Ken Rockwell Review of MC 240

So... I've known about Ken R for some time as he is 'notorious' for Nikon product reviews. It could be that the hardcores take his reviews too seriously or that he is trying to appeal to the layperson vs. enthusiasts..... so I take him with a grain of salt. I read a couple of paragraphs and then scrolled through it quickly. It does follow his review formula which is set up to attract visitors and page views. I got to give him credit for similarities in his preferences for vintage Nikon equipment and the 240.

I am sure his generalizations will set this thread off! :lurk:
KR -
'Versus the new McIntosh MC275

The new digitally controlled (lights and power switching) MC275 is nice, but a very different design.

It uses different tubes and different transformers. The tube complement was changed to use tube types that are easy to find today.

Its design is optimized to work perfectly with crummy modern tubes, even if they only have 25% of the emission that they ought to.

The new MC275 uses RoHS lead-free solder so that it can be sold overseas.

I haven't tested this new amplifier yet. Exciting is how its design has been updated to perform flawlessly with the tubes we easily can buy new today, not harder-to-find tubes used in the original design, which expected great tubes."


"Get one. It should be the last amplifier you ever need."
 
That dude is a total wingnut, to put it nicely, when it comes to cameras and photography. The guy needs to get out me and take pictures of stuff other than that stupid palm tree, anemometer and bratty kids.

I find it hard to believe much of what be writes. Seems like a lot of BS. Because of that, I have a hard time taking his audio reviews seriously.

He does seem to introduce science to his audio reviews. For me, however, the measurements mean little.

I do find myself occasionally going to his webpage out of boredom. I can't think of anything useful I have ever learned from him.

But that is just me. Others might like his opinions and charts.
 
Last edited:
The review could use some editing but the message, replace worn out parts and tubes, is loud and clear. If he keeps going with the goal of maximum performance and replaces some of the original signal caps then his MC240 should be over 50 watts per channel.
At least he is measuring what he is doing which is important.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
My fully refurbed 240 makes 50 wpc @ 1% THD acc to Audio Classics. I'm unsure how that ranks with others.

At 40 wpc, distortion is around 1/2 of factory spec of 0.5%. In any case, I rarely need more than 5 wpc.
 
I see a good quantity of 240s with most of them in original condition, with some newer tubes and repairs done to keep them going, few pass specs. After new caps in the audio path and a power supply rebuild most can meet or beat the 40W and .5% THD numbers, with good tubes these usually make 50W to 55W at the 1% test with .2% or less THD at 40W. Not bad for a design from the 1950s.
 
Voltage Switch

One curious item I noticed is the MC240 pictured at the top of the article does not have an A/C voltage switch. (That must be unusual because mine is the only other that I have ever seen that also lacks that feature).

He seems to suggest this was the final version of the 240 (of four).
 
I've always found his Nikon reviews somewhat useful, but I'm a Nikon fan. I also love graphs and measurements, but could lose about half of them in this case. I don't need to see new plots every time a resistor gets changed. Still, it does highlight how bad things can be and yet the amp still sounds good.
 
Back
Top Bottom