sheltie dave Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Greetings from St. Louis! I just got home from an official McIntosh "information seminar" at HiFi Fo Fum in St. Louis, and will attempt to throw some of the info out for reflection and rumination. An interesting evening, as HiFiFoFum has gone out of its way over the past five years to demphasize McIntosh sales. Thre months ago, they had only a single Mac item at each of their two stores in the Lou. The salesman, Ken Zelin, brought in the Mac 400 wpc 2nd from the top of the line SS amp, the $4500 tube preamp, and the 7ft tall twin woofer, gadzillion tweeter tower speaker to assist in his presentation. They were impressive, but with a total price tag over $28k, I'd still stick with my Belles, HK630, and garage sale priced JVC for a whopping total of $1200. Ken made some speaker statements that made me think of PWK's BS button, ala "increasing the number of tweeters decreases the off-axis distortion level due to self-canceling wave interactions, the tweeters don't have to works as hard as a single tweeter when 200 watts is applied, the fifteen inch woofers have the lowest frequency response of any speaker(down to 15 hz),use of extruded aluminum for the speaker cabinent eliminates all reasonance, etc. He did make interesting points regarding dynamic range, headroom, and "digital capable" two channel systems, ie Macs, vs systems with only 55 to 70 dB dynamic range available. He poopooed SETs and other low range tube amps due to the limited dynamic headroom, but he also declined to state the speaker efficiency of the $20k Mac speakers vs the khorn, Belles, and LaScalas. He totally skipped discussing the $4500 tube preamp, which I had a great deal of curiosity about, and he also pointed out that Mac will not be making any product for under 3K in the future. Thanks, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 S. Dave, Yep, that sets off my crap detector, too. Dee p.s. Hopefully Mc wouldn't really appreciate the salesman's presentation. That just sounds different than what I'd expect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Hey, Dave! Guess what came in the mail yesterday? fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 ---------------- 1)increasing the number of tweeters decreases the off-axis distortion level due to self-canceling wave interactions AND 2)the tweeters don't have to works as hard as a single tweeter when 200 watts is applied AND 3)the fifteen inch woofers have the lowest frequency response of any speaker(down to 15 hz),use of extruded aluminum for the speaker cabinent eliminates all reasonance, etc. ---------------- 1) BULL****. What it really does is screws up the polar response pattern due to self-canceling wave interactions of multiple drivers producing the same frequencies from slightly different positions, more commonly known as the "comb filter effect". 2) As PWK once said, "I know of no tweeters worthy of the name capable of handling more than about 4 watts" 3) More BULL****. There are no known or practical techniques for eliminating all resonance. Therefore, Ken Zelin is either 1) a liar, or 2) doesn't know what he's talking about, or 3) a little bit of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty Favog Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I wonder if McIntosh knows this guy is ruining the fine reputation of a 50+ year old company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 before we go on a mcintosh bashing trip, I must say I own an older model (the MC-2105) and I love it. it sounds great, and the build quality is excellent. it also looks great, as you can see in the link in my profile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I wouldn't regard any of this as McIntosh bashing. I think its just dumb salesman bashing because of that guy's uncommonly stupid 'insight'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyhorns Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I will also add that I used to have an MC2200 and it was a great amp also and drove my Khorns wonderously (is that a word? ) McIntosh equipment is built very well and would have no problems purchasing a used, recertified unit (like I did with my 2200 years ago) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted July 18, 2003 Author Share Posted July 18, 2003 Fini, either you got the first Playboy in the three year subscription I ordered for you and your better half, or you got the check for the new McIntosh MC402 amp I saw last night. If you pick the amp, I'll only owe you another $4,970 or so I do not want to Mac bash. I love Macs, and got in a little scruffle with Ken over the suitability of using vintage tube and older SS equipment with our beloved Klipsch speakers. Ken presented the newer Mac philosophy - sell "digital ready" as the latest and greatest approach to modern audio. It may be hard for me to swallow, knowing that speakers built in 1975 and integrated amps built in 1961 can sound 98% as good for 2% of the investment the Mac salesman wants. Eventually, I definitely will get a newer used or demo Mac setup, but for the next few years I will have fun learning 'bout tubes and used Heritage speakers. And by the way, we had a new addition to our Heritage gaggle - the oiled oak Heresy IIs arrived from Arizona tonight. I just had to pull the grills off, and saw a heresy according to the new Mc philosophy; a single tweeter! LOL Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 My sig speaks for itself! The salesman's an a$$...they're like critics, and I don't listen to them either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 ---------------- On 7/17/2003 9:21:41 PM sheltie dave wrote: "...and he also pointed out that Mac will not be making any product for under 3K in the future". Thanks, Dave ---------------- And that's why I also purchase "previously owned" Macs. But they are worth the extra money, and if I had unlimited funds, I'd buy new too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 and here's my beauty . personaly I prefer the looks of the older models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 It is a beauty, especially all lit up in the dark! There isn't a Mac (old or new) that I don't like...have always loved their traditional, old-fashion look. True classic design! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheltie dave Posted July 19, 2003 Author Share Posted July 19, 2003 Didn't go to the Mac home theatre presentation yesterday, but I will catch the multiroom and multichannel presentation today at 2pm. Does anyone have any Mac questions asked/answered by Ken? I also have a second seat available for today's presentation, as my audio engineer friend is down in Chattanoga picking up some Hammond b-c guts for his engineered Hammond B3 project. Email me if interested - it is at 2pm at HIFIFOFUM. Thanks, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Mac is nice built quality gear but it's priced on the high end so many regular folk can't afford it. I guess that's the appeal to those who can afford it. I personally hate the mcintosh "straight out of translyvania" retro look. If they made their components a little nicer to look at they might get more followers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Oh, I think Mac has more than their share of followers. I always liked the way they look -- they look cool. Yeesh, you're one to talk -- with those damned ugly Dynaco 400's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBusa Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Here's a beauty now! Straight from my techs bench in Illinios. Almost ready to come home to pappa in NY! There is not a mac alive that looks this good. Silver rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Hee hee, yeah, those beasts are bad *** looking aren't they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 I never liked the look of those. they don't have the nice mac blue screens, plus they silver doesn't contrast it as well. not to mention they don't have the purdy black fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 ---------------- On 7/19/2003 4:42:08 PM BigBusa wrote: ..."There is not a mac alive that looks this good. Silver rules." ---------------- I beg to differ with you. Granted, I like your Dynacos, but they're just not in the same league. And yes, silver rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.