NewMount Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I have the opportunity to buy either an Accuphase P-500L (2X270W, early 90's model) or a McIntosh MC300 (2X300W, late 90's) power amplifier for my 1992 Khorns. Currently I have a Luxman M-03 (2X200W, 1992) power amplifier that has performed quite well, but I feel that something is lacking in the bass department (too soft, not as defined as I'd like). I know a lot of people prefer tubes for the Khorns, but I quite like ss gear. I have had an integrated Accuphase E-203 (2X70W, ca 1980) with a pair of homebuilt horns in the past with great results, so I lean towards Accuphase. I don't really need all the power of these monster amps, since I rarely use more than half a watt, but I like having a lot of headroom and I imagine that bigger amps have better bass control (not the case for the M-03, though...). My preamp is a wonderful little microprocessor controlled Linn Kolektor that has no potentiometers or switches that could start making noise. The noise floor of the Kolektor is a bit higher than that of an Accuphase or McIntosh preamp, though, but that is easily fixed by lowering the gain of the poweramp (possible on the M-03, the P-500L and the MC300) thus forcing the Kolektor to produce a higher output signal and thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio. I don't hear any noise from my Khorns apart from the idling noise from the power amp. Do any of you have experience from high power Accuphase or McIntosh amps with Khorns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Accuphase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marems Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 I would go with the MC300, I think you will have better control of the K-Horns with that amp. My friend has the MC300 and he is running CF-2's with it and the sound is great! I also think you will get the warmer tube sound with the MC300 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago_Pete Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 My only experience with Khorns and SS was with Mac gear. Mac 250, OK, not bad, Mac 2105 very nice. I still prefer tubes. To me, just my opinion now.. My ST70 or even my Fisher 400 sounds better than either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhendrix Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 Buy them both. Keep the one you like, sell the won't you don't. You might consider Crown as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted June 27, 2007 Share Posted June 27, 2007 . You might consider Crown as well. [] ... Heresy .....[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 One of the best implementations of Khorns I ever heard was with an Accuphase E406 integrated amp @ 170 wpc into 8 ohms. Certainly no lacking for bass or midrange there.... Put me down in the Accuphase camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I've run Adcom on Khorns. I've run Cary tubes on Khorns. I've run Accuphase E406 on Khorns. Then I stayed with Accuphase and now run an Accuphase E530 on khorns. No regrets. No disappointment. No blown tubes. Excellent reproduction. A & B channels. Tone controls as needed. Bass to cymbals, powerful and sweet. Accuphase........................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Rinaldi Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I am amazed that Accuphase is being recommended over McIntosh, but that is what the consensus seems to indicate. I guess that I am just stuck on MAC. As always, ask two people, get two different answers. It's what makes the world go 'round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I am amazed that Accuphase is being recommended over McIntosh, but that is what the consensus seems to indicate. I guess that I am just stuck on MAC. As always, ask two people, get two different answers. It's what makes the world go 'round. I've never listened to Mac SS. If I had it could be that I'd be in the Mac camp. Yet Max G seriously knows his stuff and he's in the Accuphase camp. Everyday I turn on my Accuphase based system I am very pleased. Aside from brand loyalty if ones watches A-gon I think you'll find that Accuphase SS comes to the resale market less frequently and is sold more quickly than most SS product. It has an extremely good reputation worldwide. Also, when I sold my E406 I sent it to Accuphase for diagnostics and any repair just to be certain the buyer got what he paid for. All it required was a new lamp for the meter window. Accuphase then forwarded it directly to the buyer in new inner and outer boxes at no additional charge. It was one of the best customer service experiences I've ever had. Someday I hope to match my E530 with one of their CD units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormin Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Accuphase Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roc Rinaldi Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I am really amazed at the preference for Accuphase over MAC. So be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I would not use an MC300 with Khorns. Those are made for in efficient speakers like the Maggies. For the record, I think you all know I am a hard core Mac guy. With the 300 and Heritage, You will never drive them enough and be disappointed with the midrange. To make MAC and K-horns sing, shoot for the 100 WPC and lower models. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMount Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Thanks for all your comments. I think I'll go the Accuphase way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 [Y] Good choice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 Oscar, "Yet Max G seriously knows his stuff and he's in the Accuphase camp. Everyday I turn on my Accuphase based system I am very pleased. " I think you have me confused with someone else!! Well - I might know my stuff - but this whole audio thing has me bewildered!!! Anyway - to the subject at hand I have never actually compared Mac and Accuphase in the same system. I have heard both in various systems and have the general impression that the systems containing the Accuphase had better overall sound - to my ears and all that jazz. I can also say that this does not apply to all Accuphase gear - the E211, for example, which I owned for a time, was poor for its money in comparison to other amps I have experienced in my own system. I regard the E530 as just about peerless and the E407 as possibly one of the best integrateds there are for less sensitive speakers (great with KHorns too - but the 530 is probably a better option). Other than that their high end stuff (pre / power combos) have always been superb in my experience - but we are talking some serious money here and at that level there is a lot of competition. I would regard these as beyond anything "Mac" I have experienced. All of the above is IMHO and the usual caveats apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMount Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 I went for a brand new Accuphase A-45 Class A power amplifier instead. I only got it a couple of days ago and the first impressions are good. I'll be back with more impressions when I get to know it better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Can you also let us know how your new Accuphase compares with your old Luxman, overall, as well as in the treble, midrange, and bass? I've heard great things about Accuphase, but I'll never lose affection for the Luxmans and Macs that are past. I've had McIntosh tube amps, Dyna tube amps, Marantz SS, Luxman SS, Yamaha SS and NAD SS ..... In the midrange and treble, the best sounding were the McIntosh and Dyna tubes... Overall, taking the bass into account, the best sounding was the Luxman. The only one that sounded bad with Khorns was the Marantz SS, 80 wpc, c 1973 ... It was a bit hard and harsh, compared to all the others. I don't know why. If I wanted to baby tubes along, and if I wasn't a bit OCD, I'd go for the warmth of tubes in a minute ... but the reliability of SS helps me relax (pitiful, I know). The NAD 272 is fine, and almost as warm as the Luxman L 580, which self-destructed a few years ago and is beyond repair, according to someone who took $40 to tell me that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWSmith Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Hello gang. Can I ask (as long as we're chatting about SS), if my Adcom 545 would work with my soon to be rebuilt 1968 K'Horns ? I saw mention that Adcom was tried but changed out in the end.... (Accuphase) Thanks, Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMount Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 I once used an Adcom GFA-585 for my K-horns with great results. However, the relatively high idle noise bugged me so much that I eventually replaced it with a Luxman M-03. The M-03 also had gain controls which allowed me to reduce the noise from the preamp as well. My current amp, Accuphase A-45, also has audible idle noise when the gain switch is set at maximum, but no noise can be heard when it is set to -12db (it's not a potentiometer, it actually changes the first amp stage to one with less gain, hence reducing residual noise), which is suitable for the high efficiency K-horns. The GFA-585 has incredible bass punch and dynamics as well as a warm sound. I never got listener fatigue from it, but then again the treble was somewhat subdued. I don't know how much the GFA-545 resembles the GFA-585. 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.