Does anyone have any experience with the McIntosh MC275 tube amp? I am referring to the (current) re-issue, not the original one. I am interested in getting what may be my very last amp, assuming all my current solid state amps will last another 30 years.
You might want to try http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php? They have a McIntosh forum and a couple of people have that amp, so they could give you a personal opinion.
I had one, the first reissue; that 12AZ7 tube really stinks. Can't believe they changed the old circuit to use that stinker tube. At any rate, the 275 reissue: it was very slow in the bass and very disappointing in the rest of the spectrum and it blew up after a year. Got it fixed and it blew up again. Got it fixed again......Sold it. In this grainy shot you can see it on the side there with a Citation preamp and my Tannoy DMT 12 monitors in my old office at DCC in Chatsworth. Have not heard the new version; it's supposed to be much better..
Hi coop, I thought there were 2 editions of the re-issue MC275, one from like 14-15 yrs. ago and I guess one from last year. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, anyway back in the mid 80's i owned a Conrad Johnson MV75A stereo 75watts/ch. 6550 based power amp. and it would heat the room, eat tubes like crazy, breakdown had to have it reboarded, and it sounded really rubbery and slow in the bass, had it repaired several times and don't use it anymore. I'm dissapointed I did'nt buy the MV45 which was 6ca7/el34 based amp I'm sure i would have done better.
Thanks for the response. I currently have 2 Conrad Johnson SS amps and have been quite happy with both. I am not sure if I would buy the MV60 - the CJ tube amp, though some less than flattering experience from some forum member has made me hesitant about the Mac.
The newest incarnation of the McIntosh MC275, the Mk IV, differs a bit from the others. I think the circuit was changed a little and it's no longer hard-wired. That's a downgrade IMHO, but Ron Cornelius of McIntosh says the switch resulted in a better S/N ratio (McIntosh loves their numbers). I know for sure the output transformers are now bigger. Output is nearly 100wpc. Cosmetically, the black paint is now a matte finish rather than the gloss black traditionally used. Also, the tube chimneys first used on the limited edition MC-2000 have been incorporated into the Mk IV (and the MC2102) allowing heat from the output tubes to be more efficiently dissipated through convection. Add in an IEC connector for power cord swapping, too. An on/off switch was added, as well. The MC275 will operate with either 6550s or KT88s, your choice (I guess KT90s too, if that's your style). There's been some positive buzz about the newish Tung-Sol 6550 reissues. I've seen some claims they compare favorably with the real deal, and the old Tung-Sols are unanimously considered the best of the 6550s. Since the circuit runs the tubes conservatively, you'll get a lot of mileage out of your output tubes, and your small signal tubes will last a loooooong time (even longer if vintage). A lot of folks think the 275 was on the screechy side relative to their earlier tube amps, but I have zero listening time with any incarnation of the 275, so I can't comment. It's the only McIntosh tube amp to use 12AT7s in the circuit, though, which isn't a particularly popular tube for sound. Still, it all depends on the circuit, so take that with a grain of salt. Any comments I've seen regarding the sound of the Mk IV always leave me with the impression it's slightly to the warm side of neutral, and that's the opposite of the typical complaints of earlier 275s. A little of that warmish character is no doubt owed to the KT88s the Mk IV is shipped with. That's certainly not a criticism...a little warmth is a good thing IMHO. Several of the early C-J amps ate tubes. Your's isn't a bad unit or anything. C-J owes a lot to advertising. McIntosh isn't the end-all brand, but they're certainly not at the bottom of the high-end heap. Steve Hoffman's problematic 275 reissue is atypical of the brand, probably owing more to sample variation than anything else. That's life. Know that McIntosh is among the better high-end companies with respect to customer service, though. If there's ever a problem, they'll get you squared away in a timely manner. Don't take this as an endorsement one way or the other for MC275s of any vintage...just responding to the question. Take your time and listen to as many amplifiers as you can.
Hey-HEY!!!, If you're looking at a 'Last Amp' do consider the H-K Citation II. It'll be less expensive than a stereo McIntosh, and it'll sound better too. They are getting more expensive of late, and don't forget to replace every cap under its hood, and most of the resistors; they're approaching the half C in age by now. cheers, Douglas
Totally off topic...but it's wild to see a desk with no computer! Those were the days. BTW that's some pretty funky grain. Looks like 110. dan c
Hi, I would advise getting a refurbed 225 or 2 MC 30 or MC 240 for power amps. Either amp is superior to the MC 275 and much more reliable. The Citation II is nice but uses expensive TV sweep tubes and runs them too hard. If you get a Citation II, run the bias lower to improve tube life.
ummmm...which 'expensive TV sweep tubes' would those be? There is nothing in that amp that's expensive. The front end valves are quite inexpensive compared to 12AX7 and there are a lot of Chinese and Russian makers of the finals. There are also $2 options for the front end which IMO osund better than the stock type. It does run the finals hard, but with individual fixed bias, that is an adjustment away from solved. cheers, Douglas
Hi, Those tubes weren't used as sweep tubes. The 6DQ6 used in some of the Citation family was used as one in early TV sets. The Citation is fine as long as you run the tube bias conservatively to extend tube life. I like the sound of the early Citation line well. I just restored a Citation II and Ingrid and I use it. Stu Hegeman was quirky but designed much good gear. His tuners were especially fine then.
Having owned all but the 225, I can't agree. The MC30's are special, but no more reliable than the 275. I bought my MC30's and MC275 about 8 years ago, refurbished both, and they both are operating properly. Properly tubed, (and that means also replacing the 12AZ7 with a 12AT7 or 5751), refurbished, and used with the right speakers, the (original) MC275 is an awesome amplifier (I use Quad ESL 63's). The 275 seems to sound better with lower efficiency speakers than high ones to my ears. I had an MC240 and wasn't crazy about it. I also had MC40's. Same sound. The MC30's are probably your best value, even at their current street price. The tubes are available and reasonably priced (compared to the 275's KT88's or Tung Sol (NOS) 6550's), and they sound excellent. They will drive almost anything and have that tube midrange "magic". Be prepared to have them refurbished (as with any vintage tube amp) to insure proper operation and long life. I'd like to try an MC225, but I'm waiting for the right one. John Diamantis
Which Citations used the 6DQ6s? I have seen a LOT of Citation IIs in my time and none of them used 6DQ6 tubes. And all the Citation Vs I have seen used 6L6GC/7581A/KT66. -Aaron
This thread goes to prove ... few have actually heard the latest MC275IV, but many people carry all sorts of biases based on the older versions of the amp. No hesitation to shoot down the latest version based on what they heard 15 years ago, even though the current version has quite a few refinements. Sad really. Thanks Stax Fan for trying to set the record straight. Check out the comment here on the Klipsch Forum by honch, who was trying his new xover network and comments on the sound improvement going from his MC30s to the MA2275 (which is the integrated amp that incorporates the MC275). Is that a "wow" I see. http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/696886/ShowPost.aspx People should give the newer ones a fair shake. McIntosh has learned a few things over the past few years since pulling itself out of the grasps of Clarion.
Hi, I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Clarion almost ruined the reputation of McIntosh for sound quality. D & M Holdings, the new owners of McIntosh are making Mc equipment as good as it ever was and in some ways better. D & M Holdings seems to be respecting the legacy left by Frank McIntosh, Gordon Gow, Sidney Corderman, et al. really well. I admire that! They haven't changed their policy about service and support either. I love that as all I can manage is older Mc gear.
