• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Pricey Mcintosh Dac announced

Galliardist

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
2,558
Likes
3,273
Location
Sydney. NSW, Australia
Timeless investment...
Does that mean it will last for no time?

And since Rolex got brought up here, I seem to remember a couple of watch brands down the years offering "timeless design" as a selling point. Skagen for one. You have to wonder...
 

sq225917

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
1,361
Likes
1,613
Quad balanced, marketing speak for using all 8 dac channels for stereo.
 

TonyJZX

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 20, 2021
Messages
1,893
Likes
1,821
i'm in two minds about this

on one hand mcintosh could have integrated wifi and bt and streaming services however these would quikcly become obsolete.... but then they could keep selling you expensive upgrade cards

you can buy wifi streamers for like sub $100.... that pass out a sp/dif anyway

and mcintosh ISN'T a tech company so why not let the chinese dominate the market on wifi streamers and let mcintosh concentrate on expensive dacs?


this comes back to when mcintosh decided to discontinue a/v processors... why bother when other companies do it better and cheaper in a cut throat market?
 

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,636
Likes
2,074
I'm of one mind. This is typical McIntosh. Decent to bad performance, a specific style, and a sky high price.
 

RF Air

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
215
Likes
362
Location
Desert Southwest, USA
I'm of one mind. This is typical McIntosh. Decent to bad performance, a specific style, and a sky high price.
As a longterm owner of McIntosh equipment, I can agree with some of your statement. I would not agree with bad performance, perhaps some products have been marginal but I would offer that "bad" would be uncharacteristic for the brand. Certainly the build standard of a "Stylized" product has created a reputation, which has been their bankable legacy. The products do maintain outstanding durability and hold value with specs that are admirable. The NY Lab is still consistent with outstanding support and reputation.

On a similar note, I had a Jeweler friend who said if I wanted an outstanding accurate Timepiece, don't buy a Rolex; buy a Rolex if you want jewelry that can be worn as a Timepiece. Rolex is still coveted by many collectors, and will always catch an eye from anyone who has considered the merit of achieving the ownership of a "timeless timepiece" (probably a trademark for someone). This scenario is likely to be more "affective" to the McIntosh Labs products and their legacy.
 

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,636
Likes
2,074
As a longterm owner of McIntosh equipment, I can agree with some of your statement. I would not agree with bad performance, perhaps some products have been marginal but I would offer that "bad" would be uncharacteristic for the brand. Certainly the build standard of a "Stylized" product has created a reputation, which has been their bankable legacy. The products do maintain outstanding durability and hold value with specs that are admirable. The NY Lab is still consistent with outstanding support and reputation.

On a similar note, I had a Jeweler friend who said if I wanted an outstanding accurate Timepiece, don't buy a Rolex; buy a Rolex if you want jewelry that can be worn as a Timepiece. Rolex is still coveted by many collectors, and will always catch an eye from anyone who has considered the merit of achieving the ownership of a "timeless timepiece" (probably a trademark for someone). This scenario is likely to be more "affective" to the McIntosh Labs products and their legacy.
I have an old set of McIntosh LS310 speakers sitting in boxes, which I bought around 25 years ago. I thought they were the bee's knees when I got them because they could play loud, but the the truth is their frequency response is a total mess and the directivity ain't so hot either. They're embarrassing. The only truly nice thing is the solidity of the furniture.
 

RF Air

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 7, 2022
Messages
215
Likes
362
Location
Desert Southwest, USA
I have an old set of McIntosh LS310 speakers sitting in boxes, which I bought around 25 years ago. I thought they were the bee's knees when I got them because they could play loud, but the the truth is their frequency response is a total mess and the directivity ain't so hot either. They're embarrassing. The only truly nice thing is the solidity of the furniture.
I often wondered why McIntosh strayed into some of the areas of product sales that were not truly their strength. I was always impressed with the Amplifiers, probably due to the meters, but found them to be consistent throughout time. I have purchased other products like a Denon Reference CD Player back in 1999 and it dumped within four years. I think it's a casualty risk to all of these products when we are attracted to the "Bright Shiny" only to be disappointed if and when they lose their luster.
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,723
Likes
6,407
I often wondered why McIntosh strayed into some of the areas of product sales that were not truly their strength.
Changes of ownership and marketing orientation, in order to maximize exposure and, hopefully, profits. When Frank and Gordon were running the show, it was strictly no-nonsense. A product stayed in the catalog for years. At least until they thought they could offer something better. The company relied on an established dealer franchise network that supported what was sold, providing after the sale customer massaging, via 'clinics'. If Mac advertised, it was usually a quarter page blurb, showing a picture of their tuner/preamp, and offering to send out a free FM radio station guide, if you wrote for it.

The hi-fi press (mainstream) was always spec oriented, and McIntosh could not compete on specs/dollar. Probably because of that, Mac never sent gear to Stereo Review, Hi Fidelity, or Audio. They understood that a much cheaper Pioneer performed as well on the bench for a lot less dollars, and the magazines could not 'quantify' things like dealer support, pride of ownership, longevity, residual value after depreciation, etc. So their was no upside to them for a review. When first introduced, the MR-78 might have been an exception.

The 'underground' hi-fi press eschewed the brand. Gordon Holt or Peter Aczel couldn't be bothered, both offering opinions advising readers to avoid the brand. Instead, these magazines pushed gear that sometimes cost much more, often performed much worse, and typically offered no long term consumer value (who today wants a used Quatre Gain Cell, or anything made by Andy Rappaport?). Why was this? I think it was mostly because the company did not cater to the 'tweaks', and wouldn't send out review samples. Perhaps with Gordon, he couldn't afford to buy a McIntosh so he had no first hand experience with the brand. Aczel could afford it, but was in bed with Mark Levinson.

Sometime in the late '80s or early '90s, the company changed. Management paid a bunch of hi-fi journalists to visit their factory, and as a result got some 'needed' press, launching them into the 21st century. Aczel wrote that the gear was certainly expensive, but what else was new? David Rich took some of the amps apart and found that, design-wise, they were OK, but nothing special-- a consumer could do better for less money, elsewhere. But then you didn't get the cosmetics.

Eventually Stereophile (and what was left of Harry Pearson's rag) realized that Mac had changed, and was now embracing their inner tweak. Consequently, those magazine's influencers started to hear that special MacMagic that the old designs had hitherto been missing.

Today Mac is really two companies. It seems to me that they are attempting to balance it out. IMO, not to the best effect. Play old off the new. Half traditional, and half tweako bling. However all that is, if you can afford the stuff it will no doubt work for you... it's certainly not throw away junk. And it maintains value. At least the amps. I doubt their digital stuff will be important, twenty years from now.

Think of it this way-- you can go to any mall kiosk and purchase inexpensive flashy gold plated bling that is just as shiny as the high-priced 24 karat stuff you'd find at Tiffany or Bulgari (if they let you in the store and after walking past the armed guards). But a connoisseur of bling knows the difference, and anyone who can afford it probably wants the real thing.


natsuki.jpg
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,754
Changes of ownership and marketing orientation, in order to maximize exposure and, hopefully, profits. When Frank and Gordon were running the show, it was strictly no-nonsense. A product stayed in the catalog for years. At least until they thought they could offer something better. The company relied on an established dealer franchise network that supported what was sold, providing after the sale customer massaging, via 'clinics'. If Mac advertised, it was usually a quarter page blurb, showing a picture of their tuner/preamp, and offering to send out a free FM radio station guide, if you wrote for it.

The hi-fi press (mainstream) was always spec oriented, and McIntosh could not compete on specs/dollar. Probably because of that, Mac never sent gear to Stereo Review, Hi Fidelity, or Audio. They understood that a much cheaper Pioneer performed as well on the bench for a lot less dollars, and the magazines could not 'quantify' things like dealer support, pride of ownership, longevity, residual value after depreciation, etc. So their was no upside to them for a review. When first introduced, the MR-78 might have been an exception.

The 'underground' hi-fi press eschewed the brand. Gordon Holt or Peter Aczel couldn't be bothered, both offering opinions advising readers to avoid the brand. Instead, these magazines pushed gear that sometimes cost much more, often performed much worse, and typically offered no long term consumer value (who today wants a used Quatre Gain Cell, or anything made by Andy Rappaport?). Why was this? I think it was mostly because the company did not cater to the 'tweaks', and wouldn't send out review samples. Perhaps with Gordon, he couldn't afford to buy a McIntosh so he had no first hand experience with the brand. Aczel could afford it, but was in bed with Mark Levinson.

Sometime in the late '80s or early '90s, the company changed. Management paid a bunch of hi-fi journalists to visit their factory, and as a result got some 'needed' press, launching them into the 21st century. Aczel wrote that the gear was certainly expensive, but what else was new? David Rich took some of the amps apart and found that, design-wise, they were OK, but nothing special-- a consumer could do better for less money, elsewhere. But then you didn't get the cosmetics.

Eventually Stereophile (and what was left of Harry Pearson's rag) realized that Mac had changed, and was now embracing their inner tweak. Consequently, those magazine's influencers started to hear that special MacMagic that the old designs had hitherto been missing.

Today Mac is really two companies. It seems to me that they are attempting to balance it out. IMO, not to the best effect. Play old off the new. Half traditional, and half tweako bling. However all that is, if you can afford the stuff it will no doubt work for you... it's certainly not throw away junk. And it maintains value. At least the amps. I doubt their digital stuff will be important, twenty years from now.

Think of it this way-- you can go to any mall kiosk and purchase inexpensive flashy gold plated bling that is just as shiny as the high-priced 24 karat stuff you'd find at Tiffany or Bulgari (if they let you in the store and after walking past the armed guards). But a connoisseur of bling knows the difference, and anyone who can afford it probably wants the real thing.


View attachment 246051
McIntosh typically has a good level of performance. While I completely agree that said performance is turbo expensive, I honestly think that Mc could be in a really good spot if they embrace the engineering excellence of Gordon Gow´s no nonsense approach again. That excellence does not detract from adding as much bling as you want on a very solid performing device.

In that department, they´d still be loved by subjectivists and at the same time, they could tell the "number crunchers" like the fine people around here that both sides can be really happy (their pockets, not so much) about their products.
 

Gyosa1

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
73
Likes
47
speaking of watches ..
 

Attachments

  • 3B2BCF3F-F023-4D74-A15E-C67A6DD66E68.jpeg
    3B2BCF3F-F023-4D74-A15E-C67A6DD66E68.jpeg
    350.3 KB · Views: 58
Top Bottom