Dual Amplifier

[Coytee]

I've often wondered why someone doesn't/didn't ever come out with an amplifier that had both, solid state AND a tube channel.  So that those who biamp can have solid state on the bottom end and tubes on top.

 

Today, I stumbled onto this!  I have no idea how new it might be (been working all morning little chance to read much about it other than cursory glances)

 

Yeah....I know.....it costs a couple of Big-Mac's.....  AND you'd need two of them (yikes).

 

But still... I think it's pretty cool.

 

https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/amplifiers/MC901

 

 

[Gnote]

That is really Cool.

I've always wanted to bring some MCM's with me and experience your outdoor theater but I fear I can't afford a Big Mac in Tennessee !

[NBPK402]

I seem to recall some higher end ChiFi Integrated amps having a tube amp and a solid state ampall in one. As I recall the reviews were pretty good too.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[Marvel]

For most Klipsch folks, a 200 watt SS and 50 watt tube would be fine... and should be a lot less expensive.

[Coytee]

37 minutes ago, Marvel said:

For most Klipsch folks, a 200 watt SS and 50 watt tube would be fine... and should be a lot less expensive.

 

I agree....but I've never seen anything like this before so I love that they're coming out with it.

 

I have no idea of the cost, I don't WANT to know the cost.  I still love the idea.

[Marvel]

$35k for a pair.... 180 pounds each

[Area 51]

16 hours ago, Coytee said:

I've often wondered why someone doesn't/didn't ever come out with an amplifier that had both, solid state AND a tube channel.

What's the story with these so-called "hybrid" amps I see advertised? Some of these are dirt cheap. Some are more. I read one criticism that said the tubes are "just for show". Is that possible? 

[Area 51]

14 hours ago, Marvel said:

For most Klipsch folks, a 200 watt SS and 50 watt tube would be fine... and should be a lot less expensive.

Wow. I have a lot to learn. I would have expected 200 watts and 50 watts to be a lot! Would that "fine" apply to Klipsch Heritage speakers? I thought they would be "fine" with a lot less. 

[NBPK402]

Wow. I have a lot to learn. I would have expected 200 watts and 50 watts to be a lot! Would that "fine" apply to Klipsch Heritage speakers? I thought they would be "fine" with a lot less. 

Headroom..remember doubling the power is just 3db.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[MC39693]

Way way beyond my pay grade but agree with @Coytee those are unique, bi-amp in a mono block with tubes and SS!

[Area 51]

14 minutes ago, NBPK402 said:

Headroom..remember doubling the power is just 3db.

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks! Would it be safe to assume you don't hold the low power amps in high regard? Some of the Decware amps, for instance, are rated at 6 amps and even 2 amps. They seem to have a pretty good reputation (along with a 12 month waiting list). They do caution you; efficient speakers are a necessity. I have read that the high sensitivity Klipsch speakers would work with a low power tube type amp. I'm in the market for something to power my recently acquired Heritage and was hoping to find something for less than $35,000 - and I don't want to wait a year! So, I am soliciting recommendations. Thank you for your thoughts.

[NBPK402]

20 minutes ago, Area 51 said:

Thanks! Would it be safe to assume you don't hold the low power amps in high regard? Some of the Decware amps, for instance, are rated at 6 amps and even 2 amps. They seem to have a pretty good reputation (along with a 12 month waiting list). They do caution you; efficient speakers are a necessity. I have read that the high sensitivity Klipsch speakers would work with a low power tube type amp. I'm in the market for something to power my recently acquired Heritage and was hoping to find something for less than $35,000 - and I don't want to wait a year! So, I am soliciting recommendations. Thank you for your thoughts.

I have a Ampcamp mono  (class A) I use for my compression drivers when I want to listen seriously. I could have went with the stereo  version, but I use balanced XLRs.

[Area 51]

18 minutes ago, NBPK402 said:

(class A) I use for my compression drivers when I want to listen seriously.

Along those lines I currently use a class A Schiit Aegir for the highs on my Cornwall IIIs and two class AB Schiit Vidars for the lows. Listening to CDs sent through a Bifrost DAC to a Freya + preamp, balanced to the Vidars. The highs are sent from that DAC to a Saga pre, then the Aegir. It doesn't sound bad. But, I can't help feeling I'm missing something. Maybe I am a victim of unreasonable expectations. I didn't expect it to change my life. I just wanted the best audio I have had. And, I guess I do have the best audio I've had but I guess I want something better. So, I'm considering a tube type amp to use with my recently acquired Belles and/or Heresys. Maybe that'll change my life.

[Marvel]

11 hours ago, Area 51 said:

I would have expected 200 watts and 50 watts to be a lot! Would that "fine" apply to Klipsch Heritage speakers? I thought they would be "fine" with a lot less. 

Hahaha... For most Klipsch, you could probably do 30 and 10 watts. I am using a 35 wpc driving my system, with four 15 inch woofers, midrange and tweeter compression drivers. It's very clean sounding even when turned up to ear bleed levels. I drove my La Scalas with 3.5 watt tube amps with great satisfaction.

[charok]

"most" does not classify most of the users here. I have 800w in my kpt-904/k510s and adding a 1000w THT this weekend. Thinking about a tube amp just for the k510s. I like the Black Ice F22 it keeps calling me.

[KT88]

It is interesting how really all target groups are addressed with specific devices. 
Certainly, many customers will have a lot of fun with this idea from Mcintosh.
But if I may, I would like to illuminate it from another side.
I would like to say before that I am a big fan of Mcintosh amplifiers. I have been using an MC2102 for 20 years and an MC275Mk4 with C22CE for 18 years. 

So far so good. What are the positive features of this MC901. The most important reason from my point of view is that with the MC901 many people are offered a safe! solution who pursue the idea to fire the tweeters (mids and highs) with tubes. Because what happens very often: People connect a tube amplifier with the tweeter part of a loudspeaker over its crossover area.  So one half of the biamping.  But they don't know that this way they can destroy a tube amp very quickly. The reason is that the tube amp gets the full signal from the pre amp (assuming that most people don't split the signal in the frequency part before amplification but also send the bass to the Xover part of the tweeter).  A tube amp is doomed to die if the basses don't find a taker. The result is that there is sparking in the output ßtransformer and subsequently its end.
BTW transistor amplifiers don't care what charge they see.  Conversely, for a tube amp a short circuit at the output is relatively indifferent but a transistor amp dies in a short circuit at least if it has no fuses.
These are the main differences between current gain in a transistor amp and voltage gain in a tube amp.

From this point of view, the MC 901 protects people from doing stupid things.

 

Now I come to the criticism side of my post. How naive must someone be that he sends 300 watts from 8 pieces of KT88 to his tweeter (or midrange and tweeter). Even with very poor efficiency of the tweeters, this is complete nonsense. 
We know that the power requirement of high frequencies is not even 10% of a loudspeaker. Let's talk about the quality of the sound. Why do I prefer the MC275 to the MC2102: The MC275 has exactly one KT88 on the positive and negative half-wave per channel. The sound depends significantly on the equality of these two tubes. But even if they are not quite equal, the result is still very good.

 

But when multiple tubes are connected in parallel, complexities can arise. And the tubes must be even more equal. I know and I am sure that the Mcintosh people know what they are doing. But what a hassle to connect 2x4 KT88 for a single tweeter or midrange channel. That is to be honest "over the top".  Driving parallel power tubes is always a challenge. The demand of current is so huge when tubes are in parallel. That's why the MC2000 had transistors as drivers and there it was also the MC2102 with „only“ two parallel KT88. The MC901 has four parallel KT88s for each half wave. What an effort for the power tube drivers. And how dependent is the sound on as exactly the same KT88 as possible, which only exists in theory. Once again...8 KT88 per. Channel for a maximum demand of 20 or 30 watts, with horns 2 or 3 watts. The idea of the MC901 is good. but why not with an EL84 for each half wave, or an EL34 or a KT66? To go a step further, they could go OTL in the tweeter section. I never heard it but in theory this ist the best when we make use of parallel tube settings. On the other hand OTs are „the“ core value of the Mcintosh brand. So I can understand that they make use of an OT and it is a plus point that it uses less windings if the current flow is so huge due to the parallel circuit of four power tubes. But it must not be KT88.

The power of the bass section is ok, after all.

Plus the reasoning in the Mcintosh advertising about alleged problems of tubes in the bass range is to be honest a bit far-fetched.

Now comes another point. Who buys such an amplifier and uses it for a loudspeaker in biamping operation wants to achieve a single goal in my opinion. This user wants to remain analog under all circumstances over the entire chain. Otherwise it would be a very stupid solution. But...how does this frequency splitting or the filters in the MC 901 work? I hope it does not work via the way of digitization. Because then the completely analog chain is an illusion. And then a DSP before the amps and a connection to the drivers without passive xover would be the really better alternative.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't envy anyone this exuberant amplifier. But is it a smart solution?
I personally suspect that a smaller power amp for the tweeters might sound much nicer in this case. Ok, I don't know what the engineers have in their bag of tricks and maybe I'm completely wrong. Anyway I also know that I would buy completely different things with this money. The MC901 costs the same in stereo as the new Heritage Jubilee. What do you think I would spend my money on...? A true speaker or a marketing invention?

 

 

[Shiva]

Fairly boring tune, but in the vid, the Mac amps in question are in action.

 

 

[Marvel]

10 watts Class A out of a single  300B would be ideal for a compression driver tweeter.