Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002 (no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200 and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")


Thanks, and looking forward to your comments,

Adam

"Adam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

**Solid state amps do not require autoformers. Adding them is pretty much
like a backyard mechanic bolting a fifth wheel to a Porsche and expecting
better performance. Autoformers can ONLY damage performance of an amp. They
cannot help in any way.


I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002 (no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200 and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")

**It would be fair, IF both amps used otherwise identical topology and power
supply capacity. The only difference being the autoformers. If there are
other differences, then all bets are off.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Adam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

**Solid state amps do not require autoformers. Adding them is pretty much
like a backyard mechanic bolting a fifth wheel to a Porsche and expecting
better performance. Autoformers can ONLY damage performance of an amp. They
cannot help in any way.


I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002 (no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200 and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")

**It would be fair, IF both amps used otherwise identical topology and power
supply capacity. The only difference being the autoformers. If there are
other differences, then all bets are off.


Trevor is a bit of a nutter with a fixation against Mc's autoformers.
This is well documented.

McIntosh SS amps with autoformers are reasonably well designed and
built amplifiers designed with the autoformer as integral to the unit.
They work well, but like most Mc products are overpriced.

Advantages to the autoformer include DC offset protection and an
ability to present an optimized load to the amplifier whether the
speaker impedance is 4, 8 or 16 ohms.

Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Adam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

**Solid state amps do not require autoformers. Adding them is pretty much
like a backyard mechanic bolting a fifth wheel to a Porsche and expecting
better performance. Autoformers can ONLY damage performance of an amp.
They
cannot help in any way.


I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002 (no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200 and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")

**It would be fair, IF both amps used otherwise identical topology and
power
supply capacity. The only difference being the autoformers. If there are
other differences, then all bets are off.


Trevor is a bit of a nutter with a fixation against Mc's autoformers.

**A "nutter"? Ok, smartarse: YOU provide some hard facts on why YOU think
that the addition of autoformers to an already decent amplifier can possibly
improve the amp's performance. I'll wait.

This is well documented.

**Nope. What is documented is this: Bret Ludwig has a preference for
autoformer equipped amps, but cannot say why. Bret Ludwig has NEVER
performed a blind test between two, otherwise identical amps. One autoformer
equipped and one not. IOW: He has no science, no facts and no logic.


McIntosh SS amps with autoformers are reasonably well designed and
built amplifiers designed with the autoformer as integral to the unit.

**Not quite. McIntosh could have released the amps without autoformers, with
minor modifications and a substantial price reduction (and a performance
improvement).

They work well, but like most Mc products are overpriced.

Advantages to the autoformer include DC offset protection and an
ability to present an optimized load to the amplifier whether the
speaker impedance is 4, 8 or 16 ohms.

**Er, nonsense. DC offset protection can be simply effected by the addition
of around US$10.00 worth of parts. As for optimum load condictions, this is
where the wheels fall off whatever passes for technical ability. The OPTIMUM
output impedance of an amplifier is ZERO Ohms. The addition of an autoformer
will ALWAYS raise the output impedance. Always. Moreover, if an amplifier
designer wants to build an amp which can cope with 4, 8 or 16 Ohms, he can
just add more output devices. Output devices are MUCH less expensive than
iron and copper. Even better, when manufacturers do so, the amplifier has
the ability to deliver more power, as the impedance falls. Not so with the
incredibly outdated autoformer system. A system which dated from a time when
output transistors were exp[ensive and silicon was expensive. Thsoe
conditions have now reversed, so buying an autoformer equiopped McIntosh
makes about as much sense as buying a Model T Ford, in preference to a (say)
Mustang. Some people LIKE driving Model T Fords. That's their choice, of
course. There are few logical reasons to suggest that their choice is
anything but an abberation. Same deal with autoformer equipped Macs.


Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

**You've neglected the other disadvantages: That of output impedance and the
ability of the ap to act as a pure Voltage source.


Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

**Sure. That was when silicon was expensive and iron and copper was cheap.
Now, the situation is reversed.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Adam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

**Solid state amps do not require autoformers. Adding them is pretty much
like a backyard mechanic bolting a fifth wheel to a Porsche and expecting
better performance. Autoformers can ONLY damage performance of an amp.
They
cannot help in any way.


I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002 (no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200 and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")

**It would be fair, IF both amps used otherwise identical topology and
power
supply capacity. The only difference being the autoformers. If there are
other differences, then all bets are off.


Trevor is a bit of a nutter with a fixation against Mc's autoformers.

**A "nutter"? Ok, smartarse: YOU provide some hard facts on why YOU think
that the addition of autoformers to an already decent amplifier can possibly
improve the amp's performance. I'll wait.

This is well documented.

**Nope. What is documented is this: Bret Ludwig has a preference for
autoformer equipped amps, but cannot say why. Bret Ludwig has NEVER
performed a blind test between two, otherwise identical amps. One autoformer
equipped and one not. IOW: He has no science, no facts and no logic.


McIntosh SS amps with autoformers are reasonably well designed and
built amplifiers designed with the autoformer as integral to the unit.

**Not quite. McIntosh could have released the amps without autoformers, with
minor modifications and a substantial price reduction (and a performance
improvement).

They work well, but like most Mc products are overpriced.

Advantages to the autoformer include DC offset protection and an
ability to present an optimized load to the amplifier whether the
speaker impedance is 4, 8 or 16 ohms.

**Er, nonsense. DC offset protection can be simply effected by the addition
of around US$10.00 worth of parts. As for optimum load condictions, this is
where the wheels fall off whatever passes for technical ability. The OPTIMUM
output impedance of an amplifier is ZERO Ohms. The addition of an autoformer
will ALWAYS raise the output impedance. Always. Moreover, if an amplifier
designer wants to build an amp which can cope with 4, 8 or 16 Ohms, he can
just add more output devices. Output devices are MUCH less expensive than
iron and copper. Even better, when manufacturers do so, the amplifier has
the ability to deliver more power, as the impedance falls. Not so with the
incredibly outdated autoformer system. A system which dated from a time when
output transistors were exp[ensive and silicon was expensive. Thsoe
conditions have now reversed, so buying an autoformer equiopped McIntosh
makes about as much sense as buying a Model T Ford, in preference to a (say)
Mustang. Some people LIKE driving Model T Fords. That's their choice, of
course. There are few logical reasons to suggest that their choice is
anything but an abberation. Same deal with autoformer equipped Macs.


Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

**You've neglected the other disadvantages: That of output impedance and the
ability of the ap to act as a pure Voltage source.


Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

**Sure. That was when silicon was expensive and iron and copper was cheap.
Now, the situation is reversed.


McIntosh prices are set by what the market considers high enough to
earn the buyers' respect, not by build cost. They are building UP to a
HIGH price.

You may feel they are overpriced. I personally do feel they are very
overpriced. I don't buy them. I suspect you do not either. Those who do
like them and believe their performance is adequate.

If Mc went the Trevor route and put in a bigger power transformer,
more heat sinks, more outpput devices to make up for the lowered build
cost of the autoformer they would no longer have a better amplifier of
the existing power rating, but another amplifier of a higher power
rating. The autoformer approach gives the SAME power across the likely
load impedances.

The autoformer is a small cost in the building of the amp, we may
safely predict, as McIntosh has never been about high build cost but
about the lowest build cost consistent with what they consider good
practice. They wind their own transformers and at a cost competitive
with vendors like Endicott Transformer and Schumacher, probably because
Upstate New York has a lot of cheap skilled labor available.

I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output impedance,
regardless of theory, and Mc owners don't either. A power amplifier
with truly zero output impedance would be a fearsome thing, and we are
rather fortunate true zero impedance is impossible. It would be like
having a nuclear weapon in everyone's living room.

McIntosh has ignored your opinions for over 60 years and I predict
they will ignore them for sixty more, Trevor.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output impedance,
regardless of theory, and Mc owners don't either. A power amplifier
with truly zero output impedance would be a fearsome thing, and we are
rather fortunate true zero impedance is impossible. It would be like
having a nuclear weapon in everyone's living room.

A minor point. Zero output impedance is possible--just as negative
impedance is possible. There have been amplifiers on the market whose
output impedance could be adjusted from negative right through zero to
positive. In order to do this, one has to sense the current through the
load. I haven't run across any such amps lately, but it IS possible.

Norm Strong

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output
impedance, regardless of theory,

In fact the usual solid state power amp has output impedance so low that it
is not practically different from zero.

The reason why they aren't like "having a nuclear weapon" is because the
operational region over which they have such low output impedance is
limited. Often, the region of low impedance output is limited quite
intentionally and precisely by electronic circuits. Otherwise, the limits
are implicit, sometimes going back to the limits of the power amp's power
supply.

and Mc owners don't either.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. In fact nobody knows what all Mc owners
want. They may not even want the amps they have.

A power amplifier with truly zero output
impedance would be a fearsome thing, and we are rather
fortunate true zero impedance is impossible. It would be
like having a nuclear weapon in everyone's living room.

Wrong.

What you would say if you were smart enough Bret is is that A power
amplifier with truly zero output
impedance would be a fearsome thing if zero output impedance were provided
over a very wide range of voltages and currents.

McIntosh has ignored your opinions for over 60 years and
I predict they will ignore them for sixty more, Trevor.

Bret, its quite clear that Mc has ignored you opinions and ignorant claims
quite nicely, thank you!

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Adam" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi Everyone,

I was just wondering what people's opinions were on the famous (or
infamous?) McIntosh autoformers, i.e., whether you think they are
useful, how they change the sound you hear, et cetera. I've heard
some
people say they like the sound of the MC7200, for example, which is
a
direct-coupled amp without autoformers.

**Solid state amps do not require autoformers. Adding them is pretty
much
like a backyard mechanic bolting a fifth wheel to a Porsche and
expecting
better performance. Autoformers can ONLY damage performance of an amp.
They
cannot help in any way.


I have a Mac 2300, Mac 2200 (both have autoformers), and a Mac 2002
(no
autoformers), but have not yet done side-by-side comparisons. It
probably would be most interesting (and fair) to compare the 2200
and
2002, since they have the same rated power, but differ mainly in the
presence/absence of autoformers (2200 has 'em, 2002 doesn't...cue
music..."Almond Joy's got nuts, Mounds don't!")

**It would be fair, IF both amps used otherwise identical topology and
power
supply capacity. The only difference being the autoformers. If there
are
other differences, then all bets are off.


Trevor is a bit of a nutter with a fixation against Mc's autoformers.

**A "nutter"? Ok, smartarse: YOU provide some hard facts on why YOU think
that the addition of autoformers to an already decent amplifier can
possibly
improve the amp's performance. I'll wait.

**I'm still waiting Bret. How about providing some facts?


This is well documented.

**Nope. What is documented is this: Bret Ludwig has a preference for
autoformer equipped amps, but cannot say why. Bret Ludwig has NEVER
performed a blind test between two, otherwise identical amps. One
autoformer
equipped and one not. IOW: He has no science, no facts and no logic.

**I guess I should have phrased this as a question. Bret, have you ever
performed such a comparison?



McIntosh SS amps with autoformers are reasonably well designed and
built amplifiers designed with the autoformer as integral to the unit.

**Not quite. McIntosh could have released the amps without autoformers,
with
minor modifications and a substantial price reduction (and a performance
improvement).

They work well, but like most Mc products are overpriced.

Advantages to the autoformer include DC offset protection and an
ability to present an optimized load to the amplifier whether the
speaker impedance is 4, 8 or 16 ohms.

**Er, nonsense. DC offset protection can be simply effected by the
addition
of around US$10.00 worth of parts. As for optimum load condictions, this
is
where the wheels fall off whatever passes for technical ability. The
OPTIMUM
output impedance of an amplifier is ZERO Ohms. The addition of an
autoformer
will ALWAYS raise the output impedance. Always. Moreover, if an amplifier
designer wants to build an amp which can cope with 4, 8 or 16 Ohms, he
can
just add more output devices. Output devices are MUCH less expensive than
iron and copper. Even better, when manufacturers do so, the amplifier has
the ability to deliver more power, as the impedance falls. Not so with
the
incredibly outdated autoformer system. A system which dated from a time
when
output transistors were exp[ensive and silicon was expensive. Thsoe
conditions have now reversed, so buying an autoformer equiopped McIntosh
makes about as much sense as buying a Model T Ford, in preference to a
(say)
Mustang. Some people LIKE driving Model T Fords. That's their choice, of
course. There are few logical reasons to suggest that their choice is
anything but an abberation. Same deal with autoformer equipped Macs.


Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

**You've neglected the other disadvantages: That of output impedance and
the
ability of the ap to act as a pure Voltage source.

**No comment, Bret?



Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

**Sure. That was when silicon was expensive and iron and copper was
cheap.
Now, the situation is reversed.


McIntosh prices are set by what the market considers high enough to
earn the buyers' respect, not by build cost. They are building UP to a
HIGH price.

**You don't know that. You're making assumptions. A big part of the reason
why autoformer equipped McIntosh amps are more expensive than others, is due
all the copper and iron.


You may feel they are overpriced. I personally do feel they are very
overpriced. I don't buy them. I suspect you do not either. Those who do
like them and believe their performance is adequate.

**You don't know that. Some people buy them due to the deluded nonsense
you've written. Some buy them, because they have that old fashioned look
about them. Some buy them, because they THINK they're better. I know. I've
serviced them for clients and most say pretty mcuh the same thing: "I bought
it because it has a good reputation." In fact, one guy brought his Mac in
for service. I replaced all the carbon composition resistors with metal film
types, the transistors with late generation types and all the caps with
modern types. He was stunned at the improvement. The thing which surprised
me was that, for what was a premium product in it's day, that it used carbon
composition resistors, when 'cracked carbon' types had been available for
many years prior. Penny-pinching by McIntosh I guess.


If Mc went the Trevor route and put in a bigger power transformer,
more heat sinks, more outpput devices to make up for the lowered build
cost of the autoformer they would no longer have a better amplifier of
the existing power rating, but another amplifier of a higher power
rating.

**WRONG! They would have an amp of the same power rating, but with far
superior load tolerance.

The autoformer approach gives the SAME power across the likely
load impedances.

**And THAT is exactly what is wrong with any transformer coupled amplifier.
Save one or two rare speakers, ALL speakers present a varying load
impedance. Here's a rather extreme example:

www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg

This speaker, like 99.99% of all speakers 'expects' to be driven by a 'pure
Voltage source'. IOW: As the impedance falls, the Voltage remains constant.
As a consequence, the power output will increase. This is normal. What is
not normal, is to deliberately cripple an otherwise good amplifier, by
causing it to deliver less Voltage, as the load impedance falls.


The autoformer is a small cost in the building of the amp, we may
safely predict,

**Yeah? Seen the price of copper recently? How about the cost of an
autoformer? How about the extra freight costs asssociated with an amplifier
which is heavier than it needs to be?

as McIntosh has never been about high build cost but
about the lowest build cost consistent with what they consider good
practice.

**Most manufacturers follow this practice. Where McIntosh diverges, is that
they fit autoformers to their amps, solely to differentiate their amps for
all the others on the market. It has nothing to do with performance (which
is worse) and everything to do with offering consumers something different.

They wind their own transformers and at a cost competitive
with vendors like Endicott Transformer and Schumacher, probably because
Upstate New York has a lot of cheap skilled labor available.

**Really? How much are their autoformers?


I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output impedance,
regardless of theory, and Mc owners don't either.

**You don't know that.

A power amplifier
with truly zero output impedance would be a fearsome thing, and we are
rather fortunate true zero impedance is impossible. It would be like
having a nuclear weapon in everyone's living room.

**Utter, banal nonsense. On every level.


McIntosh has ignored your opinions for over 60 years and I predict
they will ignore them for sixty more, Trevor.

**Predictions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. I predict that McIntosh
will dispense with autoformers within 10 years. If they remain in business
for that long.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**A "nutter"? Ok, smartarse: YOU provide some hard facts on why YOU think
that the addition of autoformers to an already decent amplifier can
possibly
improve the amp's performance. I'll wait.

**I'm still waiting Bret. How about providing some facts?

The only fact that is directly relevant is that those who choose Mac
amps with autorformers either prefer them or are so dumb they don't
know the difference.


This is well documented.

**Nope. What is documented is this: Bret Ludwig has a preference for
autoformer equipped amps, but cannot say why. Bret Ludwig has NEVER
performed a blind test between two, otherwise identical amps. One
autoformer
equipped and one not. IOW: He has no science, no facts and no logic.

**I guess I should have phrased this as a question. Bret, have you ever
performed such a comparison?

Only an unscientific one betwen the 7200 and 7270. They sounded
exactly the same to me, which is what I had expected to find.

Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

**You've neglected the other disadvantages: That of output impedance and
the
ability of the ap to act as a pure Voltage source.

**No comment, Bret?

I already did.




Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

**Sure. That was when silicon was expensive and iron and copper was
cheap.
Now, the situation is reversed.


McIntosh prices are set by what the market considers high enough to
earn the buyers' respect, not by build cost. They are building UP to a
HIGH price.

**You don't know that. You're making assumptions. A big part of the reason
why autoformer equipped McIntosh amps are more expensive than others, is due
all the copper and iron.


You may feel they are overpriced. I personally do feel they are very
overpriced. I don't buy them. I suspect you do not either. Those who do
like them and believe their performance is adequate.

**You don't know that. Some people buy them due to the deluded nonsense
you've written. Some buy them, because they have that old fashioned look
about them. Some buy them, because they THINK they're better. I know. I've
serviced them for clients and most say pretty mcuh the same thing: "I bought
it because it has a good reputation." In fact, one guy brought his Mac in
for service. I replaced all the carbon composition resistors with metal film
types, the transistors with late generation types and all the caps with
modern types. He was stunned at the improvement. The thing which surprised
me was that, for what was a premium product in it's day, that it used carbon
composition resistors, when 'cracked carbon' types had been available for
many years prior. Penny-pinching by McIntosh I guess.

I guarantee no one has ever bought a Mc amp due to my writings.




If Mc went the Trevor route and put in a bigger power transformer,
more heat sinks, more outpput devices to make up for the lowered build
cost of the autoformer they would no longer have a better amplifier of
the existing power rating, but another amplifier of a higher power
rating.

**WRONG! They would have an amp of the same power rating, but with far
superior load tolerance.

The autoformer approach gives the SAME power across the likely
load impedances.

**And THAT is exactly what is wrong with any transformer coupled amplifier.
Save one or two rare speakers, ALL speakers present a varying load
impedance. Here's a rather extreme example:

www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg



This speaker, like 99.99% of all speakers 'expects' to be driven by a 'pure
Voltage source'. IOW: As the impedance falls, the Voltage remains constant.
As a consequence, the power output will increase. This is normal. What is
not normal, is to deliberately cripple an otherwise good amplifier, by
causing it to deliver less Voltage, as the load impedance falls.

A McIntosh autoformer equipped amp will drive the above speaker very
well, although it is not a terribly well designed speaker to be sure.



The autoformer is a small cost in the building of the amp, we may
safely predict,

**Yeah? Seen the price of copper recently? How about the cost of an
autoformer? How about the extra freight costs asssociated with an amplifier
which is heavier than it needs to be?

as McIntosh has never been about high build cost but
about the lowest build cost consistent with what they consider good
practice.

**Most manufacturers follow this practice. Where McIntosh diverges, is that
they fit autoformers to their amps, solely to differentiate their amps for
all the others on the market. It has nothing to do with performance (which
is worse) and everything to do with offering consumers something different.

So if you don't want an autoformer equipped amp you have many other
choices and should not worry about McIntosh then.


They wind their own transformers and at a cost competitive
with vendors like Endicott Transformer and Schumacher, probably because
Upstate New York has a lot of cheap skilled labor available.

**Really? How much are their autoformers?

Bought as replacement parts, very expensive. The build cost is what is
relevant. The autoformers used in the 300 watt model "cost in the
ballpark of" $100 each to make including the C-cores, can, wire, and
direct and indirect labor, as of three or four years ago, from a source
I won't identify by name but will say was, and is, in a position to
know.


I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output impedance,
regardless of theory, and Mc owners don't either.

**You don't know that.

I know what I prefer as fact. I infer what others prefer from their
buying patterns. Drag racers don't like Weber carburetors, and camera
collectors don't like Polaroid cameras. I can state these things with
reasonable certainty by knowing enough of the markets for those things
over long enough to say I am in general correct. You can say that
because I don't know each and every drag racer or camera collector in
the world I can't make those kind of statements, but we both know you
would be ful of ****, as with the present discussion.

**Predictions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. I predict that McIntosh
will dispense with autoformers within 10 years. If they remain in business
for that long.

Mac HAS made autoformerless models and may be doing so as I write
this. But the Mc customer appears to prefer the autoformer coupled
ones.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output
impedance, regardless of theory,

In fact the usual solid state power amp has output impedance so low that it
is not practically different from zero.

The reason why they aren't like "having a nuclear weapon" is because the
operational region over which they have such low output impedance is
limited. Often, the region of low impedance output is limited quite
intentionally and precisely by electronic circuits. Otherwise, the limits
are implicit, sometimes going back to the limits of the power amp's power
supply.

and Mc owners don't either.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. In fact nobody knows what all Mc owners
want. They may not even want the amps they have.



Delusions of delusionality noted. If Mc amp buyers didn't want
autoformers, they must have been stupid to buy McIntosh, unless of
course they bought the autoformerless ones.

Few did, which is why Mc went back to autoformers.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output
impedance, regardless of theory,

In fact the usual solid state power amp has output
impedance so low that it is not practically different
from zero.

The reason why they aren't like "having a nuclear
weapon" is because the operational region over which
they have such low output impedance is limited. Often,
the region of low impedance output is limited quite
intentionally and precisely by electronic circuits.
Otherwise, the limits are implicit, sometimes going back
to the limits of the power amp's power supply.

and Mc owners don't either.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. In fact nobody knows
what all Mc owners want. They may not even want the amps
they have.

Delusions of delusionality noted.

???????????

If Mc amp buyers didn't
want autoformers, they must have been stupid to buy
McIntosh, unless of course they bought the autoformerless
ones.

I never said that Mc amp buyers were necessarily the sharpest knives in the
drawer.

Few did, which is why Mc went back to autoformers.

Then why does this current product lack them?

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/data/manuals/ma6300om01.pdf

Proof of absence of autoformers on page 18 of the user manual.

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Save one or two rare speakers, ALL speakers present a varying load
impedance. Here's a rather extreme example:
www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg

Ouch! Did you measure the electrical phase angle also, Trevor?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:

snip


If Mc amp buyers didn't
want autoformers, they must have been stupid to buy
McIntosh, unless of course they bought the autoformerless
ones.

I never said that Mc amp buyers were necessarily the sharpest knives in the
drawer.

Few did, which is why Mc went back to autoformers.

Then why does this current product lack them?

http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/data/manuals/ma6300om01.pdf

Proof of absence of autoformers on page 18 of the user manual.

The MA6300 is probably an integrated amp, many of which have had no
autoformers. Most of Mac's power amps have had them but some do not. I
am not an engineer and I do not work for Mc Intosh and do not represent
them. Some Mc amps do not have autoformers, and I said that a long time
ago. I also said I do not prefer autoformers, do not endorse
autoformers and do not care what Mc builds now, especially. My interest
in Mc amps today, is limited to building replicas of certain of their
vintage tube amplifiers using new reasonably priced transformers when
and if someone makes them available. I do not state such amplifiers are
the best possible amplifiers, only that they serve my purposes to my
satisfaction, and the opinions of Trevor or Arny are quite beyond my
consideration in that matter.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Save one or two rare speakers, ALL speakers present a varying load
impedance. Here's a rather extreme example:
www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg

Ouch! Did you measure the electrical phase angle also, Trevor?

**I did. Buggered if I can find all the measurements now though. Probably
lost in some long ago hard drive crash. I still see them from time to time.
I'll try measure them again sometime.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

snip

**A "nutter"? Ok, smartarse: YOU provide some hard facts on why YOU
think
that the addition of autoformers to an already decent amplifier can
possibly
improve the amp's performance. I'll wait.

**I'm still waiting Bret. How about providing some facts?

The only fact that is directly relevant is that those who choose Mac
amps with autorformers either prefer them or are so dumb they don't
know the difference.

**The latter would seem to be the most likely scenario. Don't forget: I've
dealt with a number of McIntosh owners. I am well aware of the depth of
their delusions.



This is well documented.

**Nope. What is documented is this: Bret Ludwig has a preference for
autoformer equipped amps, but cannot say why. Bret Ludwig has NEVER
performed a blind test between two, otherwise identical amps. One
autoformer
equipped and one not. IOW: He has no science, no facts and no logic.

**I guess I should have phrased this as a question. Bret, have you ever
performed such a comparison?

Only an unscientific one betwen the 7200 and 7270. They sounded
exactly the same to me, which is what I had expected to find.

**There's your answer. At least part of it. Autoformers do not assist the
performance at all, yet increase mass and cost. They also reduce load
tolerance of the amp.


Disadvantages are cost and weight, and the ability of
non-transformer
coupled amps to meet even better THD specs. All solid state Mc amps
except the very first models have THD specs well into the
don't-give-a-**** catregory.

**You've neglected the other disadvantages: That of output impedance
and
the
ability of the ap to act as a pure Voltage source.

**No comment, Bret?

I already did.

**Well, no, you didn't.





Many good solid state amplifiers had transformers including the
legendary Altecs.

**Sure. That was when silicon was expensive and iron and copper was
cheap.
Now, the situation is reversed.


McIntosh prices are set by what the market considers high enough to
earn the buyers' respect, not by build cost. They are building UP to a
HIGH price.

**You don't know that. You're making assumptions. A big part of the
reason
why autoformer equipped McIntosh amps are more expensive than others, is
due
all the copper and iron.


You may feel they are overpriced. I personally do feel they are very
overpriced. I don't buy them. I suspect you do not either. Those who do
like them and believe their performance is adequate.

**You don't know that. Some people buy them due to the deluded nonsense
you've written. Some buy them, because they have that old fashioned look
about them. Some buy them, because they THINK they're better. I know.
I've
serviced them for clients and most say pretty mcuh the same thing: "I
bought
it because it has a good reputation." In fact, one guy brought his Mac in
for service. I replaced all the carbon composition resistors with metal
film
types, the transistors with late generation types and all the caps with
modern types. He was stunned at the improvement. The thing which
surprised
me was that, for what was a premium product in it's day, that it used
carbon
composition resistors, when 'cracked carbon' types had been available for
many years prior. Penny-pinching by McIntosh I guess.

I guarantee no one has ever bought a Mc amp due to my writings.

**Possibly. However, I the deluded nonsense you've written is not
necessarily spoken only by you.





If Mc went the Trevor route and put in a bigger power transformer,
more heat sinks, more outpput devices to make up for the lowered build
cost of the autoformer they would no longer have a better amplifier of
the existing power rating, but another amplifier of a higher power
rating.

**WRONG! They would have an amp of the same power rating, but with far
superior load tolerance.

The autoformer approach gives the SAME power across the likely
load impedances.

**And THAT is exactly what is wrong with any transformer coupled
amplifier.
Save one or two rare speakers, ALL speakers present a varying load
impedance. Here's a rather extreme example:

www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg



This speaker, like 99.99% of all speakers 'expects' to be driven by a
'pure
Voltage source'. IOW: As the impedance falls, the Voltage remains
constant.
As a consequence, the power output will increase. This is normal. What is
not normal, is to deliberately cripple an otherwise good amplifier, by
causing it to deliver less Voltage, as the load impedance falls.

A McIntosh autoformer equipped amp will drive the above speaker very
well, although it is not a terribly well designed speaker to be sure.

**Unless you've tried a specific amp with those speakers, you cannot say. I
can tell you one thing, however: In EVERY case, amplifiers which have very
low output impedance figures and prodigious current capacity work very well
with those speakers. I know, since I've tried them in many locations, with
many different amps.




The autoformer is a small cost in the building of the amp, we may
safely predict,

**Yeah? Seen the price of copper recently? How about the cost of an
autoformer? How about the extra freight costs asssociated with an
amplifier
which is heavier than it needs to be?

as McIntosh has never been about high build cost but
about the lowest build cost consistent with what they consider good
practice.

**Most manufacturers follow this practice. Where McIntosh diverges, is
that
they fit autoformers to their amps, solely to differentiate their amps
for
all the others on the market. It has nothing to do with performance
(which
is worse) and everything to do with offering consumers something
different.

So if you don't want an autoformer equipped amp you have many other
choices and should not worry about McIntosh then.


They wind their own transformers and at a cost competitive
with vendors like Endicott Transformer and Schumacher, probably because
Upstate New York has a lot of cheap skilled labor available.

**Really? How much are their autoformers?

Bought as replacement parts, very expensive.

**How much? (It is a very simple question)

The build cost is what is
relevant.

**Indeed. Partly, anyway.

The autoformers used in the 300 watt model "cost in the
ballpark of" $100 each to make including the C-cores, can, wire, and
direct and indirect labor, as of three or four years ago, from a source
I won't identify by name but will say was, and is, in a position to
know.

**Assuming you are correct, then be aware that in most manufacturing
systems, a 400% markup on parts is about the right equation. That means two
transformers would be costed at around $800.00 to the retail price of the
amp. That is a fair chunk of change. It would buy a LOT of output
transistors, heat sinks and extra power supply materials.




I don't want a power amplifier with "zero" output impedance,
regardless of theory, and Mc owners don't either.

**You don't know that.

I know what I prefer as fact. I infer what others prefer from their
buying patterns. Drag racers don't like Weber carburetors, and camera
collectors don't like Polaroid cameras. I can state these things with
reasonable certainty by knowing enough of the markets for those things
over long enough to say I am in general correct. You can say that
because I don't know each and every drag racer or camera collector in
the world I can't make those kind of statements, but we both know you
would be ful of ****, as with the present discussion.

**I won't argue either area, because my knowledge is (very) incomplete in
both. However, my knowledge is ALL aspect of the audio business is quite
complete. I argue from a position of strength and long experience. I also
know McIntosh amps quite well, having worked on/listened to quite a few.


**Predictions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. I predict that
McIntosh
will dispense with autoformers within 10 years. If they remain in
business
for that long.

Mac HAS made autoformerless models and may be doing so as I write
this. But the Mc customer appears to prefer the autoformer coupled
ones.

**What are the sales figures for autoformer vs. non-autoformer models? What
were the sales figures (say) 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Once you provide me
with that data, I can make some reasonable predictions. Beyond that, I'm
sticking with my 10 year figures. McIntosh are bit like Bose. Bose keep
building 901 speakers, even though it is not an economically viable thing to
do. They must do so, however, since their reputation rests on the concept.
Same deal with McIntosh. They will probably keep one or two models going,
for as long as the company lasts. Just to wave the flag, so to speak.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Trevor Wilson wrote:
snip

Mac HAS made autoformerless models and may be doing so as I write
this. But the Mc customer appears to prefer the autoformer coupled
ones.

**What are the sales figures for autoformer vs. non-autoformer models? What
were the sales figures (say) 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Once you provide me
with that data, I can make some reasonable predictions. Beyond that, I'm
sticking with my 10 year figures. McIntosh are bit like Bose. Bose keep
building 901 speakers, even though it is not an economically viable thing to
do. They must do so, however, since their reputation rests on the concept.
Same deal with McIntosh. They will probably keep one or two models going,
for as long as the company lasts. Just to wave the flag, so to speak.


Trev, you're a bit of a nutter on this, but that's okay.

Mc's reputation was made largely on its tube amps, and as long as they
were an independent company they swore on a RDH 4 they would never
build a tube amp ever again. When the company was bought by the
Japanese they were forced to do so, didn't like it, didn't even do that
great a job (Marantz did a far better job: they outsourced it to a
specialist company, VAC), and yet the 275 Reissue is the most
profitable product they have.

I don't have current Mc data, the bean counters keep it from even my
contacts and I am not on a daily contact basis with anyone there
anymore. When I lived in Upstate NY I knew a lot of current and former
Mc people.

Mc builds both autoformer and nonautoformer solid state amps. My guess
is this will continue.

I do know that Mc considers parts cost to be the small end of the
stick and their accounting is designed to factor in Mc's high
advertising, PR and dealer grooming/maintenance/disciplining costs-Mc
can and has pulled very profitable dealers they considered undermining
the brand whilst putting up with yards of **** from marginal ones-like
the one here in my city, owned by one of the biggest jackoffs in audio
worldwide-who they consider strategic-as a line item cost in each
product. Yet they do use strictly vanilla parts, with minimal
upselecting of output and driver semis and so forth.

You can write Mc management and they will tell you what they will tell
anyone. Perhaps they will give you the figures you need to buttress or
disprove your case. In any case it's academic, because there is no
shortage of autoformer-free brands out there to choose from.