View Full Version : Yamaha vs. McIntosh?


RSL'67
01-27-2010, 09:40 PM
Hello, a quick request for opinions:

I'm currently running a Yamaha MX-2 (with a CX-2 pre) at 150W per channel, in a 2 channel set up with B&W DM2000's.

I'm thinking about swapping out the MX-2 with a McIntosh 2105 amp - which is rated at 105W per channel.

Good idea or bad idea?

As always, thanks for your time!
Regards,
Scott

slow_jazz
01-27-2010, 11:04 PM
McIntosh has always been the Rolls Royce to me...

Yamaha might be the Buick....

SoCal Sam
01-27-2010, 11:11 PM
The MX-2/CX-2:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=200401&CTID=5002600

325bmw
01-27-2010, 11:29 PM
McIntosh has always been the Rolls Royce to me...

Yamaha might be the Buick....

He's right you know. I had an uncle who used to have a Rolls Royce, it was always in the shop. But Grandpa's Buick is knocking on 225,000 miles. :smoke:

Go with the Yamaha......:thmbsp:

titanstats
01-28-2010, 02:32 AM
I'm biased. :D Nothing wrong with Yamaha stuff -- they are very well-built, I've owned several. 2105 is a good looking amp, though.

jetblack
01-28-2010, 06:13 AM
McIntosh has always been the Rolls Royce to me...

Yamaha might be the Buick....

Ditto! There's no comparison in the quality of build, and my Mac's have never been in the shop.

fastbike
01-28-2010, 07:51 AM
Here's another thought. First, I have a McIntosh MC2120 which has been restored to factory specs. I find this amp to be very underwhelming.

In place of the MX-2, I recommend looking for a Kenwood M2/M2A. I also like the Kenwood M1A. Build quality is solid. I have Mac components, but framkly don't quite see the magic, performance wise.


Hello, a quick request for opinions:

I'm currently running a Yamaha MX-2 (with a CX-2 pre) at 150W per channel, in a 2 channel set up with B&W DM2000's.

I'm thinking about swapping out the MX-2 with a McIntosh 2105 amp - which is rated at 105W per channel.

Good idea or bad idea?

As always, thanks for your time!
Regards,
Scott

wdug
01-28-2010, 08:22 AM
I have a Yamaha MX-2 and a McIntosh 2505. The MX-2 has a damping factor of 250 @ 8 ohms. The 2505 has a damping factor 27 @ 8 ohms. (The 2105 has a damping factor of 13 @ 8 ohms.) I swapped out the MX-2 for the 2505 in my main system. There was a very notible difference in the sound of the bass. The 2505 has a fuller bottom end, but not as tight. My speakers are B&W Matrix2 S2's, and I like how they sound with the 2505, but it is a matter of personal preference.

specialidiot
01-28-2010, 09:46 AM
Ditto! There's no comparison in the quality of build, and my Mac's have never been in the shop.

How many high end Yamahas have you owned?

Ever open up a C-2x, C-2a, B-2, or B-2x?

I have, and can tell you that no expense was spared in construction of these excellent amps and preamps.

Ever seen a MX-2000? There is no more beautiful piece of audio history, and the build quality is unmatched. PERIOD.

I've recently owned three McIntosh pieces. I don't own them any more.

McIntosh - over rated

Yamaha - you'll never regret owning the high end offerings

RSL'67
01-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Wow, quality responses (as one might expect here at AK) thank you!

This helps quite a bit, as I am very happy with the sound of my Yamaha set up - but with all the good press McIntosh gets, I'm curious to know what the hype is all about.

Anyway, the 2105 unit I was looking at appears to have been dropped off a truck - serious damage - no face plate, metal is scratched and a little bent. I understand it still "works well" - and the price may be right, reflecting the damage.

I may still give it a test listen, to see what I think - although, there's no truer test than to listen at home.

Regards,
Scott

glum
01-28-2010, 01:43 PM
I may still give it a test listen, to see what I think - although, there's no truer test than to listen at home.

And there you have it.

jetblack
01-28-2010, 02:55 PM
How many high end Yamahas have you owned?

Ever open up a C-2x, C-2a, B-2, or B-2x?

I have, and can tell you that no expense was spared in construction of these excellent amps and preamps.

Ever seen a MX-2000? There is no more beautiful piece of audio history, and the build quality is unmatched. PERIOD.

I've recently owned three McIntosh pieces. I don't own them any more.

McIntosh - over rated

Yamaha - you'll never regret owning the high end offerings

:boring:

specialidiot
01-28-2010, 03:09 PM
:boring:

More McIntosh snobbery?

Or maybe you'd like to expand on that and tell me what you really think.

cmb3366
01-28-2010, 03:19 PM
It's not McIntosh snobery, its just comparing apples to oranges.

I've got no doubt Yamaha makes some fine gear, but it's not Mac... You mention the high-end Yamaha gear, with McIntosh, you don't have to hunt for the high-end gear; every single component they make is the very best they can do with then current technology, there is no bad Mac gear. Add in that it's made by hand in the USA and backed up with incredible factory support and killer resale value, and it's in another league.

*Note: I don't even own any Mac at the moment, but the pieces I have had made an impression that lasts even now that I'm headed in the triode direction.

legal eagle
01-28-2010, 03:25 PM
It really is a question of taste, as both are fine manufacturers and both amps seem to get good honest reviews.

My experience with both makers is that their character is very diferent. The yamaha sound is more clinical and a bit thin or uncolored, where the mcintosh sound is thicker and fuller (i refer to the mc preamp i have).

specialidiot
01-28-2010, 03:28 PM
It's not McIntosh snobery, its just comparing apples to oranges.


his response was pure snobbery. Tell me how it wasn't? Reminded me of Thurston J Howell the Third........

I have compared Mac to Yammie. Spent my own money on it too.

I now have lots of Yamaha in my rack, and no Mac. I even sold my MC225 after only a few months of owning it.

The Mac 1900? I preferred my CR-1020.

The C712 I had was grainy as hell. My Grounded Grid, even my Promitheus sounds much better. The phono stage on my C-2x is better, too.

Keep your mac stuff if it makes you feel better to be in that country club, but its not for me.

titanstats
01-28-2010, 03:32 PM
Blanket statements about brands of gear come across as inflammatory, and aren't so helpful to the OP. I've owned a bunch, and settled on the Macs, but tend not to call other folks' stuff names -- it's just not good manners, IMHO. What cmb3366 said is quite correct: there aren't a whole lot of bad McAmps. Most brands make an awful lot of garbage, and a very few good offerings -- Japanese manufacturers included.

Anyhow, if the OP has a chance to audition it, he should; it's the only way that you ever know these things for sure. :thmbsp: Glad you are enjoying your gear, BTW -- Yamaha did make some nice things.

cmb3366
01-28-2010, 03:42 PM
his response was pure snobbery. Tell me how it wasn't? Reminded me of Thurston J Howell the Third........

I have compared Mac to Yammie. Spent my own money on it too.

I now have lots of Yamaha in my rack, and no Mac. I even sold my MC225 after only a few months of owning it.

The Mac 1900? I preferred my CR-1020.

The C712 I had was grainy as hell. My Grounded Grid, even my Promitheus sounds much better. The phono stage on my C-2x is better, too.

Keep your mac stuff if it makes you feel better to be in that country club, but its not for me.

I wasn't talking so much about personal preferences for a given sound as I was about overall quality, longevity, and value. With Mac, you don't have to sort the wheat from the chaff, they hold their value, and Binghamton's always got your back if something should go haywire even 40 years down the line. Not so with other brands IME, and that's what sets them apart, and makes them such a great buy if you can get into it and like the sound.

specialidiot
01-28-2010, 06:08 PM
I wasn't talking so much about personal preferences for a given sound as I was about overall quality, longevity, and value.

understood. And I also said that I put the yamaha products of that era right up there in quality, longevity, and value too. See if you can even locate a B-2 or B-2x or B1/UC1 for sale. Same with a C-2x. If you can find them, they are holding their value right up there with the three Mc pieces I bought and sold.

This conversation is exactly as I expected... the Mc responders are not even investigating the other side of the discussion. They can't believe there is anything built as well, or that people actually prefer, over their precious blue meters.

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k163/Graciefloydie/IMG_0804.jpg

ManyMoonsAudio
01-28-2010, 06:53 PM
My opinion is that Mac stuff is very good stuff and it sounds good, but I have some pieces that mcintosh cannot compare to.

the-real-mandak
01-28-2010, 08:11 PM
I agree with Titanstats, audition the gear in you're own setup if you have the chance. You're own ear's are better than ours, they know what you like.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for the non OP stuff.

Special you are a bit off there, Yamaha do not have the same service as McIntoch (even they are very help full - as long as you don't talk V-FETS). So if the service is what makes you tick, Mc is a good place to go.

If you like a neutral sound, well then Yamaha is a god place to go - it's about what colour you like. And yes, Yamaha has 1. 2. and 3. class. Clever business plan or just giving as many people the chance to get the best gear they can afford, I don't know but indicating that the gear is not up to the job - just because you have to look at what you buy. Well I don't know, but I am sure the marketing department has been in there ... :)






How to read a Yamaha brochure: It's a bit like walking inside an airplane, new tech innovations are in the front (like the cockpit of an airplane), then comes the 1. class, then 2. and in the end call it monkey class, cheapest seats in the theatre or what ever but just before you enter the great nothing is 3. class. Now there has to be a tweek to this, and yes there is. The models are split into categories, so the most fashionable are right after the tech stuff (at the moment it is AV Receivers), then comes the more boring stuff like blue ray and DVD players. The trick here is that in every category the first model is the highest class and then you walk thru the plane down to the tail. It works quite well, and if you are in doubt - call a stewardess. They will be right there to help you.

I hope this makes it a bit more easy to sought out the different levels of Yamaha gear.

KentTeffeteller
01-28-2010, 08:14 PM
I use McIntosh for a reason. Not dissing Yamaha but I need superb build, parts when needed even when old, and amplifiers rated conservatively. When I need a more modern sound, I go with Bryston amps. The CR 2020 is my favorite Yamaha receiver and I love their separates just fine. Some of them are even in backup service in the studios.

specialidiot
01-28-2010, 08:20 PM
Special you are a bit off there, Yamaha do not have the same service as McIntoch (even they are very help full - as long as you don't talk V-FETS). So if the service is what makes you tick, Mc is a good place to go.


LOL well I will give you that. I had my Macs serviced by Terry DeWick and my Yammies have been serviced by Merrylander and Echowars.

No experience with factory service but between the three gents mentioned I'm pretty happy.

I still maintain... I've had the covers off of all. The MC225, the 1900, and the C712. The B-2/B-2x and C-2x give nothing up in the build arena and I do prefer their sound.

If the rest of the crowd wants to spend their hard earned cash on the Blue Meter Country Club, I'm fine with that.

Bassmantweed
01-28-2010, 08:26 PM
every single component they make is the very best they can do with then current technology, there is no bad Mac gear.

This might be a bit of a stretch. They have some gear where they trimmed a few corners.

Add in that it's made by hand in the USA and backed up with incredible factory support

This is VERY true.

i will say this I have owned vintage and newer Mcintosh gear and i have not had the best of luck. My MX119 blew a cap and had to be repaired. My MC352 has a bum meter. All the while my yamahas truck along. Which is better well I use my mcintosh as my main rig but that does not mean they are better. If you factor inprice I would say yamaha is better. If i were to compare $'s My Mcintosh is not 7 times better than my yamaha.

markd51
01-28-2010, 08:50 PM
As for comparing Mac, and Yamaha damping factors, you're not properly understanding that the low damping factor of the autoformer Mac Amp is irrelevant. Don't believe me, chat with someone like Terry Dewick.

Consider that the McIntosh MC-2105 was built from 1967-1979, it was their first SS Stereo Amp. Not that that makes it a bad, or inferior Amp. See those MC-2105 Amps in my Avatar? They've been in my possession for 36 years. They've never seen a shop either. I doubt there's much equipment out there that could ever stand the test of time like they have. And they do make those JBL 4430 Monitors in my home really sing.

All equipment can break down. Cost is not necessarily a yardstick to determine reliability, or for that matter a likeable sound. One could go, and buy a Krell KAS Amp, and three months later could be in the factory.

While the MC-2105 will typically throw out 130-145 WPC on the bench, if your speakers are really power hungry, this may not be the Amp of choice.

Please don't mistake this post, as a bash against Yamaha. I'm sure they've made some very nice equipment over the years. So have many other american, and japanese companies.

As some others have suggested, one should use what they like best, what works best with a particular set of speakers, and in one's home. The McIntosh MC-2105 has rightfully earned its respect, a very good Amp, said to be basically simple in design, and with amazing reliability. Mark

motorstereo
01-29-2010, 04:12 AM
Does Yamaha make or ever make tube gear? I've never seen any if they do. We all know that mcintosh does. That being said I do like my half dozen or so pieces of Yamaha gear. I'd be lying though if I said I didn't aspire to have some pretty blue meters. That's something I've never been lucky enough to own; yet.

Bassmantweed
01-29-2010, 06:56 AM
All equipment can break down. Cost is not necessarily a yardstick to determine reliability, or for that matter a likeable sound. One could go, and buy a Krell KAS Amp, and three months later could be in the factory.

True - while not a standard measurement it should be some indication between amps with similar features.

My point was not necessarily the quality but the performance. My ears are just not good enough to notice the difference between a $5000 Mcintosh and a good $700 Rotel. That being said I can most certainlly tell the differnce between a $700 & $5000 pair of speakers.

MX117.MC7150
01-29-2010, 10:59 AM
Hello, a quick request for opinions:
I'm currently running a Yamaha MX-2 (with a CX-2 pre) at 150W per channel, in a 2 channel set up with B&W DM2000's.
I'm thinking about swapping out the MX-2 with a McIntosh 2105 amp - which is rated at 105W per channel.
Good idea or bad idea?
As always, thanks for your time!
Regards, ScottHaving owned a most of the B-series, M-series and a couple of MX-series of Yamaha amps, I would say that if recapped, you should be fine with the MC2105. It will make about 150wpc. If it hasn't been recapped, then you definitely want to do so. The Nichicon Muse used in mine made a big improvement in the sonics. The McIntosh is 'smoother' to my ears than are the Yamaha amps. All are excellent music makers with excellent build quality.

theebadone
01-29-2010, 11:21 AM
I have a mac and a yamaha, and I use JBL and Altec for speakers. The yamaha doesnt do too well on the Altec horns, but it sounds great on the JBLs. The macs seem to sound better on super sensitive speakers, like the horns. To my ears the macs have a better low end than the yamaha. When I was running B&W speakers, I preferred the sansui 9090DB, nice match, at least to my ears. YMMV good luck, finding the right match is half the fun.

Martin.Ca
01-29-2010, 12:03 PM
Does Yamaha make or ever make tube gear? I've never seen any if they do. We all know that mcintosh does. That being said I do like my half dozen or so pieces of Yamaha gear. I'd be lying though if I said I didn't aspire to have some pretty blue meters. That's something I've never been lucky enough to own; yet.

They did, sort of, you can sometimes find some in old Organs they made.

AngelRa
01-29-2010, 12:18 PM
Hello, a quick request for opinions:

I'm currently running a Yamaha MX-2 (with a CX-2 pre) at 150W per channel, in a 2 channel set up with B&W DM2000's.

I'm thinking about swapping out the MX-2 with a McIntosh 2105 amp - which is rated at 105W per channel.

Good idea or bad idea?

As always, thanks for your time!
Regards,
Scott

BASIC SPECS:

McIntosh MC2105:
THD = .25%
Damping Factor = 13 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 200
Sensitivity = 0.5V

Yamaha MX-2:
THD = .008%
Damping Factor = 250 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 20K
Sensitivity = 1.26V

Based on the specs there are 2 drawbacks to the McIntosh:
1- The input impedance is probably incompatible with the CX-2 pre. (20,000 vs 200 ohms)
2- The output stage have a very low damping factor of only 13!

No matter how glossy the name McIntosh is, I would never consider an amp with a DF of 13.

For an example of really good specs take a look at ADCOM amplifiers. They typically attain DF of over 800! That is speaker motion control!

HP made laboratory power amplifiers with a DF of 1600!! (Not home audio, beyond home audio.)

hwirt
01-29-2010, 01:18 PM
BASIC SPECS:

McIntosh MC2105:
THD = .25%
Damping Factor = 13 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 200
Sensitivity = 0.5V


Based on the specs there are 2 drawbacks to the McIntosh:
1- The input impedance is probably incompatible with the CX-2 pre. (20,000 vs 200 ohms)



That's 200K Ohms not 200 Ohms.

markd51
01-29-2010, 02:05 PM
BASIC SPECS:

McIntosh MC2105:
THD = .25%
Damping Factor = 13 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 200
Sensitivity = 0.5V

Yamaha MX-2:
THD = .008%
Damping Factor = 250 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 20K
Sensitivity = 1.26V

Based on the specs there are 2 drawbacks to the McIntosh:
1- The input impedance is probably incompatible with the CX-2 pre. (20,000 vs 200 ohms)
2- The output stage have a very low damping factor of only 13!

No matter how glossy the name McIntosh is, I would never consider an amp with a DF of 13.

For an example of really good specs take a look at ADCOM amplifiers. They typically attain DF of over 800! That is speaker motion control!

HP made laboratory power amplifiers with a DF of 1600!! (Not home audio, beyond home audio.)

Again, you're not properly understanding the low damping factor of the 2105 Mac Amp. In this particular instance, damping factor has little influence. And the fact that choosing an Amp by damping factor alone, thinking that the higher the damping factor, the better the Amp is, is flawed thinking, and is something that is misunderstood, and over-hyped as a spec to judge an Amp's sound.

As I said, in my earlier post, speak with some authorities on the topic, and get their input about this. Post that same question in perhaps the McIntosh section of this Forum for a better understading of what I speak of.

Again, hope this helps, Mark

beans
01-29-2010, 02:16 PM
More McIntosh snobbery?

Or maybe you'd like to expand on that and tell me what you really think.
...or maybe you can expand why McIntosh is overrated.

markd51
01-29-2010, 02:18 PM
Here's another example of the Big Blue Meters of McIntosh. Eye the pic, and then look at the specs. it only has a damping factor of 40!

Trust me when I tell you, this Amp will take vicious control of whatever speaker in the world you pair with it. That Bass will be tight, clean, authorative, and you won't be beefing about low damping factor, ever!

The same holds true with the MC-2105, this too, is not an Amp that sounds sloppy in its presentation, nor control of the bass.

BTW, this was one of my all time favs from McIntosh. Some others might say it was not their finest accomplishment, others may have a difference of opinion.
www.allegrosound.com/McIntosh_MC-2600html Mark

MX117.MC7150
01-29-2010, 02:30 PM
BASIC SPECS:

McIntosh MC2105:
THD = .25%
Damping Factor = 13 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 200
Sensitivity = 0.5V

Yamaha MX-2:
THD = .008%
Damping Factor = 250 @8 ohms
Input Imp = 20K
Sensitivity = 1.26V

Based on the specs there are 2 drawbacks to the McIntosh:
1- The input impedance is probably incompatible with the CX-2 pre. (20,000 vs 200 ohms)
2- The output stage have a very low damping factor of only 13!

No matter how glossy the name McIntosh is, I would never consider an amp with a DF of 13.

For an example of really good specs take a look at ADCOM amplifiers. They typically attain DF of over 800! That is speaker motion control!

HP made laboratory power amplifiers with a DF of 1600!! (Not home audio, beyond home audio.)What a bunch of hooey. The MC2105 would be perfectly acceptable with the CX-2 and the bass is just fine. "specmanship' is simply a numbers game. Listen and purchase what sounds good to you.

The one caveat with the MC2105 is buy (at least pay) based on cosmetics. You can get a new faceplate if bubbled, but the chrome on the chassis is the big issue. Any electrical issue is easily addressed. $50-60 worth of caps and you are generally good. But the cosmetic issue of corrosion and worn lettering is tough to address. Once I retire later this year I'm going to redo the chassis on my MC2105 (re-chrome and re-letter) and may offer the service for others if it can be done reasonably.

Nothing at all wrong with the MX-2. But the same is true of an MC2105. McIntosh's published spec's are very conservative. And you'll likely always get your money back on any McIntosh amp if it doesn't work for your ears.

beans
01-29-2010, 02:36 PM
Here's another example of the Big Blue Meters of McIntosh. Eye the pic, and then look at the specs. it only has a damping factor of 40!

Trust me when I tell you, this Amp will take vicious control of whatever speaker in the world you pair with it. That Bass will be tight, clean, authorative, and you won't be beefing about low damping factor, ever!

The same holds true with the MC-2105, this too, is not an Amp that sounds sloppy in its presentation, nor control of the bass.

BTW, this was one of my all time favs from McIntosh. Some others might say it was not their finest accomplishment, others may have a difference of opinion.
www.allegrosound.com/McIntosh_MC-2600html Mark

A damping factor of 800 is not going make your amp sound any better than one with a d.f. of 40. It needs to be at least 10 from what I've read, but beyond 40, you won't be able to tell any difference. Also, I doubt that ADCOM went out of their way to get a measurement of 800, just as I doubt that Yamaha was necessarily trying to get a d.f. of 500 for my A/V receiver.

cdfac
01-29-2010, 02:41 PM
BTW, this was one of my all time favs from McIntosh. Some others might say it was not their finest accomplishment, others may have a difference of opinion.
www.allegrosound.com/McIntosh_MC-2600html Mark

now we're talking!

http://thevintageknob.org/YAMAHA/101M/101M.html

this would be an interesting matchup. the 101M/PC5002M is one helluva amp.

markd51
01-29-2010, 03:36 PM
now we're talking!

http://thevintageknob.org/YAMAHA/101M/101M.html

this would be an interesting matchup. the 101M/PC5002M is one helluva amp.

That's a beautiful, vicious looking brute as well! Mark

markd51
01-29-2010, 05:02 PM
There's another well respected japanese contender in this game as well, Accuphase! Some call them the "Japanese McIntosh".
So many pieces of wonderful, killer equipment in this hobby, and sadly so little money!:tears: Mark

AudCrshDumy
01-29-2010, 09:30 PM
IMHO, Mac's have what no other co. I know of has, life expectancy, they've been around forever, and hopefully will be around forever more...I think it would be cool to work there...

Axcel
01-29-2010, 09:45 PM
I am in the club of it's all good if it sounds good to you. I run alot of vintage Accuphase and have owned only 1 Mac and was a 4100. I preferred the Accuphase but that was separates against a rec not a fair fight. I think Yamaha and Mac both make fine equipment and I would to own both but cash is a wee bit tight.

Axcel
01-29-2010, 09:49 PM
What a bunch of hooey. The MC2105 would be perfectly acceptable with the CX-2 and the bass is just fine. "specmanship' is simply a numbers game. Listen and purchase what sounds good to you.

The one caveat with the MC2105 is buy (at least pay) based on cosmetics. You can get a new faceplate if bubbled, but the chrome on the chassis is the big issue. Any electrical issue is easily addressed. $50-60 worth of caps and you are generally good. But the cosmetic issue of corrosion and worn lettering is tough to address. Once I retire later this year I'm going to redo the chassis on my MC2105 (re-chrome and re-letter) and may offer the service for others if it can be done reasonably.

Nothing at all wrong with the MX-2. But the same is true of an MC2105. McIntosh's published spec's are very conservative. And you'll likely always get your money back on any McIntosh amp if it doesn't work for your ears.

Kinda reminds me of comparing Yamaha to Harley Davidson. Harley/Mac hold there value based a little bit on name imho.

cdfac
01-29-2010, 09:52 PM
IMHO, Mac's have what no other co. I know of has, life expectancy,they've been around forever, and hopefully will be around forever more..

no offense, but Yamaha has been around since the 1800s making musical gear, and there is no sign of them going out of business anytime soon. granted, their hi-fi exposure is much more limited than their 80s heyday, but they have no worse support than any number of companies (though not as good as Mac, clearly).

AngelRa
01-29-2010, 10:36 PM
That's 200K Ohms not 200 Ohms.

Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.

AngelRa
01-29-2010, 11:24 PM
A damping factor of 800 is not going make your amp sound any better than one with a d.f. of 40. It needs to be at least 10 from what I've read, but beyond 40, you won't be able to tell any difference. Also, I doubt that ADCOM went out of their way to get a measurement of 800, just as I doubt that Yamaha was necessarily trying to get a d.f. of 500 for my A/V receiver.

Damping factor is one of the fundamental measurements of amplifier quality. High damping factor does not happens by accident, it is quite hard to achieve.

Anyway, you can reduce the damping factor of the Yamaha from 250 to 13 by just placing a 0.6 ohms resistor in series with the speaker, but obviously will hurt sound quality.

motorstereo
01-30-2010, 02:34 AM
no offense, but Yamaha has been around since the 1800s making musical gear, and there is no sign of them going out of business anytime soon. granted, their hi-fi exposure is much more limited than their 80s heyday, but they have no worse support than any number of companies (though not as good as Mac, clearly).

Since Yamaha has been around so long then surely they must've dabbled in tube gear at some point in time; or maybe not? Most all the other Japanese audio mfgs. made tube gear I'm just wondering if Yamaha did?

titanstats
01-30-2010, 03:29 AM
Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.Then the spec sheet you are looking at is wrong -- input impedance on the 2105 is 200K Ohms

specialidiot
01-30-2010, 05:48 AM
Post that same question in perhaps the McIntosh section of this Forum for a better understading of what I speak of.


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

...or maybe you can expand why McIntosh is overrated.

ask around, maybe outside of the McIntosh forum!

Since Yamaha has been around so long then surely they must've dabbled in tube gear at some point in time; or maybe not? Most all the other Japanese audio mfgs. made tube gear I'm just wondering if Yamaha did?

And how is that relevant? Are you trying to make a point?

motorstereo
01-30-2010, 06:12 AM
Well the relevance is that mac made tube gear and since it's Yamaha vs. Mcintosh I'm wondering if Yamaha had any experience in that particular field. We all know that Mac makes great tube gear. I've had both and not knocking either. I'm even picking up another yammy piece today. I'm was just wondering if Yamaha ever made any tube gear and apparently they didn't. I'm wasn't trying to make a point. I guess I wondered out loud in the wrong thread by forgetting it was the ss forum.

specialidiot
01-30-2010, 06:21 AM
I'm wasn't trying to make a point. I guess I wondered out loud in the wrong thread by forgetting it was the ss forum.

riiiiiiight.

MX117.MC7150
01-30-2010, 06:30 AM
Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.Actually, the "200.00 Ohms" input impedance in the McIntosh OM that is posted on-line is a misprint. Having both the OM and the SM, the SM is correct and has the proper "200,000 Ohms" listed as the input impedance. You can check this in the 'database' that is posted as a sticky in the McIntosh forum.

hwirt
01-30-2010, 07:06 AM
Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.

http://www.roger-russell.com/amplif1.htm#mc2105

Tell Roger Russell he's wrong.

motorstereo
01-30-2010, 08:01 AM
riiiiiiight.

Wroooong. I could've made a point about Mcintosh not building motorcycles and snowmobiles like Yamaha does. But this is an audio forum:music: that's why the tube question
Truthfully I'm out the door right now to pick up a new to me Yamaha t85 tuna:banana:

markd51
01-30-2010, 08:56 AM
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:



ask around, maybe outside of the McIntosh forum!



And how is that relevant? Are you trying to make a point?

I can understand the laugh, but I was hoping somebody can give you the technical reason, without bias. I believe it is because of the Autoformers that McIntosh uses on most their Amps. One Amp that I believe they didn 't use such, was the MC-7200 Amp. Would be interesting to see the specs on that?

Somebody like Echowars, or Terry Dewick can probably explain damping factor better than I. I know Paul Speltz wrote an article about this as well. Mark PS: I just peeked over at Roger Russel's site, the MC-7200 is said to have a damping factor of 200 or greater, and yes, no Autoformers.

MX117.MC7150
01-30-2010, 09:52 AM
Damping factor is one of the fundamental measurements of amplifier quality. High damping factor does not happens by accident, it is quite hard to achieve.

Anyway, you can reduce the damping factor of the Yamaha from 250 to 13 by just placing a 0.6 ohms resistor in series with the speaker, but obviously will hurt sound quality.Another bunch of overstated hooey. You need to remove 'fundamental' and 'quality' from the first sentence and then you will have that correct. And, are you an audio design engineer so you know the second sentence is correct (or do you play one on TV:D)? And, you need to replace the last six (6) words of your last sentence with 'could possibly' or 'might'.

Both Yamaha and McIntosh made/make fine gear. Different designs and different sound. Pick what sounds best to you. Your money and your ears.

reggaenaut
01-30-2010, 12:12 PM
I have a mac and a yamaha, and I use JBL and Altec for speakers. The yamaha doesnt do too well on the Altec horns, but it sounds great on the JBLs. The macs seem to sound better on super sensitive speakers, like the horns. To my ears the macs have a better low end than the yamaha. When I was running B&W speakers, I preferred the sansui 9090DB, nice match, at least to my ears. YMMV good luck, finding the right match is half the fun.

Very instructive!

I had a Mac C26 pre amp which I got rid of because I found it just awful: I preferred Sony 6060F receiver to the Mac 1700 receiver: but Mac 240 tube was just heaven.

I am not hung up on brands; the unit must satisfy your ears.

AnalogDigit
01-30-2010, 12:24 PM
Why not pick both? :D

stereofanboy
01-30-2010, 12:30 PM
I've never actually heard McIntosh gear. In fact I never even saw any in person until this week, it sure looked nice. It's been built up so much, I wonder if it will live up to expectations when I finally get to hear some. If I don't get some sort of transcendant experience I will feel cheated.

I have a MX-1 and it sounds so good I can't imagine something with equal power sounding much better. I don't know about the MX-2.

jhal
01-30-2010, 12:35 PM
:lurk: Man, this is more fun than watching a public boat ramp on a Sunday evening.

I haven't heard any McIntosh gear since the late 80''s, so my memories of it is vague, but I love my Yamaha's, which are far from their high-end stuff.

That being said, if I had the dough, I would definitely want to see what all the fuss is about. :thmbsp:

brutal
01-30-2010, 03:06 PM
Since Yamaha has been around so long then surely they must've dabbled in tube gear at some point in time; or maybe not? Most all the other Japanese audio mfgs. made tube gear I'm just wondering if Yamaha did?

Actually, Yamaha did make tube gear back in the 60-70's. Mostly guitar amps, but there was a model or two for studio/home use.

I've seen them advertised for sale just this past year but didn't grab the copy/images for posterity. One, as I recall was for a pair of old Yamaha monoblocks. Google finds some hits on them, mostly the guitar amps.

It's purely my opinion and speculation that Yamaha, given it's desire to achieve the "natural sound" gave up on tubes and concentrated on building great SS gear.

I think this thread has gotten pretty out of control based on the expected tone one generally finds on AK. Too much conjecture and sharpshooting based on little direct listening comparisons. I wouldn't say a bad word about any piece of Mac gear I had never personally heard and am getting a little tired of the Yamaha bashing by ill-informed golden-eared audiosnob gearhounds.

specialidiot
01-30-2010, 05:42 PM
I've seen them advertised for sale just this past year but didn't grab the copy/images for posterity. One, as I recall was for a pair of old Yamaha monoblocks. Google finds some hits on them, mostly the guitar amps.

I did not know that /carnac


It's purely my opinion and speculation that Yamaha, given it's desire to achieve the "natural sound" gave up on tubes and concentrated on building great SS gear.

Could be... if you do something really well, then keep doing it!

Too much conjecture and sharpshooting based on little direct listening comparisons. I wouldn't say a bad word about any piece of Mac gear I had never personally heard and am getting a little tired of the Yamaha bashing by ill-informed golden-eared audiosnob gearhounds.

Well put Brutal.

I have compared. I preferred a CR-1020 over my DeWick'ed 1900.

I just did not care for the C712 I had, the seller said it too had been to see Terry although I did not verify that. But it was very analytical to my ear.

My MC225 was very nice, but not on everything. Once I put my F5 into my office system, I couldn't take it out as it does everything very very well. Since I don't like to have gear in it's box, I sold it too.

So three up, three down for McIntosh.

Tromatic
01-30-2010, 07:19 PM
It's not McIntosh snobery, its just comparing apples to oranges.

I've got no doubt Yamaha makes some fine gear, but it's not Mac... You mention the high-end Yamaha gear, with McIntosh, you don't have to hunt for the high-end gear; every single component they make is the very best they can do with then current technology, there is no bad Mac gear. Add in that it's made by hand in the USA and backed up with incredible factory support and killer resale value, and it's in another league.

*Note: I don't even own any Mac at the moment, but the pieces I have had made an impression that lasts even now that I'm headed in the triode direction.

OP asked about 'classic'. Classic Yamaha (late 70's to early 80's) smokes Mac gear.

Mac gear is a cult, or a lifestyle choice. If Mac made motorcycles, they would be HD's. A very specific market of clueless dolts with money or some very savvy gearheads, not much in between.

Mac has any number of classic, good-as-any pieces of gear as does Yamaha. My buttons are pushed by 'classic' Yamaha gear in a way the Mac does not. A Yamaha M-2 or M-4 amp or CA-1000 has it all over any Mac amp you care to name.

My ears, of course, but I have yet to hear any Mac gear I'd buy.

ETA: Yes, I meant to insult HD's. Nice gear, but they FAIL as motorcycles intended as machines to accelerate, turn, and decelerate. Anyone else I can insult?

motorstereo
01-30-2010, 07:25 PM
Thanks Brutal. Whether or not it's "relevant" I learned something new today; I never knew Yamaha made tubed audio gear.
For what it's worth and whether or not it's relevant I'm not impressed in the least with my new to me today yamaha t85 tuner. Sorry Yamaha guys this is a major disappointment.

Tromatic
01-30-2010, 07:45 PM
Thanks Brutal. Whether or not it's "relevant" I learned something new today; I never knew Yamaha made tubed audio gear.
For what it's worth and whether or not it's relevant I'm not impressed in the least with my new to me today yamaha t85 tuner. Sorry Yamaha guys this is a major disappointment.

Given the heavily mangled state of most FM signals these days, I'm not surprised. Tuners do need a bit more TLC than the average vintage gear.

I was underwhelmed by the last Mac tuner I had on the rack, too. Some vintage Kenwood and a Technics or two smoke all if you have a decent signal.

MX117.MC7150
01-30-2010, 08:48 PM
For what it's worth and whether or not it's relevant I'm not impressed in the least with my new to me today yamaha t85 tuner. Sorry Yamaha guys this is a major disappointment.Very unusual. Most folks who are 'FM tuner officianados' consider the T-85 to be one of the best perfroming and best sounding tuners available. It is considered to be among the top available as a DX machine. Being ~30 years old it would not be unusual that your particular unit may need an alignment and/or a recap. Also, what particular antenna are you using. The best tuner out there sounds like crap with a poor antenna.

motorstereo
01-30-2010, 09:13 PM
Oh oh. Seems like I may have to eat my words; (gobble gobble). It seems the funky little balun type connector that the t85 takes had the wire bent over and was not making any contact. All is well now. I guess you just don't come home tired and connect things with out being thorough. My bad.

brutal
01-30-2010, 10:20 PM
Oh oh. Seems like I may have to eat my words; (gobble gobble). It seems the funky little balun type connector that the t85 takes had the wire bent over and was not making any contact. All is well now. I guess you just don't come home tired and connect things with out being thorough. My bad.

Radio Shack (of all places) has the PAL to F-Type adapters that are needed on many of the Yamaha Tuners. Getting the correct adapter, instead of just jamming a wire in there certainly improves things.

Axcel
01-30-2010, 10:40 PM
OP asked about 'classic'. Classic Yamaha (late 70's to early 80's) smokes Mac gear.

Mac gear is a cult, or a lifestyle choice. If Mac made motorcycles, they would be HD's. A very specific market of clueless dolts with money or some very savvy gearheads, not much in between.

Mac has any number of classic, good-as-any pieces of gear as does Yamaha. My buttons are pushed by 'classic' Yamaha gear in a way the Mac does not. A Yamaha M-2 or M-4 amp or CA-1000 has it all over any Mac amp you care to name.

My ears, of course, but I have yet to hear any Mac gear I'd buy.

ETA: Yes, I meant to insult HD's. Nice gear, but they FAIL as motorcycles intended as machines to accelerate, turn, and decelerate. Anyone else I can insult?


Let me see if I understand you don't like Mac Gear:scratch2::D but as you have a right to your opinion the many Mac lovers in AK would strongly disagree. I have had a limited exposure to both and neither blow me away. I fell back on Accuphase and it rules as top dog far as I am concerned.
But there is a few Yammie and Macs I would love to try. Relax its all good:music:

stereofanboy
01-30-2010, 11:38 PM
I noticed the correlation between Harley Davidson and McIntosh a while ago and gave it some thought. It seemed to me that there is a stronger correlation between the customers than the products.

Tromatic
01-30-2010, 11:54 PM
Relax its all good:music:

Never said it wasn't. It IS all good if it makes you fly for a few minutes. Who could ask for more stuck to this ball of rock as we are?

:guitar::angel::ntwrthy::banana::music:

Tromatic
01-31-2010, 12:04 AM
Oh oh. Seems like I may have to eat my words; (gobble gobble). It seems the funky little balun type connector that the t85 takes had the wire bent over and was not making any contact. All is well now. I guess you just don't come home tired and connect things with out being thorough. My bad.

Doh. My ST-9030 is very picky; even Larry Flynt would wonder about the position I have to take for the best 'reception'. If not for the absolute freaky modulation it provides on occasion, I'd give it up.

carbonman
01-31-2010, 12:48 AM
I owned a CA-1010 amp. It was a great sounding piece of gear. The only flaws were that the start delay relay wore out and the amp became a pain to get running when it was physically cold, and the controls got a little noisy after a few years. Sonically it was a superb integrated amp.
I love my Mc gear, though!

Tromatic
01-31-2010, 12:57 AM
I owned a CA-1010 amp. It was a great sounding piece of gear. The only flaws were that the start delay relay wore out and the amp became a pain to get running when it was physically cold, and the controls got a little noisy after a few years. Sonically it was a superb integrated amp.
I love my Mc gear, though!


No way in heck can you blame 30 years of physical wear on the brand or design.

titanstats
01-31-2010, 02:39 AM
Good thing that we're all different, else we'd all have the same gear. I've compared too, and my result was the opposite of specialidiot's -- still have the Macs, the Yammies are all long gone out the door. Not that they weren't nice, or anything...

Don't think I'm any part of a cult -- that's just basically a somewhat stupid generalization. I own Macs because to me they look beautiful, sound beautiful, have amazing build quality, and I've wanted one since I was a kid. Now I have some, and they are as good as I'd hoped they were. :thmbsp:

When I eventually upgrade, I'll still get a good dollar for them, and if I bust the faceplate on one, I can still order a new one, some 30 years after production. MacStuff is still made in the US, of course, none of their production coming out of China, Malaysia, Korea, and other places unknown.

Still looking for a 3020 though, just for the fun of it. :)

theebadone
01-31-2010, 08:15 AM
I think if you're buying mac as a statement, you're buying for the wrong reason. I ended up with a few pieces of mac gear because, they sound great with horns. If Soundesign made something that sounded as nice with horns, that's what would be in my system. Mac gear is expensive, is the price justified?, I think so, great build quality, most parts are readily available, and the customer service is great, Even for the vintage macs. And in this day and age, customer support means alot, at least to me it does. How many of us has dropped our vintage gear off at the fix it shop, only to learn the particular model you have can't be fixed, because parts are no longer available? Yamaha makes some great gear as well, but my experience with yamaha is, it doesnt do well with super sensitive speakers, like horns. But there are plenty of other great sounding speakers out there that do sound great on the yamahas. So in the end, (its only audio gear) buy what sounds good to you, and fits your budget. And i dont think Harley makes the best bike on the road, every serious long distance rider knows that, BMW gets that award. :yes:

Les Lammers
01-31-2010, 09:06 AM
Why not? Only you will know which you prefer and you won't know that until you hear them for yourself. :yes:

hwirt
01-31-2010, 09:09 AM
Reading through the posts in this thread one could summarize that at one point in time Yamaha made separates that were comparable to McIntosh the 101M/PC5002M for example (although I’m not too comfortable with the exposed transistors on the rear panel which could carry hazardous voltages, perhaps a cover was removed for taking pictures?)

Looking at Yamaha’s product line today indicates they abandoned the separates market with the exception of the MX-D1 which appears to be a re-packaged commercial stage amp using a switching type power supply. Certainly their current “high end” products can not compare to what McIntosh offers and that has likely been the case for decades. So if you live in a time warp I guess you could say Yamaha is equal to McIntosh, but that would not be reality today.

sheltie dave
01-31-2010, 09:11 AM
Count me in with Axcel...Accuphase is some top not gear, and their gear is on par or above the Mac line in many cases. McIntosh is the American version of Accuphase :thmbsp:

With the autoformer Mac gear, the AFs do quite well blocking DC from leaving the amp when brief clipping occurs, and do have a play with the damping factor - but damping factor is what it is, in the end. Some people like lean bass, some people note that bass needs ass to be b-ass...and the lower Mac damping factors ensure a nice thick lower end.

The top end Yamaha gear has superb build quality and finish, and is better than the similar Mac gear of the era. For instance, the vaunted Mac supply line to support its vintage lines is due to Gow's insistence on simple design using common parts, nothing too exotic. Also, I have run into very few people who extoll the thin, double chromed chassis for Mac's tube gear that normally is easily pitted if not ruthlessly cared for.

Both Mac and Yamaha have built some great gear, with Mac it is to be the norm, since that has been the market niche they have striven for from their earliest days.

For the OP, try the Mac, but dollars to donuts says you will end up liking the Yammie better.

RSL'67
01-31-2010, 02:37 PM
Look what I've started ;)

So, as it happens - I checked out the Mac. Granted, it wasn't in my home and the speakers obviously weren't the same, etc., and while I thought it sounded really good, I passed. As I said, the unit was really beat up, and aesthetically it just wasn't "doing it" for me.

So, it's back home now to my Yamaha gear, which I still love - and perhaps - one day - I will have another opportunity to entertain a McIntosh purchase.

The 2105 had a "different" sound for sure, but to say "better" would be speculation on my part, as the conditions were so very different than what I have in my home.

Bottom line, I wouldn't not buy McIntosh because of what I've learned - if anything, this experience has piqued my interest even more.

The search for "improved" sound continues :)

Thanks all for participating!!
Regards,
Scott

the-real-mandak
01-31-2010, 05:32 PM
Look what I've started ;)


Bottom line, I wouldn't not buy McIntosh because of what I've learned - if anything, this experience has piqued my interest even more.

The search for "improved" sound continues :)

I can only 2. that, go with the sound you like - heck with the name.

markd51
01-31-2010, 05:41 PM
Look what I've started ;)

So, as it happens - I checked out the Mac. Granted, it wasn't in my home and the speakers obviously weren't the same, etc., and while I thought it sounded really good, I passed. As I said, the unit was really beat up, and aesthetically it just wasn't "doing it" for me.

So, it's back home now to my Yamaha gear, which I still love - and perhaps - one day - I will have another opportunity to entertain a McIntosh purchase.

The 2105 had a "different" sound for sure, but to say "better" would be speculation on my part, as the conditions were so very different than what I have in my home.

Bottom line, I wouldn't not buy McIntosh because of what I've learned - if anything, this experience has piqued my interest even more.

The search for "improved" sound continues :)

Thanks all for participating!!
Regards,
Scott

Maybe if the Amp was given to you free, it would've maybe been a fun project, but often, life's too short to deal with basket case pieces of equipment that would need lots of time, and money thrown into them, regardless of who made them. Mark

markd51
01-31-2010, 05:59 PM
Since McIntosh began in 1949, I think you have your first statement backwards. And as for the pitting, sure, if one maybe owned the Amp in Vietnam, with jungle conditions, sure pitting could occur over time. Not many would go through the trouble of chrome plating a chassis, something nobody ever sees.

Yes, often McIntosh didn't use the most expensive parts back then, but used at least Mil Spec that would stand the test of time. McIntosh isn't called "McIntosh Labs" for nothing.

Many years ago, I was of the belief, playing aound with lesser brands, that any piece of electronic gear I bought would typically last 6 months, to maybe a couple of years before the inevitable failure of some sort would occur, and then there I'd be, at the mercy of some tech, holding his hand out for boo coo bucks. I've been down that road plenty of times.

Never seemed to fail too, that I'd get the equipment back with a nasty scratch, or gouge somewhere as well. This usually pissed me off to no end, I freaking "hate" when that happens! :uzi: That they're handling your beloved $500-$700 Receiver like it was a $5 POS.

Evidently, McIntosh did have the "correct recipe" to success all these years, Amps, and other equipment that were many times simple designs yes, but provided very high quality sound, and because of their designs ran cool.
They were typically overbuilt, and typically under-rated as far as specs went.

Now will a 40+ year old design, and Amp compete with something like a newer Krell FPB-600? Heck no, no way on earth. But that Mac just might last longer. Krell has a reputation of being in and out of shops, and if you keep up with Krell, a recent recall, due to possibility of fire.

Levinson is another fine piece of gear, that is until you have a problem with it, and are now at the mercy of their repair flat rate policies. I like both equipment I mention, but would never own such for those reasons I mention.

The Mac clinics of the past were something that was pretty cool. They'd test, and calibrate your equipment free of charge. If there was a problem, it was then taken care of for free.

When I bought those two MC-2105 Amps back in '74, they came with a lifetime performance warrantee. When McIntosh re-negged on that policy, trust me, that it pissed me off to no end!

None the less, those two MC-2105's have been some of the finest, and the most reliable pieces of equipment I have ever owned, period. I strongly doubt any other make of equipment would've held up as well regardless of cost. Mark

sheltie dave
01-31-2010, 07:00 PM
Mark, I have six pieces of non-Mac gear from back then that are chrome plated, so Mac was neither the first, nor were they the best. Of the gear that is chrome plated, Mac actually did the cheapest job, which is why I noted it.

I also deliberately switched the Accuphase saying, but only as a tweak! :D

Mac didn't overengineer their gear, they designed it in a typically industrial fashion, and they have continued that philosophy for their corporate life, excluding some years during their car stereo ventures. By that nature, their specs are quoted as a minimum, not a maximum, so "underrated" specs is akin to "tube" watts...it either meets/exceeds quoted, or it doesn't.

As far as McIntosh authorized service in our area, they are the reason why I sold the seven pieces of Mac gear I owned. After the first MC250 went up in smoke following a service call, after I paid twice for the same repair on a 1900 in four months, and had a 6100 that would drop a channel whenever it got moved(a chassis rail flexing too much,) I realized my wallet could not support McIntosh.

A second Mac authorized tech successfully diagnosed the 6100 and fixed it, but enough was enough. Mac:thumbsdn: Accuphase and Levinson:thmbsp: at my house. :yes:

markd51
01-31-2010, 08:00 PM
Mark, I have six pieces of non-Mac gear from back then that are chrome plated, so Mac was neither the first, nor were they the best. Of the gear that is chrome plated, Mac actually did the cheapest job, which is why I noted it.

I also deliberately switched the Accuphase saying, but only as a tweak! :D

Mac didn't overengineer their gear, they designed it in a typically industrial fashion, and they have continued that philosophy for their corporate life, excluding some years during their car stereo ventures. By that nature, their specs are quoted as a minimum, not a maximum, so "underrated" specs is akin to "tube" watts...it either meets/exceeds quoted, or it doesn't.

As far as McIntosh authorized service in our area, they are the reason why I sold the seven pieces of Mac gear I owned. After the first MC250 went up in smoke following a service call, after I paid twice for the same repair on a 1900 in four months, and had a 6100 that would drop a channel whenever it got moved(a chassis rail flexing too much,) I realized my wallet could not support McIntosh.

A second Mac authorized tech successfully diagnosed the 6100 and fixed it, but enough was enough. Mac:thumbsdn: Accuphase and Levinson:thmbsp: at my house. :yes:

You leave out much info though in regards to who was doing the repairs?
Some dickhead no doubt, who didn't know his ass from a a hole in the ground, and I know that feeling all too well, even when I lived in Chicago.

Had you dealt with McIntosh direct, you most likely would've had the gear fixed right the first time.

Personal expereiences often are not duplicates of one another. Your experiences are a total 180 degrees from mine. I truly wonder just how many in this thread have walked into a dealer, and bought brand new Mac Gear? Or have bought gear that was literally beat to hell, then wishes to pass judgement of equipment?

So, with that said, I then praise McIntosh, and you bash them. So, who's then opinion holds truth, or flaws? Yours, or mine?

And that's of course one of the largest problems with audio, the sifting through tons of crap, whether true, or hyped. One has to be a master to sift through what is diamonds, and what is bullshit.

What has happened, is most will make assumptions, when buying some delapidated piece of gear, or let's say a $4000 Koetsu Ccartridge that has 3000 hours on the Stylus, then bum raps the company as being crap, but one is most certainly in the dark, as for being a fair judge of such equipment.

You perhaps got lucky with Levinson, or Accuphase. Your story could've certainly been the other way around, had you gotten duped with your two fav brands.

The truth is, all equipment is crap when one has a problem with it. Whether you spent $300 for a basket case McIntosh MC-2105, or $20K for used Krell KAS Monoblocks that crapped out two weeks after you bought them.

Does the $20K expenditure make one feel any better? Or worse? Mark

sheltie dave
01-31-2010, 08:38 PM
Mark, the tech that did the repairs is McIntosh trained and certified, with over twenty years of benching. The shop owner counts job tickets and revenues every night, so in all likelihood that is the root of the problem. I wasn't going to spend any more money, stumbling around for a local answer.

In your eyes, ALL the equipment I buy probably would be judged as "beat to hell." I buy at a price point, and then depend on a good tech to get it back to reliable, sounding as it should, and then use the heck out of it.

I am NOT bashing Mac..I did not buy multiple Mac amps, preamps, tuners, both tube and SS, just to set Mac up and then bash them. Quite the contrary, EVERY time I purchased a Mac piece I first took it to the authorized service center for R&R, bench testing, and left with a large bill and the spec testing sheet.

As far as my favorite equipment, neither the Accuphase nor the Levinson hold that slot, so criticize away. The E202 and #27 are both superbly engineered, and both do play better with my Thiels than the Macs did, but that is a personal observation, and others may vary. Like the Mac gear, they went on the bench for a similar spa treatment, but theirs took. As far as the $20,000 you think I spent, you are off. Subtract a zero, and then keep going...south.

markd51
01-31-2010, 09:53 PM
I'm not familiar with Accuphase, never hearing any, but have heard quite a few pieces of Levinson Gear. Probably the very best Levinson ever made. Models that come to mind, are the 331, and the #33 Reference Monoblocks. And I listened to many of them at length a number of times. Once i recall hearing those #33's with a pair of TOTL Apogee Ribbons. Another time paired with a $45K pair of MBL Radialstraulers. And the Levinson CD Transport/DAC front end, which I think was the 31.5? Memory is getting fuzzy after all these years. I do remember that Transport, and DAC were $25K

Were they heavenly? Of course they were, and in comparison to a McIntosh MC-2105, the 2105 would be like listening to a $2.00 Emerson reciever you found at a yard sale.
Of course all this equipment was brand spanking new-demo equipment at a Levinson Dealer in Chicago, called Paul Heath Electronics.

All I ever bought from them was a CAL Transport-DAC, but they always rolled the red carpet out for me, like I was Michael Jordan walking into the store.

Now, I know my opinions of this gear could be skewed had it been faulty, not performing properly.

i am aware of the Levinson 27, and 27.5, said to be some of the finest gear Levinson ever made period. Comparing them to a Mac Amp that came out in 1967 wouldn't be fair. maybe a comparo against a new pair of MC-501 Monoblocks would be a fairer match? At least a more current matchup.

As I said earlier, some may misjudge certain equipment by a opinion that may hold little validity. Hypothetically, had I bought a couple of Levinson 27.5 Amps, had bad luck with them, and then said they were not a good Amp, my personal opinions would be flawed, wouldn't they? Mark

dnewma04
01-31-2010, 11:06 PM
I've had two Yamaha B-2s and a MX-1000. They certainly don't approach the top end yamaha's I suspect, but I found them thoroughly underwhelming after reading the yamaha hype brigade for years. I certainly would like to hear a MX-2000, PC5002 or MX-10000 to hear what the best of their amps can sound like. To be honest, there wasn't anything wrong with the yamahas, they just didn't stand out from a crowd of average amps in build quality or sound quality.

I've also owned a MC2105, 2 MC2100s, and a MC2200.

Frankly, I'm not sure which I would choose, but I think I would lean towards McIntosh. My lusting for McIntosh has been seriously curbed by some former members of AK, but I still do admire their build quality, customer service and the sound.

REDone
02-01-2010, 03:51 AM
I've had two Yamaha B-2s and a MX-1000. They certainly don't approach the top end yamaha's I suspect, but I found them thoroughly underwhelming after reading the yamaha hype brigade for years. I certainly would like to hear a MX-2000, PC5002 or MX-10000 to hear what the best of their amps can sound like. To be honest, there wasn't anything wrong with the yamahas, they just didn't stand out from a crowd of average amps in build quality or sound quality.

.

My thought based on lower end Yamahas, CR400 & Ca600, is that one shouldn't look for a dramatic leap in sound quality or performance with Yamaha. It's just that they play it right without undue colour. I have used other amps which tend to stand out from the crowd & realised they sounded different because of colouration.

I've never heard any McIntosh gear

wd409
02-01-2010, 08:05 AM
McIntosh - over rated

Yamaha - you'll never regret owning the high end offerings

I own a yamaha A-1000 which I love, and an M-4 that I still cant use cuz i havnt received my C-4 yet, but im sure ill love those too.

I've had several yammies lately and loved them all though, the A-25 and A-500 arent high end amps but they sure do sound sweet with their 70ish wpc.

I've never owned a Mc, but I have owned several yamahas, loved them all, had a kenwood kr7050 or something along those lines, it was ok, and pretty, I dont have that anymore though.

had nad, adcom, a handful of technics, handful of pioneer, those were all nice. but the yamahas are the only ones I still own.

that said, if an opportunity came up to buy a Mc at a good price in my area, i'd be all over it. just to try it out.

specialidiot
02-01-2010, 10:48 AM
My thought based on lower end Yamahas, CR400 & Ca600, is that one shouldn't look for a dramatic leap in sound quality or performance with Yamaha. It's just that they play it right without undue colour. I have used other amps which tend to stand out from the crowd & realised they sounded different because of colouration.


Having a CR-1020 and the B-2/C-2x combo currently in possession, I can tell you that the 1020 build quality is crap compared to the separates. The CR-1020 compares favorably to other Japanese receivers of the era, but the B-2 and C-2x is several levels beyond.

I've never heard any McIntosh gear

Do so if you get the chance, preferably with your own source and speakers and in your room if possible. The listening rooms at the "stealerships" typically have an optimal environmental setup and can make an old all in one system sound great.

REDone
02-01-2010, 01:31 PM
Having a CR-1020 and the B-2/C-2x combo currently in possession, I can tell you that the 1020 build quality is crap compared to the separates. The CR-1020 compares favorably to other Japanese receivers of the era, but the B-2 and C-2x is several levels beyond.



Do so if you get the chance, preferably with your own source and speakers and in your room if possible. The listening rooms at the "stealerships" typically have an optimal environmental setup and can make an old all in one system sound great.

I'd love to hear more expensive Yammie s & McIntosh - limited funds though & not many Mc's in UK that come up for sale - I've bought from Germany in the past & stand a better chance there.

jetblack
02-04-2010, 10:56 AM
How many high end Yamahas have you owned?

None.

Ever open up a C-2x, C-2a, B-2, or B-2x?

I've seen the guts of these units.

I have, and can tell you that no expense was spared in construction of these excellent amps and preamps.

No expense spared? The response sounds like a cross between a politician & and a salesman. You need to provide specifics to keep my attention.

Ever seen a MX-2000? There is no more beautiful piece of audio history, and the build quality is unmatched. PERIOD.

Yes. It's an impressive looking unit, and I would like the opportunity some day to give it a listen, although the comment about the build quality was a bold, general statement, without any build quality specifics to back it up. And no, I'm not saying or implying that the 2000 is not a quality unit.

I've recently owned three McIntosh pieces. I don't own them any more.

No mention of what Mac pieces you owned, so it's difficult to fathom what you used when making your comparison. In fairness, my initial mental comparison was using current Mac units with vintage Yammies, and I don't think that was a valid comparison, especially when this thread is on the vintage forum, so I'll take the hit for that one.

McIntosh - over rated

Another general statement, with no specifics to back it up. And no, I don't mean for this to be a bashing session. I (and other readers) are looking for an audio education. I seem to remember reading about Mac's switching technology that was the cat's meow, but I'll need to do a little research on the subject. I'm sure how recent the technology was invented. It may not apply to the 'vintage' equipment.

specialidiot
02-04-2010, 11:22 AM
jetblack you aren't reading my comments then. I specified the pieces I've owned and gave my specific observations to back them up.

That said, I'm not really interested in keeping your attention if you don't read the thread in the first place.

/unsub

jetblack
02-04-2010, 12:49 PM
Wrong, the spec reads 200 ohms.

200 ohms for the input impedence of an amp just doesn't sound right, design-wise. I can believe a high input impedence of 200k, and a low output impedence of 200.

Axcel
02-04-2010, 02:35 PM
threads getting very negative and boring with the sniping going on:boring: I would love some high end Yamaha and or Mac equipment if the right deal came along they are both super equipment. I am leaving it at that moving on and deleting this thread chow for now:music:

AngelRa
02-04-2010, 05:46 PM
200 ohms for the input impedence of an amp just doesn't sound right, design-wise. I can believe a high input impedence of 200k, and a low output impedence of 200.

It is a misprint. It should read 200K ohms. (so I was told)

AngelRa
02-04-2010, 05:49 PM
RSL 67,

Do you got the Mac? Any listening tests?

RSL'67
02-04-2010, 07:40 PM
Nope, several pages back, I mentioned that I passed on this particular Mac unit.

tincat2
02-05-2010, 02:12 AM
the motorcycle thing prompted a comparison in my own mind to automobiles-i have owned and listened to, and worked upon both yamaha and mac stuff-they are both very good, and i want them both(although the best of harmon kardon gives either a run for the money, imo). now the cars i have in mind are the lexus for the yamaha and the totl packards(say, a '53 caribbean convt.) for the macs-and i have had my hands on both and i want them both in my garage(in my dreams)-the hk is probably a bmw(a model of which i was driving before the yuppies had caught on-1973)-so much good stuff to yearn for, so little time and money.

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 11:51 AM
Having owned some good yamaha preamps and power amps in the past they do sound good. kinda neutral as their natural sound they talk about line was. Having just purchased a McIntosh 1900 reciever near mint and recently serviced i will say that the tuner is superb and amplifier although rated at only 55 watts a channel makes my Bose 901 series 2 speakers sound much better and seem as powerful as the 901`s when i had the hooked up to my phase linear 400 amp and i was using the phase linear 2000 preamp. The mac gives them a breath the phase never could. And the mac i have the active equalizer for the bose hooked up in between preamp and power amp just i did for the phase linear setup. Thoroughly shocked the crap out of me that this mac reciever could achieve better sound than the phase linear did for the 901`s. and i bought the mac 1900 off a ak member for 150.00 and he also sold me a nice technics sl-1100a turntable kinda rare but also nice for 50.00.

Axcel
02-17-2010, 11:54 AM
Having owned some good yamaha preamps and power amps in the past they do sound good. kinda neutral as their natural sound they talk about line was. Having just purchased a McIntosh 1900 reciever near mint and recently serviced i will say that the tuner is superb and amplifier although rated at only 55 watts a channel makes my Bose 901 series 2 speakers sound much better and seem as powerful as the 901`s when i had the hooked up to my phase linear 400 amp and i was using the phase linear 2000 preamp. The mac gives them a breath the phase never could. And the mac i have the active equalizer for the bose hooked up in between preamp and power amp just i did for the phase linear setup. Thoroughly shocked the crap out of me that this mac reciever could achieve better sound than the phase linear did for the 901`s. and i bought the mac 1900 off a ak member for 150.00 and he also sold me a nice technics sl-1100a turntable kinda rare but also nice for 50.00.

care to devulge the name??????????????//

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 01:38 PM
IndianaRadio and he is a very nice man who showed me all his shop and his gear very impressive and was I was so lucky he only lived 40 miles from me so i could pick it up!

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 06:44 PM
the truth about the damping not meaning anything to tell

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 06:56 PM
thumbnails don`t get very big lol but JBL engineer in 1967 states that the difference between a amp with 200 damping factor and an amp with 20 isn`t even 1% measurable and not audible at all!

dnewma04
02-17-2010, 06:58 PM
As soon as you have passive crossovers or add typical wire between the amp and speakers, the series resistance becomes significantly larger than the amps output impedance making excessive damping factors pretty well useless.

cdfac
02-17-2010, 07:37 PM
thumbnails don`t get very big lol but JBL engineer in 1967 states that the difference between a amp with 200 damping factor and an amp with 20 isn`t even 1% measurable and not audible at all!

i am one who does believe that ultra-high DF's aren't necessary, but i would point out that according to the chart you posted, there is still around 4% difference between 20 and 200, regardless of what this JBL engineer says. it stands to reason that a seasoned listener could probably detect such a difference if "actual overall DF" does in fact have something to do with sound.

dnewma04
02-17-2010, 07:43 PM
I usually figure a DF of 40-50 is about where any benefits would cease to exist.

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 09:07 PM
he stated that the effective difference is between 1.25 and 1.32. Note key word here is effective. you have to enlarge the thumb to 200% in your browser and read the end of the second page.

Daniel Walte
02-17-2010, 09:26 PM
and btw he was using 8 ohm speaker loads he probably would have been fired to use rival company`s like AR`s speakers and when using a 4 ohm speaker damping factor can be much more critical. I would not personally want to use a 4 ohm speaker and expect it to have as good of bass definition with a really low damping factored amp

YAMAHAULIC
05-06-2010, 02:59 PM
I've owned an mx-1 (bigger than mx-2) and rated it as good as my yamaha p3200 pro series amp. Not to impressive.
I dont think you can compare to many "high end audio" amps to a mx-2