garymd Posted August 6, 2003 Share Posted August 6, 2003 Does anyone know how many different versions of the MX-110s were made? There is one on ebay right now (very mint) that's slightly different than mine. There are no gain controls on top (just inside the front panel) like mine. Mine has output controls for Aux, Phono 1 and Phono 2 along with a bright/dim switch for the light inside the front glass of the tuner. In addition, the model #, Macintosh Labs, etc. is written there. Unless the one on ebay has it covered with a black panel? Allan, Win? Bill? Anyone? I hooked mine up tonight to the belle (and the 240 of course) in mono and it sounds OK but the real test is tomorrow morning when I bring them upstairs with the cornwalls in a better acoustical environment and with my cd player and TT. My wife is actually going in to work tomorrow so I'll have a few hours to play. Tomorrow may decide my audio future. Right now I give it 50/50. I'll probably tube roll the macs if I'm not completely satisfied. That 110 is one sweet looking unit I must say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tillmbil Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 That web site address did not mention any other versions. Roger-Russell.com The mode knob is supposed to go: aux,mpx,fm,phono 1, phono2, tape, hd. Maybe its an MX112 which has a top panel with phase switches, panel lamp intensity, muting control. But the face on a MX112 is all black. Does your tuner work? when it is tuned in do the electron ray tuning indicators meet for a solid bar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 I have seen three distinct versions of the MX-110. The fist two are VERY similar and use the pre-panloc chassis that is common to the C-20 and MR-65 and MR-66 tuners and is a cosmetic match to them as well. The third version (with the "Z" at the beginning of the serial number) is a cosmetic match to the C-22 preamp and the MR-67 and MR-71 tuners (with auxillary controls on the TOP of the unit that are accessed by pulling it out with the pan-loc system). The earlist version has a PLASTIC face plate (sort of a black plexiglass, only a little "softer" if that makes sense). The second (and third) versions have GLASS faceplates. The MX-112 is a dead ringer for the MX-110 but is all solid-atate and is perhaps the WORST sounding preamp McIntosh ever made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptnBob Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 I agree with Alan - my first MX-110 had a flat face panel, with a thumbwheel in the middle for balance, and the on-off switch incorporated into the mode selector (I think - it's only been about 30 years.) There were removable end caps, with red thumbwheels behind them for setting individual levels. There were different tubes in the tuner section. A good looking unit. The one I have now is the later, panloc version, with the level controls on top, and the big, rather squatty looking tube in the multiplex section. About the MX-112 - I don't believe that had much of a resemblance to the 110. I had a friend who had one he just swore by. Of course, he had AR-3s too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted August 7, 2003 Author Share Posted August 7, 2003 Mine is the "Z" version with the controls on top. Yes it works very well. It needs a new tube (6HU6) for the tuning eye which goes out after a minute or so and the stereo indicator which also goes out at about the same time. Allan, Are these related, ie, do they run off the same 6HU6? If so, it's an easy fix and is the only thing wrong with my unit although it doesn't effect the performance at all. I spent most of today auditioning my 240/110 combo vs the scott 299b. 2 completely different animals. The macs have way more headroom and bass. The highs aren't quite as detailed as the scott but at higher volumes, the macs rule. Lower volumes, the scott is my choice. I listened to cds/lps I know intimately. The macs are smoother, less choppy and like I said, plenty of headroom and bass (more than I need). Some detail I hear with the scott that I never heard before I again lose with the macs. Maybe it's a matter of tweaking and tube rolling. I don't usually listen at loud levels so I may stay with the scott. There are advantages to each and they both sound great with the cornwalls. If I owned lascalas, belles or even khorns, I think the macs would win hands down due to the bass issue. Cornwalls have plenty to begin with so I really don't need more. After 2 hours with the macs I switched back to the scott and there was certainly something missing and something gained. Missing was the smoothness and depth, gained was the detail. Not that the macs lack in that area, the scott just excels there. Not sure what to do at this point but I wanted to share my thoughts. 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.