Mcintosh 4275 receiver vs Outlaw

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by efraley, Jun 24, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. efraley

    efraley Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Richmond Va USA
    I have a McIntosh 4275 receiver but am thinking about a new receiver such as the Outlaw as I have heard good things about it. I have a pair of Ohm tower speakers, Oppo 103 CD player and a Music Hall TT. Don't listen to vinyl much, mainly CDs. Any thoughts?
     
  2. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    Keep the McIntosh, it's better than the Outlaw is (and Outlaw is very nice). Why downgrade?
     
    Manimal likes this.
  3. Chazz

    Chazz Music Addict

    Location:
    Southeastern, US
    I don't know anything about the newest Outlaw RR2160 receiver other than the Stereophile review I have read on it. That review sounds pretty positive and the receiver has a lot of flexibility for adding a turntable with a MM cart or streaming through the onboard dac. Do you listen to OTA radio broadcasting? If you don't, you might want to consider a good integrated amp.
    The McIntosh 4275 does not have the cult following that other Mc receivers have. They are known to have some quality control issues and, admittedly, I have never heard the 4275.
    I have heard the Musical Fidelity M2si integrated and it sounds very good! Below is a link to a very good deal for one of these. You can add an onboard DAC or phono section if need be. One of my friends bought one and uses it with a pr of Sonus Faber monitors with a subwoofer. I was very surprised at how good this integrated sounds for the price, very accurate detail without being too bright.
    Musical Fidelity M2si Integrated Amplifier

    I hope this helps, good luck!
    Chuck
     
  4. zeppage2

    zeppage2 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    I guess the question is where does the McIntosh sound come from, the preamp or the amp? If you believe it comes from the amp, get a more modern and sophisticated preamp and use the 4175 as an amplifier.
     
  5. 62caddy

    62caddy Forum Resident

    Location:
    PA
    Agreed. The MAC4275/4280 was more of a mid grade Japanese receiver made with outsourced sub assemblies and considerably lighter than most other MAC receivers. Final assembly did take place in Binghamton however but was never in the same league as the true MAC receiver line ending in "00". I once briefly owned a MAC4280 (identical to MAC4275 except was remote controlled) but soon changed out to the MAC4300 and the improvement was immediately apparent.

    Rather than an outlaw, I'd recommend the MAC4100, 4200 or 4300 which is essentially an MC754 + C31 and MR7082 and is also remote controlled.
     
  6. McLover

    McLover Senior Member

    And of those, I'd get thee a MAC 4100 in top condition and enjoy it the rest of your life.
     
    62caddy likes this.
  7. DryWhiteToast

    DryWhiteToast Where's my Ativan

    Does the Outlaw have the beautiful blue lighting?
    If not...um, er, um, you know.
    Love the Mac
     
  8. JackG

    JackG Forum Resident

    Location:
    NJ
    Get the Outlaw and one of these beauties -

    [​IMG]
     
    Upstateaudio likes this.
  9. 62caddy

    62caddy Forum Resident

    Location:
    PA
    McIntosh had a bee in its bonnet about differentiating receivers from the "proper" McIntosh Laboratory line and receivers would not receive signature black glass faceplate to drive the point home.

    Frank McIntosh had also forbade receivers to display the "McIntosh" logo, instead were designated "MAC" - McIntosh Audio Company products further emphasizing the "second class status" of receivers in the McIntosh line. He even went so far as to provide a separate mailing address for Stereotech (McIntosh's short-lived lower cost line) - a PO Box just down the street in Conklin, NY lest McIntosh be tainted by the association.

    The old man retired in 1977 and when the MAC4100 appeared in 1978, it was accorded fully blessed McIntosh status but a receiver with glass faceplate would have to wait until the introduction of the MAC6700 decades later.

    It is also one of very few receivers that deal with impedance as low as 2.5 ohm. Simply put, an Outlaw cannot hold a candle to the MAC- IMHO.
     
  10. Outlaw makes great products at their price points (I own an Outlaw amp) but if you’re not noticing any deficiencies with your McIntosh, why make a change?
     
  11. efraley

    efraley Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Richmond Va USA
    Thanks guys. I'm going to keep mine until I can find a 4100 reasonably priced. I just get the itch every few years to test the waters for newer equipment. I bought a used Cambridge receiver last year then resold it later on eBay for more than I paid for it. I thought I would use the Mac in my home office but once I heard some Peter Paul and Mary through the Cambridge I thought some of the harmony vocals sounded too harsh compared to the Mac.
     
  12. allied333

    allied333 Audiophile

    Location:
    nowhere
    I would rather have a new Outlaw or a completely rebuilt (not used in stock form) 4100.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine