Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
September 17, 2009 - 8:43am
#1
This the best tube amp performance McIntosh MC75
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
"What stood out to me was some of the best tube amp performance I have ever seen, which potentially removes the concept that listeners love tubes for the distortion."
I knew there was something I liked about tube amps.
Yep, in general tube amplifiers raise distortion gradually so at lower power output the distortion figures are even lower. So goes the myth that all tube amplifiers are distortion producers.
this amp has nice distortion specs..so what. it does not negate the reality that we *do* love tubes for the "distortion", even order harmonics, "color", whatever you want to call it. This is the very same reason some of us are drawn to analogue tape(I have a 2inch MCI 8 track and a Nagra 1/2" 2 track that I use in the studio), vinyl, tube microphones, ribbon microphones, transformers, etc etc.
I love them all..but I know when and where to use them. I would not want a tube amp, for example, powering my mixdown or mastering speakers..I want to hear all the details, no euphonic sheen.
at any rate, yes, this amp seems to be well speccd...that being said, those of us who do love tube amps DO love them for the ways that they enhance/alter the source material... also... there is a lot of buying McIntosh products simply because of the brand name, heritage, etc...
a solid state amp can mimic tube saturation/distortion. I have never heard a tube amp that could do "transparent" as well as solid state.
anyway, I have , use and love both SS and Tubes. (especially SET topologies)
So no one produces a low distortion tube amplifier except McIntosh? Don't think so. Yes, many do by design but many don't.
Thanks.
The Anniversary Editions are limited run items and priced accordingly. However, the C22 and MC275 have both been reproduced in the Mac catalog in recent years. The 275 remains in the line with every unit likely to be spoken for before it is built. The (matching) C22 can be found in the pre owned market as either an original or reproduction version.
In case you don't know much about this ampifier it is for practical purposes a reproduction of the original MC275 circuit from 1961. The circuitry of the C22 is very much like the original with improvements being made to the mechanical components. Electrically the two have been upgraded to include balanced in/out with single ended in/out remaining as the base line. For the reproduction items the triggered switching for other Mac components has been removed from the original '61 design.
The original Unity Coupled transformers are still made just as they were for the original amplifier and, according to Mac, they are responsible for much of the measured performance of the McIntosh tube amplifier line. The stated frequency response of this series of Mac tubes was measured 10-100kCycles before it left the factory. This response alone sets these products apart from many modern tube amps and pre amps. These products were and still are wide bandwidth designs with quite respectable square wave performance. Unless it has just recently been removed from the list, the 275 remains a Class A Recommended product.
Originals go for as much or more than new though the two smaller amps from the same series, the MC225 with EL34's and the MC240 with 6L6GC's, can be had for what most would consider bargain basement prices to have the same Mac sound as the 275 with the identical appearance.
I would say this makes the measurements of the combination even more remarkable when you consider this performance was avaliable to audiophiles in the 1960's when you didn't have to search for and pay an arm and a leg for excellent tubes. Of course, that is why the original MC275 became an icon of desire and turned on so many love affairs with hifi.
And I would say I've never witnessed sand being as transparent or as lovely as the very best glass.
http://www.roger-russell.com/amplif1.htm#mc275
http://www.roger-russell.com/preamps.htm#c22
In the current Mac line up the MA2275 integrated offers simplified circuits of both products.
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/addpost.php
"So no one produces a low distortion tube amplifier except McIntosh? Don't think so. Yes, many do by design but many don't."
Now that you mention it, I'd even take a high distortion tube amplifier. Geez, it's not like distortion is the overriding characteristic or anything. What's 0.5% or so among friends?
And that is near maximum power. Lower powers can easily be less than 0.1% or even .05%, mostly low order harmonics. I don't know if I can take that high distortion Geof.
who the hell said that? I sure as all hell didnt. Don't put words in my mouth, fella.
thanks.
I think I just learned something new, don't trust the "quote" button. If A uses the quote button to copy the entire previous post B, and if portions of previous post B changes or vanishes, then it appears A's quote of B correspondingly changes. So one can quote a comment/post, respond to that quoted comment, and if the original quote changes, the response can appear out of context.
I was responding to a sentence with the comment one tube amplifier doesn't mean anything, a sentence that was removed/altered in NC's original post. I responded below.
Since you removed/altered the sentence in your post, it appears to have correspondingly changed in my quote of your post. So now my comment appears inappropriate. I will have to be more careful and take that into account when I quote from now on. That may explain why some here have been accused as putting words into another's mouth.
Take care.
Agree its understandable why they chose this amp as their anniversary.
Hah I noticed I said 75th instead of 60th doh, ah well leaving like that as quite amusing hehe.
I guess Stereophile staff were biting themselves not to point it out
The review over here in UK was done by Paul Miller, who interestingly owns the MC275 for comparison.
Seems there is a difference and hope its ok to quote his verdict:
Also a quick snapshot on his views in comparison to his MC275
Wonder how much of this is down to the incorporation of balance throughputs/KT88s, amongst other subtle changes.
Hope Stereophile gets the opportunity to review the combination, as its performance will highlight the capability of tube amp and their designs.
Have a good weekend all
Cheers
Orb
yes, I originally mentioned one but thought better of it. my mastersound due venti is remarkably clean and has very nice distortion specs too, so yeah, I changed my quote.
"That explains why some here have been attacked as putting words into people's mouths."
"yes, I originally mentioned one but thought better of it. my mastersound due venti is remarkably clean and has very nice distortion specs too, so yeah, I changed my quote."
Thanks NC. I was somewhat amazed that when you edited your post, it also changed the quote in mine.
Take care and have a great weekend NC.
you too, Steve. no worries!
Interesting. It does or does not change if the quote changes?
The line above should read "Interesting. It changes if the quote changes?"
If it does not, then in fact quotes backtrack in the database.
And, conclusively, the original text remains in the quote in the followup article, the quote does not track the new text for the quoted article, which would seem reasonable under the database structure.
However, there is nothing to keep the quoter from changing the quoted text in any fashion whatsoever, as we can see in this article.
The only way to establish the original claim would be via the database. One hopes it does, responsibly, keep such copies.
Edited for typokinesis
Okay, okay, back on topic...at least sorta...
Speaking of "vintage" amps, I recently heard a pair of the new re-issue Quad II Classic 11-watt mono blocks, and was mightily impressed. So much so I had a hard time getting them out of my mind.
Unfortunately, not enough juice to drive a set of big Dynaudios, otherwise I might have actually considered migrating from my beloved Conrad-Johnson amp.
Don't tell anyone, but the MC60 is the best of the bunch.
Well, NC freely stated he changed his post, and he confirmed what I read in his original post, so my original reply made sense and stands.
NCdrawal:
It is possible that he also edited and clicked the "change post" button slightly before I clicked the "quote button". Let's not get too trigger happy before we exhaust the possibilities.