Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Hello everyone,
I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300 wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo). One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.01%. This is compared to new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD. Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300? Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs? Thanks very much for your input, Adam |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Distortion figures for amps are generally meaningless. It's well known that
some amps can have vanishingly low distortion and sound awful (early Phase Linear amps as an example) and some can have what appears to be high distortion levels and sound excellent (many tube amps). Also, because an amp is higher in rated output does not guarantee better sound. The best method for evaluating an amp is to use your ears. wrote in message ... Hello everyone, I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300 wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo). One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.01%. This is compared to new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD. Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300? Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs? Thanks very much for your input, Adam |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Thank you all for your comments, which I have found extremely useful.
Best wishes, Adam |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
I am curious why you have not mentioned the MC300 in your options. I own one
and it seems to do a fine job through a pair of A/D/S 810 speakers. I was just curious why the MC300 was not mentioned. The specs a ELECTRICAL: 300w/ch. (600w mono). Response 20-20kHz (+0 -0.25dB). Distortion 0.005%. Noise and hum -105dBA. Output impedance 2, 4 and 8 ohms. (1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 ohms in mono). Damping factor 40 or greater. Input impedance 20k unbalanced, 40k balanced. Input sensitivity 1.4v. Sentry Monitor. Power Guard. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Don't worry about the specs - They are essentially meaningless. Do you
conduct a chemical analysis of the wine you drink and then decide which vintages you are going to drink based solely on their chemical analysis? When the MC2300 was built, Mac guaranteed their specs for a 3 year period. They did not do this when the MC2002 was built: The MC2002 specs were not guaranteed. However, McIntosh has always had a track record of being very conservative in rating their equipment, but IMHO they are just not as "conservative" today with their ratings as they were in the past when they had to guarantee the specs for a 3 year period. You've not mentioned the size of your room nor the speakers you plan on using: 300wpc or 200wpc is a lot of power. Most speakers really don't need that much power nor can they take this amount of power continuously. Anyway, to try and answer your question: McIntosh made a real effort to "voice" their early SS amps so they would sound more like the tube amps they were slowly moving away from. The MC2300 is considered by many Mac collectors to be the most desirable of the 2300/2500/2600 series they produced as it was considered the "best sounding" of this series. My only criticism is that at very low listening levels, in a quiet room, you will hear the two cooling fans. And an MC2300 is old enough it should be gone through by one of the good McIntosh techs in the country to ensure all its capacitors are OK. And all of the Mac amps considered "best" have always used autoformers. To read more about these, click on http://tinyurl.com/z9bpy Autoformers have always been controversial among "audiophiles" but many well-regarded tube amps use 'em. Among the McIntosh cognoscenti the very first SS McIntosh amps were considered to be the most "tube like" in sound and the MC2300 is from that early generation of SS McIntosh amps, though many would argue the MC250, MC2100 or MC2105 are slightly better sounding. McIntosh made slight, and I mean very slight voicing changes to their amps as they designed newer amps so you will find many McIntosh owners who are enamoured of a certain model amp (or series of amps) because of their "voicing." And I am one of those: I am particularly fond of the sound of the McIntosh amps in the 2120/2125/2200/2205 series, and others have their own personal favourites as well. IMHO, McInosh dropped off the radar screen of virtually all the "high end" audio publications for a few years because they simply did not care what these magazines wrote and McIntosh could sell most everything they were manufacturing so they didn't want to be bothered with shipping out review electronics. As you now know, they have re-established ties with all of the well-regarded publications and their products and now being reviewed and are garnering superb reviews. As for your question of an MC2300 versus an MC2002, well, IMHO, the MC2300 will have a bit of a more "tube-like" sound and you might be able to hear the cooling fans. I do not think you would be unhappy with either. YMMV, of course, and I'm certain others will weigh in here with their own opinions. Many audiophiles seem to react as strongly to McIntosh products almost as strongly as they react to Bose speakers ;-) Adam wrote: Hello everyone, I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300 wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo). One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.01%. This is compared to new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD. Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300? Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs? Thanks very much for your input, |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Vinyl Rules! wrote:
Don't worry about the specs - They are essentially meaningless. Do you conduct a chemical analysis of the wine you drink and then decide which vintages you are going to drink based solely on their chemical analysis? That's a terrible analogy, since producing wine is very much about chemistry. In fact there are some extremely well-paid chemists out there who go around using chemistry specifically to help vinyards produce award-winning wines. One of htem was profiled on the cover of the NY Times magazine some months back. His track record is pretty good so far. Just because *consumers* don't do chemical analysis of wines, doesn't mean the *makers* don't consider it vital. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
What the hell is a voicing change with respect to an amplifier. It
sounds strongly like fiddling with the electronics to "colour" the output. But I am no sound engineer, so an explanation would help me to understand the reference to this term. ESTG/ Vinyl Rules! wrote: Don't worry about the specs - They are essentially meaningless. Do you conduct a chemical analysis of the wine you drink and then decide which vintages you are going to drink based solely on their chemical analysis? When the MC2300 was built, Mac guaranteed their specs for a 3 year period. They did not do this when the MC2002 was built: The MC2002 specs were not guaranteed. However, McIntosh has always had a track record of being very conservative in rating their equipment, but IMHO they are just not as "conservative" today with their ratings as they were in the past when they had to guarantee the specs for a 3 year period. You've not mentioned the size of your room nor the speakers you plan on using: 300wpc or 200wpc is a lot of power. Most speakers really don't need that much power nor can they take this amount of power continuously. Anyway, to try and answer your question: McIntosh made a real effort to "voice" their early SS amps so they would sound more like the tube amps they were slowly moving away from. The MC2300 is considered by many Mac collectors to be the most desirable of the 2300/2500/2600 series they produced as it was considered the "best sounding" of this series. My only criticism is that at very low listening levels, in a quiet room, you will hear the two cooling fans. And an MC2300 is old enough it should be gone through by one of the good McIntosh techs in the country to ensure all its capacitors are OK. And all of the Mac amps considered "best" have always used autoformers. To read more about these, click on http://tinyurl.com/z9bpy Autoformers have always been controversial among "audiophiles" but many well-regarded tube amps use 'em. Among the McIntosh cognoscenti the very first SS McIntosh amps were considered to be the most "tube like" in sound and the MC2300 is from that early generation of SS McIntosh amps, though many would argue the MC250, MC2100 or MC2105 are slightly better sounding. McIntosh made slight, and I mean very slight voicing changes to their amps as they designed newer amps so you will find many McIntosh owners who are enamoured of a certain model amp (or series of amps) because of their "voicing." And I am one of those: I am particularly fond of the sound of the McIntosh amps in the 2120/2125/2200/2205 series, and others have their own personal favourites as well. IMHO, McInosh dropped off the radar screen of virtually all the "high end" audio publications for a few years because they simply did not care what these magazines wrote and McIntosh could sell most everything they were manufacturing so they didn't want to be bothered with shipping out review electronics. As you now know, they have re-established ties with all of the well-regarded publications and their products and now being reviewed and are garnering superb reviews. As for your question of an MC2300 versus an MC2002, well, IMHO, the MC2300 will have a bit of a more "tube-like" sound and you might be able to hear the cooling fans. I do not think you would be unhappy with either. YMMV, of course, and I'm certain others will weigh in here with their own opinions. Many audiophiles seem to react as strongly to McIntosh products almost as strongly as they react to Bose speakers ;-) Adam wrote: Hello everyone, I am currently trying to decide on which McIntosh amp to buy. I've pretty much already limited myself to used equipment, because I can't really afford new Mac stuff. Do any of you have some comments regarding the sound of these two amps: specifically, the MC-2300 (300 wpc), and the MC-2002 (200 wpc stereo). One concern of mine is that the measured total harmonic distortion of the 2300 is 0.25%, while the 2002's is only 0.01%. This is compared to new Mac amps, which measure in at 0.005% THD. Can anyone really hear distortion from a mega-amp like the 2300? Should I just be using my ears, and not be worrying about the specs? Thanks very much for your input, |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
I don't believe there is a "formal" definition for the term "voicing,"
so I'll describe it as others have described it: "Voicing," IMHO, is the recognition that no ampification device or speaker is exactly, 100% perfect. It is an indisputable fact, for example, that many speaker manufacturers "voice" their speakers to have a certain sound. A Tannoy Westminster, for example, will sound quite different from a Klipschorn when both are suitably placed in an appropriate sized room and not all differences in sound can be explained by measurements, etc. They simply sound "different" and some prefer the Tannoy whilst others prefer the Klipschorn. And please don't tell me that they will measure differently, etc.: There is small unit-to-unit variability even among identical drivers from the same production runs, and some manufacturers even state in their advertising that they "match" all the drivers in the pairs of speakers they sell. There is not 100% perfection in anything audio related. Dittos for amps: Most today have vanishingly low distortion levels, but no one has yet built a perfect amp. As you are well aware of, within this hobby there is a contingent of listeners who are vehement in their beliefs that if two different amps measure the same then they HAVE to "sound" the same. There is another equally vocal contingent that vehemently disagrees with this viewpoint. Much of the discussion and bandwidth of this group is devoted to airing the differences between these two groups of audiophiles. So where do I fall and what does this have to do with amplifier "voicing?" Well, it is my personal belief [which you can either agree or dis-agree with - I really don't care] that amplifier designers have not yet discovered ALL of the factors that influence how any given amplifier will interact with any given speaker. If you happen to have a deep understanding of statistics this confluence of factors is like an exercise in Linear Programming and I simply believe we just don't know and have not yet identified all of these variables. If we did know this, it is likely the Chinese would be building $100 amps that sounded no different than Halcro and Boulder and Audio Research amps. YMMV, of course. As for "voicing," Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow spent a significant amount of time working with prototypes of their MC250 SS amp to get it to "sound" like their MC275 tube amp. I was not present when they were doing this, but I know people who were, and they kept making parts substitutions and circuit design changes until they felt they had achieved a point where there was no audible difference on the speakers they were using between these two amps as long as both were not being clipped. And "voicing" is not just an American concept: Several months ago, the UK publication "Hi Fi News" ran an extensive interview with the chief designer of Onkyo, a job this gentleman has had for over 20 years. He actually stated in this interview that Onkyo used an early design McIntosh SS amp as a model for "voicing" all the amps and amplifier sections manufactured by Onkyo, and Onkyo's main listening room always had one or more McIntosh amps in it in addition to the amps designed and manufactured by Onkyo. I found this to be an amazing admission by a Japanese company. But then, the article also went on to say to no one was ever offered any type of Management position at Onkyo unless they could demonstrate proficiency in playing at least one classical music instrument. I wonder how different American audio would be today if this became a requirement for employment in audio companies here? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
So Steven, are you saying that if the chemist is talented enough a
winery can dispense with their master blender and their tasters? Just adhere to the chemist's formula and everything becomes a 1939 LaFitte Rothchild? You took my statement out of context: The MC2300 specs were guaranteed for a 3 year period whilst the new McIntosh amp had better specs which were not guaranteed for a 3 year period. I believe measurements of fresh production samples of both amps would yield very little differences in measured specs and I believe these differences would have no impact on what these amps would sound like when played through identical speakers in the same room. My point was to chide those who choose to make specfications the sole criteria for the basis of any audio purchase. Specs are not everything: Infinity made one of the world's first Class D switching amps, for example, and it was a great amp with fantastic specs, for a few hours, until it imploded ;-) And I don't disagree that chemistry is important when it comes to producing wine. In fact, many universities are now add degree courses in the making of wines. But chemists don't make the final decsions as to what is sold by any winery: The blenders and tasters do, and their work is subective. Can you name a single winery where a chemist makes the final decision as to what is bottled and sold and not a master blender and wine taster? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Vinyl Rules! wrote:
So Steven, are you saying that if the chemist is talented enough a winery can dispense with their master blender and their tasters? Just adhere to the chemist's formula and everything becomes a 1939 LaFitte Rothchild? That's the way things are trending. Really, wine is not a magic substance; it's a liquid we can take it apart at the molecular level. The trick then is to figure out how to reliably duplicate the composition of 'great' wines. It is true though, that wine 'tasting; is as fraught with pretentious nonsense as audio gear reviewing. That will probably stick with us for some time. My point was to chide those who choose to make specfications the sole criteria for the basis of any audio purchase. Specs are not everything: Infinity made one of the world's first Class D switching amps, for example, and it was a great amp with fantastic specs, for a few hours, until it imploded ;-) *Specs* are not the same as *measurments* -- you do realize that, right? -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
On 24 Feb 2006 00:32:20 GMT, "Vinyl Rules!"
wrote: I don't believe there is a "formal" definition for the term "voicing," so I'll describe it as others have described it: "Voicing," IMHO, is the recognition that no ampification device or speaker is exactly, 100% perfect. It is an indisputable fact, for example, that many speaker manufacturers "voice" their speakers to have a certain sound. A Tannoy Westminster, for example, will sound quite different from a Klipschorn when both are suitably placed in an appropriate sized room and not all differences in sound can be explained by measurements, etc. They simply sound "different" and some prefer the Tannoy whilst others prefer the Klipschorn. And please don't tell me that they will measure differently, etc.: There is small unit-to-unit variability even among identical drivers from the same production runs, and some manufacturers even state in their advertising that they "match" all the drivers in the pairs of speakers they sell. There is not 100% perfection in anything audio related. Sorry, but there are not 'small' measured differences among speakers, there are *massive* measured differences - that's why nobody ever suggests doing DBTs, as you'd get 100% results almost every time. Dittos for amps: Most today have vanishingly low distortion levels, but no one has yet built a perfect amp. Agreed, but there are many which are *sonically* identical, which is what matters. You don't need a Halcro to get sonic transparency. As you are well aware of, within this hobby there is a contingent of listeners who are vehement in their beliefs that if two different amps measure the same then they HAVE to "sound" the same. There is another equally vocal contingent that vehemently disagrees with this viewpoint. Much of the discussion and bandwidth of this group is devoted to airing the differences between these two groups of audiophiles. It comes down to whether the protagonists have conducted level-matched blind comparisons. Those who claim sonic differences among well-conceived amplifiers, never have. Of course, when they are put to such a test and fail, they then blame the test................... So where do I fall and what does this have to do with amplifier "voicing?" Well, it is my personal belief [which you can either agree or dis-agree with - I really don't care] that amplifier designers have not yet discovered ALL of the factors that influence how any given amplifier will interact with any given speaker. If you happen to have a deep understanding of statistics this confluence of factors is like an exercise in Linear Programming and I simply believe we just don't know and have not yet identified all of these variables. If we did know this, it is likely the Chinese would be building $100 amps that sounded no different than Halcro and Boulder and Audio Research amps. YMMV, of course. Well, given that they are indeed building such amplifiers, presuming a kindly speaker load.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
On 24 Feb 2006 00:33:03 GMT, "Vinyl Rules!"
wrote: So Steven, are you saying that if the chemist is talented enough a winery can dispense with their master blender and their tasters? Just adhere to the chemist's formula and everything becomes a 1939 LaFitte Rothchild? That's pretty much what the 'New World' winemakers are now doing, and it's sufficiently successful that the French are panicking, and hiring these guys to sort out their own pretentious but poorly-controlled processes. You don't see anyone in the New World hiring French winemakers...................... You took my statement out of context: The MC2300 specs were guaranteed for a 3 year period whilst the new McIntosh amp had better specs which were not guaranteed for a 3 year period. I believe measurements of fresh production samples of both amps would yield very little differences in measured specs and I believe these differences would have no impact on what these amps would sound like when played through identical speakers in the same room. Tube amps vary continuously, but you can expect a good SS amp to retain its new specification for at least twenty years. Mine certainly has. My point was to chide those who choose to make specfications the sole criteria for the basis of any audio purchase. Specs are not everything: Infinity made one of the world's first Class D switching amps, for example, and it was a great amp with fantastic specs, for a few hours, until it imploded ;-) There is no technology which cannot be badly implemented - see Mark Levinson, Audio Note, Naim etc for fine examples. Specs wil tell you what;s wrong with them, just as specs would have told you that the Infinity amp was underrated and would expire. And I don't disagree that chemistry is important when it comes to producing wine. In fact, many universities are now add degree courses in the making of wines. But chemists don't make the final decsions as to what is sold by any winery: The blenders and tasters do, and their work is subective. Can you name a single winery where a chemist makes the final decision as to what is bottled and sold and not a master blender and wine taster? They are often the same person these days. Terroir, schmerroir.... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
Vinyl Rules! wrote:
I don't believe there is a "formal" definition for the term "voicing," so I'll describe it as others have described it: "Voicing," IMHO, is the recognition that no ampification device or speaker is exactly, 100% perfect. It is an indisputable fact, for example, that many speaker manufacturers "voice" their speakers to have a certain sound. A Tannoy Westminster, for example, will sound quite different from a Klipschorn when both are suitably placed in an appropriate sized room and not all differences in sound can be explained by measurements, etc. They simply sound "different" and some prefer the Tannoy whilst others prefer the Klipschorn. And please don't tell me that they will measure differently, etc.: There is small unit-to-unit variability even among identical drivers from the same production runs, and some manufacturers even state in their advertising that they "match" all the drivers in the pairs of speakers they sell. There is not 100% perfection in anything audio related. Loudspeakers do indeed 'measure' differently, and the differences can routinely be above audible thresholds, so I don't know why you wouldn't want anyone to tell you that. It's not like no one has investigated it; Floyd Toole at Harman has been doing so for a couple of decades. Dittos for amps: Most today have vanishingly low distortion levels, but no one has yet built a perfect amp. It doesn't have to be perfect. Distortion merely has to be below audibility thresholds. So where do I fall and what does this have to do with amplifier "voicing?" Well, it is my personal belief [which you can either agree or dis-agree with - I really don't care] that amplifier designers have not yet discovered ALL of the factors that influence how any given amplifier will interact with any given speaker. If you happen to have a deep understanding of statistics this confluence of factors is like an exercise in Linear Programming and I simply believe we just don't know and have not yet identified all of these variables. If we did know this, it is likely the Chinese would be building $100 amps that sounded no different than Halcro and Boulder and Audio Research amps. YMMV, of course. And how do you know they aren't? And please don't tell me 'I can hear the differene', unless you have either the blind listening test or the measurement data to back that up. Even if we can't measure what you claim to hear, you should still be able to pass a blind listening test. As for "voicing," Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow spent a significant amount of time working with prototypes of their MC250 SS amp to get it to "sound" like their MC275 tube amp. Well, getting a good SS amp to sound like a tube amp *would* require adding some sort of distortion to the SS amp, wouldn't it? And "voicing" is not just an American concept: Several months ago, the UK publication "Hi Fi News" ran an extensive interview with the chief designer of Onkyo, a job this gentleman has had for over 20 years. He actually stated in this interview that Onkyo used an early design McIntosh SS amp as a model for "voicing" all the amps and amplifier sections manufactured by Onkyo, and Onkyo's main listening room always had one or more McIntosh amps in it in addition to the amps designed and manufactured by Onkyo. I found this to be an amazing admission by a Japanese company. But then, the article also went on to say to no one was ever offered any type of Management position at Onkyo unless they could demonstrate proficiency in playing at least one classical music instrument. I wonder how different American audio would be today if this became a requirement for employment in audio companies here? I don't know -- but has Onkyo ever published any research demonstrating that its 'voicing' results in audible difference? -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Question for McIntosh Buffs
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Vinyl Rules! wrote: I don't believe there is a "formal" definition for the term "voicing," so I'll describe it as others have described it: "Voicing," IMHO, is the recognition that no ampification device or speaker is exactly, 100% perfect. It is an indisputable fact, for example, that many speaker manufacturers "voice" their speakers to have a certain sound. A Tannoy Westminster, for example, will sound quite different from a Klipschorn when both are suitably placed in an appropriate sized room and not all differences in sound can be explained by measurements, etc. They simply sound "different" and some prefer the Tannoy whilst others prefer the Klipschorn. And please don't tell me that they will measure differently, etc.: There is small unit-to-unit variability even among identical drivers from the same production runs, and some manufacturers even state in their advertising that they "match" all the drivers in the pairs of speakers they sell. There is not 100% perfection in anything audio related. Loudspeakers do indeed 'measure' differently, and the differences can routinely be above audible thresholds, so I don't know why you wouldn't want anyone to tell you that. It's not like no one has investigated it; Floyd Toole at Harman has been doing so for a couple of decades. Dittos for amps: Most today have vanishingly low distortion levels, but no one has yet built a perfect amp. It doesn't have to be perfect. Distortion merely has to be below audibility thresholds. So where do I fall and what does this have to do with amplifier "voicing?" Well, it is my personal belief [which you can either agree or dis-agree with - I really don't care] that amplifier designers have not yet discovered ALL of the factors that influence how any given amplifier will interact with any given speaker. If you happen to have a deep understanding of statistics this confluence of factors is like an exercise in Linear Programming and I simply believe we just don't know and have not yet identified all of these variables. If we did know this, it is likely the Chinese would be building $100 amps that sounded no different than Halcro and Boulder and Audio Research amps. YMMV, of course. And how do you know they aren't? And please don't tell me 'I can hear the differene', unless you have either the blind listening test or the measurement data to back that up. Even if we can't measure what you claim to hear, you should still be able to pass a blind listening test. As for "voicing," Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow spent a significant amount of time working with prototypes of their MC250 SS amp to get it to "sound" like their MC275 tube amp. Well, getting a good SS amp to sound like a tube amp *would* require adding some sort of distortion to the SS amp, wouldn't it? And "voicing" is not just an American concept: Several months ago, the UK publication "Hi Fi News" ran an extensive interview with the chief designer of Onkyo, a job this gentleman has had for over 20 years. He actually stated in this interview that Onkyo used an early design McIntosh SS amp as a model for "voicing" all the amps and amplifier sections manufactured by Onkyo, and Onkyo's main listening room always had one or more McIntosh amps in it in addition to the amps designed and manufactured by Onkyo. I found this to be an amazing admission by a Japanese company. But then, the article also went on to say to no one was ever offered any type of Management position at Onkyo unless they could demonstrate proficiency in playing at least one classical music instrument. I wonder how different American audio would be today if this became a requirement for employment in audio companies here? I don't know -- but has Onkyo ever published any research demonstrating that its 'voicing' results in audible difference? Interesting stuff I never knew, thanks. Never being a big advocate of "mid-fi" due to it's lifelessness, I was pleasantly surprised when I found that the mid-90's P301 preamp was highly transparent and neutral, although still a bit "grey" compared to the really high end stuff I have around. But it was good enough that I put three of them and a matching remote into my system as the analog front end, handling three multichannel sources and five stereo sources. Moreover, I use a 100wpc Onkyo Integrated in my bedroom system, and have bought refurbished 50wpc Recievers for my girl friend and son, all based on their amazingly similar transparency and sound quality. Onkyo can come a cropper, however. The matching A501 power amp is a real dog, with a brittle, bright high end. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio |