What about this MAC? Steve?

[Ronflugelguy]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14973&item=3010578963&rd=1


Worth it, or just as a collectible?:confused:

[Steve Hoffman]

Pointless. The Mac 275 is (in my opinion) the worst sounding Mac amp, and the new ones don't sound anything like the old ones anyway.

Only the lower powered Macs have that "sound"; the ones that use a 1614 / 6L6GC.

I had a reissue 275 in my office at DCC for playback and sold the damn thing.

The Japanese LOVE the 275 and will choose it over a mint 240 every time. I once asked a Japanese Audiophile why that was so. He said: "It's bigger".

:)

[Ronflugelguy]

Yeah, I thought this one would just be a museum piece! Everyone i have talked to doesn't like the new 275s or the older ones in comparison to the 240.:cool:

[Steve Hoffman]

I had a real 275 for a while (got a fantastic deal on one). We sat there and listened to the darn thing for months and it was just cold and slow (like my ex girlfriend :) ) no matter what tubes I tried in it. So, what's the point? I sold the thing to a nice Japanese collector for 10 times what I paid for it. That was when I asked him if he liked the sound of the 275 over the 240 and he uttered that phrase that has become one of my favorites. He said he didn't care about the sound, the 275 was bigger.

Love it!

[Ronflugelguy]

In comparison to my ss amp (Parasound designed by John Curl), the 240 is pretty fast! I can't wait to get it back in my system, I got spoiled real fast!!!!

[PMC7027]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
I had a real 275 for a while (got a fantastic deal on one). We sat there and listened to the darn thing for months and it was just cold and slow (like my ex girlfriend :) ) no matter what tubes I tried in it. So, what's the point? I sold the thing to a nice Japanese collector for 10 times what I paid for it. That was when I asked him if he liked the sound of the 275 over the 240 and he uttered that phrase that has become one of my favorites. He said he didn't care about the sound, the 275 was bigger.

Love it!

I thought size didn't matter (at least that's what I've been told)! (LOL)

[Jeffrey]

Originally posted by Ronflugelguy
Everyone i have talked to doesn't like the new 275s or the older ones in comparison to the 240.:cool:

Hi Ron,

Being a very happy 240 owner, i certainly agree w/ this opinion. :agree: However, i have meet many people who believe that the 275 is superior to the 240. This can be seen by the substantially higher prices for 275's on Ebay and Audiogon and McIntosh's decision to reissue the 275 as opposed to the 240.

Personally, w/ efficient speakers (imo, a tube requirement) the 240 is all the power my system needs so there is no reason to sacrifice sonics for additional power. :)

-Jeffrey

[Ronflugelguy]

With my biamp situation, I really think that's all the power I need.
I don't need to listen that loud, its loud enough.:cool:

[indy mike]

So Mac men, what's pecking order for Mac amps? Steve mentioned a lotta model numbers in the other Mac thread...

[Steve Hoffman]

Pecking order?

Best sounding (to me). I like the tube rectified amps first:

monoblocks 1952-62ish

MC-30's using 6L6GC tubes
MC-60's using KT-88's or 6550's

Redesigned monoblocks using solid state rectifiers for about 10 more watts each but same output tubes, 1960-68:

MC-40
MC-75

Two monoblocks on one chassis:

240 (two MC-40's)
275 (two MC-75's)

And so on...

The MC-30's have a holographic sound, wonderful midrange, spooky lifelikeness.

The MC-40's or 240 is close, but the solid state rectifier makes it sound much more modern. The best all around inexpensive Mac.

The MC-60's were used by practically all the major recording studios in the 1950's and '60's. Most of your favorite American recordings were mixed on these amps. Not as sweet as the MC-30's but double the power.

When dealing with tubes, in general, the lower powered amps have the most 3D sound....

[indy mike]

MC40 = most modern sound? Does this mean grabs the woofer by the boo-boo and not have the flabby bass people think of with most older tubey stuff???

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by indy mike
MC40 = most modern sound? Does this mean grabs the woofer by the boo-boo and not have the flabby bass people think of with most older tubey stuff???

Yes, the MC-40 and stereo 240 (think of it as 2-40's, get it?) have better bass control, but lose that palpability in the midrange that makes vocals sound totally lifelike and quite spooky 3D realism. That is reserved for the Mac MC-30's and the 30's alone. All tube designs are trade-offs, and the 240 is as well, BUT, it is about the best overall Mac amp there is for doing most things correctly.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/s2-1.shtml


For me personally though, even my amazing $50,000.00 Wavac monoblocks can't reproduce that above mentioned spooky lifelike quality of the McIntosh MC-30's; it's a coloration that modern tube amps just don't have (or want). That's why I keep the 30's around, when I want to resurrect dead singers in my listening room.

[indy mike]

Sir, thank you for sharing yer knowledge with us! Yet another toy to dream about...

[Ronflugelguy]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman


Yes, the MC-40 and stereo 240 (think of it as 2-40's, get it?) have better bass control, but lose that palpability in the midrange that makes vocals sound totally lifelike and quite spooky 3D realism. That is reserved for the Mac MC-30's and the 30's alone. All tube designs are trade-offs, and the 240 is as well, BUT, it is about the best overall Mac amp there is for doing most things correctly.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/s2-1.shtml


For me personally though, even my $50,000.00 Wavac monoblocks can't reproduce that above mentioned spooky lifelike quality of the McIntosh MC-30's. That's why I keep them around, when I want to resurrect dead singers in my listening room. So, maybe the MC30's would be good with biamping the bass?

[Steve Hoffman]

Well, sure.

Most recording engineers and studio designers in the know power their midrange driver units with Mac 30's.

I thought of a good analogy.

The sound of the Gold Star Echo Chamber compared to regular studio echo chambers is like the sound of a Mac 30 compared to all other tube amps past and present.

But the 240's top end is more extended and dynamic I think....The best overall Mac amp from the glory days! Relax, you have the best one.

[Ronflugelguy]

Man, the cymbals are great!!!!!!!!!!I was just thinking of mating a pair of MC30's into my other system down the road.Thanks, Steve.

[Jeffrey]

Hi All,

Being the owner of vintage Mac gear, i have had lotsa conversations w/ other Mac freaks over the last year. Their pecking order (and other :)) opinions are all over the board. I've also had numerous conversations w/ a former Mac Exec. ('64-'74) who strongly believes the 275/C-22 were the cream of the crop. He refers to them as McIntosh's "bread & butter" which helps to explain why they were the chosen reissues. Having experienced these varied opinions/conversations, i want to express sincere appreciation to SH for being so open & willing to publically discuss his opinions/views on such a controversial subject. :thumbsup: I wish more pro's were willing to do that!

Hey Steve, howsabout your pecking order for vintage Mac preamps??? Please. :)

This is a GREAT place,
Jeffrey

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Jeffrey
Hi All,

Hey Steve, howsabout your pecking order for vintage Mac preamps??? Please. :)

This is a GREAT place,
Jeffrey


Jeffrey sez:

"I've also had numerous conversations w/ a former Mac Exec. ('64-'74) who strongly believes the 275/C-22 were the cream of the crop. He refers to them as McIntosh's "bread & butter" which helps to explain why they were the chosen reissues."

Steve sez:

Of course; they're bigger.


Mac preamps? REMEMBER, what I like in old gear ain't what you might like: I want that old magic, not a linear almost modern sound. So, the C-20 with the MC-30's, 60's and the MX-110 with anything else. If you want the sound of accuracy, buy a modern preamp! Or better yet, mix and match. I use an amazing sounding Marantz 7C. This was the standard "hot" setup back then: Marantz 7C preamp with Mac amps. Or buy a Marantz 8B stereo amp for the bass and Mac something for the mids and tweets! All vintage, all the time. It's only (a lot of) money!

[Jeffrey]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman

Steve sez:

Of course; they're bigger.


Mac preamps? REMEMBER, what I like in old gear ain't what you might like: I want that old magic, not a linear almost modern sound. So, the C-20 with the MC-30's, 60's and the MX-110 with anything else. If you want the sound of accuracy, buy a modern preamp! Or better yet, mix and match. I use an amazing sounding Marantz 7C. This was the standard "hot" setup back then: Marantz 7C preamp with Mac amps. Or buy a Marantz 8B stereo amp for the bass and Mac something for the mids and tweets! All vintage, all the time. It's only (a lot of) money!

Hi,

Bigger = Mo' $, Mo' $, Mo' $ in Macville!!! :agree:

Mix & match sounds like the ticket! :thumbsup: If Mara expresses any concerns, i'll have her buzz ya.....Ok? :)

-Jeffrey

[Gary]

Originally posted by Jeffrey
Mix & match sounds like the ticket! :thumbsup: If Mara expresses any concerns, i'll have her buzz ya.....Ok? :)

-Jeffrey

Don't answer the'phone, Steve! Sounds like Big Trouble! :D

On Steve's preamp recommendation, I auditioned a Foreplay, Dynaco Pas 3 (I think - the "tubed" one) and the MX110 to go with my MC240. I also auditioned some SS preamps.

The MX110 won by miles! :thumbsup:

[Steve Hoffman]

Very lifelike midrange in the MX-110. Plus you get an FM tuner built in, and (depending on the quality of your 6U8 tube) a cheap (maybe 500$) preamp/FM that will last forever with BUILT IN phono stage and a bunch of neat levers and knobs. :)