MC601s... a brief review...

So FINALLY after all this time I got a pair of MC monos to babysit for a while and I must say I am blown away. Especially since I was expecting little difference between them and my Classe CA-5200, to which my 802D were connected in a bi-amped configuration at 200 8ohm/370 4ohm. It's a multichannel amp based on the same topology of the 2 ch CA-2200 so it's no slouch. After all, *amplifiers* are not supposed to have a "sound", they're supposed to amplify and pass along whatever they receive, right? Maybe.

This "new" Mac sound (and bare in mind I never did get my hands on the MC501s so I don't necessarily know what the "darker" sound was) is truly something special, even in comparison only to the Classe I had there. Classe gear is generally known for leaning to the analytical end of the spectrum itself, but I always had problems in my rather small listening room, with a pair of 802Ds that seemed to just exert too much bass dominance over all the other frequencies because, I figured, of the lack of ability to really breathe. Well I am pleased to say the MC601s abated most of this "tubbiness" in the low frequencies of the 802Ds. Not ALL of it mind you, but it's no longer uncomfortable to listen with the CP-800's tone controls completely disabled. If I do turn them on, -.5db is just about *right* on the bass control, whereas before I needed a good -1.5 to -2.5db of attenuation for optimal listening, and then it had too much effect on the remaining frequencies. So that's definitely a tangible difference in bass handling I can see in a numerical value. Not just perception.

But perhaps the most impressive aspect of the 601s is their absolutely airy top end. McIntosh from everything I've seen, has always been viewed as kind of a "blunt object", not necessarily able to treat top end frequencies with the delicacy of other brands. Not so with these. I live in an apartment, and so listening at ear blasting volume levels, where you'd *assume* the 601's benefits would shine, is not even a considerate thing for me to do. But I don't really have to, because the delicacy of the handling at the *lowest* volumes is what most impressed me. I was amazed at what I could hear with the volume barely above a comfortable "background music" level. A lot of this probably again has to do with the fact that the 802s are being much better handled and bass is not muddying the whole presentation. If I understand electrical principles correctly, at these listening volumes I'm probably not even using 10 watts, so I don't really have a reasonable explanation for why this difference exists, other than perhaps the way Mac is voicing their amps now. And that's fine with me, it *works*.

I have heard that the MC452 sounds virtually the same as the 601s, and if that's true, I would run rather than walk to find one if you don't care about the "cool factor" of the monos (I do, and I love those enormous meters) or need this level of power handling. I firmly believe this is the sweetest spot in the SS Mac lineup right now, and perhaps the MC2301s on the tube side, but I've never heard them so I can't comment.

On the other hand, I'm a little struck by some "cheap" elements. Namely the cover over the rear-most portion of the amp (the big metal cover between the two heat sinks). Something about that cover just sounds a little flimsy, like some of the cheap chinese made receivers you'd find at Best Buy on an average day, though pushing down on it I have to admit it doesn't give *too* easily. It's also strange to look in there and see a mass of empty space which makes the amp look "hollow". The main cover on the CA-5200 is a MASSIVE THICK piece of metal that I couldn't even faze if I STOOD on it. I suppose that back in the day Mac amps had no cover over this area at all, so take that as you will. Likewise, the omission of locking tabs on the XLR ports is utterly baffling. I really like the lock-tabs on the CA-5200 as the cables can't get pulled out if I'm back there doing other things. Finally, the power knob is not quite what I would have expected. It just doesn't have a secure, satisfying "CLICK" as it reaches each position, with the hefty amount of finger force I expected to feel to move from one selection to the next. An included "stereo mini-phone cable", to either connect or bypass the power save standby, which is a pain in my system that's also used for TV at low volumes late at night, would also have been nice at this cost. But... these are the kinds of build details *I* obsess about on ANYTHING I own.

There is rather a dearth of "real person" 601 reviews out there, so hopefully this will give someone a little guidance, though I am by no means an expert with tons of graphs and microphones and testing equipment. Easily an 8.8 out of a perfect 10 on these. I might even make a youtube video about them, but my listening area isn't very attractive.

I just swapped out a MC402 for the MC501s and come to the same conclusion the detail and bass notes are outstanding at all volumes.
Drums and snare hit hard and sparp and a piano thunders as it would live.

If you have copies of Direr Straight money for nothing CD & Vinyl play it and you will see what I mean. The CD would start lighting the autoformers early but the vinyl would just keep going up in volume. But man the snare drum sounds right there.

Try some Sarah McLaflan and listen to the piano and here voice you will be in heaven.

The 501s have none of the cheep feel you mentioned and the XLR locks. The weight of the Mono Blocks are nice in comparacin to amps like the 402 and 452. These amps you not walking very far with at about 100lbs. One thing nice about the 402 over the 452 is that you can bridge it and have 800 Watt mono blocks.

4-2-7 said:

I just swapped out a MC402 for the MC501s and come to the same conclusion the detail and bass notes are outstanding at all volumes.
Drums and snare hit hard and sparp and a piano thunders as it would live.

If you have copies of Direr Straight money for nothing CD & Vinyl play it and you will see what I mean. The CD would start lighting the autoformers early but the vinyl would just keep going up in volume. But man the snare drum sounds right there.

Try some Sarah McLaflan and listen to the piano and here voice you will be in heaven.

The 501s have none of the cheep feel you mentioned and the XLR locks. The weight of the Mono Blocks are nice in comparacin to amps like the 402 and 452. These amps you not walking very far with at about 100lbs. One thing nice about the 402 over the 452 is that you can bridge it and have 800 Watt mono blocks.

Click to expand...

The entire Private Investigations Dire Straits album is *FANTASTIC* test material. I was just playing "So Far Away" a few minutes ago! Their stuff was SO WELL recorded.

Yeah the XLR locks... I was like "what?".

Was just looking at a picture of the 501s on Ebay. I see what they did here. The 501s had the transistors or whatever is in there arranged horizontally to give the 501 it's trademark shallow appearance.

I had heard something about heat issues on the 501, so I presume this is why the 601 turned this arrangement back long-wise, front to back, thus necessitating that flimsy panel, since it's mostly just open air space in between there. Guess it's a give and take, though I know a lot of people never had a single heat problem with their 501s.

Me personally, I never warmed up to the giant cyclops meters on the newer monos (I'm certainly in the minority on that). I'm kind of a sucker for large stereo amps that can be bridged or strapped (if only . . . MC602 . . . ) This give you a lot of flexibility in system set up - 4 channels, 2 channels bridged, 2 channels strapped, biamping, etc.

That being said, I think a lot of folks passed up MC501s (and possibly MC601s) due to the fact they heard the amps can't manage the heat - obviously dating back to the 1/3 power test in Stereophile on the MC501s. To date, I've never heard an MC501 owner say this was a problem.

Getting on topic . . . great review. When I picked up my MC2600 from Hi Fi Haven in Whittier, CA the owner let me hear the MC452 and I was immediately taken with the sound. I'm sure the MC601s are similar with more headroom so I'm sure they do sound just spectacular. [They also had 601s, 1201s, 1.2kws, 2301s, etc.] I was also really impressed with just how good the new components looked. Honestly, I think Mc has just hit the ball out of the park cosmetically with the newer stuff. When I got the MC2600 home and listened to it, I found many of the same qualities you discuss when comparing it to my venerable MC2300s. This makes me want an MC452 all the more . . . about 20 years separate the MC2300 from the MC2600 and the MC2600 from the MC452 . . . hmmmm . . .

McIntosh offers a lot that one can only appreciate with one (or two or several) in their possession - sound quality, old world craftsmanship, and a pride of ownership that in my opinion is unequaled by any other brand. If you're reading this thread and thinking - What would a Mc sound like in my set up? - you owe it to yourself to find out. You don't necessarily have to jump in with a pair of MC601s . . . but you should jump in.

I bought the 402 over a pair of 501s because I was thinking I could bridge and have 800w mono amps. Plus the fact the store was asking more than I wanted to pay for the 501s. I did love the looks of them and it would have made my system symmetrical. The bridging of the 402 never happened though and the 452 can't be bridged. That said my JBL L250s could handle more power I didn't like the 402 flashing warnings at me.

As luck would have it someone on another site was selling all his mac gear. The 501s and a C2300 where some of it and his price was very fair so I got them both. Another good thing was he lives a three hour drive away and he delivered the next day LOL.

Just slipping in the 501s was a great improvement as stated above and now I'm testing back and forth my C100 & C2300. I got to say at this point the C100 and 501s are a great match together. The 2300 sounds a bit muddy but I don't know a lot about this unit yet. I reset the factory settings and canceled out all tone controls to equal it to the C100. There is no tone controls on the C100 and its a supper quiet pre. We'll see as time goes by but I love my C100 and all it's hook ups.

damacman said:

Me personally, I never warmed up to the giant cyclops meters on the newer monos (I'm certainly in the minority on that). I'm kind of a sucker for large stereo amps that can be bridged or strapped (if only . . . MC602 . . . ) This give you a lot of flexibility in system set up - 4 channels, 2 channels bridged, 2 channels strapped, biamping, etc.

That being said, I think a lot of folks passed up MC501s (and possibly MC601s) due to the fact they heard the amps can't manage the heat - obviously dating back to the 1/3 power test in Stereophile on the MC501s. To date, I've never heard an MC501 owner say this was a problem.

Getting on topic . . . great review. When I picked up my MC2600 from Hi Fi Haven in Whittier, CA the owner let me hear the MC452 and I was immediately taken with the sound. I'm sure the MC601s are similar with more headroom so I'm sure they do sound just spectacular. [They also had 601s, 1201s, 1.2kws, 2301s, etc.] I was also really impressed with just how good the new components looked. Honestly, I think Mc has just hit the ball out of the park cosmetically with the newer stuff. When I got the MC2600 home and listened to it, I found many of the same qualities you discuss when comparing it to my venerable MC2300s. This makes me want an MC452 all the more . . . about 20 years separate the MC2300 from the MC2600 and the MC2600 from the MC452 . . . hmmmm . . .

McIntosh offers a lot that one can only appreciate with one (or two or several) in their possession - sound quality, old world craftsmanship, and a pride of ownership that in my opinion is unequaled by any other brand. If you're reading this thread and thinking - What would a Mc sound like in my set up? - you owe it to yourself to find out. You don't necessarily have to jump in with a pair of MC601s . . . but you should jump in.

Click to expand...

Much agreement with you here. Moving further down the line, I think the MC252 and 302 are also very well reviewed by their owners, and a great way to start out with Mac if you want the newer gear. If you like the classic Mac gear, then there are MANY great classic Macs out there. I will have to audition some of the older stuff at some point because I'm curious about it. It is interesting though that some of the newer ones are no longer bridgeable.

My enthusiasm for *other* Mac products tends to vary, and in some ways I think it would have been better for them to stick with their core competency of amps, pre-amps and possibly speakers, all along. I know that a lot of the Mac disc players have not always been tremendously reliable and are really just a lot of repackaged stuff from other manufacturers over the years. At one point they were starting to become more like a Bang and Olufsen "whole house audio" brand than a laser focused stereo brand. The pre-amps are pretty damn good, though, and the turntables look drop dead gorgeous and at least from afar, solidly built. Everything else I can really take or leave, and Mac is the one brand where I feel just fine mixing and matching with other brands more than most.

playdrv4me said:

But perhaps the most impressive aspect of the 601s is their absolutely airy top end. McIntosh from everything I've seen, has always been viewed as kind of a "blunt object", not necessarily able to treat top end frequencies with the delicacy of other brands. Not so with these. I live in an apartment, and so listening at ear blasting volume levels, where you'd *assume* the 601's benefits would shine, is not even a considerate thing for me to do. But I don't really have to, because the delicacy of the handling at the *lowest* volumes is what most impressed me. I was amazed at what I could hear with the volume barely above a comfortable "background music" level. A lot of this probably again has to do with the fact that the 802s are being much better handled and bass is not muddying the whole presentation. If I understand electrical principles correctly, at these listening volumes I'm probably not even using 10 watts, so I don't really have a reasonable explanation for why this difference exists, other than perhaps the way Mac is voicing their amps now. And that's fine with me, it *works*.

I have heard that the MC452 sounds virtually the same as the 601s, and if that's true, I would run rather than walk to find one if you don't care about the "cool factor" of the monos (I do, and I love those enormous meters) or need this level of power handling. I firmly believe this is the sweetest spot in the SS Mac lineup right now, and perhaps the MC2301s on the tube side, but I've never heard them so I can't comment.

On the other hand, I'm a little struck by some "cheap" elements. Namely the cover over the rear-most portion of the amp (the big metal cover between the two heat sinks). Something about that cover just sounds a little flimsy, like some of the cheap chinese made receivers you'd find at Best Buy on an average day, though pushing down on it I have to admit it doesn't give *too* easily. It's also strange to look in there and see a mass of empty space which makes the amp look "hollow". The main cover on the CA-5200 is a MASSIVE THICK piece of metal that I couldn't even faze if I STOOD on it. I suppose that back in the day Mac amps had no cover over this area at all, so take that as you will. Likewise, the omission of locking tabs on the XLR ports is utterly baffling. I really like the lock-tabs on the CA-5200 as the cables can't get pulled out if I'm back there doing other things. Finally, the power knob is not quite what I would have expected. It just doesn't have a secure, satisfying "CLICK" as it reaches each position, with the hefty amount of finger force I expected to feel to move from one selection to the next. An included "stereo mini-phone cable", to either connect or bypass the power save standby, which is a pain in my system that's also used for TV at low volumes late at night, would also have been nice at this cost. But... these are the kinds of build details *I* obsess about on ANYTHING I own.

There is rather a dearth of "real person" 601 reviews out there, so hopefully this will give someone a little guidance, though I am by no means an expert with tons of graphs and microphones and testing equipment. Easily an 8.8 out of a perfect 10 on these. I might even make a youtube video about them, but my listening area isn't very attractive.

Click to expand...

Your review of the sound of the MC601 is pretty much how I find my MC452, I suspect they are almost identical amps apart from being slightly more powerful mono-block amps......

Yeah, the MC452 and MC601 would be my favorites, I don't need the power of the 601 for my system, in fact I don't even need as much power as the 452, but the sound of these things are so lush and airy......just cant get enough of it....

Not sure what you mean by "cheap elements"... I disagree with you on that point.
They are in keeping with the visual aesthetics, powder coated and finished like the rest of the amp......Screwed in by hand obviously, they are riveted or clipped in...I mean really, why does it need to be heavier? I personally don't push down on mine or stand on the amp, so I feel they have addressed the solution as well as it needs to be addressed.....
The empty space?? Yeah the MC452 is like that too, and honestly I was pleased to see it like this because we are talking about a very powerful convection cooled amplifier, the worst thing they could do is clutter the cooling area with electronics.....
The driver boards are underneath the chassis away from getting covered in dust, and the output section and the main DC rail caps are all in a well ventilated area to be cooled by the unrestricted flow of convection current.....
I think it is a smart design solution personally...
The locking tabs absent on the XLR's is another thing I think is good. I am a professional audio engineer, XLR's are my life, and with our patch panels we make, we use no locking tabs, many many professional mixing consoles with their patch bays have no locking tabs.......
XLR's with locking tabs are a pain in the ass in my opinion, and when I saw the MC452 had no locking tabs, I thought, "good on ya McIntosh"....
They don't come out that easily at all, and personally if I am in the back of my rack, I am more careful than the force it takes to pull an input from my amp....
LOL....however my Crown Macro-tech has locking tabs on the input....
Again, I don't find the power switch as you do, but then I use the remote power on from my C48 to turn everything on......
But all in all, I liked your review.....It further cements the fact that will never sell my MC452, and if I did, it would be to buy a pair of MC601's....
I love the sound of these amps.....
However, not on my subs.....They don't have "something" required to control my subs like the Crown Macro-tech does.....

playdrv4me said:

The entire Private Investigations Dire Straits album is *FANTASTIC* test material. I was just playing "So Far Away" a few minutes ago! Their stuff was SO WELL recorded.

Yeah the XLR locks... I was like "what?".

Click to expand...

Damn right on the Dire Straits.......Brothers in Arms is a sensational sounding album, as is Love over Gold.....
very nicely recorded indeed.....

You don't need the locks on the XLR's, in fact when you order them you can order them with or without the locks, almost everything we use in the pro sound industry has no locks on the XLR's.....
Its much better to have the XLR to pull out of the socket if something accidentally gets pulled, than damaging the cable or socket, or even worse, pulling something off a shelf or rack.....
I am a no lock advocate....:yes:

damacman said:

Me personally, I never warmed up to the giant cyclops meters on the newer monos (I'm certainly in the minority on that). I'm kind of a sucker for large stereo amps that can be bridged or strapped (if only . . . MC602 . . . ) This give you a lot of flexibility in system set up - 4 channels, 2 channels bridged, 2 channels strapped, biamping, etc.

McIntosh offers a lot that one can only appreciate with one (or two or several) in their possession - sound quality, old world craftsmanship, and a pride of ownership that in my opinion is unequaled by any other brand. If you're reading this thread and thinking - What would a Mc sound like in my set up? - you owe it to yourself to find out. You don't necessarily have to jump in with a pair of MC601s . . . but you should jump in.

Click to expand...

Go on!! Get yourself a MC452 you know you want one!!
You'll get one for about 5K used......They are a sensational amp!! You dont need to strap 'em, they have bucketloads of power....:thmbsp:

I think the size of the meters on the MC452 is as big as I would like....I've not seen a MC601....but judging by the size of the meters on the 452, I reckon they are probably a bit big for my liking....

playdrv4me said:

Much agreement with you here. Moving further down the line, I think the MC252 and 302 are also very well reviewed by their owners, and a great way to start out with Mac if you want the newer gear. If you like the classic Mac gear, then there are MANY great classic Macs out there. I will have to audition some of the older stuff at some point because I'm curious about it. It is interesting though that some of the newer ones are no longer bridgeable.

My enthusiasm for *other* Mac products tends to vary, and in some ways I think it would have been better for them to stick with their core competency of amps, pre-amps and possibly speakers, all along. I know that a lot of the Mac disc players have not always been tremendously reliable and are really just a lot of repackaged stuff from other manufacturers over the years. At one point they were starting to become more like a Bang and Olufsen "whole house audio" brand than a laser focused stereo brand. The pre-amps are pretty damn good, though, and the turntables look drop dead gorgeous and at least from afar, solidly built. Everything else I can really take or leave, and Mac is the one brand where I feel just fine mixing and matching with other brands more than most.

Click to expand...

Yeah McInotsh amps and pre-amps, I don't think I would buy a Mc disc player.....
I think they too reliant on generic parts, transports and digital solutions that they are not really as "McIntosh" as their amps and pre-amps.....

Good review!

It's great to see reviews of new Mac gear in this forum, they're very welcome.

FWIW, I've never had heat issues with my 501s, and I don't find their sound too dark, but if I wasn't busy building a house, I'd step up to the better sound and tech of the 601s.

damacman said:

That being said, I think a lot of folks passed up MC501s (and possibly MC601s) due to the fact they heard the amps can't manage the heat - obviously dating back to the 1/3 power test in Stereophile on the MC501s. To date, I've never heard an MC501 owner say this was a problem.

Click to expand...

I have read a few reviews from MC501 owners who reported them going thermal....
Would depend obviously how hard you are driving it and what sort of dynamic load your speakers are presenting.....
But in reality I think for everyday average use I doubt many people would drive them that hard......

I have never heard or seen anything about MC601's overheating.......

Agree with Kev, I had not heard of any heat dissipation problems with the 601s (yet). If my understanding is correct, part of the benefit of the Thermaltrak technology is in the overall efficiency it provides. Even if I don't have that quite right, there's a ton more breathing space in the "junk in the trunk" of the 601 versus the 501 design (though that compact design was almost as novel and pretty as the big meters on the 601). It's never felt any warmer that say, the back of my Samsung plasma tv. Maybe not even that warm.

As for my other points, Kev. As I mentioned, these are nitpicks that are just little things I notice. Being as you are involved with professional equipment, I will take note of your XLR locks assessment and agree that perhaps they are not the best idea after all. Now on the other things, a good example of what I'm talking about involved a discussion over on the B&O forum, which I also participate in, about B&O moving some of its production from Struer, Denmark to China. This would result in the loss of jobs of many long time employees at B&O HQ as well as the eventual questionable (to me) quality of the products over time.

Now, admittedly, a lot of people don't give a rat's behind where something is made. I do, however. But the biggest crux of my argument with these people was a simple one. They would argue that this move "might be necessary to keep B&O afloat" or some such thing, and I had to remind them that this was a brand RECOGNIZED for charging outrageous sums of money for things other "regular people" brands charge hundreds to thousands less for, and that what they were foolishly defending *wasn't* B&O's ability to remain operational, but rather, their ability to keep even MORE profit than they were already making. If they charged *me* less for the product as a result, then maybe that would be a different story. But that's obviously not happening.

Basically, when I pay a luxury premium price for a luxury premium product, I don't like to settle for "this part is "good enough" for this application" and we saved some money in the process, because when we are talking about 14,000.00 amplifiers that receive yearly MSRP increases already as it is, I obviously wasn't terribly concerned about cost in the first place. So even though that panel could be made of plastic and still perform the same function, the big milled steel panel on the Classe, for example, exudes the quality I see *and hear* in the rest of the product. And really, even Classe is kind of a bad example, because now THEY have jumped on the China bandwagon... Grrr.

I'm not going to give McIntosh as much flack for this, because I do believe (maybe foolishly?) that much more of the purchase price goes to the actual engineering, design and build of my product than does the name, such as is the case with a lot of B&O products. It was merely an observation that stood out to me in regards to the hollow sound of those panels back there (I remembered that the input jack panel which is directly behind that hollow area also had a bit of this feel and sound). Mind you I'm not disagreeing with the hollowness of the amp, as it serves a purpose. Just that the paneling surrounding it could be a little thicker.

Looking at pics of the 452, since it is a stereo amp and BOTH channels are on ONE chassis, it does seem to have less of that characteristic than the 601.

I still rated it nearly 9 out of 10 for its *sound*, and that is what ultimately matters the most.

Some good points raised in response to my post.....

Essentially at the end of the day, its a pretty nice looking unit (mine is in a rack so I don't really see the top of it much, just the transformers.....
I feel although they could have used something a little more "hand made and substantial" for those covers, that they are above an "it will do" approach.....
But I suppose there's always something....and yeah its all about the sound of these beauties and sound amazing, they do.....

But at the end of the day, everything you pointed out is valid, and once you explained what your angle was I got a better understanding of where you were coming from....

Your review is very thorough and a great reference for someone wanting a very detailed and candid perspective.........

^Great points, Kev.

I wanted to add one other thing to this review, that I believe I would be remiss in not doing so.

It is highly likely that these amps won't break within the 3 year original warranty period, but even if not, I found it a little disconcerting reading McIntosh's warranty document that secondary sales mean all warranty support is cut off for that pre-owned buyer (assuming I read that correctly).

What is surprising about that to me, is that you would almost think that a company like Mac, known for producing some of the ironically longest lasting pieces of equipment in the home audio industry, would be the most liberal about the terms of its warranty because they ought to be confident enough about the product that the warranty is almost an afterthought. Not to bring Classe into this again, but I have to hold them up as an exemplar here again because they offer two MORE years of warranty than Mac does on any product without moving parts (the same 3 years total for those that do). *and* they don't limit access to that warranty to the first buyer only.

It's a minor quibble (at least to me, this is something that might be a bigger quibble to others), but kinda reeks of the days when electronics and auto manufacturers would do anything and everything in their power to skirt the responsibilities of their warranties and just generally made themselves seem shady in the process.

It doesn't need to be any longer, but allowing secondary owners to use it without feeling like they are pariahs would be nice. After all, a company like McIntosh ought to foster all of its enthusiast, and has been around long enough that it shouldn't need to fiercely protect its distributors, either. Not anymore, at least. More used Mac sales mean more people passing along gear to others and buying new gear. This might be the norm for these high end audio manufacturers, but Mac should place themselves *above* the norm, because they are.

Just an observation. Does anyone know if they actually enforce this or is it one of those things where they put it on paper but some of you have actually gotten them to complete the service on a secondarily owned item? It's not like it's that hard to get around this with some cooperation from the original owner, either. Still definitely a con imo, if a small one.

Well, you don't even get a warranty outside the US, so I have plenty to be nervous about.....
However, I am confident my MC452 will be running like a dream in 20 years time......

I just wanted to share my experiences with 501s, given the posts regarding heat. I am driving 3.6/R Maggies with 501s that are now about 10 years old. I bought them used eight years ago. During this time I have NEVER had an issue with heat. Maggies are notoriously difficult loads and they sing with the 501s.

I listen to a variety of music, including rock, jazz, classical and live in a house where I can crank the sound as loud as my old ears will take. If DSOM cranked up will not make them over heat after hours of playing a variety of Allman Bros Band and Cream, I think that heat is not an issue. I do have substantial airflow around them, but no dedicated fans (don't want the noise). Just one guys experience with the magical 501s.

:yes:The Mc 601 looks more like A smaller 1.2K. They match well in A system Meter size wize. the engineers did A great job on the style. The 452 is Awesome as is the 2301's. It's All Good.E'I type Transformers and Autoformers in the 601 and 452' Big Azz round torrod power Xfmr's in the 2k 1.2k 207' 205' 8207's .Three different sizes of Autoformers wound in house. Potted in special compound ( TAR) That's part of my job. Im A solid state guy and I feel Speakers are the heart of any system . Just my own opinion though...

I wanted to come back and update one more piece... Now that the 802Ds have rotated out of my system and I went back to listening to the BeoLab 5s until the 802's are replaced with something else, I was playing with the knobs on the front of the 601s once everything was disconnected.

On further inspection, I really think they are just fine, actually. So I'm upping my score slightly to a solid 9/10.

playdrv4me said:

I wanted to come back and update one more piece... Now that the 802Ds have rotated out of my system and I went back to listening to the BeoLab 5s until the 802's are replaced with something else, I was playing with the knobs on the front of the 601s once everything was disconnected.

On further inspection, I really think they are just fine, actually. So I'm upping my score slightly to a solid 9/10.

Click to expand...

Nice work.......:thmbsp: