"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.