Mac Speakers?

First let me say I know very little about speakers as a whole. I understand how they work. I understand placement to a large degree. I understand driver types, crossovers, how subs work. That all being said. I have little knowledge of histories of coveted brands and types (JBLs, ARs,Bozaks, Whardales, Klipsch). I have read threads about restores, About coveting holl grails from lines, open baffles (certainly not the same as experience, though you could get some kind of understanding of characteristics).
Cutting to the chase (pardon my opening paragraph this thread could have went anywhere without some back round). I was ogling something on the site (I hate giving them plugs) and got linked to a bunch of Mac speaker listings. Dwelling here a bit, I've seen all manor of Amp, preamp, TT, CD player threads. Tube threads, SS threads, Rebuild and upgrade threads. I tend to see little to nothing about MAC speakers. Why is that? Are some better than others (holy grail?). Or are other manufactures just better bang for the buck? Also do they have known issues that they should be avoided?

There have been a few threads about this...the general consensus seems to be that while Mc made some gems, better could be had for the price of a Mc speaker - that is to say, as compared with other manufacturers when shopping for new.

It is perhaps for this reason, Mc speakers never quite got the exposure enjoyed by dedicated, "loudspeaker only" manufacturers like AR, Klipsch, Altec, JBL etc to name a few. However there are many who absolutely love their McIntosh speakers.

I second 62 caddy-my experience with Mac speakers has always left me ''underwhelmed''

I think they sound great - when they work properly - I've had a bunch of them ( ht-1,4 sl6 ) that all had issues with the ferrofluid in the tweeters - something to watch out for

Funny this thread should come up as I brought home my very first pair of Mac speakers just this week (ML1C+mq101). I was also surprised at how little attention they get. But maybe that's a good thing as I was able to bring them home for significantly less than the going rate of much lesser vintage speakers that seem to be so cherished around here. What I do know is my new to me Macs now have their permanent spot in what formerly was a rotation area for similarly sized speakers. The time has come for me now to send several pair of those "other" speakers off to new homes.

There is far more to this Mc speaker vs Klipsch / Altec / Bozak / Etc. speaker business than meets the eye. Let me first say my piece on the Mc speakers.

I've said it in other threads here and I'll say it again - when properly set up, the McIntosh loudspeakers are phenomenal performers and I do mean phenomenal. Two of my all time favorite speakers are the XRT-20s and LS360s and each has unique requirements.

I've heard XRT-20s powered by at least a dozen different power amplifiers, the sweetest combination being a Spectral DMA50 driving them (my amp, friend's speakers). The second best combination we heard at his house was the XRT-20s being driven by my MC2500. To date, I've never heard another loudspeaker system that was capable of such an incredibly huge sound stage. XRT-20s require a large chunk of real estate to set up properly so they're not for everyone.

When McIntosh introduced the LS line of speakers, a buddy of mine owned a store in Lubbock, TX that was a McIntosh dealer (Don's Hi Fidelity). He decided to totally get behind Mc and brought in the entire line including the speakers. After hours one evening, he demoed his Mc theater room for me. The mains were LS360s driven by an MC352. On movies this system rocked (the Mc sub from that era is also a stellar performer). On two-channel music, I wasn't impressed. Was it the speakers? The amp? Something didn't gel. Ultimately we decided on swapping the MC352 for a Krell amp and that was the hot ticket. Man did the Krell wake those things up. The LS360s just did everything right and I could find no fault with them. I simply couldn't believe how loud they could play and just crystal clear with zero listening fatigue. There is definitely something to be said for the Mc LD/HP drivers. [Had we not made this swap, I may have easily come away thinking the speakers were just OK.]

I've longed to own either of these speakers and one day I'll own at least one pair of them. When it comes to the older designs, which are far more common on the used market, I believe one of the problems stems from using them without the mating equalizer. I've heard ML4Cs with and without it (not THAT'S a party speaker!) - big difference. I've owned XR5s but the woman I bought them from didn't have the EQ and I flipped them before I was able to obtain one. Thusly, I was unable to listen to them the way they were meant to be listened to.

So, if the Mc speakers are so awesome then why haven't more Mc dealers supported them over the years. Simple - every Mc speaker they purchased was one less Klipsch / Altec / Bozak / Etc. they could purchase. McIntosh introduced speakers somewhat late in the game. By then, their dealer network had well established relationships with other speaker manufacturers and could be very profitable reselling them - especially when firing on all cylinders (IE - attaining sales quotas). So, although Mc may have had options that performed as well as or even better than the dealer's house brand, many dealers simply didn't bring them in at all. If all dealers sold speakers based solely on their performance, then Mc would have sold ten times the amount of speakers it did in the 70s and 80s.

Roger Russell, the guy responsible for the McIntosh loudspeaker program is not only a genius but a great guy as well. He personally replies to any email sent to him in regards to McIntosh speakers, etc. He's just one of many examples of people at McIntosh that made the company so great.

Hmmm . . . maybe I should see if I can find a pair of the above to mate with my MC500 that is currently collecting dust . . .

Thanks for the insight. Based on the information it doesn't seem like they were made for low to medium powered tubes amps (say 15-80w)

nj pheonix said:

Thanks for the insight. Based on the information it doesn't seem like they were made for low to medium powered tubes amps (say 15-80w)

Click to expand...

A number of Mc speakers could be happy with as little as 40 - 75w.

If you're looking for 100+ dBW sensitivity - I don't think you'll find that spec in a Mc loudspeaker.

A lot of people liked the sound of Mac speakers, very low distortion, very easy to listen to, very pleasant, which for some is a condemnation.

It was tough on us dealers to try to inventory Mac speakers as well as the ADS, B&W, KEF, Celestion,JBL, etc., etc., etc.,

Just yesterday while auditioning a fully recapped C35 stomp on a stock C30 we switched from the Wilson watt/puppies to a pair of restored xr14s like the preamp owner has. The 14s in no way performed as well as the Wilson's in our larger listening area, but they showed the same differences in the preamps.....not bad for a 1978 design. We have a pair of 16s almost out of the restore shop, hmmmm

Recapping I believe is now an absolute necessity for all MLs and XR vintage speakers.

As long as GG was alive all Mac speakers were capable of using the MQ 104/107 parametric eq systems. With practice I could get the L and R speaker to track within 2 dB of each other from 50 Hz to over 10k hz.

When it comes to McIntosh speakers, it has seemed to me, much like McIntosh disc players, that they were always sold more as a "completion" item than a true standalone worthy product. I've been to a grand total of 1 McIntosh dealer who even stocks the XRT1 or 2ks and he only had the 1ks (in fairness, I've never seen MC2Kws at any McIntosh dealer, either). The 2Ks almost seem to be sold as a way to justify the MC2kw amps than anything else, as that is their listed "happy" requirement. There is a pair on Agon right now for half of their listed MSRP, and when you go to the Mac website and click on the "reference" link, you get a system replete with the 2ks, C1000 pre, and MC2Kws. I presume the profit on the 2k is quite healthy.

On the *other* hand, I think the XR100 and XR200 hit right in a sweet spot where they have the potential to do some damage to the established hitters if enough dealers will stock them and demo them and if the listening audience will give them a fair chance. They are assembled absolutely gorgeously and looking closely at the quality of the drivers and the spec sheet, they seem to be a fantastic speaker. Unfortunately, once again, the dealers I've visited that had the XR100 had it off in a room that wasn't even running so I didn't get to hear them.

I'm driving a pair of ML1Cs with an MC240. The 240 drives the 1Cs with ease. They are greatly overlooked speakers although their sound may not be everyone's cup of tea.

The ML series speakers were the first speakers I ever heard that could produce the bottom octave of sound with low distortion and great transients. They easily outperformed AR-3a on one hand and the EV 30 W ON THE OTHER. The problem was the ML systems were a point source speaker. Which meant very low sensitivity and restricted output capability requiring lots of power which was rather costly. In larger spaces, you needed a MC2300, quite an investment at the time. Where a air of Concert Grands required 1/8 the power and other efficient speakers required even less. Meaning lower costs. A lot of folks thought having to use an equalizer with the speakers meant the speakers were handicapped some how. Another problem was you just couldn't swap out your old speakers for Mac speakers. A Scott or Fisher 32 watt receiver or integrated amp just couldn't make the speakers perform. And who could afford a 2105 and a C-26, or a pair of 3500's to make a pair of ML2 or ML-4 talk.
Sure there were some folks with money who could afford the up grades, but if you had a Altec, EV, or JBL speakers , you connect Mac speakers and the difference was like going from a Chevy Impala with 409 to a Corvette with a small V8. Oh the corvette handled well, turned corners , and started and stop well. But compared to the Impala it just didn't satisfy. If you had a pair of Marantz model 9's and connected a pair of ML-2 in place of your EV georgian or Model 6 you were insulted with the result. Where was the big room enveloping sound. Where was the room moving bass, the intimacy and detail was gone. No sale there. The efficient speakers were higher directivity in nature and gave a more intimate being there sound in larger spaces. They had had a natural roll off in the highs that replicated the sound of live acoustic un-amplified concerts. Mac speakers could be a little edgy. The Mac speakers were great with pop studio recordings, small groups, and soloists that were close miked in intimate settings. There were not great Rock and Roll or Disco speakers, as they couldn't produce the dynamic range, the bass was to clean, and the crossovers would fail with continuous use. If I had to rebuild one ML series speaker I had to rebuild 100. If your ML series crossovers have black capacitors in the crossover, they should have been replaced 40 years ago. The XR speakers were definite step up, with an enclosure design more acceptable in the home, though there was never a replacement for the ML1. The looks of Mac speakers were another issue. The XRT series just never fit in with women's ideas of decorating. Man caves weren't the rage yet. Families would accept B&O euro style before they would consider Mac's style even though the Mac easily outperformed B&O.

Again I very much appreciate the info. I wasn't really speaker shopping. . What I am reading into this that most MAC speakers are better suited to high power SS amps than say MC 60s (what I might've' thought about pairing with in the future). In the past I've driven 89db speakers to reasonable sound levels with a 17wpc amp (not concert level). I have a pair of KEFs being restored now (I think they're 92db) hopefully I.achieve sonic bliss. We all know how that goes. (Even if its great , we get that upgrade itch). For now I'm in no position to rebuild the system. After all.I just did). I.need to try this path for a while. I was just exploring options and trying to learn. Thanks for the help!

Mc Speakers

Saw this in Roger Russell's website...

RR looks a little like a mad scientist.

62caddy said:

Saw this in Roger Russell's website...

RR looks a little like a mad scientist.

Click to expand...

I was taking a gander through that site the other day just by sheer coincidence through a google search, tons of fascinating info.

Speakers made by companies best known for their expensive amplifiers seem to be notoriously hard to drive, I wonder what's up with that?

playdrv4me said:

I was taking a gander through that site the other day just by sheer coincidence through a google search, tons of fascinating info.

Click to expand...

Yup - it's a great site! :yes:

Someday I'd love to try a pair of RR designed Mc speakers and many models are well within reach. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the old man kept a double stacked pair of ML 4C - with an MC 2300 I think.

I'll second that on the XR100. It is an outstanding loudspeaker. I would take a pair any day.

Don't take me wrong we sold a lot of ML-1 quite few ML-2 and maybe a dozen pair of ML-4's. The XR series not as much, even though they were appreciated more so by our better half. ML and XR series were the first speakers that could reproduce the full spectrum with low distortion. But to get that performance you needed power and the equalizers. Bose was able to convince folks there EQ was necessary, not so much so with potential Mac owners. People didn't seem to rebel when Bose speakers required big power when Mac owners with tube amps did. Why should they have to trade their 240's, Mc 60's, and 275's in and buy SS state amps to drive ML-2 and 4's. And the thought of buying two 3500's was just not accepted in the beginning. When the 2300's came along and the crossovers in the ML-1's,2's and 4's started failing the word got around and Mac sales dried up. After tweeters were replaced, crossovers rebuilt, and power guard boxes for 2300's were built and the 2200 and XR series came along sales picked up but never returned as before. Other manufacturers improved their speakers, kept their pricing under control, improved their high frequency production, and chose to sacrifice response below 32 hz. For most folk they couldn't or wouldn't hear the difference, but could surely see the difference in dollar signs. Plus folks with Marantz, H-K, and other amps didn't want Mac speakers in their systems no matter what.

System owners with big rooms and big EV or JBL systems were really disappointed when we would demonstrate a pair of ML-4's in their homes and Citation amps and Marantz Model nine amps couldn't fill their rooms. They didn't want Mac 2300's. They though Macs meters were a joke and a sales gimmick at first. It was a challenging time.