Is Mcintosh current amp?

[MediumRare]

When are we getting these McAmps measured? Methinks they'll fall far, far behind the newest class D and Benchmark in distortion, though they will probably deliver their promised power.

I have an MA6900 integrated (experts will be able to explain how it puts a Mac preamp and SS amp, each in their own cabinet, on one chassis). It’s rated at 200 wpc at .005% THD. I had it in for new caps at 18 years old and it sounds effing good to my ears through B&W 804 Nautilus plus a big sub. I chose it for the autoformer so it could drive the B&Ws which pull a lot of current at 2 ohms in the deep bass but 7-8 at the tweeters.

The guy tested its output and from memory it put out 235. Does anyone have a source for Independant measurements?

 

[DonH56]

Speaking of current (amperes)
Emotiva DR2, even thou output 650/1000+/1000+watt at 8/4/2ohm. Only 32A max.
While Mc452 is 450/450/450w at 8/4/2. But output 40/50/70A accordingly.
Does this mean Mc452 is better at driving lower impedance? Is 32A of DR2 considered good enough (for Salon2s)? Thanks

Unfortunately specs can be misleading. Obviously the Emotiva must be able to deliver higher current peaks to support their output ratings. I did not see a current output rating on their web page after a quick look. The McIntosh's output autoformer makes it harder to compare the amps but again I think either one would do just fine. As said above, the Salon2's are not necessarily an easy load, but not known as a terribly bad one either. I would use an amp rated for 4 ohms or below, and with sufficient power to achieve my desired SPL with margin, but that probably means most any decent high-power amplifier will work well.

 

[veeceem]

32A max of DR2 was measured by hifinews. And the current ratings of Mc452 was from Mcintosh tech support.
Emotiva tech replied that theres no standard to current output ratings, it could be misleading, as you mentioned, so they only listed RMS.
By power to reach certain SPL, you mean the annouced/measured watts at 8/4ohm?
thanks

 

[DonH56]

32A max of DR2 was measured by hifinews. And the current ratings of Mc452 was from Mcintosh tech support.
Emotiva tech replied that theres no standard to current output ratings, it could be misleading, as you mentioned, so they only listed RMS.
By power to reach certain SPL, you mean the annouced/measured watts at 8/4ohm?
thanks

Datasheet rated output power, yes. Either of those amps should be more than enough to destroy furniture in a normal living space.

 

[MediumRare]

I drive a pair of Salon 2s with an MC452.

I bet that does sound great. My MA6900 sounds sweetest at 2 to 20 watts sustained as well. I do run it at 50 watts sustained when I'm in a good mood (parties).

Do I see a Mac integrated there as well? And how did you decide on your sub position?
[edited watt levels]

 

[MediumRare]

Datasheet rated output power, yes. Either of those amps should be more than enough to destroy furniture in a normal living space.

Don, what is the best spec to determine an amp's ability to drive low ohms speakers at high power? (Thinking about these "hard to drive" speakers pulling a lot of current, especially in the deep bass.)

 

[Siwel]

When are we getting these McAmps measured? Methinks they'll fall far, far behind the newest class D and Benchmark in distortion, though they will probably deliver their promised power.

You would be mistaken although if I recall, the Benchmark was the best measured amplifier Atkinson ever tested which means it measures a little better than the McIntosh within its power envelope, although that envelope is not the equal of the Mc's. The MC delivers considerably more power without being bridged and the distortion delta is minimal enough as to be irrelevant. There is another area where the McIntosh beats the Benchmark and that is in frequency response. The Benchmark rolls off sooner within the theoretical audio passband, that is below 20K. Does it matter? I don't know. Is a difference of .0002% audible?

You'd have to buy 2 Benchmarks to equal the power of one MC462 in most test situations. This takes nothing away from Benchmark's achievement but matching watt for watt puts you back much closer to square one as far as price is concerned if comparing the 452/462 to two Benchmarks. I paid less than the cost of 2 Benchmarks for mine. Can you really complain about such superb performance, cosmetics, feel, durability and build? The Benchmark offers outstanding value in a high end amp. So does the Mac. Below are the stats Atkinson reports for the two.
Benchmark

McIntosh

 

[DonH56]

Don, what is the best spec to determine an amp's ability to drive low ohms speakers at high power? (Thinking about these "hard to drive" speakers pulling a lot of current, especially in the deep bass.)

Low output impedance (not often spec'd wideband) and output power into lower loads can provide some clues. Looking at measurement data into low and realistic'ish loudspeaker loads such as Stereophile does is another way. The sorry fact is that manufacturer data sheets tend to focus on a few specs and do not provide the whole picture. The good news is most amplifiers these days are fine with such loads; in the past, some amps would become unstable, or go into thermal shutdown. The latter problem is most likely to be found in user reviews or perhaps pre-conditioning during normal (FTC) testing.

HTH - Don

 

[Siwel]

quench

I bet that does sound great. My MA6900 sounds sweetest at 20 to 50 watts sustained as well. I do run it at 100 watts sustained when I'm in a good mood.

Do I see a Mac integrated there as well? And how did you decide on your sub position?

That's a McIntosh preamp, the C52. It is solid state like all my gear and has a built in DAC based on multiple ESS 9028PRO (IIRC). It is fully balanced (according to MC). I use it in preference to the DAC in my Oppo because I think it sounds better. It is very capable and has tons of digital and analog inputs (no AES tho). I run fully balanced everywhere except the ancient Sony cassette deck I keep for playing our old mix tapes.

I did a crawl for the sub placement. I didn't pick the location for maximum output but selected it for what I thought was tightest/"fastest" perceived response combined with a reasonably pleasing aesthetic. I dislike LF "bloat"as much as the next guy so keeping that at bay is a high priority for me. The JLAs are good so that makes it easier. I will sacrifice absolute extension and level for timbre and clarity but the system doesn't lack LF. There is a notch at about 55Hz. I don't think I can hear it but I can see it. The rig is otherwise relatively flat to 30Hz, and rolls off from just below there which suggests to me there may be more to be had but that makes it fun and challenging, right? It sounds great to me, tuned for music, not video but works well enough there too. It's amazing how two speakers can make sounds seem to come from alongside and even behind you.

The subs are forward of the mains and can fully pressurize the room when called for. If I push either or both subs back into the corner quantity rises but quality seems to suffer. The room isn't as tight/ well constructed as the one we had in Seattle but is better controlled overall because it's dedicated and thus treated. The old room was our living room. Lots of domestic compromise there, much less here.

I tune the subs one at a time by reversing polarity to the nearest speaker (the far one is muted), running the matching tone for the desired crossover point, seeking to deepen that notch (using an SPL meter....my phone...hehe!) and then tuning via precise, small incremental adjustments of level and phase, both being available on the JLAs. I use an analog JLA CR-1 crossover which includes both high and low pass filters (and other stuff). I have always believed in using a dedicated crossover rather than just the sub's high pass. It's currently crossed over using a 24dB/octave filter setting and 80Hz knee. I often play with crossover frequencies. A lower crossover might suit the Revels since they are flat down there but I find I like 80Hz. Playing with this happens if I get bored or get a wild hair. I think the room is the limiting factor. I could use more bass traps/ bass control (or better walls and more rigid floor) but can it get too dry?

I think the main speakers are near optimally placed for wide sound stage while they provide an outstanding stereo image and phantom center channel , best I've ever had by a lot! While the subs might benefit from more creative placement, the speakers will stay where they are for now.

There is a dedicated panel visible just above the TV set in the photo above. It was there when we bought the house because the last owner was into AV. The room is wired for surround and a ceiling mount projector but I don't use that stuff except for the panel. We had two additional 20 Amp circuits installed to go with two existing 15 amp circuits already in the place on the wall behind the rig. Everything is plugged straight into the wall using the OEM power cables. Of course!

There is whole house surge protection which you need here. Lightning and thunder! I have owned (and represented) a lot of gear but never anything nearly as lavish or coordinated as this.

I hope that answers your questions and isn't TMI.

 

[anmpr1]

1) The MC delivers considerably more power without being bridged and the distortion delta is minimal enough as to be irrelevant. 2) There is another area where the McIntosh beats the Benchmark and that is in frequency response.

1) Compared to the McIntosh, two bridged AHB-2 will save you enough $ to buy a DAC3, plus have a thousand dollars in the bank leftover.

2) From John's measurements:
Benchmark amplifier's frequency response... (to simulated loudspeaker) was just ±0.1dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Mac: the response to the standard simulation varied by ±0.2dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Obviously these variations are not audible. But if we are playing the numbers game it's half as much... On the other hand, one area where the McIntosh handily beats out the Benchmark is in watt-meter ballistics. And weight--the Mac is five times as heavy as two AHB. Really, the only reason to buy a McIntosh over two Benchmarks is cosmetic. That is certainly a valid reason for some, and I understand that completely.

 

[oldsysop]

I would never trade a Mcintosh class A / B for an anemic Benchmark class D.

 

[anmpr1]

I would never trade a Mcintosh class A / B for an anemic Benchmark class D.

LOL. I've actually read where some people actually think that about the Benchmark (a linear class-AB amplifier with parallel class-A feed-forward amplifier).

 

[beefkabob]

Somebody carry your mac amp to amir!

 

[BeepPeep_61]

I don't want to appear noisy, but maybe you haven't read the test by Audio Review well that I posted a few pages back,
I report the most salient data.
If you can afford it, buy the MC452 and live happily ever after for the rest of your days as an audiophile, you will never regret it !!

 

[Blumlein 88]

1) Compared to the McIntosh, two bridged AHB-2 will save you enough $ to buy a DAC3, plus have a thousand dollars in the bank leftover.

2) From John's measurements:
Benchmark amplifier's frequency response... (to simulated loudspeaker) was just ±0.1dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Mac: the response to the standard simulation varied by ±0.2dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Obviously these variations are not audible. But if we are playing the numbers game it's half as much... On the other hand, one area where the McIntosh handily beats out the Benchmark is in watt-meter ballistics. And weight--the Mac is five times as heavy as two AHB. Really, the only reason to buy a McIntosh over two Benchmarks is cosmetic. That is certainly a valid reason for some, and I understand that completely.

Wonder if there is a market for McInBench faceplates for the Benchmark amps? Mac gear is beautiful.

 

[veeceem]

1) Compared to the McIntosh, two bridged AHB-2 will save you enough $ to buy a DAC3, plus have a thousand dollars in the bank leftover.

2) From John's measurements:
Benchmark amplifier's frequency response... (to simulated loudspeaker) was just ±0.1dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Mac: the response to the standard simulation varied by ±0.2dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Obviously these variations are not audible. But if we are playing the numbers game it's half as much... On the other hand, one area where the McIntosh handily beats out the Benchmark is in watt-meter ballistics. And weight--the Mac is five times as heavy as two AHB. Really, the only reason to buy a McIntosh over two Benchmarks is cosmetic. That is certainly a valid reason for some, and I understand that completely.

I think it also depends on which market you're in.
Stocked Mc452 "new" is equal in price here with x2 AHB2 (cuz of mc462 release)
Mc452 old is cheaper for sure.
Both are at the level which no difference can be heard.
Mc452 has more power.
Mc452 has proven longlasting build quality.
Mc452 has blue meters.
Then what not to like mc452?
In the end, I think theres no wrong choice both options are viable. But if both are equally good with similar price, then why not picking the "more beautiful" one?
Your point is understanable only with newest products from Mcintosh. Wayyyyyyyyyy over in price

 

[Sal1950]

You could save quite a bit of money buying 2 clean Adcom 555 ii off ebay and running them bridged.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/audio/adcom/gfa-555-ii.htm

 

[Siwel]

1) Compared to the McIntosh, two bridged AHB-2 will save you enough $ to buy a DAC3, plus have a thousand dollars in the bank leftover.

2) From John's measurements:
Benchmark amplifier's frequency response... (to simulated loudspeaker) was just ±0.1dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Mac: the response to the standard simulation varied by ±0.2dB (fig.1, gray trace).

Obviously these variations are not audible. But if we are playing the numbers game it's half as much... On the other hand, one area where the McIntosh handily beats out the Benchmark is in watt-meter ballistics. And weight--the Mac is five times as heavy as two AHB. Really, the only reason to buy a McIntosh over two Benchmarks is cosmetic. That is certainly a valid reason for some, and I understand that completely.

Not for me . I bought a new 452 at a retail shop for less than the retail of 2 AHB2s today. That was almost 4 years ago when the AHB2 was not available (I think) and I'm not sure I would have done anything differently had it been anyway. I was hot for the MC at the time, never having had one. I believe the spec delta is insignificant at this level of performance to me.

I realize the 462 costs more today than my 452 (9K up from 7.5K list), significantly more list to list than the Benchmark at this point. This makes the comparison skew between new vs. used as another variable since if you want it from new, a pair of AHB2s will be significantly less money now that they changed the name and raised the price of the Mc. At a certain point it will indeed as you say come down to other factors but I think it would be silly me to argue that the Benchmark isn't a great amplifier at the price, a worthy match for McIntosh's performance for less money and, likewise, that the Mac isn't a good choice as well.

 

[Siwel]

Well, a lively conversation and a fun first day for me posting to this forum. I think I'm going to like it here! You're a good bunch!

 

[dieselmilk]

Amp = watt/volts. When people say you need a lot of current, they're really telling you that your amp needs to reach higher watts but have low distortion. I have an emotiva xpa200 which says it's rated at 240W at 4ohms. In reality, with testing, it's only good up to 200W keeping distortion low at acceptable levels. So in my case, if I had speakers that would really start to rock with 220W, someone would listen to my system and think it sounds like crap and recommend something like a good 500W amp. In that case, the 500W amp should easily put out 220W with low distortion vs mine which would strain and distort. This is usually why you don't want to drive speakers at the limits of your amplifier, since the amp will cause you all kinds of listening strife. It's the same reason why you wouldn't put a weed whacker motor in your car.