McIntosh

[drbryant]

Holy crap!

[Ian Lascell]

Originally Posted by nelamvr6

My gawd! I would've LOVED to have heard that!

I'm a little intimidated by it.

[MLutthans]

Nothing like a good point-source system.

[Shakey]

So that is when They lost their street cred.

[Hwirt]

Originally Posted by Gary Warren

According to Roger Russell the 2300 was made from 1971 to 1980.

IIRC the 2300 was a quasi-comp design that would have been obsolescent well before then. I thought Mc would have gone to full complementary output (i.e. matched NPN and PNP output pairs) well before then. But then again everyone else went FET in the 80s and Mc never did.

The 2300 used a complementary pair to drive the output stage inverting one side; this allowed the use of the same output transistors (all 24 of them). This came in handy when servicing. Complementary symmetry outputs were common on small solid state amps and receivers at the time, most of which used only two output transistors not 12.

[seacliffe301]

Originally Posted by JimSmiley

"The completed wall sound consisted of 586 JBL woofers and mids, 54 Electrovoice tweeters driven by 48 McIntosh MC2300s and two McIntosh MC350 mono tube amplifiers for a total of 29,500 watts."

I remember reading an interview 20 years ago with the individual who designed the 1969 Woodstock P.A.
That system was built from Mac amps & JBL's, not unlike this system mentioned here. What I don't recall were the specific models & quantities. Does anyone here recall?

[misterdecibel]

Originally Posted by JimSmiley

You got that right. "The completed wall sound consisted of 586 JBL woofers and mids, 54 Electrovoice tweeters driven by 48 McIntosh MC2300s and two McIntosh MC350 mono tube amplifiers for a total of 29,500 watts."

I've got that much power in a 300-capacity bar venue, and it only takes 8 amplifiers to do it.

[motorcitydave]

What brand of amps are you running?

[misterdecibel]

Originally Posted by motorcitydave

What brand of amps are you running?

Crown.

Not my first choice, anymore, but it's what we've got.

[motorcitydave]

Yeah, Crown is ok, but switch over to Bryston.

[misterdecibel]

Originally Posted by motorcitydave

Yeah, Crown is ok, but switch over to Bryston.

Do they have anything that'll push 2000+W into 4 ohms?

[Sneaky Pete]

Originally Posted by Gary Warren

I know enough to know that many who do are off base, and that the real experts are either dead or unable to discuss the matter quite freely.

Simply put, those of us who discuss McIntosh openly do not do so because we hate McIntosh or have any ill will towards it: quite the opposite. But when what is not so is presented as what is, we will speak out.

Truth is better for humanity than ignorance, lies, or spin. And it's more interesting.

Wow, I had no idea that working for McIntosh was like being in the the CIA or La Cosa Nostra.

I do love Mac gear and have always held it in high esteem, even through those years when High-End snobs were somewhat dismissing it.

[Gary Warren]

Originally Posted by Sneaky Pete

Wow, I had no idea that working for McIntosh was like being in the the CIA or La Cosa Nostra.

I do love Mac gear and have always held it in high esteem, even through those years when High-End snobs were somewhat dismissing it.

No, but anyone who works for a company has two crucial limitations on what they may say, the practical and the ethical. The practical is that if you say something counter to the perceived (perceived by management) interests of the company, ex cathedra, (and if you are a current employee speaking publicly you are) you may be fired or otherwise disciplined. The other is ethical, and applies to retires and employees alike, in that there is a moral obligation not to bite the hand that feeds you even if you can do so scot-free. All the Mc oldtimers I have known were profoundly decent people.

I don't work for McIntosh. I have no economic or moral dog in the fight, save a general sense that McIntosh on the whole is a basically decent enterprise which I have no desire to harm. But the truth is they are what they are, a business, and make their decisions from a business standpoint. Their build cost to sale price ratio is quite high, always has been, and is why they are still in business and the other Golden Age names either are extinct or owned and operated only as names by large Japanese conglomerates.

Consider Dynaco and Marantz. Dynaco had the business model of low cost, low price, and failed. Marantz had the model of high build cost, high price, were economically marginal and eventually had to sell out to the Japanese. McIntosh is still there, providing jobs-good jobs-and an all-American product.

But the electronics student will note that Marantz used better quality components than McIntosh, and that while unlike Dynaco, Mc equipment is not underdesigned, the classic Mc products often haven't aged magnificently. The chrome rusts. Many JFK/MM era Marantz tube amps run their original electrolytic caps, unthinkable with a Mc tube product in (almost) 2010. The Marantz 7 and McIntosh C22 are electronic near-twins, but one is a sonic benchmark even today and one in no particular demand for its sonics. The Marantz 7 is as well built a tube box as one will find outside a Tektronix scope or a Collins built R-390. The Mc is adequate, nothing special.

Where McIntosh really excelled was where their key people had carte blanche to produce an engineering masterpiece, particularly hires like Nestorovic and Modaffferi.

[motorcitydave]

Originally Posted by misterdecibel

Do they have anything that'll push 2000+W into 4 ohms?

The closest thing would be the 28Bs...they're expensive though...

[Hwirt]

Originally Posted by Gary Warren

But the electronics student will note that Marantz used better quality components than McIntosh, and that while unlike Dynaco, Mc equipment is not underdesigned, the classic Mc products often haven't aged magnificently. The chrome rusts. Many JFK/MM era Marantz tube amps run their original electrolytic caps, unthinkable with a Mc tube product in (almost) 2010. The Marantz 7 and McIntosh C22 are electronic near-twins, but one is a sonic benchmark even today and one in no particular demand for its sonics. The Marantz 7 is as well built a tube box as one will find outside a Tektronix scope or a Collins built R-390. The Mc is adequate, nothing special.

Have to disagree on your perceived quality of the old Marantz equipment. I’ve worked in the aerospace industry for 30 years and know what the quality level of that equipment is first hand. I own three R390’s (2 A’s and 1 old 390 non a model) several Tektronix scopes and 2 spectrum analyzers (HP & Tektronix).

Having owned the Marantz model 15 amp & model 7t Preamp and performing numerous cleanings and adjustments over the years I am familiar with the component and manufacturing workmanship. The quality of components; (switches, transistors, caps etc.) is high grade commercial. Better than most consumer stereo equipment but again not aerospace or military grade.

In 1974 I replaced my model 15 and 7t with a McIntosh 2300 and C28. As good as the Marantz pair was and it was great, the Mac equipment was better built, better sounding and better looking.

McIntosh C28



Marantz 7t


The Marantz looks more like my old Dynakits.

[Fisico60]

Well, I've something good to say about both McIntosh and (old) Marantz.

A friend of mine has a C26 pre. He recently broke the front glass panel, McIntosh was available to supply a replacement one for $136, for a model discontinued some 30-35 years ago....

I have a '76 Marantz 3300 pre (or Control Stereo Console, as it is written on its front). I do not use it day by day now, but each and every switch and pot of it is working efficiently and noiseless today, never needing any contact spray lube.

35 (and more) years of flawless use, and parts still available. I wonder how many of today's "top end" brands will be able to state the same 35 years from now...

[misterdecibel]

7T and Model 15 were not exactly Marantz' high point. That's about where the rot started setting in.

[Fisico60]

Marantz 3300

[Hwirt]

Originally Posted by misterdecibel

7T and Model 15 were not exactly Marantz' high point. That's about where the rot started setting in.

If that's the case it's been rotting for long time. My recollection is that Marantz made great stuff through the decade of the 70’s and then started a slow decline. There are many classic Marantz pieces, the company has my respect. BTW, nice looking piece Fisico60

[Fisico60]

Originally Posted by Hwirt

If that's the case it's been rotting for long time. My recollection is that Marantz made great stuff through the decade of the 70’s and then started a slow decline. There are many classic Marantz pieces, the company has my respect. BTW, nice looking piece Fisico60

Thank you! What I would like to state is this: building an "audiophile" pre-amp is EASY, as long as you provide few inputs and 1 output, STOP. I can easily devise very simple circuit configurations (tubes or solid state) to do it at best. 1 switch and a well built line-amp (may be + 1 phono pre). No problem.

The real (practical) challenge comes in when you design a real life, flexible pre-amp. High-pass or low-pass filters. Stereo - Mono - LeftOnly - RightOnly - Reverse switches, tone controls for bass, mid, highs with bypass option, 1 or 2 tape monitor circuits, A or B or A+B or none (for headphone) speaker selection, loudness switch...

These options, if WELL implemented, make an outstanding pre-amp be worth a Symbol status. Can I name it? Marantz 7c (it offers more).

And THAT is difficult (and COSTLY) to implement: options, switches and regulators. The simple in-line-out pre is a cheap option for the naive people (that often spend a lot of money buying any implementation of it)

Never trust the "simpler is better" option. Simpler is cheaper for the producer, and if you pay top money for it, you are a fool.

Sorry, maybe I went a bit off-topic. Maybe not...