I notice more esoteric stores carrying Mcintosh

lol that wouldn't be a problem in my book. most people don't know how to hold onto stocks anymore.

 

>If by catering to "the carriage trade", you're referring to marketing/selling specifically to wealthy patrons, nothing could be farther from the truth. The president of McIntosh will undoubtably tell you that their products are designed for music lovers first and foremost. Music lovers with a passion for quality gear with a recognition of craftsmanship and great sound. And many McIntosh customers could be easily classified as "blue collar". I spent several years selling McIntosh products to a wide range of music lovers, many making under $50K/year. How do I know what they made? They sometimes used in-store financing and had to report their income

Well, I am sure any product sells to a certain cross section of people. But the typical buyer of Mc is fairly affluent and not terribly technical. The typical Leica camera buyer is exactly the same. Now, I own and use-hard-M Leica gear, but I am atypical. And in fact if I were starting all over, I would not have bought a new M6 but a used M4-2 or similar.



>>However, they kept manufacturing costs strictly controlled through innovative but economical to build design and doing everything inhouse at a lower wage upstate New York facility. They would hire fresh talent and train them and they would move on to more lucrative employment with a prestigious name on their resume and perhaps a Mc receiver or speakers as a going away present if they'd been good.

>This has no basis in fact at all! The facility in Binghampton NY is full of well paid, long term workers with a passion for their job. The average time of employment is something like 24 years. Even workers with 10 years experience are "newbies".

Again, having been an electronics production employee most of my life-technician, parts buyer, inventory control, tech writer, PCB layout when it was done tape on glass-that's my balliwick. I have been to Mc and other companies in the Broome County area. I know a lot of ex-Mc people. I've worked with former Mc people at several facilities. They are a starter company. They generally don't hire experienced people -they hire entry level and some do stay because they like it or for whatever reason. IBM and Link not hiring like they did, I expect more stay now. But in the day, you left for more $$ and opportunity-IBM was the top tier employer.

You have to realize the Southern Tier has been _very_ impacted by the offshoring and other trends in the last 15-20 years.

>Every single successful manufacturing facility in the world has "manufacturing costs strictly controlled". That is how you make a profit with minimal waste. You're correct, everything is done "in house" by McIntosh in NY, and as a result quality and standards are kept to the highest level.

It depends on what you call "manufacturing costs strictly controlled". I've worked at places where if a part was under $10 and it was dropped it stayed there-you didn't pick it up. A lot of it depends on what gurus management has adopted as consultants lately!

Sometimes outsourcing or buying off the shelf is a lot cheaper. For example, virtually no one builds their own switchmode supplies anymore because Vicor and similar companies have gotten so efficient at it. The downside is that if it dies in field it is not a field fixable assembly because there are no docs and there are custom parts Vicor (et al) do not sell. The whole switcher is cheaper than the power transformer alone to build a linear supply!

A good example is the transformers. Mc built their own outputs, on their own custom winder, along with crossover coils and autoformers. Most power transformers and the outputs for the toob receivers and the MA230, were outsourced, from Endicott or Schumacher. I believe that some of the reissue EI lam bifilar 275 opts were Schumacher.


>To get a better understanding of why you are posting misinformation and half-truths, would you mind sharing a few things with the board? Namely, have you:

a) Ever owned a piece of McIntosh gear?
You want a list?;-) Yes, roughly 50.

b) Ever sold McIntosh products or worked closely with their dealer network?
I don't do sales. Much to my financial detriment. They make a lot more money!

c) Had serious conversations with the officers, engineers, assemblers, and repair techs for McIntosh products?

Many. See below.

d) Visited the Binghamton NY facility to see how things are done?

I've been in the main plant three times. I got the mini tour from, I think Larry Fish once.

I have done all of the above and then some. I'm not saying this to brag, rather I would hope you would know I have a background of knowledge that allows me to counterpoint your comments with a level of truth and awareness.



>>McIntosh snobby, not for me when I was young and could only admire. In the days of the McIntosh clinics, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Gow, and Mr. Corderman were superb to this disabled music lover.

Dave O'Brien, Sid Corderman, Larry Fish and Chuck Hinton were a few people I met. I never met Frank or Gordon because they were gone before I ever went in that area of the country. They were all very nice. I bear no ill will against Mc at all. I am not anti-Mc, I am just trying to get people to see the whole picture. In fact I think it's a god thing Mc survives because it's one of the last places in the area for people to work. But the simple fact is, the product is not as expensively built as many other competing products nor is the reissue 275 as well made as the original.

 

So Ron, what's your take on Bryston? heh.

 

I do have the impression that some Mac owners are not financially well off. They decided to own the Mac for the love of music. I own a Leica M6 Special Edition, which I have not used in well over 10 years, but I don't own a Mac (I noticed an earlier comparsion of Mac owners vs. Leica owners and they often are the same people). My amps are mainly CJ's. However, when I start enjoying the fruits of my investments made over the last twenty years by selling some of my stocks, I may well pick up a Mac.

 

If I wasn't using my Leica gear I'd sell it. I had my M6 engraved with my name so as to deter myself from selling it but coming up with a replacement top and bottom plate from one that was a fresh water immersion or other mishap victim wouldn't be terrifically expensive. For the first five or six years I had it I used to buy Double X cinema stock ends from Freestyle and every day I made it a point to run, if not a roll, ten frames through it. That's a hell of a lot of film.

One of my main beefs with the M6 is you can't use the classsic Leica feltless cassettes with it.

I'm not that active anymore by any means. I've got a LOT of feet of bad negs, yes, but a few really good ones. I aim to put out a book of my work, a lot of which was covertly shot in electronics plants I worked. I honestly think I have the best library of American electronics manufacturing plant photos after WWII, and certainly in the 1985-2000 era, in the world. I got pretty good at "spy style" work. (Forget all that movie crap about Minoxes and lighter cameras. Most intelligence gathering work is done with screwmount or M Leicas, to this very day.)

 

I think 95% of people attracted to Mc is because of the pretty blue VU meters or their dad had one. The one your Dad had probably had tubes and was made in the USA. The pap being passed off as Mc now looks the same, but is far from it. It does still blow away B&O, or as I call it B.O. (body odor). Seriously? For that much money SHOP AROUND! You can get a lot more for your money than a company resting on it's laurals from 30 years ago. Dealers are probably picking it up because it's an easy sell. For the punter with deep pockets who doesn't know any better, B&O or Mc are the shiznit... possibly even better than BOSE!

I hope I don't get anyone's panties in a bind...

 

what else did you listen to? BTW, just my opinion. I don't really care what you listen to as long as you listen to music. I'm not saying it's horrible, I just think at that price you have a lot of options that are superior.

ps. I like your hair-do.

 

I've had some interesting conversations with the Mc people about the meters.

First, I don't think that if you do want them, you really want them on the amp.

Secondly, in this day and age, mechanical meter movements for audio level are ridiculous. My experience is that the Dorrough style meter, which emulates an oscilloscope with a medium long persistence phosphor CRT, is the only feasible way to go.

 

Ron CRIA,

The current MC275 is not as well made as the original? Could you expound on that?

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

Since the poster who claims the current MC275 is inferior to the original will not expand on his claim I will compare the two amps.

The original MC275 is a very fine amp that has a reputation of being powerful, musical, easy on tubes and very reliable. I have one of these and it has been fully serviced with all caps and most resistors replaced with modern components. This will clean up the sound a bit and increase the signal to noise ratio a few Db. The original parts are way past their design life at this point so if you judge one of these amps with worn out and out of value parts it may sound somewhat dated. My 275 sounds very clear and powerful, runs cool and looks like new.
The current MKV will do everything the original does sound-wise, but with a bit more power and a little less background hiss.

The original MC275 will produce in excess of 75 watts per channel, usually 80 to 85, depending on tubes, has a frequency response out to 60 KHz and low phase shift across the audio bandwidth. Original retail price was $444 in 1962. This would be somewhere between $3000 to $3600 in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation.

The new MC275 is $3900. The differences in the two amps are mostly internal as they both have the same form factor and you could use the new shipping pack on an original amp.
The current MKV amp runs at 485 volts vs the original 460 Volts. Both amps use KT88 or 6550 outputs. The MkV makes 90 to 95 watts per channel. The signal to noise ratio is -100 db on the MkV and -90 db on the original.
The frequency response of the MkV has been extended to 70 KHz using larger more modern output transformers. The new transformers also use synthetic insulation on the wire where the original used lacquer which can fail if the amp is subjected to vibration and heat.
The first MC275 had construction typical of the era which means lots of wires and soldering. The new MKV uses one large mil spec circuit board with the tube sockets soldered to it. The new tube sockets are ceramic with Gold plated contacts where the original were tin plated, Bakelite. The complex jumble of wires is where much of the signal to noise ratio difference lies as the wires all act like tiny antennas.
If you compare the schematics of the two amps they are at once the same but different. The Mk V is much more symmetrical and eliminates the 12BH7 tube which is worked hard in the original design. Ditto for the 12AU7 as the new amp uses common 12AX7 and 12AT7 small tubes only.
The balanced inputs on the MKIV are the preferred input but the first 12AX7 tube is used when unbalanced inputs are preferred. The original has no balanced inputs but a combination knife switch for mono, twin, and stereo inputs along with a group of gain controls. By eliminating all of these unbalanced connections the input section of the MKV is much cleaner and no potential problems from dirty mechanical pots are in the design.
The original chassis is chrome plated steel which was bent after it was chromed. This causes the chrome to be stretched at the bent seams which will result in rust if the amp is exposed to moisture over time. The new amp uses polished stainless steel which will not rust. Both amps have silk screened chassis for all of the tube, in and output information, etc. Rough handling will damage the chassis writing on either version.
The original amp has glossy paint on the transformers where the MKIV uses flat black powder paint. Both amps have tar filled aluminum transformer cans which protects and quiets the transformers.
The original amp used screw terminal strips for speaker connections where the MKV uses 5 way binding posts which are somewhat easier to use with modern cabling.
The RCA input jacks on the MKV are solid machined, gold platted Cardas where the original were tin platted.

At this point in time almost twice as many new versions of the MC275 have been sold compared to the original amp from the 1960s. It is a testament to the good design and performance of this series of amps that many still chose the MC275 for their musical enjoyment. Where some would have you believe that the current MC275 is some kind of novelty product treading on the past when in fact is a very main stream, modern and competitive amplifier design.
The MKV version of the MC275 should be making music 45 years from now just like the original 1960s version has.

Thanks,
Ron-C

 

Very sorry, I did not notice this and did not want to ignore or not answer the question.

First off, I have to admit what I don't know. I don't know how many MC275s were made from 1961 to 1973 or whenever the original build stopped. I don't know how many of the new ones were (as yet) made or what the differences are in the various iterations of the reissue units from each other.

I also do not know precisely how these sets will be doing in 2047 or so. That no one, even Mc, can say for sure. I may not be around then, and for all I know everyone may have an implant and listen to in-brain WiFi audio only or perhaps....well, there are an infinite many possibilities. One thing that can be said of the new ones, the top won't rust like the old ones did. That is unquestionably improved, being of stainless steel.

But I do know that I have had well over a dozen old tube Mc amplifiers, most of which were filthy, rusty, and not working when I bought them. In every case I was able to restore them to full functionality. Had they been built like much modern tube equipment that may or may not have been possible. I have seen PCBs stripped of many traces and charred when a tube shorted or when dirt or dead insects created an arc path on several modern units. I have worked a fair amount on guitar amps. The point wired ones are almost always fixable. The PCB ones work fine when kept clean and not abused but one dumped beer has led many to be scrapped.

I am glad Mr. C recognizes that the use of prechromed single layer sheet steel was and is a major contributor to these units' poor cosmetic condition in many cases. I have had a couple of amps' sheet metal stripped, buffed, and triple chromed. This looks beautiful (given the cost it should) but what I have not done is to make a silkscreen and rescreen the markings, without which resale value is significantly impacted. Having it done commercially means a four figure setup charge. I submit Mc could do a great service by offering to rescreen customers' top plates.

The MC275 reissue shown in the Japanese web site earlier has its power tube sockets mounted, it appears on the chassis. If you are saying the latest iteration has power tubes on the PCB I have to say this is a bad idea. St. Louis Music and Peavey have built many guitar amps this way and I have seen many catastrophic failures. Repair consists of buying or making or having made a new PCB fab and stuffing it or rebuilding the unit in the older fashion, in which case it's no longer the production amp.

The reissues have a bifilar output transformer and from what I am able to find out these are an EI type, manufactured either in house or at Schumacher (and if you are not having a bifilar unity coupled opt manufactured there, someone else is ;-). I think that the wire Mc uses in the new transformers, while using a synthetic insulation and better stability, might not have as high a hypot rating as the original quad formvar and therefore leading to design changes to reduce breakdown requirements. This is simply a less expensive part and is only explicable in terms of cost cutting.

A far as the improved front end of the new one it's a simple matter to internally unhook the switches and pots, and wire jacks directly. It's equally simple to wire it back without in any way damaging its cosmetics or any one knowing. Ah, the beauty of point wired construction.

In my opinion, the canonical and standard setting reissue program was the one Marantz conducted in conjunction with VAC in Florida. The reissue 7C, 8B and 9 units were in one word perfect. They were the exact circuit built with equal or better parts in the same place and using the same techniques. The only compromise, which we may regret but must understand, was to do with regulatory approvals.

My view is that if one did not want the old unit, warts and all, one would buy a modern one. People like the old ones and that's what they want in the reissue. I have to say that IMO the Marantz 8B is THE BEST sounding of all pure stock vintage tube amplifiers, and the 7 and 7C share honors with their astonishingly similar contemporary the Mc C22 as the best of all vintage full function preamps.

It's my hope Mc will see the soundness of this and reissue a MC240 with a Mc-built, to original print C-core opt and original style point wired construction. While the 275 is a beautiful piece of engineering-arguably the feather in Mc's engineering cap along with the MR78 tuner-the 240 or moreso the 40 monoblock is probably the best sounding Mc tube amp and with a little tweaking very competitive with most modern high end efforts whilst running the tubes cool and without needing bias adjustments.

 

Very interesting discussion folks!

I sure hope McIntosh brings out a new MC240. I'd be in line to buy one!

 

I keep hoping someone will build repro Mc transformers. I'd like to build an amp around the MC40 iron with a beefier power supply.

 

Ron Cria,

I will agree that you do not know all of the history of the MC275. None of these has ever used a C-Core transformer. We wind all of the output transformers in house and yes they are EI. Some of the 1993 GG reissues used an outsourced autoformer to the McIntosh design but that did not prove to be economical.
We have not had issues with burning up traces on circuit boards. I can see where this could occur on some other designs. We actually has a set of gear go though a hurricane in Florida a couple of years back, an amp and preamp. Both units were coated with mud both inside and out. We hosed them off and let them dry for a week and they made spec. Go figure!
If you can find a better sounding amp that outperforms the MC275 MKV you should of course consider it. Since the original MC275 are in many cases still running we have no doubt the current version will enjoy a similar long life. Of course your kids will have to worry about this, ha!
Many companies build fine products but few have the engineering heritage of McIntosh. This is very obvious in the current MC275. Better sound and better specs along with more power and the elimination of hazardous substances (Rohs) while maintaining the flavor and feel of the original model is a major accomplishment.

Thanks,

 

Great post Ron C!

I would say Audio Research is another venerable company in the same league as McIntosh.

 

One, RoHS is an unreasonable requirement when applied to expensive audio equipment not likely to be scrapped in the foreseeable future, and it's my opinion that RoHS technologies are not a long term stable proposition. If the EU won't waiver high end audio from RoHS as they do noncosumer computers, medical and avionics it would be more prudent IMO to not cater to that market.

I hope when you hosed out the Florida box you used DI or distilled water. When I was at IFR we had a corrosion problem on sets particularly in the Gulf States area. I campaigned for us to go to a prophylaxis program on those sets involving conformal coating of certain boards and areas. Mgmt. chose not to. We had DI water in needed areas and we would spray and let them dry with good results. Motorola used to recommend their MSS's (service shops) buy a dishwasher-a regular home dishwasher-and fit it to a DI or, if tap water was good enough RO supply and run entire two way assemblies through the dishwasher using a medical soap that left no residue.

I have depotted a defective MC40 output and it absolutely is a C-core, banded with what appears to be standard steel shipping banding. I don't know if they still make steel banding or the clamp or tool to crimp it anymore. I have not seen the inside of a 275 transformer yet. I acquired a MI75 in poor shape some time ago and offered the transformer to a friend of mine who is quite interested in repro'ing the Mc iron, but he declined because he believed the MI version of this amp had a slightly different opt (separate 600 ohm windings) and he wanted to have the canonical 75/275 unit. So at some point I will have one apart. I'm astonished it's not a C-core. If that's the case it should be a lot more readily manufacturable as a lot of wind shops are not set up for C-core work.

 

Also, in regard to my statement that the best sounding amp was the Marantz 8B, I want to qualify that by saying I am speaking of stock vintage units intended for home hi fi only, and not what has been or is on offer by high end companies or what one may build oneself. In my opinion the dedicated hobbyist with good skills and a willingness to spend money can build a unit exceeding the 8B, and several commercial manufacturers have done so.

Probably the best tube amp ever built was the Nestorovic units built by Milojub Nestorovic, the famous Mc alumnus, and using a transformer wound (by Bud Purvine of O-Netics in Washington) carefully along McIntosh principles. Nestorovic, who did the MC3500/MI350 at Mc with Rich Modafferi, and who is now tragically incapacitated by stroke, also designed and patented a non-infringing circuit comparable to Power Guard which has the advantage of allowing for preset power limits where those may be needed. This along with Power Guard is now expired: one may find the patents if interested. I thinjk TAPCO was the assignee on the Nestorovic power circuit.

The Fairchild 275 and the Harmon Kardon Citation were very exceptional commercial units as well, as was the Allen Organ unit used in the Gyro-Sonic cabs.

 

Interesting info as usual RonInCRIA.

I didn't know Mr. Nestorovic was incapacitated. Sad news indeed.

 

Mile had a massive stroke several years ago and has been in a state best described as semivegetative. He and his sons had a company in upper Washington State and was making speakers and amplifiers. I was in contact with his sons when I attempted to purchase rights to some of his designs. They said he felt that if he could not have total control over the manufacture of his designs he did not want them manufactured: however, if Mcintosh were to make that offer he would consider it. I guess he can understand spoken conversation but can not speak and is essentially a quadriplegic.

I owned a pair of Nestorovic Alpha One amplifiers at one time along with the 5A speakers. They were my first "big purchase" and at the time I thought they were the last word on sound. I no longer own either, and took quite a large loss. While I have nothing but respect for Mr. Nestorovic as an engineer, he was a poor businessman and factory support was nonexistent.

At the time I was interested in buying an audio business I was in layoff status with a major company and was looking to go into business. I started fooling with circuits myself and by the time I was confident enough to go into some business like this technically, I realized that this business wasn't for me. Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound convinced me I would be happier with audio as a hobby rather than a business and I got on with the railroad before I did something dumb like invest my life savings.

I also want to comment on the comments on the MC275. My father owned the first three (yes, three) MC75s sold in Kansas City from the previously mentioned Herb Mooney at Accent Sound in his first location, as I remember, on Johnson Drive. They were sequentially serialled as I recall. When he went solid state he bought two stereo McIntosh 2105s (quadraphonic, you recall) and he traded in two of the three 75s to Mr. Mooney, who immediately sent them to Asia. I got the third and it is now in my closet awaiting repair "one of these days". I agree that it is "easy on tubes and very reliable" but its sound is rarely described as "musical", usually "analytical" and even "slightly harsh" are more common. I carefully auditioned my Nestorovics against several Mc tube and solid state units and remember that the solid state units did certain things and the tube ones did others but that the Nestorovic did both. I seem to recall a discussion I had that they were considering a 300+ watt monoblock that would use 4E27A or some similar tube but I never heard more of it.

 

Hi,

One thing many better vintage tube amps were was easier on tubes. A major point given the prices of NOS these days. I love Conrad-Johnson and Audio Research amps like crazy, but tube replacements are frequent (and add up to money). I love McIntosh's conservative build, durability under heavy use, and consistency. A McIntosh 240 in my care went from March, 1959 to January, 2004 on the factory original tubes. It was only turned off during power failures or servicing. It did get recapped every 30 years. That's reliability! I have seen many HH Scott, Fisher, and Marantz tube amplifiers go over 30 years on an original set of tubes and be daily users.

 

Yeah, the original Audio Research & Conrad Johnson amps of the 1970s and 80s were tube eaters. In order to provide smooth class AB1 sound with relatively high wattage (often using just a pair of 6550 tubes per channel), they ran the tubes at high plate and screen voltages, often close to their maximum ratings.

They got away with doing this because the GE 6550A and Sylvania/Philips ECG 6550 were still available.

After production of these tubes ceased in the late 80s to early 90s, ARC and CJ switched to the early unreliable Chinese 6550s and disaster struck.

The introduction of the Russian 6550 in the 1990s helped overcome many of the problems.

Still, ARC now runs their SED Winged "C" 6550Cs at around 450 volts in the plate with dissipation not exceeding 28 watts per tube. The maximum rating for the 6550C is 42 watts.

Also, they stopped pushing a pair of tubes to develop 90 watts or more and now use 4 tubes per channel in push-pull parallel configuration for 100 wpc such as in my VS110. Much more conservative operation.

Audio Research does recommend output tube replacement at 2000 hours. A good set of tubes can probably last longer than this. The figure is quite conservative and probably done to ensure that no sonic degradation occurs as tubes age. Also, the chance of a tube shorting out is greatly diminished if they are replaced early.

The SED 6550C is not too expensive fortunately. I spent $240 for an octet last January. Not an inconsiderable sum, IMO.

It's a great sounding tube, BTW.

 

One thing I did clearly notice at RMAF was that several Audio Research products were being used in many rooms. Notable was the Ref 3 and Ref 110 and HD220.

They were magical with the Sophia 2s.

 

ARC is on a high streak as of late. Their latest products are quite stunning in all respects.

Vandersteen and Wilson Audio have traditionally used them in shows.

 

Agreed and the entry level gear is superb. The LS-17 is not far below the LS-26 and Ref 3 and sounded better in my system than the LS-25 Mark II.