MC 3500 MK II on the way

[JWJW]

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by JWJW

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

Now Jon, Charles has already said that he's saving money by spending more.

[JBT]

Originally Posted by JWJW

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

The Woodstock premium .

[Formerly YB-2]

Can't imagine why they designed the amp around a single-source tube. Same with the 6H30 used by AR and a couple of others. Hope they have tons of supply on the shelf.

[PeterMusic]

Originally Posted by JWJW

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

I have not heard either, but with all due respect, I am a bit disappointed in your question--where's your normal passion for great hifi? Where's your audiophile irrationality?

Seriously--an extra $5K in this context--price bump 15% or so to go from SS to tubes seems completely normal. A tube amp buyer pays this every time, right?

On "pure economics"--I have 2 amp set ups--an NAD C326BEE that costs about $500 for 50W of SS in an A/B design. The sound is WAY better than the amps of (almost) all of my friends' music systems. And I have a C22/MC275 combo on which just the interconnects between them cost $850, and the whole combo is ~25X the price of the NAD. Yet if I lost both systems, I would replace the McIntoshes with a phone call...or I'd move up to the MC1502. ROFL...at myself

Go buy those big boys so I can enjoy them vicariously!

[brownbear]

Originally Posted by JWJW

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

Jon, I guess we'll never know until you buy them and let us know

[Charles]

Originally Posted by JWJW

Are the 3500’s REALLY worth ~$5,000 more than a pair of 1.25kw’s (or new pair of 2301’s)? I know these are completely different animals, but from a pure economics standpoint, I’m scratching my head.
While the new 3500 is absolutely gorgeous, I’m struggling with the $5,000 premium. Hmmm….

Jon, these amps are worth significantly more than 15K/amp. This is the same price as a 2301 which is a fifteen-year-old design. It has much better specs than a 2301 and has the new binding posts. I know for a fact it will do 500 watts/ch. It is called a 3500 because of its relationship to the old 3500 which would do 550 watts/ch.

The AR Ref160M is 15K/amp. For this you get 140/ch with a S/N ratio of 110 dB and higher distortion. I would much prefer a 3500 MKII to an AR Ref750SEL: 16 tubes, very massive with inferior specs to the 3500MKII, price 35K/amp.

Think about it: minimum 500 watts/ch out of 8 tubes at .3% distortion, S/N of 120 dB, 8 tubes, very compact 121 lbs. The meters are much more accurate than those of AR and any other non-Mac amp for that matter. This amp is a no brainer if you can afford it. That's why I bought one the day after I became aware of it.

I wouldn't remotely consider driving my XVX with a 160M. I would need a 750SEL or a Vac 450iQ Statement at 450 watts/ch price 75K/amp. Again, I would much prefer it to the much more expensive VAC mono amp unless I could sell it and pocket the difference. I believe the 3500 MKII is the best value I have ever seen in an audio amplifier. It is the only super high power tube amp I would feel comfortable with.

You are comparing apples to watermelons when you compare it to a 1.25KW.

Best

Charles

p.s. I understand shipment will begin before the end of the month.

[Charles]

Has anyone noticed that the MC3500 MKII has only four binding posts as opposed to the usual six? I have not seen this before?

Best

Charles

[FreddieFerric]

Originally Posted by Charles

Has anyone noticed that the MC3500 MKII has only four binding posts as opposed to the usual six? I have not seen this before?

Best

Charles

It's like that on my 1502 as well. I suppose they figure they only need one neutral post. It's not a big deal for a single connection like on your Wilson's, nor is it a problem for bi-wire applications like mine. I use spades for the 4 ohm tap and banana's for the 8 ohm tap.

I suppose things could get a little messy in a tri-wire configuration having 3 speaker cables attached to a single post.

BTW, don't over tighten the posts. Ask me how I know...

[W9TR]

Charles - the 3500 II is not quad balanced, so there is a single common terminal and 2, 4 & 8 ohm taps for four terminals total. Quad balanced amps have a (-) terminal for each impedance tap for a total of six terminals.
Tom