McIntosh MC462 Stereo Amplifier Review (by ErinsAudioCorner.com)

[TonyJZX]

does anyone truly believe that though?

i mean i want to... but...

 

[egellings]

does anyone truly believe that though?

i mean i want to... but...

I'd prefer the Mac over the switcher, but my budget precludes my ever owning Mac. So what did I do?" Homebrew, both with BJT and tubes.

 

[wje]

at 120lbs the shipping cost and risk of damage is too high

Which is why shipping the amplifier - in the McIntosh provided boxes and strapped to a palet and via a freight carrier is the preferred method of shipping.

 

[Myaudio]

Using two Mc462's in my setup but I am considering 3 Mc611's for my LCR's. Any measurements out there for the Mc611?

 

[BeepPeep_61]

Using two Mc462's in my setup but I am considering 3 Mc611's for my LCR's. Any measurements out there for the Mc611?

 

[tetragrammaton]

Now I am curious what other high end amps deliver in such droves on the performance end!

 

[73hadd]

It's probably in the technical data here, but can someone explain how the McIntosh MC462 listed "Damping Factor >40 Wideband" compares to the Benchmark recommended "System Damping Factor" of at least 150 to maintain .15db error? https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/audio-myth-damping-factor-isnt-much-of-a-factor

Thanks!

 

[radix]

It's probably in the technical data here, but can someone explain how the McIntosh MC462 listed "Damping Factor >40 Wideband" compares to the Benchmark recommended "System Damping Factor" of at least 150 to maintain .15db error? https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/audio-myth-damping-factor-isnt-much-of-a-factor

Thanks!

I don't have a technical answer for you, just some points that seem relevant.

McIntosh is usually conservative with their specs, so the real damping factor might be much higher, especially in the 20-20k range. They also have different ways to drive difficult loads. For example, the 2-4-8 output terminals lets you pick the output that best suits your speakers. I've seen recommendations to try all 3, regardless of whatever your speakers are rated at. They also have a lot of stored energy in those giant caps that can smooth things over. Finally, they are not claiming such tight bounds, but "+0, -0.25dB from 20Hz to 20kHz."

As we don't know the meaning of ">" or the meaning of "wideband" (I'm assuming this is for their 10-100k spec of "+0, -3.0dB from 10Hz to 100kHz"), i'd focus on the frequency response spec of "+0, -0.25" rather than the damping factor, and then decide how that compares to the AHB2.

BTW, if. you look at the specs for the AHB2, it's not >= 150 over the whole 20-20k range, though the FR at 8 ohms does look to be at most 0.16 dB. In Amir's review, he saw a 0.3 dB drop in FR in the 20-20k range.

 

[Sokel]

It's probably in the technical data here, but can someone explain how the McIntosh MC462 listed "Damping Factor >40 Wideband" compares to the Benchmark recommended "System Damping Factor" of at least 150 to maintain .15db error? https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/audio-myth-damping-factor-isnt-much-of-a-factor

Thanks!

You can't compare Mc straight with the rest of the amps on this because of its autoformers which raise the amp's output impedance.
It's Mc's way all these years coming from their tube amps.Strange choice but it's how it is.
Rest of the measurements thought are top-notch.

 

[73hadd]

Erin did not measure with a simulated speaker, but it looks like Stereophile did:

McIntosh Laboratory MC462 power amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

I wonder if that same FR wiggle would be there on a Benchmark or other amps. Looks to be within a +/- .2db swing, which if correlated to the Benchmark calculator of .4db error, puts the effective damping factor of about 50, which would meet the >40 listed by McIntosh.

 

[Sokel]

Erin did not measure with a simulated speaker, but it looks like Stereophile did:

McIntosh Laboratory MC462 power amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

I wonder if that same FR wiggle would be there on a Benchmark or other amp.

It's even more of them at the same measurement:

Benchmark Media Systems AHB2 power amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Edit:Scale is different so comparable,one is within 0.2dB and the other within 0.1dB.
The difference is a the top octaves where Benchmark slopes very early as impedance goes lower.

 

[73hadd]

For the simulated speaker at 20k, the MC462 looks maybe +.1 and AHB2 -.15 The scale difference makes it hard to compare visually.

Looking at the green line, the Benchmark is flatter by a small amount, yes?

Benchmark AHB2
-.575 at 10k
-.8 at 20k
-1.75 at 50k
-3.5 at 100k

McIntosh MC462
-.6 at 10k
-.8 at 20k
-3 at 50k
-7.5 at 100k

 

[Willem]

In essence, they are both very good.

 

[Maurizio_Maggi]

Hi all!!!!

do any of you happen to have a Mc 462 paired with some old Tannoy Cheviot stereo speakers from the 76/78's?

I for now have a Mcintosh C22 MKV along with an MC275 MKVI.
I only listen via Tidal with a Bluesoun Node3 as streamer and an ADI2 DAC FS as DAC.

I´d like to see if the difference with a quality solid state can be heard compared to my 275

my speakers do not need such power, nor does my entire house need it, however, I have the opportunity to purchase ( with a 14-day right of withdrawal) an MC462 ex Demo from a store, with a 5-year warranty.
I said to myself why not.

was I a fool with my vintage speakers to do this?
I´m going to blow them up?

Thanks
Maurizio from MUNICH GERMANY

 

[Willem]

Let’s be real here.
The people buying $10k amplifiers have more money than sense.
These amplifiers scream “status” and that’s precisely who their target audience is.

Hypex and Purifi amps are the sensible options, for normal people.

And for comparison a French test using an Audio Precision analyzer of a since discontinued 2x350 watt Yamaha P3500s: https://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum...mpli-yamaha-p3500s-mise-a-jour-t30056383.html On the strength of this test I bought a 2x250 watt P2500s for 300 euros for my son. It is impeccable driving his ELAC dbr62s. The same series of powerful Yamaha amps included some far more powerful amps as well, at similarly competitive prices.

 

[GXAlan]

Erin did not measure with a simulated speaker, but it looks like Stereophile did:

McIntosh Laboratory MC462 power amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

I wonder if that same FR wiggle would be there on a Benchmark or other amps. Looks to be within a +/- .2db swing, which if correlated to the Benchmark calculator of .4db error, puts the effective damping factor of about 50, which would meet the >40 listed by McIntosh.

If you look at Stereo.de

They put the AHB2 damping factor pretty low by their metric

Testergebnisse

www.stereo.de

In contrast,the MA7900 scored

So the McIntosh is better than the AHB2 for treble but not as good for the bass

https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/-/media/Files/mcintoshlabs/ReviewAwardDocuments/MA7900-Stereo-Magazine-Issue-04-2016.pdf

But something like Marantz Model 30 gets 1000 on the same testing

Testergebnisse

www.stereo.de

 

[Galliardist]

If I remember correctly, the Cheviot power handling was rated at over a hundred watts.

There are several versions of the Cheviot. The original version has lower power handling. It's worth checking what version of the Cheviot it is.

We don't know @Maurizio_Maggi's circumstances. With an early model Cheviot, I may just be wary of, say, children turning the amp up to full without realising.

 

[Jim Taylor]

There are several versions of the Cheviot. The original version has lower power handling. It's worth checking what version of the Cheviot it is.

We don't know @Maurizio_Maggi's circumstances. With an early model Cheviot, I may just be wary of, say, children turning the amp up to full without realising.

True. I hadn't thought of children .... or an accidental slip. I will delete my post, so that it doesn't lead to any mishaps. Thank you.

 

[Casper]

I just finished reading this thread and one thing that has not been discussed is if real performance opportunities might be gained by simply having this much power and a wider choice of speakers. I have fairly high sensitivity speakers and I don’t listen to music at rock concert levels, so this amount of power does not make much sense for my system, but if I were starting with this amp and looking for appropriate speakers, are there overall performance gains to be made when looking at low sensitivity speakers?

In other words, does designing high sensitivity speakers entail making sacrifices or compromises that low sensitivity speakers do not have?

Are there any specific speakers that have exceptionally low distortion and linear responses at the expense of sensitivity that would make them unsuitable for lower powered amps but ideal for the mc462?

Looking a the issue from the other direction, if I have speakers rated at 90dB (1w/1m) and I'm not seeking to listen at louder levels, would I hear any increase in fidelity with the mc462 over a lower powered amp like the Toping LA90d?

 

[Maurizio_Maggi]

Hi All!

I can´t determine which speakers I have from 1976 or 1978... but anyway the early models were given for 60 watts and sensitivity´of 90 dB...
so I don't know what to say....

whether to try the MC 462 and then if not convinced take it back to the store ( 200 km) with costs
or give up and keep the 275 and try another game.


( My children are aware.. )

thanks!
Maurizio