I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message


I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Last I heard this product was in the day of, about 30 or more years ago.
However the issue you mention here was an issue back then. Regrettably the
listening tests we did in those day were totally inadequate to shed any
light on the matter.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

I seem to recall that in the day of, there was more interest in differences
between the respective tuners.

Scott Gardner wrote:
I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

Something to factor into your decision is that separate components lend
themselves better to swapping for the purpose of comparison, until you
hit on a combination you like. On the other hand, the combined
tuner/preamp would probably be more convenient.

I'd also look at the specimens themselves: What condition are they in,
have they been recently serviced by a competent tech to assure
factory-spec operation, things like that.

Finally, do you have a try-before-you-buy option?

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

Hi Scott,

I have had an MX-110 for more than 25 years. It's an excellent unit and
sounds quite good to me. Unfortunately, I live in Radio Free East
Texas, so I don't have much use for a tuner here. The preamp and phono
section are both very good. As Fred suggests, maybe you should try
before you buy.

Best regards,

Raymond

Scott Gardner wrote:

I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

Scott,

I can speak to 1/2 of your question.

This A.M. I was just listening to CDs using an MX110, amplified by an Audio
Research D-70 Mark III. I really like the sound - it's warm, full and
detailed, and typifies what I like about tubes. The FM section is pretty
good, although it's not as sensitive as some other tuners I've owned (a
Hafler DH-330 was tops) but the muting works nicely, especially in the
crowded Atlanta airwaves. After swapping around a bit, I think the MX110 is
a "keeper."

I've heard the MX110 with separate Mc monoblocks, although I haven't heard a
separate McIntosh tuner & preamplifier.

It might be useful to get copies of the schematics on all of the candidates
and see what the circuit differences are among them. If the circuit
differences are trivial, then the sound differences probably will be as
well.

- Jon


From: (Scott Gardner)
Organization: Cox Communications
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:57:53 GMT
Subject: Anyone heard the Mcintosh MX-110 tuner/preamp in person?

I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
Scott,

I can speak to 1/2 of your question.

This A.M. I was just listening to CDs using an MX110, amplified by an
Audio
Research D-70 Mark III. I really like the sound - it's warm, full and
detailed, and typifies what I like about tubes. The FM section is pretty
good, although it's not as sensitive as some other tuners I've owned (a
Hafler DH-330 was tops) but the muting works nicely, especially in the
crowded Atlanta airwaves. After swapping around a bit, I think the MX110
is
a "keeper."

That shows how much advance there's been in tuners.
I've had two DH-330 tuners, and neither was close to any of the following:
Onkyo TX-990mkII
Sony 730ES
Yamaha CX-930.

I would not buy a tube tuner today. The advantage of semiconductors for
detection of weak signals and demultiplexing is indisputable. If you buy the
Mac, there will be stations you want to hear that you can't.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


I would not buy a tube tuner today. The advantage of semiconductors for
detection of weak signals and demultiplexing is indisputable. If you buy
the
Mac, there will be stations you want to hear that you can't.



I have several tube tuners and haven't listened to them in years.
Not because they can't pick up FM stations I want to hear,
but because there aren't any FM stations I want to hear.

I just bought a car a week ago, and installed a unit with Sirius
satellite radio where there are "ast least" some music stations
I want to hear "at least" some of the time.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Guess we'll have to trash our Marantz 10Bs and get a new fangled
transistor thingee.
Mike


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


I would not buy a tube tuner today. The advantage of semiconductors for
detection of weak signals and demultiplexing is indisputable. If you buy

the

Mac, there will be stations you want to hear that you can't.




I have several tube tuners and haven't listened to them in years.
Not because they can't pick up FM stations I want to hear,
but because there aren't any FM stations I want to hear.

I just bought a car a week ago, and installed a unit with Sirius
satellite radio where there are "ast least" some music stations
I want to hear "at least" some of the time.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Guess we'll have to trash our Marantz 10Bs and get a new fangled
transistor thingee.
Mike

We could hope for a ss satelite tuner with a tubed output.

BTW, my take on Sirius is that most of the channels sound pretty
good, but some of them sound God-awful. It seems they are making
qualitative judgements and devoting/sacrificing bandwith based upon
the type of channel and perceived quality of its source material.

Of course, this is based on listening done in an inferior environment, a
car.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
Hey Mike,

Drop me a line when you're ready to dump your 10B. I've always lusted for
one of those . . . . .

A good buddy of mine left a 10B on the curb, figuring that no one could
work
on it. He told me that he cried after I sent him some e-bay completed
auction figures . . . .

I'm surprised that Mr. Morein stopped his perpetual duel with Mr. McCarty
even momentarily to opine on an audio-related matter. (I thought I'd
never
say this, but we're probably better of when he sticks to "outing" Brian).

I don't quite agree with Bob. In general, my SS tuners had better
selectivity than the many tube receivers that I tried. My "gold standard"
was the ability to pick up WCLK, a wonderful local jazz station owned by a
Clark Atlanta U. Only a DH-330 could find and lock on it.

I agree with the above statement. Is there some misunderstanding as to what
I said?
The DH-330, of which I've had two, was inferior to several FM tuners I
continue to own.
It was almost state of the art in mono mode, but markedly inferior in
stereo.
And I'm generally a fan of Hafler gear. Hafler was a local legend, and I use
Hafler amps extensively.


However, some of the tuners - especially the Sansuis - had a pair of
Nuvistors in their front ends and actually overloaded at times. Atlanta is
crowded as hell with mediocre (or worse) FM stations; there weren't so
many
around when these things were originally sold.

Nonetheless, the Nuvistor equipped gear would pick up stations I never
heard
before, and many that were apparently beyond the capability of the SS
DH-330.

I bought a ragged Sansui 1000 recently, and raided it for the trannies. I
am building a separate amplifier around Welbourne Lab's Dynaco ST-70 kit,
designed by Alan Kimmel.

If I have a bit of time I may try to reconstitute the Sansui's FM
circuitry
and substitute a crystal filter IF stage that I've been saving for years.
And maybe I'll also add an RF attenuator to reduce the overload and see
what
happens. But that's project #24.

- Jon


Nuvistors had the lowest noise figures of any production tube, but by
the nature of thermionic emission, have a higher noise figure than a good
FET.

I won't challenge your claim that your Sansui nuvistor tuner outdid the
DH-330, because it was far from the ultimate in tuners. It used a VCO analog
locking scheme, which made performance in crowded areas inferior to modern
tuners, which employ digital synthesis.

The 10B is doubtless better than many decent FM tuners. I don't see how
it could compare to the best solid state twenty five years later - ie, the
Onkyo T9090 mkII, or one of the other DX favorites. No prejudice against the
magnificent design work; but vacuum tubes operating at 700C have a much
higher equivalent temperature than a cool semi.

Overloading by itself is not an indication of sensitivity. It's another
aspect of design. If AGC is applied to multiple stages, the tuner will have
greater dynamic range. This was not frequently done.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The 10B is doubtless better than many decent FM tuners. I don't
see how it could compare to the best solid state twenty five years
later - i.e., the Onkyo T9090 mkII, or one of the other DX favorites.
No prejudice against the magnificent design work; but vacuum tubes
operating at 700C have a much higher equivalent temperature than a
cool semi.

Overloading by itself is not an indication of sensitivity. It's
another aspect of design. If AGC is applied to multiple stages, the
tuner will have greater dynamic range. This was not frequently done.

I'm under the impression that the 100% solid state McIntosh MR-78 and MR-80
vastly outperformed the 10B in many ways, including ability to perform well
in the face of very strong signals.

http://www.mr78.com/

http://www.amfmdx.net/fmdx/tuners.html

I have a Pioneer TX-9100, another well regarded classic, but I rarely use it
because the quality of FM programming is so poor around here.

Hey Mike,

Drop me a line when you're ready to dump your 10B. I've always lusted for
one of those . . . . .

A good buddy of mine left a 10B on the curb, figuring that no one could work
on it. He told me that he cried after I sent him some e-bay completed
auction figures . . . .

I'm surprised that Mr. Morein stopped his perpetual duel with Mr. McCarty
even momentarily to opine on an audio-related matter. (I thought I'd never
say this, but we're probably better of when he sticks to "outing" Brian).

I don't quite agree with Bob. In general, my SS tuners had better
selectivity than the many tube receivers that I tried. My "gold standard"
was the ability to pick up WCLK, a wonderful local jazz station owned by a
Clark Atlanta U. Only a DH-330 could find and lock on it.

However, some of the tuners - especially the Sansuis - had a pair of
Nuvistors in their front ends and actually overloaded at times. Atlanta is
crowded as hell with mediocre (or worse) FM stations; there weren't so many
around when these things were originally sold.

Nonetheless, the Nuvistor equipped gear would pick up stations I never heard
before, and many that were apparently beyond the capability of the SS
DH-330.

I bought a ragged Sansui 1000 recently, and raided it for the trannies. I
am building a separate amplifier around Welbourne Lab's Dynaco ST-70 kit,
designed by Alan Kimmel.

If I have a bit of time I may try to reconstitute the Sansui's FM circuitry
and substitute a crystal filter IF stage that I've been saving for years.
And maybe I'll also add an RF attenuator to reduce the overload and see what
happens. But that's project #24.

- Jon




From: Mike
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.tubes
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:10:43 GMT
Subject: Anyone heard the Mcintosh MX-110 tuner/preamp in person?

Guess we'll have to trash our Marantz 10Bs and get a new fangled
transistor thingee.
Mike


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


I would not buy a tube tuner today. The advantage of semiconductors for
detection of weak signals and demultiplexing is indisputable. If you buy

the

Mac, there will be stations you want to hear that you can't.




I have several tube tuners and haven't listened to them in years.
Not because they can't pick up FM stations I want to hear,
but because there aren't any FM stations I want to hear.

I just bought a car a week ago, and installed a unit with Sirius
satellite radio where there are "ast least" some music stations
I want to hear "at least" some of the time.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The 10B is doubtless better than many decent FM tuners. I don't
see how it could compare to the best solid state twenty five years
later - i.e., the Onkyo T9090 mkII, or one of the other DX favorites.
No prejudice against the magnificent design work; but vacuum tubes
operating at 700C have a much higher equivalent temperature than a
cool semi.

Overloading by itself is not an indication of sensitivity. It's
another aspect of design. If AGC is applied to multiple stages, the
tuner will have greater dynamic range. This was not frequently done.

I'm under the impression that the 100% solid state McIntosh MR-78 and
MR-80
vastly outperformed the 10B in many ways, including ability to perform
well
in the face of very strong signals.

http://www.mr78.com/

http://www.amfmdx.net/fmdx/tuners.html

I have a Pioneer TX-9100, another well regarded classic, but I rarely use
it
because the quality of FM programming is so poor around here.

It's generally sad. We have Clear Channel to thank for that.
Have you tried DXing ?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


The 10B is doubtless better than many decent FM tuners. I don't
see how it could compare to the best solid state twenty five years
later - i.e., the Onkyo T9090 mkII, or one of the other DX
favorites. No prejudice against the magnificent design work; but
vacuum tubes operating at 700C have a much higher equivalent
temperature than a cool semi.

Overloading by itself is not an indication of sensitivity. It's
another aspect of design. If AGC is applied to multiple stages, the
tuner will have greater dynamic range. This was not frequently done.

I'm under the impression that the 100% solid state McIntosh MR-78
and MR-80 vastly outperformed the 10B in many ways, including
ability to perform well in the face of very strong signals.

http://www.mr78.com/

http://www.amfmdx.net/fmdx/tuners.html

I have a Pioneer TX-9100, another well regarded classic, but I
rarely use it because the quality of FM programming is so poor
around here.

It's generally sad. We have Clear Channel to thank for that.

Have you tried DXing ?

Not lately. In days gone by, for sure!

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:57:53 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp. I was
wondering if anyone here has heard one in person and can compare the
sound to a separate Mcintosh tuner and preamp.

Basically, I'm looking at either a C20 or C22 preamp with an
MR 65/67/71 tuner, or this MX110 combined unit. The MX110 is more
cost-effective, but I don't know if there's a big sound difference
either way.

Thanks,
Scott Gardner


First, I'd like to thank everyone for all the helpful posts so
far. The thread seems to have focused on the tuner aspect of the
MX-110. Since there aren't many good stations in my neck of the
woods, I was actually more concerned with how the MX-110 performs its
preamp duties than how it performs as a tuner.
It's been suggested to me off-line that the MX-110 is
basically equivalent to a C20 in the preamp department. If that's the
case, it would be a great bargain, since prices for the MX-110 seem
lower than the preamp-only C20. Are these two really comparable?
Several people also suggested auditioning the two and seeing
which I prefer. Alas, there is nowhere nearby (Norfolk, Virginia)
that I know of that stocks a selection of vintage Mac gear, and
considering that these are 40+ year old pieces, my sonic impression of
any pieces I audition might have more to do with the maintenance,
care, and choice of tube complement in the particular specimens I
audition than it would with the actual merits of the designs
themselves.

Thanks again,
Scott Gardner

John Rethorst wrote:

In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

I would not buy a tube tuner today. The advantage of semiconductors for
detection of weak signals and demultiplexing is indisputable.
Not to mention the much higher maintenance, especially alignment, a tube
tuner requires.

IAC, the compression favored by so many 'good' FM stations mitigates FM as
a source of good quality sound, especially for the wide dynamic range of
much classical music.

I use a McIntosh MR-71 in NYC. The sound is on a par with the FM-10B,
which I used to own. No solid state tuner comes close. I don't need
super high sensitivity with more than 30 stations coming in clearly.
I just use a simple, cheap rabbit ear antenna which I can move for the
clearest reception as per its multipath meter, almost as good as the
Marantz scope. (Cheap rabbit ears are better. Expensive models filter
out frequencies between channel 6 and 7, where FM freqs lie, in order
to reduce ghosts on TV. Cheap ears are perfect, since FM is right in
the heart of their reception range).

I had the MR71 aligned by Steve Sank about five years ago and I
recently put in six new IF stage tubes. As good as new. The Marantz
was aligned by Cadawas, an expert in these tuners, and when it came
back it sounded wonderful. Expect to spend around $200 on a Marantz
alignment, maybe $100 for the Mac. The Marantz will have to be
realigned in two or three years, the Mac hasn't shown any signs of
falling off in five. Difference between the two? I couldn't hear much
difference. I got a good offer for the 10B and I haven't looked back.

Yep, the compression does screw things up sometimes, so between the
tuner and preamp I have a Phase Linear 1000 II expander. Works very
well. So well that setting it on bypass really kills the music. If you
do any FM listening at all, a decent expander like the P-L or any of
several DBX units is a must. Sort of a complementary dynamic
equalization, not unlike RIAA frequency EQ on vinyl. Once you have
one you'll wonder how you ever got along without it.

To Krueger: Please don't reply to this note. You are a liar and a
scumbag - go back under your rock.

________________ Marc Stager

(Scott Gardner) wrote in message ...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 14:57:53 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

I'm interested in purchasing some Mcintosh tube gear, and am
particularly curious about the MX-110 tube tuner/preamp.

(snip)

Alas, there is nowhere nearby (Norfolk, Virginia)
that I know of that stocks a selection of vintage Mac gear,

Given the amount of money you're going to be spending, you might want
to consider a trip to a dealer with used Mc gear. I've never visited
or bought from the following, but I had a catalog from them years ago
and they had tons of Mc gear:

http://www.audioclassics.com

Here are their Mc preamps:

http://www.audioclassics.com/query.p...cintosh+preamp

You might also try searching the web and newsgroups via Google.com.

Also try:

rec.audio.tubes

rec.audio.high-end

http://groups.google.com/groups?num=...=Google+Search

(snip)