McIntosh Autoformers
Bret Ludwig
stage a constant load whether a 16, 8 or 4 ohm load is put oon the
appropriate terminal of the power amplifier, and also provides the
output rail a DC path to ground so as to protect the speakers in the
event of a DC offset inducing transistor failure.
Unlike "Power Guard", which is (for the next two or three years, until
the patent runs out) a patent-protected feature, the aautoformer is not
and can not be. Many interesting tube and solid state amplifier designs
have used them. So why is McIntosh the only vendor offering this
feature?
torre...@aol.com
Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
> the autoformer
>
<snip>
>
> why is McIntosh the only vendor offering this
> feature?
>
>
Trevor Wilson
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124407720....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The advantage of the autoformer is that it presents to the output
> stage a constant load whether a 16, 8 or 4 ohm load is put oon the
> appropriate terminal of the power amplifier, and also provides the
> output rail a DC path to ground so as to protect the speakers in the
> event of a DC offset inducing transistor failure.
**A constant load is neither necessary, nor desirable for SS amplifiers.
Furthermore, autoformers (like regular output transformers) DO NOT isolate
the output stage from a varying load impedance (such as a loudspeaker). A
transformer (or autoformer) REFLECTS the load impedance. In any case, there
are other, very effective and far less expensive and less intrusive methods
of protecting a speaker and output stage from faults.
>
>
> Unlike "Power Guard", which is (for the next two or three years, until
> the patent runs out) a patent-protected feature, the aautoformer is not
> and can not be. Many interesting tube and solid state amplifier designs
> have used them. So why is McIntosh the only vendor offering this
> feature?
**Because:
* It is VERY expensive.
* It damages the performance of any properly designed SS amp.
* It increases the mass of the amplifier significantly, for no performance
benefit.
* It INCREASES output impedance figures.
* It buggers up the frequency response.
* It increases distortion.
* McIntosh are desperate to differentiate their product from all the other,
quite reasonable, products in the market place. It is their Unique Selling
Proposition.
[ASIDE] I just finished servicing an old Mac MC2105 transistor amp. I'm
guessing that this thing dates from around 1975 or thereabouts. Even for
that time, it is an incredibly primitive (and not in a good way) amp. It
uses aluminium cased, Motorola output devices (RCA had already released
their FAR more reliable, steel cased, devices by that time), phenolic
printed circuit boards and carbon composition resistors (!!!!). YIKES! The
guys who designed this thing were really having a bad hair day. Talk about a
piece of junk. Fortunately, the people who own these things are so deluded
that they'll pay lots of money to keep them going. I made out like a bandit,
rebuilding it and bringing the technology all the way up to 1978.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
select McIntoshes, keeping in mind they still have to meet spec.
They're big on this.
Amd Mc amps do meet specs....tight ones, autoformers or no autoformers.
Trevor Wilson
> You'd do better to offer a complete board set and kit to upgrade
> select McIntoshes, keeping in mind they still have to meet spec.
> They're big on this.
**I'm sure they are, but the cost would be ridiculous. I did the job, using
modern, high quality components at a fraction of what McIntosh would have
demanded.
>
> Amd Mc amps do meet specs....tight ones, autoformers or no autoformers.
**Not really. The autoformers really bugger things up. They'd be MUCH better
without them. They just add cost and mass and screw up the performance.
They're kinda like adding a fifth and sixth wheel to a Porsche. Well, more
correctly, to an Edsel. Yeah, I like that analogy. A McIntosh is like an
Edsel with six wheels.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124419766.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > You'd do better to offer a complete board set and kit to upgrade
> > select McIntoshes, keeping in mind they still have to meet spec.
> > They're big on this.
>
> **I'm sure they are, but the cost would be ridiculous. I did the job, using
> modern, high quality components at a fraction of what McIntosh would have
> demanded.
That's the beautiful part. You could charge a lot.
Robert Morein
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4305...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124407720....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The advantage of the autoformer is that it presents to the output
> > stage a constant load whether a 16, 8 or 4 ohm load is put oon the
> > appropriate terminal of the power amplifier, and also provides the
> > output rail a DC path to ground so as to protect the speakers in the
> > event of a DC offset inducing transistor failure.
>
> **A constant load is neither necessary, nor desirable for SS amplifiers.
> Furthermore, autoformers (like regular output transformers) DO NOT isolate
> the output stage from a varying load impedance (such as a loudspeaker). A
> transformer (or autoformer) REFLECTS the load impedance. In any case,
there
> are other, very effective and far less expensive and less intrusive
methods
> of protecting a speaker and output stage from faults.
>
electrolytic would do it. Kef puts one in series with their woofers. Other
caps in the crossover isolate the entire speaker from DC bias.
In any event, DC caused by amplifier malfunction is not a common source of
speaker damage. Users usually discover DC bias before it becomes
catastrophic. In my opinion, the small chance is worth the benefit of direct
coupling.
Bret Ludwig
Robert Morein wrote:<snip>
> > > The advantage of the autoformer is that it presents to the output
> > > stage a constant load whether a 16, 8 or 4 ohm load is put oon the
> > > appropriate terminal of the power amplifier, and also provides the
> > > output rail a DC path to ground so as to protect the speakers in the
> > > event of a DC offset inducing transistor failure.
> >
> > **A constant load is neither necessary, nor desirable for SS amplifiers.
> > Furthermore, autoformers (like regular output transformers) DO NOT isolate
> > the output stage from a varying load impedance (such as a loudspeaker). A
> > transformer (or autoformer) REFLECTS the load impedance. In any case,
> there
> > are other, very effective and far less expensive and less intrusive
> methods
> > of protecting a speaker and output stage from faults.
> >
> Yes. If one insisted on protection provided by a passive component, an
> electrolytic would do it. Kef puts one in series with their woofers. Other
> caps in the crossover isolate the entire speaker from DC bias.
> In any event, DC caused by amplifier malfunction is not a common source of
> speaker damage. Users usually discover DC bias before it becomes
> catastrophic. In my opinion, the small chance is worth the benefit of direct
> coupling.
This audio business being largely one of opinions, their opinion
obviously differs! Solid state amps using single-ended power supplies
and capacitor coupling-such as many early Dynas-are considered
throwaway items, or junk box material (the power xfmr is usable to
build bench supplies, the chassis for other projects).
Trevor Wilson
**Nope. It's about engineering.
Solid state amps using single-ended power supplies
> and capacitor coupling-such as many early Dynas-are considered
> throwaway items, or junk box material (the power xfmr is usable to
> build bench supplies, the chassis for other projects).
**That may be so, but that fact does not give any credence to transformer
coupled SS amps. Such amps are just like an Edsel with six wheels.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
<snip>
Many subjective audiophiles think autoformer Mac amps sound excellent
(of course others don't), and objectivists have the fact that the
autoformer mac amps measure extremely well (although the best-measuring
Mac amp is the autoformerless 7200).
Robert Morein
however, that it is possible to protect a speaker from direct coupled faults
without any obvious penalty in sound quality. In the case of Kef, it is done
in the speakers. That doesn't mean it could be done at the amplifier.
Bret Ludwig
Of course, I know full well why most SS amps don't use transformers:
the cost and weight of the transformer put back into the power supply
and transistors leads to more performance at any given impedance than
is gained from the impedance-matching. The exception would be at much
higher or lower loads than are customary in home audio, such as if you
were servicing a 70.7 or 100V line.
But it is an interesting question, why only McIntosh feels customers
want the tubelike appearance and heft.
Trevor Wilson
> It's certainly possible, many good protection circuits exist.
>
> Of course, I know full well why most SS amps don't use transformers:
> the cost and weight of the transformer put back into the power supply
> and transistors leads to more performance at any given impedance than
> is gained from the impedance-matching. The exception would be at much
> higher or lower loads than are customary in home audio, such as if you
> were servicing a 70.7 or 100V line.
**Sort of. Line amplifiers are used for several reasons:
* Very long cable runs may be accomodated, without resorting to heroic sized
(and cost) speaker cables.
* Convenient, local level adjustments can be made by altering transformer
taps at each speaker.
* Total power requirements can be easily calculated, by simple arithmetic.
>
> But it is an interesting question, why only McIntosh feels customers
> want the tubelike appearance and heft.
**You don't read very well, do you? I answered your question earlier. Here
is that answer:
"McIntosh are desperate to differentiate their product from all the other,
quite reasonable, products in the market place. It is their Unique Selling
Proposition."
A McIntosh amp is like an Edsel with six wheels. There is simply no rational
justification for using output transformers with modern SS amps (in the way
that McIntosh use them).
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sander deWaal
>A McIntosh amp is like an Edsel with six wheels.
A Citroen with 8 spheres?
Howard with 2 balls?
GWB with a full deck?
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Bret Ludwig
engineering case for them, as shown by the champion FI Tyrell car of
the 70s and the Panther six-wheeler.
brian...@gmail.com
Just read this thread and easy to tell no one here knows that much
about engineering, Mc history or probably actually has owned and used
Mc for any length of time. First to put something into perspective.
The MC2105 is the metered version of the MC2100 that was Mc's 1st
generation power amp and is from 1967 and not 1975.
The output transformer/autoformer/output capacitor issues were all
explored in the early stages of the first ss designs by most
manufacturers. McIntosh developed the autoformer since it found the
transformer and the OC approaches to have limitations in either
frequency response or an issue with DC and spiking as with OC. OCs were
simply the cheaper way to go. Companies with better engineering went
with transformers such as Fisher. Look under the chassis on their first
gereration amps. Mc developed the autoformer. DC amps did not come
along until complimentary output design was developed and proved
reliable.
As for the comment that DC ralley is not a factor in destroying
speaker, hate to tell you but it is probably the biggest factor. When
an ss amp clips, the output is DC and that halts the vc movement
monentarily and builds up heat since a function of the vc design is the
cooling that occurs as the vc moves. More speakers are probably
destroyed by using underpowered amps than overpowered amps for this
reason. The result of the overheating is an open vc. Tubes which
historically are lower powered exhibit a different charactor when
driven beyong their capacity. They will compress the output rather
than go into clipping as radically and without giving notice (provided
the listener is educated enough to recognize the compression). If the
amp clips, the transformer can not pass DC so there is a built in
speaker protection device that ss amps do not have inherently.
Why did Mc stay with autoformers. Well,1 reason was during this period
many speaker manufacturers were making some really challenging speakers
loadwise, especially the electrostatics of these early years. Mc with
the autoformer was 1 of the very few amps that did not fry when
presented with these loads. So while others cut costs by designing to
DC and creating amps that were literally melting down when mating with
more than a few of these speakers Mc found that there was no advantage
but only disadvantages if it moved from the design. During this
period, Mc held the high priced market and owners simply tended to buy
things like KLH Nines. I mention this speaker since I owned them for 30
years and saw them trash more amps than most persons own in a lifetime.
Speakers such as JanZens, Koss Model 1, Quad, Acoustec and many AS
systems simply made amps too unstable but were sought after because of
the superior sound and Mc was the amp of choice for the simple reason
it could handle them.
Is it an inferior design. No, simply a different approach to a problem
and 1 that Mc owners like and prefer. One difference between a DC amp
and the Mc is the dampening factor. This spec sems to be constantly
debated as to effect and actual sonic meaning and result. Mc amps with
a DF above tubes amps but on the very low side for ss amps do not
necessarily sound that much different from a DC amp. I own several
amps from these early days including a Fisher integrated with the
output transformers and a Sony receiver. Each sounds different but when
compared to a later generation design these 3, each with a different
output arrangement, sound remarkably close.
These designs and the later Mc amps seem to exchange the ultimate
detail for maintaining the instruments sense of feeling. This sense is
a recorded component that is stripped out by most mainstream designs
starting in the 70s. Mc found that its amp design did not strip it away
and this was true even with the DC amps.
Is the autoformer needed? Mc owners vote with their wallets. In the
70s, Mc produced a DC power amp with companion preamp and tuner that in
absolute terms sounded excellent and worthy of the Mc name. Mc buyers
voted the issue by buying almost none. Mc's integrated amps until not
too many years ago did not use autoformers. Their sales were never
great but when Mc switched to autoformer models sales went up. Now Mc
probably has the most understated marketing of any company using what I
term the RR theory that is if your are asking about a RR specs do not
mean as much as to someone looking to buy that lowscale Corvette (no
flames please, I personally love Corvettes) but the ride is ehat is
important. Mc sells to a class of buyer that is more interested in
listeing to music than the glitter of specs and sales campaigns.
A few years ago there were Mc flamers on a site I monitered and finally
I possed the question as to how many detracters had ever actually owned
a Mc amp and used it for any length of time in a system. No surprise
here, only 1 of the group of detracters actually ever owned 1 for any
time and did not like it. Most of the others picked up the bias from
dealers who did not carry Mc and were always fighting the single issue
of if a person was going to spend x$s on amps A and a Mc was the same
price, why not go with a Mc. Dealers in the late 60s through the 70s
did some real slandering to overcome this. Others admitted they were
anti-Mc simply b/c they never could afford it and it was a way to
justify not owning 1 rather than admit it. At the same time quite a
few Mc owners came out of the closet and like me really did not get
into the p*ss*ng match simply b/c we would rather sit back and enjoy
listening to music than playing with the toys to make the system sound
decent, in otherwords we were happy with the sound while others were
attempting to get there. Now a goodly amount of that community has
purchased Mc amps and low and behold some of the biggest detracters are
now all but fully Mc system owners.
Oh, FWIW, I have been in both the business (owned 4 stereo stores) and
a hobbiest since the 50s and have owned a Mc system for over 30 years.
I bought it when I had a storeroom full some of the finest competiton
available and over the last 30 years had quite a few heavyweights champ
amps come. Until a few years ago when my KLHs finally bit the dust
even new amps were still self-destructing on these speakers. My little
Mc amp just kept on humming away. So guys stop playing Saturday
afternoon quarterback, go forth and pick up a nice used Mc and give it
a fair spin. Oh, BTW, if you do not like it do not worry, unless you
bought foolishly high, you'll always get your money back.
Bret Ludwig
MC2300, MC250, MC2120, MA6100, MC754,MC2205. This over roughly twenty
years of estate and auction sales plus swapping and hamfest
"ya-gott-any-macs" inquiries. I have repaired most of these usually I
buy them when they need work. Plus preamps, receivers, and tuners.
The plus side, Mac has reasonable (in terms of availability) support
for parts. The downside, most of the solid state Macs are not
particularly great sounding. Sorry, they just aren't. There are solid
state amps that cost less, the same, and more than Macs all of which
just don't have sonic faults which Macs do. They are Class B small
heat sink affairs with as much global NFB as they could get away with,
and proud of it.
Build cost on Mac anything is not that impressive. Crown is more
impressive in that regard, let alone many high end brands.
No offense, but except for Quad electrostats most of the speakers you
mention were and are dog turds.
The first halfway decent solid state amps were IMO the Crowns, which
were actively marketed in those days as home as well as pro products,
and they blew the early solid state Macs away sonically. However, there
are half a dozen guys out there designing solid state amps that are
better than the Macs from the late 70s to this day. The current Macs
are not terrible but "not terrible" in this price range is not anything
to brag about. The tube reissues are a joke-funny to me, because I can
remember Dave O'Brien, Gordon Gow, Sid Corderman and Larry Fish all
swearing on a stack of bibles Mac would NEVER build a tube amp again!
The reissues are built like reissue Ampeg guitar amps-all on one board,
with simplified cheesed out circuits.
Why do people buy Mac? Well, Mac has built their image relentlessly
with bold as brass balls advertising, they regimented their dealer
network like the Waffen-SS, and their stuff looks good and is well
packaged. Their core market is not audiophiles, it's wealthy
professionals and status seekers and has always been. And it does work
and is reasonably reliable and they made their dealers put in service
departments that actually could fix stuff rather than farm it out to
fat hicks that come in through town with a van load of boxes once a
month or FedEx it back to the manufacturer for trivial things as
"dealers" do today.
But most of their customers don't know sound. Proven fact.
js...@aol.com
I have owned amps from every price point except the ones designed to be
built in the 100's...from tube to SS including hybrids.
I just dont see what is the knock on the Mcamps....All amps are liked
and disliked and that is a fact of life,,,,some people may say that
whatever speakers you like are turds. It never ends.
reasonable reliable about McIntosh? I think you are stretching it
there.
And since when being an 'audiophile' is like audio mecca? Most of the
audiophiles I know are neurotic gear chasers...People who love music
that sounds good seems like a better place to me to be in. Mcintosh
doesnt need audiophiles as they only keep their gear till TAS tells
them to.
Bret Ludwig
Mac gear is from estate sales or is sold broken by the formerly wealthy
or now disinterested.
But McIntosh just is not terribly great sounding, nor is the build
cost commensurate with the price. People who buy Mac as "heritage
buyers" and become audiophiles realize it just is not truly high-end in
sound and it gets redeployed as a second system or goes to the kids.
Listening to Mac amps, preamps, CD players and especially their
hackneyed speakers and then hearing some of the better high end
products, is a perceptible change and people realize the Mac is pretty
ordinary sounding. I was talking to a doctor the other day who replaced
a big solid state Mac with Pass Labs amps to drive his Matrix 801's.
He put the Mac on eBay less than a week later.
What bothers me about Mac the most; for little more build cost they
could improve the sound of their product considerably. However, it
would mean admitting they have been wrong in the past, and that they
will never do.
js...@aol.com
time is a bad thing, as probably most amps cant reach that milestone
anyway...
I think the issue is people listening to old amps that way out of spec.
If that doctor isnt an audiophile, why do you put such weight on his
opinion? Most times you make a change, people will feel that its an
upward move.
I now have David Berning amps, which at the moment I like better, but
in no way shape or form does it mean that the Mc;s sound like crap.
Can you also please describe to me/us what is your interpretation of
High End Sound? Inst High End Sound also a subjective measure? And
every speaker designed by Roger Russell sounds very good to me, as do
others...I dont have the Mc speakers as they are too heavy when vintage
or expensive when new...I have Quad ESL 63's. But they knew what they
were doing and their speakers demanded a lot of power....
Again, such broad sword statements, and strong worded seems more like
simple opinion than an open minded analysis.
Bret Ludwig
The doctor I was referring to, is an audiophile, as well as a
_serious_ amateur recordist of chamber music, owning several tweaked
1/4" and 1/2" Ampex classic transports with tweaked electronics, a
Nagra IV-S and a Nagra-D, and a considerable mic locker.
I didn't say that Macs "sounded like crap". I said they sounded
okay...there is a difference.
Most amplifiers today sound "okay". Even inexpensive pro sound amps
today are either okay (if your speakers are inefficient enough to work
them) or pretty close. That wasn't true as late as the late 80's.
My definition of high end sound is sound quality pursued as an end by
itself according to strict listening, i.e. subjective, means. Testing
may be used to corroborate or assist in the process but does not in
itself constitute the arbiter of quality. This differs from McIntosh's
approach, which is that McIntosh is the best measuring equipment of its
type readily available for consumer use (sometimes very true) and
therefore the best equipment available. By its own purpose statement
McIntosh is not a "high-end maufacturer" per se, although some high
end buyers do prefer and buy it. Some also buy amplifiers (Crown, QSC,
Hot House, EAR) and speakers (horn speaker components and subwoofer
drivers typically) which are intended and sold as pro audio (sound
reinforcement or studio monitoring) units, but that doesn't make Crown,
JBL, Altec Lansng Pro, Hot House, or QSC "high end brands".
(I use Winchester brand bird shot in my speaker bases too, but USRAC
is not high end audio either!)
If you own and like Mac, well and fine. But if you are after listening
quality other amps are sometimes better choices and often for less
money. I'd take a Mac over most current pro products, but I'd take many
of the high end brands over Mac today.
Trevor Wilson
<js...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125094346.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Brett and Trevor,,,since when are your opinions facts??
**It's pretty simple to figure out which is fact and which is opinion.
When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers is like an
Edsel with 6 wheels, that is an opinion.
When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers has higher
levels of distortion, a poorer frequency response, poorer damping factor,
more mass, higher cost, poor choice of passive components, poor choice of
output devices, etc, than an equivalent product, that is fact.
>
> I have owned amps from every price point except the ones designed to be
> built in the 100's...from tube to SS including hybrids.
>
> I just dont see what is the knock on the Mcamps....All amps are liked
> and disliked and that is a fact of life,,,,some people may say that
> whatever speakers you like are turds. It never ends.
**Indeed.
>
> reasonable reliable about McIntosh? I think you are stretching it
> there.
**Stretching what, exactly?
>
> And since when being an 'audiophile' is like audio mecca? Most of the
> audiophiles I know are neurotic gear chasers...People who love music
> that sounds good seems like a better place to me to be in. Mcintosh
> doesnt need audiophiles as they only keep their gear till TAS tells
> them to.
**Probably.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> <js...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1125094346.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Brett and Trevor,,,since when are your opinions facts??
>
> **It's pretty simple to figure out which is fact and which is opinion.
>
> When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers is like an
> Edsel with 6 wheels, that is an opinion.
>
> When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers has higher
> levels of distortion, a poorer frequency response, poorer damping factor,
> more mass, higher cost, poor choice of passive components, poor choice of
> output devices, etc, than an equivalent product, that is fact.
>
There are less reliable and likely worse sounding products than
McIntosh, some for even more money. In fact McIntosh amplifiers are
quite reliable for the first several years of operation if they are in
a clean, climate controlled house. And most hi-fi gear does not have
published specifications anymore.
Further, higher damping factor is not always better.
Trevor Wilson
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> <js...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125094346.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Brett and Trevor,,,since when are your opinions facts??
>>
>> **It's pretty simple to figure out which is fact and which is opinion.
>>
>> When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers is like an
>> Edsel with 6 wheels, that is an opinion.
>>
>> When I say: A SS Mcintosh amp which uses output transformers has higher
>> levels of distortion, a poorer frequency response, poorer damping factor,
>> more mass, higher cost, poor choice of passive components, poor choice of
>> output devices, etc, than an equivalent product, that is fact.
>>
>
> There are less reliable and likely worse sounding products than
> McIntosh, some for even more money.
**Strawman noted.
In fact McIntosh amplifiers are
> quite reliable for the first several years of operation if they are in
> a clean, climate controlled house.
**Strawman noted.
And most hi-fi gear does not have
> published specifications anymore.
**Incorrect. The vast majority of audio equipment is comprehensively
specified. A TINY minority of products may lack several, critical specs.
>
> Further, higher damping factor is not always better.
**Yes, it is. Always. It may not be an audibly significant factor, but (all
other factors being equal) higher damping factor is ALWAYS better.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
> >
> > There are less reliable and likely worse sounding products than
> > McIntosh, some for even more money.
>
> **Strawman noted.
>
> In fact McIntosh amplifiers are
> > quite reliable for the first several years of operation if they are in
> > a clean, climate controlled house.
>
> **Strawman noted.
>
> And most hi-fi gear does not have
> > published specifications anymore.
>
> **Incorrect. The vast majority of audio equipment is comprehensively
> specified. A TINY minority of products may lack several, critical specs.
>
> >
> > Further, higher damping factor is not always better.
>
> **Yes, it is. Always. It may not be an audibly significant factor, but (all
> other factors being equal) higher damping factor is ALWAYS better.
Much if not most equipment found in the typical American high end
audio retailer's store has minimal or no documentation as far as
measured performance goes. Audio Research does, however more typical
is this from conrad-johnson, on their _SOLID-STATE_ amplifier line:
Specifications
MF Series Amplifiers
Output:
# MF2250: 2 x 120 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 20kHz at no more than
1% THD or IMD, both channels driven into 8 ohms
# MF2500: 2 x 240 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 20kHz at no more than
I% THD or IMD, both channels driven into 8 ohms
# MF5600: 5 x 120 watts per channel from 20 Hz to 20kHz at no more than
1% THD or IMD
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 KHz +/1 dB
Hum and noise: more than 100 dB below rated output
Input Impedance: 100 KOhms
Dimensions:
# MF2250: 16D x 19W x 4.25H inches
# MF2500: 16D x 19W x 6.75H inches
# MF5600: 16D x 19W x 8H inches
Total Weight:
# MF2250: 36 lbs.
# MF2500: 55 lbs.
# MF5600: 59 lbs.
Aside from noting many tube designs can best these specs, this is
hardly "full specification"!
As far as damping factor goes, I note the variable damping which was
fitted to several amplifiers:
MC-30 (A116B) Tube. Mono.
ELECTRICAL: 30w. Response 20-30kHz (+0.1 -0.1dB). Distortion 0.5%.
Noise & hum -90dB. Output impedance 4, 8, 16, and 600 ohms. 600 ohm
balanced to ground. 4, 8 and 16 ohms isolated from ground. Damping
factor 12 for 4, 8 and 16 ohms. Input impedance 500k. Input sensitivity
0.5V. Late versions supplied with variable damping control.
MECHANICAL: Chrome chassis. Octal socket powers McIntosh C-8, C-4,
C104, or C-108 preamps. Barrier strip for 4, 8 and 16 ohms as well as
0.5V input. Line voltage tap for 117 or 125V. Audio input. Gain
control.
TUBES: 2-1614 output, 2-12AX7, 12AU7, 12BH7, 5U4.
Size 8"H, 8"W and 13"D. Weight 30.5 lb. Sold from 1954-1962. $153.00
Trevor Wilson
>
>> >
>> > There are less reliable and likely worse sounding products than
>> > McIntosh, some for even more money.
>>
>> **Strawman noted.
>>
>> In fact McIntosh amplifiers are
>> > quite reliable for the first several years of operation if they are in
>> > a clean, climate controlled house.
>>
>> **Strawman noted.
>>
>> And most hi-fi gear does not have
>> > published specifications anymore.
>>
>> **Incorrect. The vast majority of audio equipment is comprehensively
>> specified. A TINY minority of products may lack several, critical specs.
>>
>> >
>> > Further, higher damping factor is not always better.
>>
>> **Yes, it is. Always. It may not be an audibly significant factor, but
>> (all
>> other factors being equal) higher damping factor is ALWAYS better.
>
> Much if not most equipment found in the typical American high end
> audio retailer's store has minimal or no documentation as far as
> measured performance goes.
**Goalpost shift, noted.
And nonsense, as well. Here's a few high end products chosen at random.
Please let me know where the specs listed are deficient.
http://www.audioresearch.com/vt100new.html
More than adequate specs listed.
http://www.bryston.ca/b100sst_t.html
Click on PDF spec sheet.
http://www.classeaudio.com/delta/specs/cam400.htm
Nothing amiss here, either.
http://www.conradjohnson.com/It_just_sounds_right/current-products.html
Could be more detailed, but not bad.
http://www.halcro.com/productsDM68.asp
Certainly no problems here!
http://www.krellonline.com/html/m_ClassA_p_FPBs_700cx.html
No problems here.
http://www.marklevinson.com/products/specifications.asp?cat=pa&prod=no33h
Nor here. I'm bored now. You'll note that I chose a bunch of well-known
products, which are typically found in high end dealer stores. All are
reasonably well specified.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
dictionary?
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor, did you know the word "gullible" is not listed in any
> dictionary?
** http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible
What is your point?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
George M. Middius
Trevor Wilson said to Bertie the Boob:
> ** http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible
> What is your point?
His point is the same as before -- that he's an idiot. Not only does the
*single* dictionary B.B. cited have an entry, viz:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible
gullible [adj] 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age
she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily
tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the
shell game"
... but so do various others:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gullible
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/gullible
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34938&dict=CALD
And here's a whole slew of them:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=gullible&ls=a
torre...@aol.com
George M. Middius wrote:
>
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gullible
> gullible [adj] 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age
> she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily
> tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the
> shell game"
>
>
*Perfect*!
js...@aol.com
so important. Mass and weight adds to vibration control, does it not?
Reading through the specs, I would say mc's measure quite well in
distortion....
Their long term surivability thru decades doesnt seem to be matched by
other makes that much...so they operate well pass the point when others
dont.
I just dont think specs play that much of a role, except to have some
objective performance goal...but not the best spec'd amps sound the
best.
Trevor Wilson
<js...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125671560....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If damping factor increase is usually not audible, then why would it be
> so important.
**Damping factor, beyond a figure of around 40, is pretty much irrelevant.
HOWEVER, a really bad damping factor will certainly affect sound quality.
> Mass and weight adds to vibration control, does it not?
**It can. What's your point?
>
> Reading through the specs, I would say mc's measure quite well in
> distortion....
**They'd be better without output transformers.
>
> Their long term surivability thru decades doesnt seem to be matched by
> other makes that much...so they operate well pass the point when others
> dont.
**Do they? What do you base that opinion on? Data please. OTOH, I have a
Marantz Model Eighteen receiver on my workbench. It dates from around 1971.
It has been operating 8 hours/day/6 days a week, since that time. It has
failed ONCE. I accidentally allowed a low impedance load (around 1 Ohm) to
be connected to one channel for the best part of a day. It is still
operating on all the original parts (except for new output devices in one
channel).
>
> I just dont think specs play that much of a role, except to have some
> objective performance goal...but not the best spec'd amps sound the
> best.
**I never said otherwise. HOWEVER, McIntosh amps are deliberately damaged,
by the use of output transformers. Kinda like buying an Edsel and bolting an
extra two wheels on it.
BTW: I realise you may be a newbie. Take a tip: Do not 'top post'. Learn to
post in a fashion which mirrors proper conversation.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
still meet far better specs than most high-end products.
And the six-wheeled Edsel was in fact built. it was called the
Seattleite and was shown at the World's Fair in Seattle, which I think
was 1962.
Trevor Wilson
> McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
**Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior performance
without transformers.
They
> still meet far better specs than most high-end products.
**Do they? Which high end products?
>
> And the six-wheeled Edsel was in fact built. it was called the
> Seattleite and was shown at the World's Fair in Seattle, which I think
> was 1962.
**Mmmmm. I note that it took the world by storm. Not.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>
> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior performance
> without transformers.
Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
>
> They
> > still meet far better specs than most high-end products.
>
> **Do they? Which high end products?
Just about all of them. Compare their numbers. name two amplifiers that
have better published specs. Also compare warranty-will the others take
the unit back if it doesnt meet spec?
>
> >
> > And the six-wheeled Edsel was in fact built. it was called the
> > Seattleite and was shown at the World's Fair in Seattle, which I think
> > was 1962.
>
> **Mmmmm. I note that it took the world by storm. Not.
Even the regular Edsel didn't quite take the world by storm. Sales
sucked.
Trevor Wilson
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>>
>> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior performance
>> without transformers.
>
> Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
**No need. The addition of an output transformer to an amplifier which does
not require it, cannot do anything but damage performance, increase cost and
increase mass. Therefore, the amplifier will be better off without it.
>>
>> They
>> > still meet far better specs than most high-end products.
>>
>> **Do they? Which high end products?
>
> Just about all of them.
**I'll rephrase the question:
Which high end products?
Compare their numbers. name two amplifiers that
> have better published specs. Also compare warranty-will the others take
> the unit back if it doesnt meet spec?
**That is a bit of a strawman on McIntosh's part. Here's why:
* Few, if any, McIntosh buyers have the facilities to verify the performance
of their products.
* Pretty much *all* solid state amplifiers are capable of comfortably
meeting their published specs for several decades after manufacture. Even
VERY cheap ones. BTW: The McIntosh I serviced recently did not even come
close to meeting it's published specs, due to massive component drift. My
Marantz Model Eighteen, by comparison, easily meets its published specs, due
to its use of decent quality passive components.
>
>>
>> >
>> > And the six-wheeled Edsel was in fact built. it was called the
>> > Seattleite and was shown at the World's Fair in Seattle, which I think
>> > was 1962.
>>
>> **Mmmmm. I note that it took the world by storm. Not.
>
> Even the regular Edsel didn't quite take the world by storm. Sales
> sucked.
**EXACTLY!
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
I don't know how long Mac guarantees the _performance_ of its
products. However at their prices an AP Portable One should be well
within the purview of any purchaser of new Mac equipment.
norman...@comcast.net
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>>
>> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior performance
>> without transformers.
>
> Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
>>
>> They
>> > still meet far better specs than most high-end products.
>>
>> **Do they? Which high end products?
>
> Just about all of them. Compare their numbers. name two amplifiers that
> have better published specs. Also compare warranty-will the others take
> the unit back if it doesnt meet spec?
Now this brings back memories of a serious difference of opinion I had with
McIntosh many decades ago. McIntosh was running an advertising campaign
where they bragged about their "conservative" specs. They were specifying
the distortion of their amps as 0.1%, which they hastened to add was
extremely conservative, since many users had reported "less than .01%
distortion."
I wrote them a letter castigating them for trying to get the benefits of
advertising .01%, while actually providing only 0.1%. I called this
dishonest advertising, and it WAS. McIntosh's feelings were hurt. They
thought they were on the side of the angels providing 10 times better
performance than their spec. IOW, McIntosh thought they were doing
something good. I was never able to get them to see that their actions
constituted false advertising, although staying within the bounds of
legality.
This sort of thing is common. Integrated circuit specs are almost always
advertised as "Typical." If you ask the manufacturer to guarantee that a
part will meet typical specs, the price multiplies! I expect weasel words
from consumer products ads; I'd like to think that McIntosh could be held
to a higher standard.
Norm Strong
norman...@comcast.net
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:431f3501$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126111592.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>>>
>>> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior
>>> performance
>>> without transformers.
>>
>> Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
>
> **No need. The addition of an output transformer to an amplifier which
> does not require it, cannot do anything but damage performance, increase
> cost and increase mass. Therefore, the amplifier will be better off
> without it.
This asks the question: If the amplifier is better off without it--and we
must assume that there is some price penalty involved--why on earth did they
put it in? McIntosh must feel that an autoformer is the best way to get
the performance they desire. If this is untrue, then there must be a sales
advantage to making it that way. What could that be?
Norm Strong
Trevor Wilson
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xa6dnWk-vN_...@comcast.com...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:431f3501$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126111592.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>>>>
>>>> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior
>>>> performance
>>>> without transformers.
>>>
>>> Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
>>
>> **No need. The addition of an output transformer to an amplifier which
>> does not require it, cannot do anything but damage performance, increase
>> cost and increase mass. Therefore, the amplifier will be better off
>> without it.
>
> This asks the question: If the amplifier is better off without it--and
> we must assume that there is some price penalty involved--why on earth did
> they put it in?
**Asked and answered. In a highly competitive market place, manufacturers
are desperate for some kind of method to differentiate their product. Output
transformers fit that bill nicely.
McIntosh must feel that an autoformer is the best way to get
> the performance they desire. If this is untrue, then there must be a
> sales advantage to making it that way. What could that be?
**Product differentiation.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
performance of Mcintosh tube amplifiers, the primary reason was the
variability in the cores of the output transformers. While tubes made
for some of the difference, the quality of the specific core and the
precision with which they could get it gapped properly to linearize the
B-H curve would have made achieving the "typical" spec on a
"guaranteed" basis very expensive. And the Scots, Mcintosh and Gow
didn't like this _at all_. (Those who bitch at the cheapness of "the
chosen" should consider: Marantz and Futterman, and Avery Fisher, put a
lot more build cost in than they needed to.)
A modern winder could do better today, but they would rather build
single-ended crap because no-feedback single ended triode amps are what
their electronically inept yuppie customers feel they can build. The
winders have told me so themselves! I have endured abuse on r.a.t. but
the truth is the truth.
This practice did piss off metrology and other engineering types which
is why they dropped it. HP did something different-they sold tweaked,
selected low distortion versions of their Wien-bridge oscillators under
a different model number at a much higher price.
Trevor Wilson
> Regarding the variance between "typical" and "guaranteed" thd
> performance of Mcintosh tube amplifiers, the primary reason was the
> variability in the cores of the output transformers.
**You miss Norm's (very good) point. McIntosh employ(ed) sinister techniques
to claim better specs than they have to guarantee.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
norman...@comcast.net
>> news:431f3501$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>>>
>>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1126111592.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1125889977.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> > McIntosh amplifiers are hardly "damaged" by their autoformers.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Sure they are. Like ALL SS amps, they will provide superior
>>>>> performance
>>>>> without transformers.
>>>>
>>>> Get one and take the autoformers out and measure it.....
>>>
>>> **No need. The addition of an output transformer to an amplifier which
>>> does not require it, cannot do anything but damage performance, increase
>>> cost and increase mass. Therefore, the amplifier will be better off
>>> without it.
>>
>> This asks the question: If the amplifier is better off without it--and
>> we must assume that there is some price penalty involved--why on earth
>> did they put it in?
>
> are desperate for some kind of method to differentiate their product.
> Output transformers fit that bill nicely.
>
>> the performance they desire. If this is untrue, then there must be a
>> sales advantage to making it that way. What could that be?
>
I can't agree. You and I understand the technical issues involved in such a
design decision, but I doubt that anyone else does. The presence or absence
of an output transformer probably means nothing to McIntosh customers. I
find it hard to believe that a customer might covet an amplifier because it
has an extra transformer in it.
Norm
Trevor Wilson
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RN-dnZ2dnZ0EuM-RnZ2dn...@comcast.com...
**Fair enough. YOU tell me why McIntosh puts output transformers in their
amps. No modern SS amp requires them. In fact, it can easily be shown that
performance will suffer because of it.
You and I understand the technical issues involved in such a
> design decision, but I doubt that anyone else does.
**Precisely. Few McIntosh buyers realise that such transformers are both
unnnecessary and a negative influence on performance. They do, however,
raise the mass and the price.
The presence or absence
> of an output transformer probably means nothing to McIntosh customers.
**I dissagree. That would be the case for SOME McIntosh customers.
I
> find it hard to believe that a customer might covet an amplifier because
> it has an extra transformer in it.
**Two, actually. There's probably a rather complex set of reasons
surrounding the buying decision of a McIntosh amp. It probably relates to:
* The 'look and feel' of the product, which, in some cases, can be related
to the McIntosh products of old.
* The sheer mass of the product, which is considerably higher than other,
similarly specc'd products.
* The fact that it is one of the few, old, established manufacturers of
audio products, still operating in the US.
* The fact that it still has output transformers, despite not being
necessary.
I think of McIntosh amps as a little like Harley Davidson motor cycles.
Harleys are noisy, expensive, unreliable, poorly performing, REALLY bad
handling motor bikes. There are many motor bikes available from other
manufacturers, which can easily surpass what a Harley does, with much better
reliability, at lower cost. Yet people still buy Harleys. People still by
McIntosh amps. All 'proper' motor cycle riders know that Harley riders are
wankers. They do it for image. People buy McIntosh amps for image.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
norman...@comcast.net wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1126111592.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote
<<snip>>
>
> I wrote them a letter castigating them for trying to get the benefits of
> advertising .01%, while actually providing only 0.1%. I called this
> dishonest advertising, and it WAS. McIntosh's feelings were hurt. They
> thought they were on the side of the angels providing 10 times better
> performance than their spec. IOW, McIntosh thought they were doing
> something good. I was never able to get them to see that their actions
> constituted false advertising, although staying within the bounds of
> legality.
>
> This sort of thing is common. Integrated circuit specs are almost always
> advertised as "Typical." If you ask the manufacturer to guarantee that a
> part will meet typical specs, the price multiplies! I expect weasel words
> from consumer products ads; I'd like to think that McIntosh could be held
> to a higher standard.
Well, they were honest. They guaranteed one figure and stated,
correctly, that units usually did much better.
Neither figure had any importance to buyers except as a number, just
like two hetero guys in the locker room. Yeah, they're looking, but it
doesn't matter except one has the prestiege of having more. Their women
don't really care.
The McIntosh unity coupled tube circuit is capable of providing single
tone THD numbers, with 60 and 120 Hz notched out, as good as almost any
solid state amp commercially available if the right output and driver
tubes are selected, the output transformer is a "good" one (has a good
core and the proper gapping and banding), and component values are
carefully trimmed and matched. I think .006 has been seen using a HP
8903 and psophometric filter on a tweaked MC75. Intermod is a little
different story but still very credible in any league. Of course we are
talking about 80 vs. 300-400 solid state watts at the same weight and
less quiescent power draw, but who gives a shit? Mac tube amps will
work when everything else on earth besides cockroaches and Keith
Richard is dead.
norman...@comcast.net
All of what you say is true. Let me make a few additional guesses as to why
McIntosh might use xfmrs:
l. Heft :-)
2. They can insinuate that the xfmr makes the amplifier more like a tube
amp. IOW, their engineers think that the "special" sound of tube amplifiers
is due to the xfmr rather than the tubes themselves. Sounds like BS to me,
but you can never tell.
3. And my favorite. The xfmr allows the amp to put out full power into any
load. Amps that act as constant voltage sources put out their full power
into a load considerably less than what they're likely to see in practice.
Why buy a amp that supplies 100W into an 8 ohm load and 400W into a 2 ohm
load if you have an 8 ohm speaker? You're essentially wasting 75% of the
amplifier's capability; you had to buy 4 times as much amplifier as you
need. The autoformer resolves that issue.
I'm sure you know that a perfectly good transformerless circuit can be
designed to match any speaker--if the designer knows ahead of time which
speaker that's going to be. Unfortunately, speakers and amplifiers are sold
separately. It's the way the business got started, and I suspect it will be
that way in high end circles for decades to come. If we were starting from
scratch, I'm sure speakers would be supplied with suitable amplification
from the get-go, and none of these matching issues would exist.
So there are a couple more possibilities. It would be interesting to know
exactly which ones are fact, wouldn't it?
Norm
Trevor Wilson
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NqOdnfsE8aE...@comcast.com...
**Which would be the same as "mass".
>
> 2. They can insinuate that the xfmr makes the amplifier more like a tube
> amp. IOW, their engineers think that the "special" sound of tube
> amplifiers is due to the xfmr rather than the tubes themselves. Sounds
> like BS to me, but you can never tell.
**Yep. That could be one of their reasons.
>
> 3. And my favorite. The xfmr allows the amp to put out full power into
> any load. Amps that act as constant voltage sources put out their full
> power into a load considerably less than what they're likely to see in
> practice. Why buy a amp that supplies 100W into an 8 ohm load and 400W
> into a 2 ohm load if you have an 8 ohm speaker? You're essentially
> wasting 75% of the amplifier's capability; you had to buy 4 times as much
> amplifier as you need. The autoformer resolves that issue.
**It would, if there were any 8 Ohm, perfectly resistive speakers.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of speakers present a wildly varying load
impedance to the amplifier. THIS is the big reason why transformers make no
sense, if the amplifier already has a low output impedance.
>
> I'm sure you know that a perfectly good transformerless circuit can be
> designed to match any speaker--if the designer knows ahead of time which
> speaker that's going to be. Unfortunately, speakers and amplifiers are
> sold separately. It's the way the business got started, and I suspect it
> will be that way in high end circles for decades to come. If we were
> starting from scratch, I'm sure speakers would be supplied with suitable
> amplification from the get-go, and none of these matching issues would
> exist.
>
> So there are a couple more possibilities. It would be interesting to know
> exactly which ones are fact, wouldn't it?
**Having serviced a few McIntosh amps, over the years, I can tell you that
they are emotional purchases (I always ask clients why they want to spend so
much money servicing clunky, badly designed products). Their owners like the
old-fashioned appeal of the product. The mass (heft), the look and feel, the
fact that they use redundant output transformers, the price (such products
NEED to be expensive) and the fact that they're not made in China.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Bret Ludwig
Trevor Wilson wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> **Having serviced a few McIntosh amps, over the years, I can tell you that
> they are emotional purchases (I always ask clients why they want to spend so
> much money servicing clunky, badly designed products). Their owners like the
> old-fashioned appeal of the product. The mass (heft), the look and feel, the
> fact that they use redundant output transformers, the price (such products
> NEED to be expensive) and the fact that they're not made in China.
>
Most high end audio equipment is made in the US, although the UK still
produces a few brands with more or less cred-Linn, Naim, Quad-and some
really esoteric tube stuff comes from Japan, and I think France, Sweden
and Switzerland build a little as well.