Chorus IIs powered McIntosh tubes

[Scottymac63]

Well, I'm not near the technical advocates most of you are, but I do love my music and consider myself a low grade audiophile. With that said, specs are something I consider and I know they hold valid importance, but for me it really comes down to what my ears hear. I like warmth, it's been missing in the digital audio world for me for quite sometime. Sources today are all over the map in sound. Some sources are good, some are horrible. Original cd transfers from the 80's are bright and harsh and remasters sometimes are well done, others appear to be nothing more the level increase still retaining ear piercing brightness. It sure seemed to be on level plain back in the analog days. With that said, I have close to 1200 cds that range from excellent to poor for audio quality. I would like to upgrade my amplification in hopes of warming up my Chorus II's, but know that the higher end equipment will make quality sources sound amazing and make poor sources sound even worse.

 

I set out with a $5-8k budget to make upgrades in my audio system... new a/v receiver and speakers was my initial goal. My Chorus II's have been a love-hate thing for me since I bought them in '90. Sound great with warm quality sources and bright and ear fatiguing with poor sources. My Cd player, an Arcam Alpha 8 is also bright, but presents and wonderful sound stage with sparkling detail. I also need a new receiver with 4k and hdmi pass through on the video end. Which I know is a completely different arena than 2-channel. I'm not much of a movie buff, but do need a surround system to accompany my 65" hdtv for occasional movie nights and sporting events. Anyhow, on my a/v and speaker hunting trip I ran into a new MC275 open box deal and was lured in. This could really warm up my Chorus II's and could I integrate it into my system without the expense of a top notch preamp? Nope. That was a fools errand. So, I'm at a crossroads, Fork out more scratch and get a high end preamp or just return the MC275 and spend that money on a flagship mid-range a/v receiver, like a Marantz, and some quality new speakers, like B&M's or Revels, and have a very quality audio-video system that will do a reasonable job on the 2-channel end and will power a zone 2 for the covered patio/fire pit, or use those funds for a McIntosh 2-channel set up keeping my Chrous II's in the main room and avoiding them from being sent to the basement and keep my current aging surround sound system that has been solid, but is falling behind in this hd world. Ultimately, I know only I can make this decision.

Is it worth the expense of roughly $8k on a new MC275 and C47 to power my Chorus II's? It will surely make the Chorus II's shine, but will they bring out the best in the McIntosh?  It seems an upgrade in speakers would more appropriately serve the McIntosh equipment... but, what do I know.

 

My current system is:

Yamaha V2095 a/v
Klipsch Chorus II's and Klipsch Reference center and rears
Velodyne FSX 12" servo sub

Arcam Alpha 8 CD

Denon 2900 DVD/DVD Audio/SACD

Kimber Kable & Synergistic Research

Possible new equipment:

Marantz 6011 or 7010 a/v

B/W CM10-S2 and CM 2-S2 Center

(2) REL T9 10' subs

Or: the McIntosh preamp and tube amp. 

[absolve2525]

Have you changed out the tweeters for Crites Ti? That's a big difference, as well as replacing the crossover capacitors. I like Jantzen brand for tweeters, available from Parts Express, and their house brand polypropylene. I like vintage Sansui gear with my Klipsch, but I'm sure Macs are great. I've never had a chance to hear them together, however. Chorus 2 are pretty damn awesome, and they were expensive, listed in the same catalogs right next to Lascalas and Khorns. 

[Scottymac63]

On 9/13/2016 at 5:49 PM, absolve2525 said:

No, haven't changed a thing on my Chorus II's. Outside of one bad passive radiator they're like brand new. Absolve, what Sansui equipment do you have running with your Chorus II's?

 

[Scottymac63]

If I go with the B&W's CM10's or Revels 206's, or possibly the 208's, I would more than likely pair the Chorus II's with my Pioneer SX-980 for the time being as it's headed down to the basement. The wife has been very patient with me having my retro Pioneer C-88's,or as she calls them "Brady Bunch speakers", in our family room, but them and the SX-980 are distend for the basement, which isn't necessarily a bad thing being basement bound. It tends to be a man cave type of retreat during parties and is where my vinyl is stored along with some other 70's relics. A keg-a-rator and a pool table and gym equipment helps round off the basement.

[tube fanatic]

23 hours ago, william.meredith said:

Maynard, other than the obvious, that bad recordings sound bad on accurate (low distortion) amplifiers, what is your point? 

The point is that everyone has different listening preferences and criteria, and what works for one person may not work for another.  Do you reject using tone controls on amps or preamps as well since their use changes what the recording was intended to sound like?  Same for those who remaster recordings to make them sound as they presume they "should" sound.  This is a hobby in which everyone is right, and that's what makes it so much fun.  

 

Maynard 

[richieb]

^^^^^

I do believe that is it in a nutshell and the rest is merely back-forth bantering defending ones own preference.

[Chris A]

2 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

This is a hobby in which everyone is right, and that's what makes it so much fun. 

 

Actually there is a precedent that pretty much disconfirms this:

 

"First off, I don't even consider myself a member of the general public. I know that my own requirements in a loudspeaker are those I've discussed. Judging from what contact I have with the general public, though, I conclude that 99 percent of the general public doesn't even know what accuracy of reproduction is. My company is for the one percent composed of perfectionists who buy these expensive speakers." Paul W. Klipsch

 

Whether or not you care to acknowledge the man--or the company which he built using this principle--is up to you.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[Dawson's Ridge]

Priceless advice. The goal should be to be in the 1%. It is not easy because of all the noise from the industry and the remaining 99%. You have to do your homework and use common sense and separate facts from fiction. Consulting with educated others helps to learn and progress one's own knowledge.

[Audio Flynn]

16 hours ago, Scottymac63 said:

If I go with the B&W's CM10's or Revels 206's, or possibly the 208's, I would more than likely pair the Chorus II's with my Pioneer SX-980 for the time being as it's headed down to the basement. The wife has been very patient with me having my retro Pioneer C-88's,or as she calls them "Brady Bunch speakers", in our family room, but them and the SX-980 are distend for the basement, which isn't necessarily a bad thing being basement bound. It tends to be a man cave type of retreat during parties and is where my vinyl is stored along with some other 70's relics. A keg-a-rator and a pool table and gym equipment helps round off the basement.

For the $8K you could get brand new Lascala IIs. Or tube amps other than MAC and a very cool turntable. You could upgrade the tweeters and caps on your Chorus IIs. I would continue to ponder your HT situation. I abandoned mine 5 years ago due to house downsizing and Tube analog priorities.

 

I do not miss the HT at all with my 2.0 system for movies and TV when I am not music listening.

[tube fanatic]

Apologies to Scotty for seeming to take your post off track a bit.  However, I think this discussion is relevant to your original comments in the opening post and can be educational for all.

 

Chris, while PWK's statement was admirable, in my experience it was the 99% who purchased his speakers!  And you know as well as I that 99% of the time the speaker placement, and rooms in which they are used, even among the 1% perfectionist crowd, is so far from optimal that the speakers are not doing what they are capable of.  You can't imagine the variety of equipment which my customers (going back to the 60s) used with K-horns and every other Heritage Series speaker.  It's beyond staggering and the amplifiers represented distortion levels (among other things) ranging from the "almost impossible to measure" to a few percent.  Yet the amazing part is that most of the owners were totally pleased with the sound that they attained even when it sounded awful to me and others.  I presume you place yourself in the 1% perfectionist category.  Yet, you remaster many, if not all, of your recordings (how is that "accurate" since the result is different from what the recording engineers had in mind?  The attained result may seem perfect to you, but perhaps not to someone else.) and advocate all kinds of mods to PWK's original designs (such as relocating tweeters to time align them, etc.) to make the speakers work as they "should."  So, my conclusion is that you think that your methodology is better than PWK's since his principles do not provide the results you personally desire.  I don't mean this as a criticism and hold to my statement that everyone is right if the sound they achieve is what they are looking for.  Same for Mr. Meredith- if the combination of equipment which you use provides the listening experience you personally prefer, then it's the "best" from your viewpoint.  Regardless of what other listeners may experience when listening to your system, you will stick to your perception.

 

Here's a good counterpoint to PWK's statement from some very respected individuals in the speaker world:

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/fallacy-accuracy#XRbOZRy2CrezYv2A.97

Maynard

 

[Chris A]

3 hours ago, Audio Flynn said:

For the $8K you could get brand new Lascala IIs.

...or Jubilees.

[Dawson's Ridge]

The above post is a good example of why, if you want to be in the 1%, you have to avoid the noise from the industry and the remaining 99%.

 

In the review mentioned above, Andrew Jones from Elac said "accuracy in terms of closest approach to the original performance is not practical nor even possible." But the same Andrew Jones from TAD said a few years earlier that the specially designed drivers for the new Reference One speaker were "essential to accurate sound reproduction".    

 

So why the change of heart. Simple, Jones now works for Elac and builds inexpensive speakers and he wants the customer (the 99%) to think they are good enough because accuracy is "not possible". But when he worked for TAD he developed very expensive speakers so he wanted the customer (the 1%) to think that accuracy was "essential".

 

Jones is trying to sell any speaker design to the 99%. Klipsch was trying to sell the right speaker design to the 1%.

 

Same holds true for McIntosh. They say output transformers (autoformers) are necessary for accurate sound reproduction. Other manufacturers say they are not necessary. The industry is trying to sell any amplifier design to the 99%, McIntosh is trying to sell the right amplifier design to the 1%.

[tube fanatic]

OK, so you negate what Andrew Jones stated.  What about the others (Barton, Pass, Joseph)?

 

But, let's add the real key ingredient to this discussion- our ears!  Is it possible that your satisfaction with your particular system is a result of your own frequency response?  Same for me and everyone else.  And, I won't even get into the aspect of our psychological state when listening, or the way our brains process the input from the ears.  So, you see, this discussion can't possibly resolve anything.  I go back to Scotty's original comment in the opening post.  What else matters other than one's satisfaction with the sound of the system?  Chow call.........

 

Maynard

 

[oldred]

On 9/12/2016 at 11:24 AM, Scottymac63 said:

Recently bought a new McIntosh 275 2-channel tube amp and currently using my Chorus II's with it. I hear from some that it's not a "good match", but it has made my Chorus IIs sound incredible, better than they ever have... warm deep rich bottom end and has taken the edge off the horns. Demoed a pair of B&W CM-9's with the McIntosh and at lower volumes they had an excellent soundstage and imaging, but sounded flat and muffled at higher levels, espeically when not seated in the sweet spot. Whereas the Chorus II's may have shortened the depth of the soundstage, they had far more high end detail and with the 15" wolfers, obviously had a deeper richer bottom end and filled my 19'x23' room. Any suggestions? Do I pursue new speakers for a "better match" for the tubes or stick with my Chrous II's?

Chorus II and a McIntosh 275.....That is my dream 2 channel system.....Hey a guy can dream can't he??

Maybe when I grow up......

 

G.E.M.

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

I presume you place yourself in the 1% perfectionist category.  Yet, you remaster many, if not all, of your recordings (how is that "accurate" since the result is different from what the recording engineers had in mind?  The attained result may seem perfect to you, but perhaps not to someone else.) and advocate all kinds of mods to PWK's original designs (such as relocating tweeters to time align them, etc.) to make the speakers work as they "should."  So, my conclusion is that you think that your methodology is better than PWK's since his principles do not provide the results you personally desire.  I don't mean this as a criticism and hold to my statement that everyone is right if the sound they achieve is what they are looking for.  Same for Mr. Meredith- if the combination of equipment which you use provides the listening experience you personally prefer, then it's the "best" from your viewpoint.  Regardless of what other listeners may experience when listening to your system, you will stick to your perception.

 

Maynard, in the past these particular arguments of yours (which I have resisted discussing out of politeness) have clearly been sincere. 

 

However, the above quoted section of your last post relies heavily on the use of rhetoric--perhaps for the first time that I've seen you employ fallacies of relevance. Frankly I'm disappointed.  You also don't stop to ask whether any of them are true (...they're not).  Perhaps if you intend to pursue these arguments further (in the Klipsch forum) I believe that it would be prudent to leave this thread and use another.  I'll leave the choice of thread up to you--just not in this one.  (I recommend PMs, BTW, to lessen emotion.) This has been a good thread thus far--and I don't wish to detract from it any further. 

 

...Apologies to the OP for the distraction...

 

Chris

 

[mikebse2a3]

3 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

And you know as well as I that 99% of the time the speaker placement, and rooms in which they are used, even among the 1% perfectionist crowd, is so far from optimal that the speakers are not doing what they are capable of. 

 

No way to know the exact percentage but it is extremely high..!!!

 

miketn

 

[mikebse2a3]

3 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

I presume you place yourself in the 1% perfectionist category.  Yet, you remaster many, if not all, of your recordings (how is that "accurate" since the result is different from what the recording engineers had in mind?

 

The reality is everyone listens to something different from what recording engineers had in mind.

 

I would argue that those that attempt through re-mastering or using some form of tone compensation to attempt reproduction perfection have seen past the false argument/illusion that you can preserve/reproduce and hear exactly what the recording engineers had in mind since the whole recording-mastering-monitoring conditions that they were listening with exists no where else but in that unique situation/conditions and impossible to repeat any where else.

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

4 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

So, my conclusion is that you think that your methodology is better than PWK's since his principles do not provide the results you personally desire. 

 

I'm curious which PWK's principles are you referring to for this conclusion?

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 10:05 PM, NOSValves said:

B

  I have nothing against McIntosh amps. However I do not agree with the importance you place on a bunch of basic marketing numbers... The type of the remaining distortion is more important than how much (within reason). The type of distortion among others things beyond the numbers you mention is why two amplifiers testing identically in the areas you place so much importance can sound very different.

 

+1

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 0:46 PM, jimjimbo said:

 I am not knowledgeable of the current Mcintosh products, but currently own MC30's, MC240, and a host of tube and SS preamps, along with other brands of highly regarded amplifiers, and I will say that the Mcintosh units sound better (to me) than anything else.

 

So far every time I've listened to the MC240 versus MC30's (This was multiple versions of each model so not just a couple of amps) my preference has slightly been for the MC240.

 

miketn