On McIntosh

[[email protected]]

A few things about McIntosh need noting.

First, McIntosh is "the tube amp" in a lot of people's minds because
of their appearance and because even the most uninformed know that the
Jaspanese have bought most of them up. Also, because of their low
distortion and wide bandwidth and low maintenance (for a tube amp), a
lot of them went to commercial, industrial, and lab applications.

This leads to some unwarranted assumptions. One is that the McIntosh
amps were terribly well built. They were built about to the same
physical standards as a Fender or Ampeg guitar amp of the day. It's all
consumer/entertainment quality parts-vis-a-vis the Marantzes which were
built with Ma Bell grade stuff largely. The chrome top is bent up in a
simple sheet metal brake of prechromed material which was much cheaper
and much less corrosion-proof than the traditional plating process
applied to the fabricated part.

Another is that there is high magic in there, particularly the
transformers. The OPTs are probably cheaper to wind than the best
quality conventional ones of the day. Although the Mac patents have all
run out on their tube amp designs, there was even then Prior Art even
then which would have clearly got one of the key patents thrown out and
many claims of the two others minimized had someone wished to do so.

The current Mac products IMO have serious faults, largely because of
excessive adherence to tube amp practice, ironically. Nonetheless their
(ridiculous) blue meters look neat and that's why they sell.

[R]

wrote in news:1102547514.491457.119170
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> A few things about McIntosh need noting.
>
> First, McIntosh is "the tube amp" in a lot of people's minds because
> of their appearance and because even the most uninformed know that the
> Jaspanese have bought most of them up. Also, because of their low
> distortion and wide bandwidth and low maintenance (for a tube amp), a
> lot of them went to commercial, industrial, and lab applications.
>
> This leads to some unwarranted assumptions. One is that the McIntosh
> amps were terribly well built. They were built about to the same
> physical standards as a Fender or Ampeg guitar amp of the day. It's all
> consumer/entertainment quality parts-vis-a-vis the Marantzes which were
> built with Ma Bell grade stuff largely. The chrome top is bent up in a
> simple sheet metal brake of prechromed material which was much cheaper
> and much less corrosion-proof than the traditional plating process
> applied to the fabricated part.
>
> Another is that there is high magic in there, particularly the
> transformers. The OPTs are probably cheaper to wind than the best
> quality conventional ones of the day. Although the Mac patents have all
> run out on their tube amp designs, there was even then Prior Art even
> then which would have clearly got one of the key patents thrown out and
> many claims of the two others minimized had someone wished to do so.
>
> The current Mac products IMO have serious faults, largely because of
> excessive adherence to tube amp practice, ironically. Nonetheless their
> (ridiculous) blue meters look neat and that's why they sell.
>
>

The Japanese are not the only ones buying 'vintage' McIntosh amplifiers
and they certainly have not bought most of them. The most popular of the
tube amplifiers is the MC275. The MC275 is being produced and sold today.
Yes it is a tube amp. Don't like output autoformers on your SS amp? They
have one. Want output autoformers? They have one of those too.

Build quality, in general, is excellent. I don't know how one could
improve on it. There have been some mistakes made with certain pieces
over the years but certainly not anything that one would say is continual
problem. As a matter of fact I am not sure how much more rugged you would
want a piece of consumer gear and still maintain reasonable styling. The
parts used in McIntosh gear may be generic in places but there is a reason
for that. Servicability. I worked for Bell Labs and I know the quality
put into the equipment like the 5ESS, 3B2 and 3B20. Many of the parts are
no better or worse than what you will find on the shelf at a distributor.
The real difference is in the engineering. What makes the Bell equipment
last is the engineering. Remember Desert Storm? There were hundreds of
3B2 computers in the field used by the Armed Forces for communications.
These computers were out in the desert where temperatures commonly vary
from over to 100F to near freezing. There were exactly zero failures. I
have a few older pieces of McIntosh gear. My preamp was built in 1967. I
use it daily for several hours. I recently checked it and it still
exceeds specs. YMMV, but that still isn't bad for a piece of gear that is
almost 40 years old. My tuner was made at about the same time and last
year to change 2 tubes and a capacitor in it. It also is used daily.

Oddly enough the amps that have the highest resale value don't have meters
at all. As a matter of fact their latest tube amp has no meters either
and they are selling quite well.

Cheaper OPTs? When was the last time you priced a bi-filar or tri-filar
wound OPT?

I ask you what practice would you have them adhere to when making tube
amps? What practice would you have them adhere to when making SS
amplifiers?

Actually most McIntosh equipment were and still are built to a higher
standard.

There are many reasons to own McIntosh. Among them are performance,
resale value, longevity, and more.

Buying a McIntosh is like buying a fine german automobile. You could
spend less and still get from point and to point b, but I believe you
really have missed one of the finer things in life. If you want an
example drive a Cadilac and then drive a Audi A8.

"If you don't buy McIntosh, you will regret it,
maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow
but soon, and for the rest of your life!"

http://www.roger-russell.com/aboutmc.htm is where the foregoing came from.
I suggest you read more about the company and it's products at Roger's
website so that you will not continue to make erroneous statements. This
is not to say that their products are perfect, but they certainly are a
excellent product and are a good value.


r





--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Sander deWaal]

said:

>Another is that there is high magic in there, particularly the
>transformers. The OPTs are probably cheaper to wind than the best
>quality conventional ones of the day. Although the Mac patents have all
>run out on their tube amp designs, there was even then Prior Art even
>then which would have clearly got one of the key patents thrown out and
>many claims of the two others minimized had someone wished to do so.

This isn't exactly true.
While the McIntosh patent of CFB seems an easy approach, manufacturing
said trannies certainly wasn't.

Ask Peter Walker (QUAD II) and Menno vd Veen (Plitron, Amplimo) as to
why.
If it was cheaper or easier, a company like Audio Research would
certainly use it in lieu of their partially cathode coupled circuit,
which has inherent disadvantages as opposed to CFB circuits.

Hint: it has to do with the physical limits of enamel copper wire.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[[email protected]]

The new McIntosh 275 is a different and, obviously, less expensive to
manufacture (read: cheapened) product vis-a-vis the old one. It looks
like a FMIC or KornblumAmpeg reisssue of a Fender or Ampeg MI
amplifier.

All the circuitry is on a PCB, and the OPTs are a bifilar primary E-I
lam affair which is made either inhouse or by Schumacher. A pair of
Zener diodes are used for voltage offset.

The original OPTs are not trivial to wind but it's more a matter of
being willing to build some tooling which is nonstandard-there are
photos of the original Mac winder around somewhere. They most assuredly
would be cheaper to duplicate than, say, the 20-20 Peerless design.

As for some of the popular high end tube amps currently in
production, there's a lot of evidence that some of them are using OPTs
no better than guitar amps use. No current vendor of OPTs that oI know
of-at least, excluding toroids, and I would-is really selling their
product on tested specifications, they're all either selling a wind to
teardown or to magazine article, or wind to archive print and a lot of
flowery subjective bull****.

One thing about Mac, they did and do provide guaranteed specs and will
make it meet them or replace or refund the box, which no one else AFAIK
will. However, I think they lost a lot of engineering respect when they
totally abandoned all professional markets. There's also no doubt that
their current designs have a Gilbert and Sullivan quality about them;
they're often silly and the basic structural design is the same as it
was in the tube days. And the blue meters are ridiculous. Even if
level metering belonged on a power amp, they should have followed the
industry to replace the venerable vU mechanical meters with modern real
time display.

[[email protected]]

Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
model.

I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
electronics do.

And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.

[[email protected]]

Sander:

>>If it was cheaper or easier, a company like Audio Research would
certainly use it in lieu of their partially cathode coupled circuit,
which has inherent disadvantages as opposed to CFB circuits.

>>Hint: it has to do with the physical limits of enamel copper wire.

Which is why there are other insulations. There's a remarkable paper
floating around by a guy who built a trifilar primary Mac amp before
Mac did (!) and he used a Formvar wire, which I'm sure has been
superceded since 1956. I can't remember the guy's name or I'd look it
up-i think he was from Cleveland.

Also I'm glad you said it--ARC isn't above rampant cost cutting
either. Indeed they are probably not as well built as the Macs.

[Michael McKelvy]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>A few things about McIntosh need noting.
>
> First, McIntosh is "the tube amp" in a lot of people's minds because
> of their appearance and because even the most uninformed know that the
> Jaspanese have bought most of them up. Also, because of their low
> distortion and wide bandwidth and low maintenance (for a tube amp), a
> lot of them went to commercial, industrial, and lab applications.
>
> This leads to some unwarranted assumptions. One is that the McIntosh
> amps were terribly well built. They were built about to the same
> physical standards as a Fender or Ampeg guitar amp of the day. It's all
> consumer/entertainment quality parts-vis-a-vis the Marantzes which were
> built with Ma Bell grade stuff largely. The chrome top is bent up in a
> simple sheet metal brake of prechromed material which was much cheaper
> and much less corrosion-proof than the traditional plating process
> applied to the fabricated part.
>
> Another is that there is high magic in there, particularly the
> transformers. The OPTs are probably cheaper to wind than the best
> quality conventional ones of the day. Although the Mac patents have all
> run out on their tube amp designs, there was even then Prior Art even
> then which would have clearly got one of the key patents thrown out and
> many claims of the two others minimized had someone wished to do so.
>
> The current Mac products IMO have serious faults, largely because of
> excessive adherence to tube amp practice, ironically. Nonetheless their
> (ridiculous) blue meters look neat and that's why they sell.
>

Last I heard McIntosh IS a Japanese owned company. That has been some time
ago and they may have changed hands since then. They make both tubed and SS
amps AFAIK.

[R]

wrote in news:1102640786.210930.276630
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
> would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
> excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
> to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
> reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
> model.
>
> I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
> speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
> electronics do.
>
> And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
> Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
> in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
> test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.
>
>

In all my years I have never seen any piece of audio gear approach the
construction techniques of a 500 series oscilloscope. As a matter of fact
I haven't seen anything built like a 500 Tek scope other than another Tek
scope. Silver bonded ceramic bars for soldering the components? Do you
have any idea what that would cost today? That technology is nearly
outlawed by the EPA due to the new restrictions on the use of lead. I
personally believe that your expectations are unreasonable for a
production piece of equipment. Even the 3% silver content solder
dictated would cost a small fortune. Could one build a preamp under those
same guidelines? Certainly, but if you had to buy all new parts, a simple
two channel preamp would likely cost close to $30,000.

Roger's work is well founded in science and he did design the C26 preamp
and a few other items that are not speakers. He was granted a patent when
a patent actually meant something unlike the circus that the patent office
is today.

The only reason that McIntosh speakers did not gain popularity was that
they were expensive and Mc refused to publish specifications for a variety
of reasons. I suggest you find a pair of XR290 or XRT30 speakers and give
them a listen. It might change your mind about McIntosh speakers.

As far as Roger being impartial, I know Roger and his qualities are
honesty, impartiality, and truthfulness. He is quite particular about
everything in life not just audio. He is an excellent engineer and
scientist. His quest for audio excellence has been his goal his entire
life and he certainly has made a postive impact. Be assured that Roger
does not view things through rose colored glasses nor does he try to shade
the truth. All of his opinions are based on provable, documented fact.

While one can look at Ebay and find all manner of reworked, modified and
other defects, but there are some quite nice museum grade pieces to be had
but you have to know where to look.

I laud your search for excellence, as that has been my quest as well. I
have worked on a variety of gear from cheap car radios to $100,000 signal
generators to multi-million dollar television transmitters. McIntosh is
built better than 99% of anything out there. Put another way, what would
it gain you if you had silver bonded ceramic strips in your audio gear?
Nothing save for eye candy. As far as parts quality is concerned, I have
changed more .01 and .1 caps in Tektronix 500 series scopes than I have in
all other manufacturers equipment put together. Even the Tek 661 had it
share of problems with aging parts. When was the last time you were able
to purchase a front panel for a piece of equipment that was over 20 years
old? No other manufacturer that I know of that supports "legacy"
equipment to the extent that McIntosh does.

BTW, the new MC275 has a stainless steel chassis and gold plated ceramic
tube sockets. Would you not say that is good enough? The McIntosh
MDA1000 utilizes eight 24 bit DACs. Even the front panel illumination on
McIntosh equipment is measured and adjusted precisely for proper color and
intensity. Where does one draw the line? When is 'good enough' good
enough?

If you would like a preamp or amp built to your specifications using
silver bonded ceramic strips, gold plated ceramic sockets, Augat machined
pin gold sockets, stainless steel chassis machined from a solid block of
aerospace grade stainless, B+ delay relays and the like, let me know. I
could start building your amp or preamp next week. I will need a deposit
of $20,000 with the balance due upon delivery. Delivery will be in 180
days. You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
warranty just like a Rolex.

r



--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Clyde Slick]

"R" > wrote in message
. 1...

You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
> warranty just like a Rolex.
>

your lifetime or the owner's lifetime?
You aren't teetering on the verge of death, are you?

[[email protected]]

> Last I heard McIntosh IS a Japanese owned company. That has been
some time
> ago and they may have changed hands since then. They make both tubed
and SS
> amps AFAIK.

They were owned by Clarion and it's my understanding they were sold to
another Asian firm. Nonetheless, I'm sure they had no desire ever to do
another tube box and it was only a corporate mandate from on high that
got Binghamton going in that direction.

My "beef" is simply that the reissue 275 is a cheapened and
Kornblumized copy of the old one with reduced build cost and less
functionality at a ridiculous price. Marantz outsourced their reissue
boxes and in my opinion did a lot better job of it-they're just like
the old ones warts and all. At what Mac is charging there would have
been no problem exactly duplicating the original, with a
better-rustproofed top cover and modern caps and resistors.

Many other High End companies do a better job of physical construction
than does Mac today, although not exactly to Vollum Tek standards. How
much extra does this kind of construction cost? Forget chassis hogged
from stainless billet, Tek never did that. The cool ceramic terminal
strips? Silver is cheaper today than it has been, in inflation adjusted
dollars, in a long long time-a roll of 2% silver Kester cored solder
costs $16 a pound roll vis-a-vis $13 for 63/36 eutectic.

[Rich.Andrews]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in :

>
> "R" > wrote in message
> . 1...
>
> You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
>> warranty just like a Rolex.
>>
>
> your lifetime or the owner's lifetime?
> You aren't teetering on the verge of death, are you?
>
>
>
>

Owner's lifetime. If I had nothing else to do, I would build one just for the
heck of it. The only problem with building a tube amp with Tektronix ceramic
strips, etc. is that there are very few suitable strips left. Many of them
are contaminated. While cleaing is a possibility, to do a proper job would
be time consuming. If the glazing is crazed or cracked due to age, then the
strip could not be used.

r

[[email protected]]

It wouldn't be impossible to have a run made. Tek might even let you
have prints.

[Rich.Andrews]

wrote in news:1102715558.140792.295430
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
>> Last I heard McIntosh IS a Japanese owned company. That has been
> some time
>> ago and they may have changed hands since then. They make both tubed
> and SS
>> amps AFAIK.
>
> They were owned by Clarion and it's my understanding they were sold to
> another Asian firm. Nonetheless, I'm sure they had no desire ever to do
> another tube box and it was only a corporate mandate from on high that
> got Binghamton going in that direction.

Mc is owned by DM holdings. The 'D' stands for Denon and the 'M' stands
for Marantz. One big happy family.

>
> My "beef" is simply that the reissue 275 is a cheapened and
> Kornblumized copy of the old one with reduced build cost and less
> functionality at a ridiculous price. Marantz outsourced their reissue
> boxes and in my opinion did a lot better job of it-they're just like
> the old ones warts and all. At what Mac is charging there would have
> been no problem exactly duplicating the original, with a
> better-rustproofed top cover and modern caps and resistors.

Actually the current 275 is better than the original.

Reduced functionality? Are you possibly referring to the withdrawl of
support for impedances other than 16, 8 and 4 ohms? It certainly looks
like it has the same functionality. Volume controls, power switch, output
power strip. Certainly produces the same power and has all the same
capabilities. The transformers are still wound in Binghamton, it is still
assembled there too. Tubes are selected by hand.

Modern caps and resistors? I think if you look under that stainless
chassis you will find modern parts. The ceramic sockets will not
deteriorate due to age.

>
> Many other High End companies do a better job of physical construction
> than does Mac today, although not exactly to Vollum Tek standards. How
> much extra does this kind of construction cost? Forget chassis hogged
> from stainless billet, Tek never did that. The cool ceramic terminal
> strips? Silver is cheaper today than it has been, in inflation adjusted
> dollars, in a long long time-a roll of 2% silver Kester cored solder
> costs $16 a pound roll vis-a-vis $13 for 63/36 eutectic.
>
>

What do see that other companies do that Mc does not?

Silver may be cheaper but IIRC the solder used at Tek was 3% silver, not
2%. Tek used inexpensive aluminum frames to keep the weight down. I have
not seen any new ceramic strips in quite some time.

McIntosh is always looking for feedback on their products. I suggest you
call the product Manager Ron Cornelius at (650) 328-1490 and tell him what
you think. Ron knows the current units as well as their legacy units.
Tell him that I said "Hi!".

BTW I am not an employee of McIntosh, DM Holdings or any other company even
remotely assoociated with the electronics industry. I have some Mc gear
for obvious reasons and I have a number of years experience servicing and
designing electronics.

My advice is that if you don't like a particular manufacturers product, you
should not buy it, but there is no point in expressing your thoughts
regarding "sour grapes".

r

[[email protected]]

Rich.Andrews wrote: <snip>
>
> Mc is owned by DM holdings. The 'D' stands for Denon and the 'M'
stands
> for Marantz. One big happy family.
>
> >
> > My "beef" is simply that the reissue 275 is a cheapened and
> > Kornblumized copy of the old one with reduced build cost and less
> > functionality at a ridiculous price. Marantz outsourced their
reissue
> > boxes and in my opinion did a lot better job of it-they're just
like
> > the old ones warts and all. At what Mac is charging there would
have
> > been no problem exactly duplicating the original, with a
> > better-rustproofed top cover and modern caps and resistors.
>
> Actually the current 275 is better than the original.
>
> Reduced functionality? Are you possibly referring to the withdrawl
< sic ;-) >
of
> support for impedances other than 16, 8 and 4 ohms?


Yep. You may not need it. Sombody did-many were sold for that reason in
fact.

It certainly looks
> like it has the same functionality. Volume controls, power switch,
output
> power strip. Certainly produces the same power and has all the same
> capabilities. The transformers are still wound in Binghamton, it is
still
> assembled there too.
They are a very different xfmr. Indeed Mac will not sell them for rpl
use in vintage amps although being point to point wired the circuit
could be altered to take them. They are 'missing' several windings.
Since suitable C-cores are still available and Mac has all the tooling,
prints, and indeed some of the people are the same ...it comes down to
cost. 'Probably' it's a matter of $50 vs. $150 or thereabouts-don't ask
where I got those numbers-saving $200 on a $4000 box.

Tubes are selected by hand.
>
> Modern caps and resistors? I think if you look under that stainless
> chassis you will find modern parts. The ceramic sockets will not
> deteriorate due to age.
>
> >
> > Many other High End companies do a better job of physical
construction
> > than does Mac today, although not exactly to Vollum Tek standards.
How
> > much extra does this kind of construction cost? Forget chassis
hogged
> > from stainless billet, Tek never did that. The cool ceramic
terminal
> > strips? Silver is cheaper today than it has been, in inflation
adjusted
> > dollars, in a long long time-a roll of 2% silver Kester cored
solder
> > costs $16 a pound roll vis-a-vis $13 for 63/36 eutectic.
> >
> >
>
> What do see that other companies do that Mc does not?
>
> Silver may be cheaper but IIRC the solder used at Tek was 3% silver,
not
> 2%. Tek used inexpensive aluminum frames to keep the weight down. I
have
> not seen any new ceramic strips in quite some time.

I'm just going by the Kester catalog. Other companies offer silver
electronic solders ("silver solder" being a high temperature product
with a melt point similar to brazing) including lead free cored wire
solderable at normal temperatures. Silver being cheap today it's not
freakish, but personally I'm fine with regular old 63/36 especially for
tube projects-it'd be solid state power amps and regulated LV supplies
that benefit most from silver bearing solders.
>
> McIntosh is always looking for feedback on their products. I suggest
you
> call the product Manager Ron Cornelius at (650) 328-1490 and tell him
what
> you think. Ron knows the current units as well as their legacy
units.
> Tell him that I said "Hi!".

I have discussed all this and more, in a friendly way, with Ron and
Larry and a few others...I have to agree they're nice guys and all, but
I'm sure they thought I was nuts. And maybe I am. But it's a kind of
nuts I rather enjoy.

>
> BTW I am not an employee of McIntosh, DM Holdings or any other
company even
> remotely assoociated with the electronics industry. I have some Mc
gear
> for obvious reasons and I have a number of years experience servicing
and
> designing electronics.
>
> My advice is that if you don't like a particular manufacturers
product, you
> should not buy it, but there is no point in expressing your thoughts
> regarding "sour grapes".

No you should build one yourself to your specs and indeed that's on my
to do list. I really don't want to have to go into the magnetics
business myself, if I could buy a set of opt's off the rack I would.

There are a lot of other ironies of course, such as the fact that the
75/275 was the "least good sounding" of the chrometop tube Macs (in the
opinion of most gullible subjective tweaks,er, tube buffs), and that
the KT88 is probably a poor choice of tube if you are buying an amp for
serious long term use (most new ones suck).

I think in doing _reissues_ 'warts and all' is the way to go. If I
were designing a new model I'd have designed one around the tubes you
can get today.

Hopefully DM will reflect on the favorable experience with the Marantz
reissues and if they do say a 240 or a 3500, or even a MI200 (boy would
the single ended Svetlana 811 variants have been great there...)

[normanstrong]

"Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in
:
>
> >
> > "R" > wrote in message
> > . 1...
> >
> > You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
> >> warranty just like a Rolex.
> >>
> >
> > your lifetime or the owner's lifetime?
> > You aren't teetering on the verge of death, are you?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Owner's lifetime. If I had nothing else to do, I would build one
just for the
> heck of it. The only problem with building a tube amp with
Tektronix ceramic
> strips, etc. is that there are very few suitable strips left. Many
of them
> are contaminated. While cleaing is a possibility, to do a proper
job would
> be time consuming. If the glazing is crazed or cracked due to age,
then the
> strip could not be used.

I have a whole box full of those Tek ceramic strips. NOS. Anyone
interested?

Norm Strong

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 21:11:50 GMT, "normanstrong"
> wrote:

>I have a whole box full of those Tek ceramic strips. NOS. Anyone
>interested?

Ouch! About a year too late for my project.

Kal

[R]

"normanstrong" > wrote in news:loJud.223106
$HA.43710@attbi_s01:

>
> "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in
> :
>>
>> >
>> > "R" > wrote in message
>> > . 1...
>> >
>> > You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
>> >> warranty just like a Rolex.
>> >>
>> >
>> > your lifetime or the owner's lifetime?
>> > You aren't teetering on the verge of death, are you?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Owner's lifetime. If I had nothing else to do, I would build one
> just for the
>> heck of it. The only problem with building a tube amp with
> Tektronix ceramic
>> strips, etc. is that there are very few suitable strips left. Many
> of them
>> are contaminated. While cleaing is a possibility, to do a proper
> job would
>> be time consuming. If the glazing is crazed or cracked due to age,
> then the
>> strip could not be used.
>
> I have a whole box full of those Tek ceramic strips. NOS. Anyone
> interested?
>
> Norm Strong
>
>

Do you have the mounting hardware for the strips too?

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
> would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
> excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
> to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
> reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
> model.
>
> I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
> speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
> electronics do.
>
> And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
> Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
> in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
> test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.
>
You can't compare any piece of audio gear to a Tek scope.
As "R" remarks, Tektronix scopes, especially the 500, 600 and 7000 series,
were built like nothing else on this planet.
They are singular examples of design quality.

[Robert Morein]

"R" > wrote in message
. 1...
> wrote in news:1102640786.210930.276630
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
> > would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
> > excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
> > to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
> > reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
> > model.
> >
> > I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
> > speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
> > electronics do.
> >
> > And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
> > Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
> > in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
> > test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.
> >
> >
>
> In all my years I have never seen any piece of audio gear approach the
> construction techniques of a 500 series oscilloscope. As a matter of fact
> I haven't seen anything built like a 500 Tek scope other than another Tek
> scope. Silver bonded ceramic bars for soldering the components? Do you
> have any idea what that would cost today? That technology is nearly
> outlawed by the EPA due to the new restrictions on the use of lead. I
> personally believe that your expectations are unreasonable for a
> production piece of equipment. Even the 3% silver content solder
> dictated would cost a small fortune. Could one build a preamp under those
> same guidelines? Certainly, but if you had to buy all new parts, a simple
> two channel preamp would likely cost close to $30,000.
>
> Roger's work is well founded in science and he did design the C26 preamp
> and a few other items that are not speakers. He was granted a patent when
> a patent actually meant something unlike the circus that the patent office
> is today.
>
> The only reason that McIntosh speakers did not gain popularity was that
> they were expensive and Mc refused to publish specifications for a variety
> of reasons. I suggest you find a pair of XR290 or XRT30 speakers and give
> them a listen. It might change your mind about McIntosh speakers.
>
> As far as Roger being impartial, I know Roger and his qualities are
> honesty, impartiality, and truthfulness. He is quite particular about
> everything in life not just audio. He is an excellent engineer and
> scientist. His quest for audio excellence has been his goal his entire
> life and he certainly has made a postive impact. Be assured that Roger
> does not view things through rose colored glasses nor does he try to shade
> the truth. All of his opinions are based on provable, documented fact.
>
> While one can look at Ebay and find all manner of reworked, modified and
> other defects, but there are some quite nice museum grade pieces to be had
> but you have to know where to look.
>
> I laud your search for excellence, as that has been my quest as well. I
> have worked on a variety of gear from cheap car radios to $100,000 signal
> generators to multi-million dollar television transmitters. McIntosh is
> built better than 99% of anything out there. Put another way, what would
> it gain you if you had silver bonded ceramic strips in your audio gear?

Longer lifetime.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
>> would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
>> excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
>> to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
>> reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
>> model.
>>
>> I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
>> speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
>> electronics do.
>>
>> And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
>> Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
>> in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
>> test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.
>>
> You can't compare any piece of audio gear to a Tek scope.
> As "R" remarks, Tektronix scopes, especially the 500, 600 and 7000 series,
> were built like nothing else on this planet.
> They are singular examples of design quality.

I worked and depended on a 7904 for quite a few years. Quality is the last
word that comes to mind when I think of that beast :).

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Roger Russell's site is nice...but he 's hardly impartial. And I
>> would say that more of the extant chrome chassis tube era Macs in
>> excellent to mint condition are in Japan than here today-ones coming on
>> to the US market tend to be cosmetically bad, modified, or detectably
>> reworked, replated, et al. Especially the 275 which is the John Holmes
>> model.
>>
>> I don't mean to disrespect Roger, but, he was the speaker guy and the
>> speakers Mac has built did and do not have the reputation that the
>> electronics do.
>>
>> And the electronics-look inside a modern Mac product and then inside a
>> Tek oscilloscope from the 50s up through the end of the
>> in-house-made-CRT models. True, most other High End audio fails this
>> test as well, but for this much money, that's my expectation.
>>
> You can't compare any piece of audio gear to a Tek scope.
> As "R" remarks, Tektronix scopes, especially the 500, 600 and 7000 series,
> were built like nothing else on this planet.
> They are singular examples of design quality.

I worked and depended on a 7904 for quite a few years. Quality is the last
word that comes to mind when I think of that beast :).

ScottW

[normanstrong]

"R" > wrote in message
. 1...
> "normanstrong" > wrote in news:loJud.223106
> $HA.43710@attbi_s01:
>
> >
> > "Rich.Andrews" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in
> > :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "R" > wrote in message
> >> > . 1...
> >> >
> >> > You will have the audio equivalent of a Rolex with a lifetime
> >> >> warranty just like a Rolex.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > your lifetime or the owner's lifetime?
> >> > You aren't teetering on the verge of death, are you?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Owner's lifetime. If I had nothing else to do, I would build one
> > just for the
> >> heck of it. The only problem with building a tube amp with
> > Tektronix ceramic
> >> strips, etc. is that there are very few suitable strips left.
Many
> > of them
> >> are contaminated. While cleaing is a possibility, to do a proper
> > job would
> >> be time consuming. If the glazing is crazed or cracked due to
age,
> > then the
> >> strip could not be used.
> >
> > I have a whole box full of those Tek ceramic strips. NOS. Anyone
> > interested?
> >
> > Norm Strong
> >
> >
>
> Do you have the mounting hardware for the strips too?

Yes. There are 4 different sizes: 11, 9, 7, & 5 positions. The
mounting hardware consists of little polyethylene grommets that fit
through a hole in the chassis. The strip has a plastic post that goes
through that grommet. There are also 2 different heights, although
the lower height is only in 11 positions.

You have to use silver-bearing solder on these strips to prevent
leaching of the silver that is used to line the slots. I also have
some of that.

I acquired these from Boeing surplus many years ago when I entertained
the idea of designing my own oscilloscope. I have a bunch of other
parts that I intended to use in this 60MHz scope, including the
special vertical amplifier output tubes (yes, this was back in tube
days.)

Norm Strong

[R]

"ScottW" > wrote in
news:_P%ud.21539$Ae.6650@fed1read05:

>
> I worked and depended on a 7904 for quite a few years. Quality is the
> last
> word that comes to mind when I think of that beast :).
>
> ScottW
>
>
>

Less than stellar quality? Care to share your experiences?

r

[[email protected]]

Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also because
many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek box
except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well built,
that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an old
plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years of
pleasure.

[Rich.Andrews]

wrote in news:1102901426.296651.26940
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
> fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also because
> many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek box
> except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well built,
> that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an old
> plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years of
> pleasure.
>
>

There are enough free or low cost software programs that run on laptops that
will do the same function and do it better than the old gear. There are some
rare exceptions of course.

r

[[email protected]]

Rich.Andrews wrote:
> wrote in news:1102901426.296651.26940
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
> > fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also
because
> > many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek
box
> > except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well
built,
> > that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an
old
> > plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years
of
> > pleasure.
> >
> >
>
> There are enough free or low cost software programs that run on
laptops that
> will do the same function and do it better than the old gear. There
are some
> rare exceptions of course.

Maybe you are from a distant planet where laptops have DC coupled ADCs
with the linearity and bandwidth required and hardware triggering for
sync...here on earth they just have sound card mic inputs which are
way, way short in all aspects of even the crude free-running 50's and
60's TV shop junkers like the old RCAs and Conars. There are outboard
boxes that can interface to a laptop for display/storage but they are
as expensive as a real oscilloscope and are very technician-hostile. A
PC does not does not does not constitute a piece of test equipment.
Even commercial VME/VXI and PXI solutions are good mostly for permanent
ATE setups as opposed to bench work.

Hobbyists, small scale entrepreneurs, service techs, and field
engineering people are all much better with even obsolete test
equipment than bull**** attempts to rig commodity PC hardware for
metrology.
>
> r

[[email protected]]

Rich.Andrews wrote:
> wrote in news:1102901426.296651.26940
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
> > fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also
because
> > many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek
box
> > except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well
built,
> > that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an
old
> > plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years
of
> > pleasure.
> >
> >
>
> There are enough free or low cost software programs that run on
laptops that
> will do the same function and do it better than the old gear. There
are some
> rare exceptions of course.

Maybe you are from a distant planet where laptops have DC coupled ADCs
with the linearity and bandwidth required and hardware triggering for
sync...here on earth they just have sound card mic inputs which are
way, way short in all aspects of even the crude free-running 50's and
60's TV shop junkers like the old RCAs and Conars. There are outboard
boxes that can interface to a laptop for display/storage but they are
as expensive as a real oscilloscope and are very technician-hostile. A
PC does not does not does not constitute a piece of test equipment.
Even commercial VME/VXI and PXI solutions are good mostly for permanent
ATE setups as opposed to bench work.

Hobbyists, small scale entrepreneurs, service techs, and field
engineering people are all much better with even obsolete test
equipment than bull**** attempts to rig commodity PC hardware for
metrology.
>
> r

[[email protected]]

Rich.Andrews wrote:
> wrote in news:1102901426.296651.26940
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
> > fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also
because
> > many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek
box
> > except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well
built,
> > that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an
old
> > plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years
of
> > pleasure.
> >
> >
>
> There are enough free or low cost software programs that run on
laptops that
> will do the same function and do it better than the old gear. There
are some
> rare exceptions of course.


Maybe on some other planet laptops have scope-grade vertical
amplifiers and DACs but on this one they have woefully inadequate sound
card mic inputs. In no way is a laptop or any PC a piece of test
equipment per se. It's a huge disservice to everyone concerned to let
the software pushers convey that erroneous notion.

Outboard or PCI card hardware does exist but for servicing, education,
or experimentation they suck.

[R]

wrote in news:1103067895.846572.88720
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Rich.Andrews wrote:
>> wrote in news:1102901426.296651.26940
>> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > Tek stayed profitable for a long time because they won a big court
>> > fight against copycat mfr's like Hickok and Jetronix and also
> because
>> > many HP scopes triggered poorly. I would not buy any vintage Tek
> box
>> > except as a collectible or to tinker with, but they were well
> built,
>> > that's for sure. A few bucks spent at a hamfest will get you an
> old
>> > plug-in or assembly you can torment high end stores with for years
> of
>> > pleasure.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> There are enough free or low cost software programs that run on
> laptops that
>> will do the same function and do it better than the old gear. There
> are some
>> rare exceptions of course.
>
>
> Maybe on some other planet laptops have scope-grade vertical
> amplifiers and DACs but on this one they have woefully inadequate sound
> card mic inputs. In no way is a laptop or any PC a piece of test
> equipment per se. It's a huge disservice to everyone concerned to let
> the software pushers convey that erroneous notion.
>
> Outboard or PCI card hardware does exist but for servicing, education,
> or experimentation they suck.
>
>

While a PC won't make a good scope, it certainly does a superb job as a
distortion analyzer, sig gen, and SNR meter. I have found that a good
scope along with some software and a good sound card, I can measure the
specs of nearly any amp or preamp made and do it with greater accuracy.
Performing tuner alignments is a breeze with the PC and with a distortion
analyzer it is a royal pain. I am glad I was able to get as much money as
I did out of my old test gear. Once people find out how fast and accurate
the PC is with the right software, they will dump the old dedicated
analyzers like I did.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

[Arny Krueger]

"R" > wrote in message
. 1

> While a PC won't make a good scope, it certainly does a superb job as
> a distortion analyzer, sig gen, and SNR meter.

For most audio purposes, a PC with a 24/96 or 24/192 sound card is a "good
enough": scope. IME a 22 KHz scope (44 KHz sampling) is a bit lame, but a
100 KHz scope (200 KHz sampling) can get a lot of jobs done.

> I have found that a
> good scope along with some software and a good sound card, I can
> measure the specs of nearly any amp or preamp made and do it with
> greater accuracy.

You can even do a complete tech test of an amp or preamp nearly hands-off
with the freebie Audio Rightmark software.