Some like McIntosh with Thiel. McIntosh succeeds in accomplishing their design goals, they are well made, and bench test well, they hold their value as well or better than most of the competition, they will likely have parts and well qualified techs available for some time to come, their consistent, tasteful, even iconic styling will probably go into the future making visual aesthetically pleasing compatible future McIntosh purchases probable. With that said, I can't for the life of me understand why they still use autoformers in their ss amps. Perhaps it made sense with their background in the early 60's when transistors were anything but reliable. But easily for the past 40 years that has not at all been a concern. That they add the autoformers and all the extra taps necessitated by them, as well as the poorly functioning meters only adds technical compromise and expense. The MC462's 2 Ohm Class AB output is the equivalent to that of a 113 Watt amp without autoformers that can properly double down to 2 Ohms. The MC 462 seems rather expensive for use with the Thiel CS 2.4's The only other example of a ss amp I'm aware of that used an autoformer was a limited edition run of a First Watt amp made for unique application, and in that case the autoformer was used on the input rather than the output as McIntosh does. For the McIntosh autoformers to work ideally they need to be used on an exceptionally linear impedance load. Which is not typical. Look at the Thiel CS 2.4's impedance graph here: Thiel CS2.4 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com Notice that the impedance rises to 15 Ohms at 60 Hz, typically a demanding area. Meanwhile the MC462 is recommended to be used with the tap that corresponds to the speakers lowest impedance. Which in the case of the Thiel CS 2.4 is close to 2 Ohms, and stays there most of the time. McIntosh Laboratory MC462 power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com While I appreciate the MC462's spec'd sensitivities for both single ended and balanced inputs, which would accommodate direct connection to many self volume controlled DAC's, the measurements don't live up to the specs, and vary with the tap used. Furthermore, the input impedance is not the most cooperative for that economical advantage. FWIW, subjectively I never appreciated the Mac house sound. To my ears they lack dynamics and dimensionality. YMMV |
James - a thought from Thiel history for you. I take interest in how brands associate with other brands. Partly in play is dealer synergy - dealers tend to carry brands that go well together. Sometimes designers align with other designers for shared approach or desired outcomes . . . Thiel’s brand associations grew somewhat over the years, but centered on some brands that get regular mention in this thread: Krell, Mark Levinson, Bryston, early Classé and Threshold. For the record, McIntosh never came on Thiel’s radar. Nothing negative, but nothing ever presented itself. For myself, my first aha moment when I learned that reproduced music could be every bit as involving as live music involved McIntosh. As a singer-songwriter-student I was immersed in music, and playback was mostly a tool for production and for learning. Then one day I went to lunch at a faculty community house at the edge of campus. After lunch we all sat down to absorb a newly released jazz album, followed by an appreciation and discussion of musical and sonic merit. It was 1967, I was a freshman. These guys opened my ears and my mind. The only piece of gear I vividly remember was the pair of chrome amps with their glowing tubes. When asked, Brother Stan said they were McIntosh - I don’t remember the model, or the turntable or speakers. I do remember the musical magic and the adjectives 'lush and delicate'. |
