeyed through Conrad Johnson, ARC, Krell, Levinson, Marantz, … maybe some others … even Prima Luna …, and presently Burmester.

I’ve never lost my affection for my local salesmen friends and dealer, even as the franchise has progressed through three different companies. So I’ve auditioned a lot of McIntosh over the years.

What I’ve noticed is that their stuff covers a wide range. At the low end, it’s just lifestyle level. It perks up in the middle and is quite good on their high end.

As for gimmicks, take the MA9500 for an example. For $12k retail you get a 300 Wpc amp with nearly 3dB of headroom, a preamp with 17 inputs, an 8 band equalizer that can be removed from the audio path, an adjustable MM phono, an adjustable MC phono, a DAC module that can be replaced with upgrades when upgrades are developed. You can drive a second amp from the preamp. You can feed a different preamp into the amp. It has an excellent built in headphone amp. It has a full featured remote, and other control options six ways from Sunday.

Which of the above are gimmicks? Frankly, they are all useful to someone.

McIntosh, perhaps more than any other American high end audio company, listens to what we call in the Design Business, the Voice of the Customer. They have over 150 employees, and their worldwide sales figures dwarf their competitors’.

C22> MC3500 Era for me ....! Still top tier today ..

Regards

 

[Another Johnson]

C22> MC3500 Era for me ....! Still top tier today ..

Regards

I had an original C22. It was a combination of the Holy Grail and a Swiss Army knife.

I did abandon it for my CJ PV5. By that time it was long in the tooth. The new ones are fun. They’ve even got a remote. I don’t think they’re competitive with my Burmester 088 or ARC Ref 6SE, but at full retail the new C22 is decent performance at an exceptional value.

Edit: I’ve actually considered buying a new C22 and a pair of the new MC275s. Not for a main system and not to achieve audio nirvana, but for a nostalgia driven system with my Dual 1009 and a pair of Bozaks.

To answer the OP’s question- since 1949.

 

[A-Line]

Found a couple of reviews of McIntosh products online today(for what it's worth-FWIW):

BRUTALLY Honest about McIntosh: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

McIntosh: Here's My Opinion On This Iconic Brand!

I've never liked McIntosh speakers or their preamps, except the C22 and its current incarnations. C29 back in the early 1980's was also quite good.
However, McIntosh digital is among the best digital that I've found at any price point. I also like a few of the vintage McIntosh solid state stereo tuners but also have a Magnum Dynalab FM tube tuner that is dedicated only to my digital playback setup.

I personally like solid state for LP's & analog tape and tubes for all things digital. Obviously everyone has their own opinions regarding that subject matter.

Those who like the sound from a 100w Marshall tubed head amp for rock/jazz/blues guitar at a live concert should check out McIntosh tube amps.

Those that like the sound from a 100w Vox tubed head amp at a live concert for rock/jazz/blues guitar should check out Conrad-Johnson.

A few other high-end brands excel in reproducing better sound for unamplified sound of a full symphony or chamber music but at a much higher cost.

Is it live or is it hifi? That's the question...


Just my opinions.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Would be interested in hearing about comparison results of current Mac SS vs Vintage restored Mac top of the line SS ..

Most of the negative comments seems fo be about modern Mac Amplifiers with Mac pre amps , I'm not a fan of their SS Pre amps and feel the amps should be listened to with a different unit ..!

 

[A-Line]

Would be interested in hearing about comparison results of current Mac SS vs Vintage restored Mac top of the line SS ..

Most of the negative comments seems fo be about modern Mac Amplifiers with Mac pre amps , I'm not a fan of their SS Pre amps and feel the amps should be listened to with a different unit ..!

I don't like all of their amplifiers, only certain ones. The newer high powered amps are different now than they were back in the 1960's- 1980's.
I grew up listening to the MC275 in the 1960's -70's, my dad's stereo. McIntosh brought back that thing starting about 1995. I had a chance to hear a version of the new incarnations of 275 in 2006. It sounded exactly the same to me as before. Improvements were in the speaker binding posts, probably added Power Guard too.. Obviously printed circuit boards replaced the old point to point wiring from the 60's

The 275 is a excellent basic power tube amp that lacks deep bass. My MC2102 tube amp which I bought in 2006 has all of the attributes that the 275 has plus deep bass. I use my MC2102 for digital playback. Some say using 2 275's in mono mode delivers better sound. I did that demo at the dealership and no change in the sound was noted by me. Others claim the same improvement regarding using 2 2102's in mono. Once again I heard no such improvement. I currently use a Conrad-Johnson line stage tube preamp with my MC2102 tube amp. The CJ preamp will remain with me until the end.

I liked the 4100 receiver from the early 80's too but chose ReVox B780 over that based upon sound quality and it had a better sounding tuner with additional adjustment knobs that could further enhance the sound of the tuner section.
The MAC4100 is still a very excellent receiver however.

The MA6200 was a great integrated amp back in the late 70's -the mid 80's. I now have a MA6500 integrated amp that I use for analog playback.

The C29 preamp was nice as was the C22 tube preamp. McIntosh has brought back the C22 and is a current production preamp.
The other preamps from that era through the present time didn't grab my attention.

I feel that McIntosh 2 channel digital audio components to be better and more musical over other brands.

Other brands that I liked from the early 1980's was Threshold and their Power Stasis amps and preamps. Also Naim Audio. Mark Levinson was great in the 1970's. Conrad Johnson caught my attention in 1980's though the company was started in the mid 70's. Belles was nice in the early 1980's. Tandberg had great amps/preamps in the early 80's also.

McIntosh amps/preamps have a loyal following.
Most of their products dating back to the 1950's can still be fully restored to spec. The exception is digital components which do have a shelf life because replacement lasers and other limited production parts are no longer available.

While at the MAC dealership in 2006 I had the opportunity to hear their Dare To Dream system.
I was not impressed. Mostly because it's too big.
I prefer smaller and simpler setup.

So in summary, McIntosh offers a line of products that will appeal to many. I find some of their amplifiers worthy of purchase but not all of them. Their customer service has been, and still is, excellent. Their products designed to last a lifetime and beyond. It's not at all uncommon to see their products from the 1960's still in use today and still meet or exceed the original specs.

Some their newer amps like the reincarnated MC3500 would be of interest to me if I were shopping for a new amplifier mono block set.
The C22 preamp is also current production which would be something that I would pair with the new MC3500.

Anyway, I'm just one guy with a opinion on McIntosh amps/preamps. Having lived with McIntosh on and off since I was born.

There's always a McIntosh amp that will appeal to me over other brands these days. I have had my MA6500 & MC2102 since 2006 and they will remain with me.
I hope that you find some of this information useful.

Just my opinions.

 

[steve59]

I've tried lots of different amps and amp combo's with the speakers I've had over the years. and with a couple exceptions I couldn't really notice a difference in sound as long as they weren't clipping. Horizontal biamping to get a beefy bottom end with a smooth top, nah. Only twice, first time was replacing a parasound a21 with a Hegel H360 on revel salon 1's and although power ratings were identical the hegel helped live recordings sound live compared to the thick sounding a21. More recently with a hegel h590 driving my KEF Blades I tried a pair of mac mc611's and the audible difference was fascinating! Do Mac's have built in loudness? The bass detail depth and dynamics at low and moderate volume is something I've not heard any other amp and speaker combo match! I credit the mc611's since the h590 has impressive numbers and doesn't compare until i'm over 90 db.

When I was introduced to hifi we had the rack systems, Adcom,B$K & Mac. Mac was always hi end.

 

[A-Line]

I've tried lots of different amps and amp combo's with the speakers I've had over the years. and with a couple exceptions I couldn't really notice a difference in sound as long as they weren't clipping. Horizontal biamping to get a beefy bottom end with a smooth top, nah. Only twice, first time was replacing a parasound a21 with a Hegel H360 on revel salon 1's and although power ratings were identical the hegel helped live recordings sound live compared to the thick sounding a21. More recently with a hegel h590 driving my KEF Blades I tried a pair of mac mc611's and the audible difference was fascinating! Do Mac's have built in loudness? The bass detail depth and dynamics at low and moderate volume is something I've not heard any other amp and speaker combo match! I credit the mc611's since the h590 has impressive numbers and doesn't compare until i'm over 90 db.

When I was introduced to hifi we had the rack systems, Adcom,B$K & Mac. Mac was always hi end.

I've seen the MC611's at the dealership recently when I bought a new MCD12000 CD/SACD player but they were not hooked up. They are quite massive. A bit too powerful for me...lol.

I'm not surprised by your findings. Their latest amplifier offerings for both solid state and tubes are very impressive. Since the 611's are solid state I would use them in a all analog setup, but that's just me.

 

[SuperDave]

I haven't heard any new gear from Mac in a few years, haven't had to. I still use my MC601s & MC303 today with my HT. I believe I've had them for 10 or more years used almost daily and never had an issue. The amps are rock solid IME, the processor is a bit more of a headache but still used. I was happy with the sound when I had them for stereo.

Dave

 

[ChasFreeland]

Found a couple of reviews of McIntosh products online today(for what it's worth-FWIW):

BRUTALLY Honest about McIntosh: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

McIntosh: Here's My Opinion On This Iconic Brand!

I've never liked McIntosh speakers or their preamps, except the C22 and its current incarnations. C29 back in the early 1980's was also quite good.
However, McIntosh digital is among the best digital that I've found at any price point. I also like a few of the vintage McIntosh solid state stereo tuners but also have a Magnum Dynalab FM tube tuner that is dedicated only to my digital playback setup.

I personally like solid state for LP's & analog tape and tubes for all things digital. Obviously everyone has their own opinions regarding that subject matter.

Those who like the sound from a 100w Marshall tubed head amp for rock/jazz/blues guitar at a live concert should check out McIntosh tube amps.

Those that like the sound from a 100w Vox tubed head amp at a live concert for rock/jazz/blues guitar should check out Conrad-Johnson.

A few other high-end brands excel in reproducing better sound for unamplified sound of a full symphony or chamber music but at a much higher cost.

Is it live or is it hifi? That's the question...


Just my opinions.

Jay's "Audio Lab" had a completely different assessment of McIntosh in his next -- or neaarly next -- videos. He brought in a McIntosh 901 + a pair of Sonus Faber SE speakers. In that video, he declared the 901 to be the best amp he's had in his studio, repeated how "astonished" he was by their sound. A week or two later, the units were gone, dumped on the used market. The top video is better.

 

[A-Line]

Jay's "Audio Lab" had a completely different assessment of McIntosh in his next -- or neaarly next -- videos. He brought in a McIntosh 901 + a pair of Sonus Faber SE speakers. In that video, he declared the 901 to be the best amp he's had in his studio, repeated how "astonished" he was by their sound. A week or two later, the units were gone, dumped on the used market. The top video is better.

I saw that vid that you're referring to. I've not heard the 901's but MAC's new MC3500 MKII mono's are awesome. I like certain McIntosh amps but not all of them. Additionally, I only need a certain amount of power as I prefer a smaller system anyway.

 

[Audiohertz2]

Have experience with the original MC3500’s , glad to hear the MK2 is a worthy successor ...

 

[ChasFreeland]

We heard a major exhibition of high-end McIntosh products here in BKK recently. The new Aida special edition speakers were on show driven by the Mk2, Could not tell how the Mk2 sounded as there was such a battery of supporting gear: power managers, signal processors, etc. A wall-to-wall rack of McIntosh gear. Can't imagine having the space for such a set-up. Sound seemed loud but a bit lifeless as the signal had to pass through so many circuits. In short, I would rather stick with the smaller amps, even the 1.25k, or the 3500. I use a 352 integrated in my secondary system with Sonus Faber Maxi Amator speakers and the set-up is quite pleasing.

 

[Another Johnson]

I have two streaming setups in my main system. One is current McIntosh based and the other is current dCS based. Tonight I noticed that an upgrade was available for the dCS, so I switched over to the McIntosh. And then back to the dCS after the upgrade was installed. Both systems were streaming the same files from Qobuz (both hardwired to my LAN). It would have required intense listening to discern the differences. The cost difference is a factor of more than six (McIntosh less expensive). In my opinion, McIntosh is a very credible high end choice for many, if not most, components.

 

[A-Line]

I have two streaming setups in my main system. One is current McIntosh based and the other is current dCS based. Tonight I noticed that an upgrade was available for the dCS, so I switched over to the McIntosh. And then back to the dCS after the upgrade was installed. Both systems were streaming the same files from Qobuz (both hardwired to my LAN). It would have required intense listening to discern the differences. The cost difference is a factor of more than six (McIntosh less expensive). In my opinion, McIntosh is a very credible high end choice for many, if not most, components.

I consider McIntosh to be the best digital playback regardless of price. I'm more into records & tape but I also want to take advantage of the digital stuff. I started with my first CD/SACD player in 2006, the McIntosh MCD201. Now I have their new reference player which is the MCD12000 and that component arrived yesterday.

 

[Another Johnson]

I consider McIntosh to be the best digital playback regardless of price. I'm more into records & tape but I also want to take advantage of the digital stuff. I started with my first CD/SACD player in 2006, the McIntosh MCD201. Now I have their new reference player which is the MCD12000 and that component arrived yesterday.

I was a late adopter of CDs. I did not start collecting them until the late 1980s. I had a large vinyl collection and really didn’t like CDs at the start. My first CD player was bought as an alternative to my cassettes (home made from vinyl on three head decks), I adopted SACD very soon after it was introduced. I like SACDs and I wish the market had paid them more respect.

All of this stuff “works.” If you listen to music rather than sound, it’s a lot harder to get excited about format differences. But if you do listen to sound, it can become more interesting.