McIntosh MA5200

@ ZD542: Of course speakers don't have a uniform impedance. 8, 6 or 4 are merely nominal ratings and very few companies ever explicitly state the range. One exception is Martin Logan, where their manuals do state a minimum impedance. A friend who recently purchased a pair of ESL EFX found that they can go down to 1.6 ohms @ 18+ kHz. His Hegel H70 wasn't up to the task even though they state they are stable down to 2 ohms.

The reality is that the MA5200 is designed for an 8 ohm nominal load, not 4. Given how well make Mc is, it won't fail, but it is safe to predict that it won't sound its best either. I have learned from hard experience over many years of listening that matching the transducers to the electronics is about half science, 25% personal preference and 25% blind luck. Some stuff that should sound good doesn't, other stuff is the opposite and sometimes very minor tweaks can make major differences. That's one reason why Mc puts 8, 6 and 4 ohm terminals on their higher end models and publishes stability ranges.

BTW, I have a MC7100, and the manual rates it for 8 and 4 ohms nominal only, with 100 W into 8 and 150 into 4, which is a very different result from the MA5200. I run it bridged, where it's rated for 8 ohms only into a B&W HTM 62 that's 8 ohm nominal with 4.3 minimum. Works beautifully.

Ultimately, Jimmymac will have to make up his own mind, but I tend to be conservative where this kind of money is involved. I don't like do-overs. Go with something rated for the load.

" I don't like do-overs. Go with something rated for the load."

There's only 1 load here and it has nothing to do with the speakers or the amp.

"The reality is that the MA5200 is designed for an 8 ohm nominal load, not 4. Given how well make Mc is, it won't fail, but it is safe to predict that it won't sound its best either."

And how do you come up with this? You're just guessing because you don't want to be wrong. Most 8 ohm speakers can and do drop down to 4 and below. If you look at this from a common sense standpoint, it eliminates most speakers on the market. Unless the customer wants to get into horns, or some other type of unusual design, what are you going to pair it with? You're implying that a Sony receiver in Best Buy rated for a 4 ohm load will be able to handle the OP's speakers better than the 5200. Does that make sense?

" Some stuff that should sound good doesn't, other stuff is the opposite and sometimes very minor tweaks can make major differences. That's one reason why Mc puts 8, 6 and 4 ohm terminals on their higher end models and publishes stability ranges."

That's not true either. They do it because they have to. Its the nature of the design. EVERY amp that uses autoformers/output transformers has to list the specs of the different taps they put on the amp. And yes, you can point out that some transformer amps only have 1 set of taps, like some of CJ's. True, but they still list it as an 8 or 4 ohm tap, and you can open it up and change the setting to 8 or 4 ohms. So those type of amps still conform.

Why don't you do your homework and see if McIntosh will back your arguments. I'm willing to bet they won't, unless you don't give them all the facts. The OP doesn't have an old pair of ML's or B&W theater speakers, he has the Special 25's. Although, not to get too far off point, I've owned both of those speakers, and unless the OP has a very large room and/or demands very high volumes, the MA5200 will have no problems driving them as well. But lets just stick with the OP's speakers, because thats reality. You may just find out that your experiences are not the only experiences that exist in the world.

The reality is that the MA5200 is designed for an 8 ohm nominal load, not 4. Given how well make Mc is, it won't fail, but it is safe to predict that it won't sound its best either.

Well said. This is exactly why I stayed away from this amp as I have 4 Ohm nominal speakers. If it was stable into a 4 Ohm load, surely McIntosh would have published the specs. They did not and even went so far as to stamp 8 Ohms only on the back panel by the speaker terminals.

I am willing to bet if McIntosh was contacted, they would not provide a 4 Ohm rating. If they did, then again, why not say so out of the gate like they do for their higher level products. As for the stereo mags review that was sited, well IMO you have to take those with a grain of salt.

Again, I strongly considered this amp and auditioned it with a pair of Sonus Faber Cremonas, a 4 Ohm speaker. And while the MA5200 did drive them, the Marantz PM15S2 (90 wpc into 8 & 140 wpc into 4) did a much better job. So much so that this is the amp I went with to drive my VA's and have no regrets. I would suggest to anyone with 4 Ohm speakers to be leery of this particular Mac product.

Jimmymac,

I have to apologize. I got caught up in all of this bickering and didn't realize what was going on. Quite a few people on this web site don't like me. I tend to speak my mind, not trust reviews and use listening as my primary method for component selection, even if what I hear contradicts the specs on a piece equipment. When I read Parneer's post, the first thing I said to myself is that I must be in the Twilight Zone. And then it hit me. I had to offend them in another thread. Its the only way that I can explain their posts.

Parneer,

Your last post is unbelievable. And I mean that literally. I don't believe you. In your first post you say this.

“06-05-15: Paraneer
A German Hi Fi Mag. Stereoplay found 206WPC into 4 Ohm. McIntosh does not provide a 4Ohm measure.
And that is one the reasons why I did not buy this amp and went with my Marantz reference unit instead”
Now, in your last post you say this.
“Again, I strongly considered this amp and auditioned it with a pair of Sonus Faber Cremonas, a 4 Ohm speaker. And while the MA5200 did drive them, the Marantz PM15S2 (90 wpc into 8 & 140 wpc into 4) did a much better job. So much so that this is the amp I went with to drive my VA's and have no regrets. I would suggest to anyone with 4 Ohm speakers to be leery of this particular Mac product. “

That's a lie. You did no such thing. If you really compared them side by side, you would have said that in your first post. Its the most relevant piece on information you have to offer, and you're just bringing it up now, after the fact? What's even more remarkable is that even presented with facts about the 5200, you ignore them, but you do quote them. Under ideal circumstances an amps power should double as resistance is halved. The McIntosh clearly does this in the specs you reference from the German magazine that tested the amp. Your Marantz, however, does not. For 90 watts at 8 ohms, you only get 140 at 4 ohms. The McIntosh clearly out performs it. The Marantz is a toy. The only thing it has going for it is that its made in Japan, not China.

In the future, if you have an issue with me, come to me with it. You high jack a thread where the OP is just looking for some good advice and twist everything around just to be spiteful. You end up looking like the fool that you are.

@ ZD - You ARE a cranky one, aren't you? I couldn't care less about you personally and have no interest in bickering, although it appears you do. You may wish to note that I implied absolutely nothing other than if one is dropping $5K+, one might be better served with something rated accordingly. I publicly list my system, most of which is newer Mc if you care to check it out. I know what Mc can do and what Frank Gow, Gordon Gow and Roger Russell all helped to make it do because I lived there for decades. That's why I suggested Jimmymac get in touch with Audio Classics. Steve Rowell has forgotten more about what should be a good match for the OP than any of the rest of us will ever learn.