Most Impressive Thing about MC462….

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by clpetersen

It sure is. Outstanding room. We have some connections with the Red Sox, so maybe we can get you to the Monster Seats. The audio is terrible, but the view is one-of-a-kind. Helps to be a baseball fan though.

Where in NJ? Summer home at Lake Hopatcong (grew up on the lake).

OK, I usually am good about staying on topic, and I skipped the first mention, but I can no longer help myself. The Monster Seats are AMAZING! (even for a casual fan) We've been lucky enough to attend twice for charity fundraisers, and greatly appreciated the ability to see the whole field without the distortion of side perspective, while still feeling close to the action. From (at least) many of the seats, you can watch the ball go over the plate, and from all of them you can watch the entire defense move at once. An extraordinary experience

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Bob Bubeck

Forgive me, but the above comment strikes as being a bit in left field. XVX's are extremely uncommon to say the least and I have trouble imagining anyone who invested in them using either amp. The MC462, being the less colored device with quicker highs and mid-base might be the better overall system fit for a host of modern speakers such current generation Magneplanars (with which the OP is making his comparison). Of course, until one makes his/her own direct comparisons within the context of the system and listening tastes at hand, one is just "mixing to make Seacliff rose" as we used to say.

Respectfully,

Bob
__________________________________________________ __________
Sources: Clearaudio Jubilee MC/Clearaudio Innovation Wood TT w/Universal Arm 9” and Professional Power 24V; McIntosh MCT500 CD/SACD transport; OPPO 205; NAD C446 Internet Tuner; Nakamichi 670ZX cassette deck. Electronics: McIntosh C2700 preamp w/DA2 and MC462 power amp. Speakers: Wilson Yvettes with Acoustic Diodes Headphones: McIntosh MHP 1000 Interconnects: Transparent SBL2 XLR GEN 6 balanced and SSC8 GEN 6 speaker cables; MCT - MCT500 -> C2700.Power cords: Transparent (on preamp, power amp and transport). Surge protected. Record and CD maintenance : Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic RCM; L’Art du Son CD treatment.

Bob, I basically agree with you. I believe on the majority on speakers one would consider a 462 it would be the better choice.

When I read the Stereophile review of the Sasha DAW using the 462 I felt it might have been a bit over stretched, because the 8 ohm tap was preferred, yet the DAW was a 4 ohm speaker with a minimum impedance of 2.4 ohm. I think if some one was purchasing an original Alexia, Alexia 2, or a DAW I might prefer the mono 501.

My belief is that when the 8 ohm tap is preferred it is a sign that you need a larger Mac amp. From the standpoint of sound quality the 462 might be marginally superior. But from the standpoint of power and control I believe the 501 significantly superior with low impedance speakers.

My only reservation with a 501 is the heat sinking. I wish it had a little more. I think if I were using it to drive an original Alexia or Alexia 2 I would use the 4 ohm tap and be sure the amp was unrestricted on all sides with excellent ventilation.

Every once in a long while, an amp comes along where the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. I doubt anyone can fully explain why the 501 is so special. I think it can hold its own with virtually any speaker. However with my XVX as loud as I play music sometimes it would shut down on my system.

Best

Charles

[Bob Bubeck]

Originally Posted by Charles

Bob, I basically agree with you. I believe on the majority on speakers one would consider a 462 it would be the better choice.

When I read the Stereophile review of the Sasha DAW using the 462 I felt it might have been a bit over stretched, because the 8 ohm tap was preferred, yet the DAW was a 4 ohm speaker with a minimum impedance of 2.4 ohm. I think if some one was purchasing an original Alexia, Alexia 2, or a DAW I might prefer the mono 501.

My belief is that when the 8 ohm tap is preferred it is a sign that you need a larger Mac amp. From the standpoint of sound quality the 462 might be marginally superior. But from the standpoint of power and control I believe the 501 significantly superior with low impedance speakers.

My only reservation with a 501 is the heat sinking. I wish it had a little more. I think if I were using it to drive an original Alexia or Alexia 2 I would use the 4 ohm tap and be sure the amp was unrestricted on all sides with excellent ventilation.

Every once in a long while, an amp comes along where the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. I doubt anyone can fully explain why the 501 is so special. I think it can hold its own with virtually any speaker. However with my XVX as loud as I play music sometimes it would shut down on my system.

Best

Charles

Forgive me, but you appear to be speculating about the immedance and the results gained with the Wilsons you list (plus Yvettes). Wilsons in general have impedances that dip below 4 ohms but sound great with Mac amps that are good matches to them and that includes using their 8 ohm taps. Both the Stereophile reviewer, Sasha Matson, and Peter McGrath were truly delighted with the sonic results from mating the DAW's with the MC462 and it is impossible to conclusively infer anything beyond that from the review.

Respectfully,

Bob
__________________________________________________ ________
Sources: Clearaudio Jubilee MC/Clearaudio Innovation Wood TT w/Universal Arm 9” and Professional Power 24V; McIntosh MCT500 CD/SACD transport; OPPO 205; NAD C446 Internet Tuner; Nakamichi 670ZX cassette deck. Electronics: McIntosh C2700 preamp w/DA2 and MC462 power amp. Speakers: Wilson Yvettes with Acoustic Diodes Headphones: McIntosh MHP 1000 Interconnects: Transparent SBL2 XLR GEN 6 balanced and SSC8 GEN 6 speaker cables; MCT - MCT500 -> C2700.Power cords: Transparent (on preamp, power amp and transport). Surge protected. Record and CD maintenance : Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic RCM; L’Art du Son CD treatment.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Bob Bubeck

Forgive me, but you appear to be speculating about the immedance and the results gained with the Wilsons you list (plus Yvettes). Wilsons in general have impedances that dip below 4 ohms but sound great with Mac amps that are good matches to them and that includes using their 8 ohm taps. Both the Stereophile reviewer, Sasha Matson, and Peter McGrath were truly delighted with the sonic results from mating the DAW's with the MC462 and it is impossible to conclusively infer anything beyond that from the review.

Respectfully,

Bob



__________________________________________________ ________
Sources: Clearaudio Jubilee MC/Clearaudio Innovation Wood TT w/Universal Arm 9” and Professional Power 24V; McIntosh MCT500 CD/SACD transport; OPPO 205; NAD C446 Internet Tuner; Nakamichi 670ZX cassette deck. Electronics: McIntosh C2700 preamp w/DA2 and MC462 power amp. Speakers: Wilson Yvettes with Acoustic Diodes Headphones: McIntosh MHP 1000 Interconnects: Transparent SBL2 XLR GEN 6 balanced and SSC8 GEN 6 speaker cables; MCT - MCT500 -> C2700.Power cords: Transparent (on preamp, power amp and transport). Surge protected. Record and CD maintenance : Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic RCM; L’Art du Son CD treatment.

Bob, there's nothing to forgive. You and I simply have a difference of opinion. I understand your points. You prefer the 462. However, I would never and I mean never run a DAW off the 8 ohm tap. Mac doesn't recommend it at all. I don't recommend it, would never do it. I think when Audio Research is used with Wilsons the 8 ohm tap is often used, also.

Regardless of the sonics, I will always use the recommended tap for the speaker impedance. I personally would prefer mono 501's run off the 4 ohm tap. However, I think the 462 will do an excellent job on a DAW off the 4 ohm tap.

However, it will not match a 611 mono run off the 4 ohm tap, IMO. I would rather pay the extra money and run the amp the way it was designed.

There are a variety of Mac integrated amps that I believe would aquit themselves well with a DAW run off the 4 ohm tap. In addition I believe a 312 would do an excellent job.

I personally would enjoy a comparison between a 501 and a 611, which I think is more appropriate.

Best,

Charles

[W9TR]

Global feedback for the MC 462 amplifier comes from the 8 ohm tap. It has the lowest output impedance of any of the taps, and will provide the flattest frequency response with a real speaker load.

This from JA’s review in Stereophile:

“The output impedance was lowest from the 8 ohm Autoformer tap, at 0.09 ohm at 20Hz and 1kHz, rising to 0.13 ohm at 20kHz. The 4 ohm tap's output impedance was almost twice that of the 8 ohm tap. “

So it’s not surprising that several knowledgeable reviewers prefer the 8 ohm tap. Its not bias or magic, it’s science.

[miatadan]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Global feedback for the MC 462 amplifier comes from the 8 ohm tap. It has the lowest output impedance of any of the taps, and will provide the flattest frequency response with a real speaker load.

This from JA’s review in Stereophile:

“The output impedance was lowest from the 8 ohm Autoformer tap, at 0.09 ohm at 20Hz and 1kHz, rising to 0.13 ohm at 20kHz. The 4 ohm tap's output impedance was almost twice that of the 8 ohm tap. “

So it’s not surprising that several knowledgeable reviewers prefer the 8 ohm tap. Its not bias or magic, it’s science.

Thanks for these info, I used to wonder why the 8 ohm tap had better sound.

Dan

[W9TR]

Sure! Enjoy your 462 in good health.

[Bob Bubeck]

Originally Posted by W9TR

Global feedback for the MC 462 amplifier comes from the 8 ohm tap. It has the lowest output impedance of any of the taps, and will provide the flattest frequency response with a real speaker load.

This from JA’s review in Stereophile:

“The output impedance was lowest from the 8 ohm Autoformer tap, at 0.09 ohm at 20Hz and 1kHz, rising to 0.13 ohm at 20kHz. The 4 ohm tap's output impedance was almost twice that of the 8 ohm tap. “

So it’s not surprising that several knowledgeable reviewers prefer the 8 ohm tap. Its not bias or magic, it’s science.

Thanks from me, as well, for jogging my memory. Read the review back when, but some details had faded into the mists of time.

Bob
__________________________________________________ ________
Sources: Clearaudio Jubilee MC/Clearaudio Innovation Wood TT w/Universal Arm 9” and Professional Power 24V; McIntosh MCT500 CD/SACD transport; OPPO 205; NAD C446 Internet Tuner; Nakamichi 670ZX cassette deck. Electronics: McIntosh C2700 preamp w/DA2 and MC462 power amp. Speakers: Wilson Yvettes with Acoustic Diodes Headphones: McIntosh MHP 1000 Interconnects: Transparent SBL2 XLR GEN 6 balanced and SSC8 GEN 6 speaker cables; MCT - MCT500 -> C2700.Power cords: Transparent (on preamp, power amp and transport). Surge protected. Record and CD maintenance : Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic RCM; L’Art du Son CD treatment.

[Charles]

I don't disagree that the 8 ohm tap can provide better sonics. It makes the 462 a larger more powerful amp at a heavy price. That's obvious. I read the review. However it creates an impedance mismatch that significantly overstress the amp. Wilsons can play loud and will demand a lot of current. Obviously, folks prefer the 8 ohm tap for a reason. However, I'll always choose the larger amp run off the tap that matches the impedance of the speaker. That's why I prefer two 501's. I suppose that you believe that Mac should eliminate the 4 ohm tap by your line of reasoning. No, I'll choose the larger amp and run it the way it was designed to operate. Your responses were quite predictable. I could have written them. I understand I'm in the minority.

Best

Charles

[miatadan]

Originally Posted by Charles

I don't disagree that the 8 ohm tap can provide better sonics. It makes the 462 a larger more powerful amp at a heavy price. That's obvious. I read the review. However it creates an impedance mismatch that significantly overstress the amp. Wilsons can play loud and will demand a lot of current. Obviously, folks prefer the 8 ohm tap for a reason. However, I'll always choose the larger amp run off the tap that matches the impedance of the speaker. That's why I prefer two 501's. I suppose that you believe that Mac should eliminate the 4 ohm tap by your line of reasoning. No, I'll choose the larger amp and run it the way it was designed to operate. Your responses were quite predictable. I could have written them. I understand I'm in the minority.

Best

Charles

I did some reading of the owner’s manual of the Magnepan’s and it states Nominal 4 ohms, so I moved the taps back to the 4ohm tap.

What I am not sure about is why there seemed to be more highs from the 8 ohm tap but deeper bass from the 4 ohm ? If choosing the tap that matches the impedance will prevent over stressing the amplifier, I will now just leave it at 4 ohms.

Charles’s your explanation helpful and does explain why many years ago , the MC302 I had in the past , was over heating at the 8 ohm tap on the Magnepan’s.

When I worked at stereo shop, I sold McIntosh many years but I am not an engineer.

Dan