Audio research vs McIntosh
 

any comments on those who have auditioned both brands. specifically the 6SE preamp and the reference 3 phonostage compared to the mcintosh c1100 and c12000 preamps using for now mc462 amp. thanks.

ed

never been a Macintosh fan, i prefer the arc gear by a mile. much smoother and accurate sounding imo

I think ARC and Mac are both great brands and I own some of each, but their sound is different. I think ARC gear typically sounds more alive, more dynamic, more up close.

I own both. ARC is clean. Mcintosh is lush. Even their solid state stuff sounds like tube gear.

I switched from an all McIntosh C1000 pre and Mac 2102 system (which, at the time was my home system) to Arc Ref 5 pre and ARC Ref 150 after I heard them side by side at a dealer. McIntosh presents a sound that is rounder, but less transparent, especially in the midrange. I heard things in the midrange on the ARC system that I had never heard at home. For example, I could tell there were 2 back up singers on one track in a Van Morrison cd that I was never able to discern in my Mac system or the one in the store. On a different cd, I heard minor (in terms of amplitude) instrumentation on the ARC system in the midrange that I never heard before through my Mac system. I was bothered by the fact that my Mac had, unbeknownst to me for years, obscured important musical details.
ARC does have more of a 5th row sound vs a 20th row sound from MAC but also a more colorful (and I don't mean editorial color) sound.
The switch from Mac to ARC was some time ago, but I have never looked back and now have moved up the ARC line over time--enjoying each step up. I am now as happy with the ARC brand as I used to be with the Mac brand.

jpgr4blu, I will say some words for McIntosh. Your 160M does not possess enough power to drive your Alexia 2's to very loud levels. I have an XVX which is 3 dB more sensitive than an Alexia 2. I have a relatively large well damped room but not overly so. I can tell you that 140 watts running my XVX into 4-ohms would not be nearly enough.

As far as resolution goes, I have heard this before, mainly from folks that have switched from Mac to AR. In the recent TAS, Robert Harley states on p.30 that the ability of the Magico M9 to resolve very fine detail is phenomenal. He states that for the first time he heard soft underneath the music vocalizations on the first track, "I love Being Here with You" from Dianna Krall's Live in Paris. Robert has as his reference an XVX with two Wilson Audio Subsonics for subs and the best solid state amplification. It is state of the art.

I was surprised to hear him say this, because my "meager" system compared to his easily resolves the multiple extremely low level vocalizations on this track and I informed him of such. I suspect that you are running your Alexia's off the 8-ohm tap creating a severe speaker/amp impedance mismatch between your amp and speaker. When you are not playing music very loud, say between 3-35 watts, the Alexia-2/ARC 160M will obviously provide good sonic results.

However, I humbly believe that my Mac D1100/MC3500 MK II will provide significantly superior resolution at any sound level, much tighter more resolved bass at any level, a superior more resolved midrange and treble at any sound level, and very importantly, the ability to turn it up when desired.

I run my XVX off the 4-ohm tap because it has a nominal impedance of 4-ohms. I can tell you that you are creating significant amounts of audible distortion if you are running off the 8-ohm tap. You are also stressing your amp.

I believe mixing Mac and AR gear a mistake. Their design philosophies are quite different. I have many classical and popular recordings that at high sound pressure levels require significantly more than 140 watts or 320 watts for that matter. The XVX needs 500 plus clean watts at 4-ohms to achieve the dynamics I require. I do most of my listening at 3.5-35 watts but there are plenty of times when I feel the mood, that I want to turn it up. On peaks the 3500 will easily do 700 watts. I have movies and live DVD performances that require a lot of watts, many more than 140 or 320 for that matter.

A 3500 does not run hot and does not require a noisy fan. No matter what the sound level, I can place my hand on the tube cage without pain. It can drive my XVX to insane sound levels easily as you can see below, pic taken playing the Tangerine Dream CD, Phaedra.

You never want to clip an amp, the dogma that tubes "safely" soft clip notwithstanding. It can destroy the tubes and damage the amp. The 3500 has an advanced clipping protection circuit that really works. When I see an Alexx or Alexia driven by a 160 mono, I know the music to be dynamically limited (compressed) and at a relatively low sound level (1-50 watts). Nothing wrong with this if this is your cup of tea, but not for me.:yes:

https://i.imgur.com/aXhemJYh.jpg

Best

Charles

__________________________________________________ _
Charles Updated System: Wilson McIntosh Audioquest
New gear on order:
Most recent updates: Latest is the last one posted: AQ Diamond USB replaces AQ Coffee; Wilson Audio Specialties Alexx replaced by Wilson Audio Specialties XVX Chronosonic; new subwoofer crossover; new Galaxy Grey Thors Hammer; Wilson Pedestals; heating and cooling completely reworked and reinsulated resulting in a much quieter, cooler, and more efficient room (cost about 10,000.00). McIntosh MCT 500 SACD/CD transport; Wilson Audio Acoustic Diode for XVX Chronosonic; WEL Signature digital Coaxial cable for MVP 881/D1100 digital connection replacing the optical connection; New plinth for Thor subwoofer made of X material with the Wilson Acoustic Diodes; Thor is now off my floor; MC3500MKII mono block amps (2) and two custom granite slabs; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover; new 75-ohm multi-directional FM antenna for tuner
Amps: McIntosh MC3500MKII mono blocks (2), McIntosh MC1.25KW’s (3). All amps set on floor on custom made granite slabs
Preamp and DAC: McIntosh D1100
Sources: McIntosh MCT500 SACD/CD Transport, MVP881 BR player, MVP851 DVD player, MR87 tuner, Marantz 510LV Laser Disc player, ASUS laptop USB (JRiver Media Center 23)
Speakers: Wilson Audio Specialties XVX Chronosonic; custom made Wilson Acoustic Diodes
Sub-woofer: Wilson Audio Specialties Thor’s Hammer (1) horizontal lie; custom plinth of X material with Wilson Acoustic Diode feet; Wilson ActivXO Stereo Electronic Crossover
Cables main system: Audioquest WEL Signature speaker cables and balanced IC (preamp to amps); WEL Signature AES/EBU balanced digital IC for CD playback; WEL Signature digital coaxial cable for MVP 881/D1100 digital connection; Audioquest Diamond optical (1) for tuner, (1) for MVP 851 DVD player, and (1) for LD player for total of (3); Audioquest Diamond USB cable; McIntosh MCT cable for SACD playback; Dragon power cords (5 HC cords and 3 source cords for total of 8); Thunder HC power cord for MR87 tuner
Cables subwoofer system: Audioquest Redwood speaker cable (1); Wolf balanced subwoofer IC from ActivXO crossover to amp; Wind balanced IC from preamp to ActivXO; Hurricane HC (2) and Dragon HC (1) power cords
Power conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 7000 (1) and Niagara 5000 (3); (4) dedicated 20-amp lines with no. 10 wire straight out of fuse box
Isolation: Wilson Pedestals for D1100; MVP881 BR player; MCT500 transport; MR87 tuner; plinth for Thor subwoofer made of X material with the Wilson Acoustic Diodes
Cabinet: Double Custom Woodwork & Design (CWD) solid walnut cabinet on large casters; holds all sources and preamp; also, Niagara 7000; 11 feet minimum distance from speakers
Acoustic Treatments: Room and Echo Tunes
AC: Dedicated to this room only, an ultra-high efficiency and quiet recently installed Ruud split system 3-ton heat pump.

porsche993TT, in response to your comment, I would ask you which ARC and which McIntosh? Both gear have changed dramatically over the years, particularly as I understand it, ARC. As I understand it the older gear, i.e., amps before the 160M, sound very different than the current ARC gear. "much smoother and more accurate", I would maintain is an unwarrented generalization that many ARC aficionados have aimed at Mac over the years and for many years.

How many hundreds of hours does it take for your ARC amp to burn in before this is true? As I understand it, it takes hundreds of hours before an ARC amp is "burned in". Next you must wait 20-30 minutes after turn on for the amp to stabilize sonically, and so on. And then there's that noisy fan.

With my 3500, it is ready by the time I sit down after turning all gear on, i.e., about 20 seconds. It requires no fan. It is more powerful than most high powered solid state amps and far more powerful than a 160M. As far as the sound, it is beyond reproach. I would prefer it to Robert Harley's M10, see p.146 TAS September issue. My bottom line opinion, it is by far the best amp I have heard. It handles my XVX like it is a baby. The XVX has a minimum impedance of 4-ohms.

Let's be real/genuine. Although everyone has a right to an opinion, an off the cuff comment like yours says more about your knowledge of high end audio than it addresses Ed's question.:yes:

Best

Charles

well charles, sorry if i offended you and mcintosh, been in the business for 30 years, have a little knowledge and have my own opinion, have owned and sold mcintosh, i am quite familiar with them. am glad you like your mcintosh, i will stick to my burmester an i stand behind my thoughts/opinions, arc ref by a mile

As I said I own both ARC and Mcintosh. ARC has a cleaner sound. Overall I give the edge to big Blue because I like the warm lush sound of Mcintosh. Mcintosh sold state amps sound more tubey than ARCs tube amps. And I have no intention of getting rid of my ARC equipment.

Reference 80S. Beautiful Amp. When the Mcintosh group owned ARC the look of their Amps really improved.

LS28SE preamp.

Prima Luna evo tube dac

Lumin U1 streamer

Dynaudio Contour speakers


Kicks ass

Hi Charles:
We have dueled in the past. You can defend Mac to the hilt. Nothing will convince you that they do not make the best amps on the market. I have related my experiences with the 2 brands having owned and heard both for years with various Wilson speakers. Most notably, Mac obscures detail that ARC reveals-- and not in a sharp or shrill way. Mac is warmer and softer--some say due to the use of extensive extra extensive wiring in the autoformers which obviously has pluses and minuses as a Mac feature.
You present theories as to how the ARC Ref 160m amps cannot properly drive the Alexia2s. I suggest you talk to the people at Audio Research who have that exact match in their listening room as well as the dealer who decided to make the first public presentation of the Ref 160s with Alexia2s at an audio show which received rave reviews form a number of people including those who work for Wilson. I suggest you use your ears to make any comparisons rather than measurements. I also suggest that you read Ken Kessler's review in HiFi News and Record Review and the Stereophile review of the Ref 160s both of which were done with Alexia2s and both of which were outstanding (HiFi News more so --last sentence of review---"I suffer no hesitation in judging [the Ref 160ms] one of the finest amplifiers I have ever heard, regardless of price.")
So you can theorize why Mac works better with Wilson than ARC based upon your reading of amplifier and speaker specifications. But I believe careful listening is more important. My ears say ARC. Your ears may say Mac. We will continue to disagree. And that's fine with me.