Mcintosh 6900/Klipsh Cornwall III - a good match?

Do they work well together?


My room is pretty small (15.sqm) and square so I'll have to put them right agaisnt the back the wall (is it OK?) and the distance between the front panel and my sofa (which is also right against the front wall) will be approximately 340 cm. Is it enough? Will they overpower the room?
simple and superb.
You seem determined to place a full range, high volume speaker in a smallest square dimensioned room. It's a combination that will not mesh very well.
No way I'd do that combination. First while the 6900 sounds ok but a little harsh on the highs, putting it through the horns will not produce a plesant listening experience. It's pretty hard to get any modern SS amp to sound good through horns. The Mc 6900 doesn't even sound that great through Focals and JMLabs speakers I've heard it through. There are at least 5 or 10 other SS amps I'd choose over the McIntosh. Now if you upgrade further to Mc's high end stuff or tubes you'll be doing better.
regards, David
Cornwalls can fill a concert hall but will choke in a smaller room. Go for a pair of Hereseys instead. They have almost the same sound quality, just smaller. Klipsch don't seem as dependent on the wall placement as others, probably due to the massive cabinets.
I concur with Elevick -- your room is 15 Square Meters which is a little over 12 feet x 12 feet -- The Hereseys are a great speaker for the McIntosh. The Cornwalls III's are definitely a wide speaker for your dimensions.
mcintosh harsh? no way. most people complain that they are too warm or lack highs. krell is harsh.
Of the 8 McIntosh amps I have owned, none have been harsh no matter what.

Anyway, I have actually heard an MA6900 on Cornwall III. I have also heard the new MA6300 on Cornwall III. Both used Pioneer Elite source in the same large room and were fantastic with a slight improvement going to the 6900 because of its more laid back and round nature. The 6300 is a fantastic amp with better dynamics than the 6900 but slightly "harder" too - something the Cornwalls made fairly obvious. The 6300 was a better match with B&W 805S (wonderful combination BTW).

As for the room, I agree with the others that it might be a bit small for Cornwalls. They don't have very deep bass despite their size but they will produce enough energy at 40Hz to cause you problems in 13x13 room.

Unless of course you don't really care about neutrality and love lots of bass. In that case, go for it and see what you think.

The other exception would be if your room has permanent openings into adjoining rooms. If that is the case, you might be able to get away with it just fine. My room is 14x13 (17 meter square) but with two open doorways in the back corner; my speakers have the same bass extention specification as the Cornwall III, and my bass measures and sounds incredibly even, all things considered.

The Cornwall III are amazing speakers for the money. I was very highly impressed. I wanted to hear them on the MA2275 but wasn't able to. My feeling is they would be best with tubes but the 6900 is probably close enough. That integrated (and MC202 amp) is the most "classic tube" sounding SS amp I have ever heard. It makes the MC275 sound like modern hifi by comparison.

i think the klipsh are very efficient so the 6300 or 6500 would probably work fine. i used the ma-6500 with some 4-ways and then the totem model 1's and i didn't think there was enough power. i even tried the mc202 with a classe 47.5 preamp and that wasn't much better. if the 6900 was out, i would have gone that way. it wasn't so i did something else.
Generally it's not the power people buy the 6900 for but the autotransformer. Evidently that component reduces the graniness somewhat heard with the 6300/6500. It's still there, just less so. If you must go with the Mc integrated line, it's clearly the best sounding of the three in my listening tests. You'd do yourself a favor by listening to all three and more importantly other brands.

I'm a Klispch fan since the 70s and owned a half dozen models of their various lines. Every new model produced after 1990 was unlistenable not mention the drop in quality of construction (peeling veneer). I've got a pair of Forte's sitting in another room I can't bear to part with. I'm thinking about mating a Cary SLI-80 with them. I used to use them with pure analog in the mid-80s.

In any case I tried many different SS setups with the many models of Klipsh I owned with mostly poor results. They sound great with a turntable or a tube CD but otherwise the horns are pretty painful sounding. The Forte's sounded tolerable at times with Marantz gear oddly enough. Still be careful before you shell out. I speak from my own experiences.

I gave up on using Klipsch with modern digital and have gone with Aerials which do a pretty good job.

regards, David
Totally disagree that the 6900 is harsh. With my speaks....Dalis....that is the last word i'd used to describe it. With horns YMMV.

I agree 100% with the Mac 6300/B& my test the 804S....good match.

Also agree with the 6900 being tubey sounding. Lived with a Stingray for a long time prior to the Mac.

That's my useless input, havent heard the 6900 with Klipsch...yet.
Wireless 200 has no clue what he's talking about, if anything the MA 6900 is overly smooth. I currently run a MA6900 with JM Labs 1007 BE and the sound is magic.

Many people like to crap on Mac's becasue they are expensive and beautiful, but they are true hi fi.
I'll put myself on the line here: Old mac solid state may be better than old mac tubes (except maybe 225).
Hey Elvick - here I am with my chainsaw. :) The old Mc tube amps - all of them including the reissued 275 - are incredible. I've owned both old Mc SS and Mc tube, and you now see what I ended up with: a MC240. The old Mc SS amps are not bad, just smooth and laid back. That has to be compatible with your system - otherwise they don't sound good. The tube amps are more detailed and have much better immediacy and pace but are pickier about the speakers they get mated to. So in the end, it still boils down to system synergy but in general, the Mc tube amps remain closer to neutrality than the old Mc SS amps in my experience.

It's all a matter of preference? I hated my 225! My Pilot, Fisher and Scott tube pieces were much better sounding. My Mac Solid pre/receiver was bulletproof.
I own Cornwall III's, initially driven by a MAC MA6600. At 200 w/ch, the horns were easily over-driven (when pushed to their physical stops at high volume levels) the distortion became quite jarring. I remedied that by using only the MAC's preamp section to drive a pair of Luxman MB3045 mono-block tube amps (50 w/ch). With this lash-up, the horns cannot be over-driven (to their physical limitation). I would like to try a 100 w/ch tube amp next, to see if I can't get a little more volume.
Reviving at 3 year old thread.....REALLY?? With this crazy hobby, Antonkk has probably had 10 different systems since then.