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

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,

Adam

First off, the difference between 0.01% and 0.005% is very little as 2x
0.005 = 0.01. That difference could be explained by better measuring
equipment today which can easily resolve these small levels. Otoh, they
may have tweaked some feedback or selected some parts to reduce the
total distortion.

In reality THD and IM have little correlation to what you can or can not
hear. The ratios in the spectrum of distortion plays the dominating role
in the audibility of distortion.

Many, if not all of the McIntosh solid state amps use large transformers
or autoformers in the output (between the transistors and the speakers).
So, in practice the transformer will dominate the performance.

Personally, I find that global feedback from the secondary of a
transfomer back is problematic, since the role of feedback is to try to
"level" amplitude differences between the input signal and the output
signal - BUT it is *impossible* to make this work with a transformer,
since the transformer will *always* exhibit bandwidth, rise time and
phase differences compared to the input signal. The effect of the
bandwidth is usually to make the "frequency response" flat, but at the
cost of overshoot or ringing due to effective HF boost by the feedback.

I prefer no loop feedback around the transfomer. I do not recall if
McIntosh uses loop feedback around the transformer.

Otoh, 0.25% is a fairly high level of THD or IM. But, is this a tube amp
or solid state? If it is a tube amp, then this level of distortion,
which is also likely the *max* level measured at nearly full output, is
likely to be rather inaudible - it may sound a bit "fuller" or "warmer"
than a low distortion measuring solid state amp in comparison. That is
not necessarilly bad. For a solid state amp, again it is important to
look at what the power level for this distortion happens to be, if it is
at or near full power, probably not an issue.

_-_-bear

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

Thank you all for your comments, which I have found extremely useful.

Best wishes,

Adam

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.

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,

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)

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,

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?

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?

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)

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

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

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)

"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.