I had not seen this thread before and found it fascinating reading as I have owned a Mac in the past, MA6500, which being an entry-level integrated, may cause some to argue it is not a "real Mac".
Anyway, I did like its sound. I did like its looks. I had to sell because it was underpowered, which seemed funny given its 200 wpc rating, and I am now using a 100 wpc amp which performs better into high volumes.
But reading the above made me think about why I liked it... and that is that it was easy to listen to! I think they deliberately avoid audiophile characteristics so that much analysis is not done to the sound. Even mags like Sterophile say things like "it didn't seem to have much detail, but it wasn't missing any either" (not a direct quote, just from my memory of the 501 review). Huh? Either it has the detail or it doesn't, no? But then again those guys are masters of equivocation.
Back to Mac... I think the 'lazy' comment does have some validity. These are people pleased by other things, but what is wrong with that? They like the look. They like showing it off to their friends (it has to be admitted that they look impressive, and expensive. Guaranteed to impress the unwashed masses). I had a party at my place during the time I owned the 6500 and it was all "oohs" and "aahs", and I hadn't even turned on the damn thng yet! And not one of these people had ever heard one before, but had heard OF Mac.
So if I appear to have contradicted myself, so be it. I did 'like' the sound. I did not 'admire' the sound. Which is better? Horses for courses, as they say.
Mac makes a good living out of its image and its sound. Let's grant them their niche and admit they do the Bose thing very well, and btw were doing it before Bose was in diapers.
Oh, as to reliability, the 6500 I bought was a dealer demo. It was shipped to me with one bulb burned out, less than 1 year old.
As to the Mac lovers not frequenting this site, who the heck are all those people who posted "I love my Mac" or similar?
Anyway, I did like its sound. I did like its looks. I had to sell because it was underpowered, which seemed funny given its 200 wpc rating, and I am now using a 100 wpc amp which performs better into high volumes.
But reading the above made me think about why I liked it... and that is that it was easy to listen to! I think they deliberately avoid audiophile characteristics so that much analysis is not done to the sound. Even mags like Sterophile say things like "it didn't seem to have much detail, but it wasn't missing any either" (not a direct quote, just from my memory of the 501 review). Huh? Either it has the detail or it doesn't, no? But then again those guys are masters of equivocation.
Back to Mac... I think the 'lazy' comment does have some validity. These are people pleased by other things, but what is wrong with that? They like the look. They like showing it off to their friends (it has to be admitted that they look impressive, and expensive. Guaranteed to impress the unwashed masses). I had a party at my place during the time I owned the 6500 and it was all "oohs" and "aahs", and I hadn't even turned on the damn thng yet! And not one of these people had ever heard one before, but had heard OF Mac.
So if I appear to have contradicted myself, so be it. I did 'like' the sound. I did not 'admire' the sound. Which is better? Horses for courses, as they say.
Mac makes a good living out of its image and its sound. Let's grant them their niche and admit they do the Bose thing very well, and btw were doing it before Bose was in diapers.
Oh, as to reliability, the 6500 I bought was a dealer demo. It was shipped to me with one bulb burned out, less than 1 year old.
As to the Mac lovers not frequenting this site, who the heck are all those people who posted "I love my Mac" or similar?