Spectral vs. McIntosh


I was wondering whether there are people who have changed from Spectral to McIntosh preamps/amps, or the other way round, an d how they describe the difference in sound. Thanks.
hassel
Exactly Sbank! Every time I go into my favorite salon they do the same thing to me. I was there recently and bought an analog front end from them and I thought an entry level sumiko with tube preamp...can't remember the amp with midline audio physics sounded more like real music than the big system you mention in the big room. Sure the Spectral, Avalons, MIT MA's sounded great, imaged like crazy, pinpoint....all the other audiophile traits we dig but ultimately, I get bored. The other system, 10% of the cost, just sounded like the truth....music to my ears.
Sbank and Sean, instead of repeating that Spectral sounds very different, could you please elaborate on HOW it sounds different from Mac?
Taking the original context of this thread into perspective, a Mac user checking out Spectral would probably be initially quite impressed by the attack, detail, imaging, powerful yet tight bottom end, separation of notes, etc... That is, as compared to the "house sound" of the Mac, which is more euphonic.

Spectral is very good at what one might term a "hi-fi" type of presentation i.e. the type of sound that sounds very impressive doing "aural tricks" that impress audiophiles with fancy vocabularies. Having said that, many find Spectral to sound thin and lifeless i.e. "sterile" once the impressiveness of the "aural tricks" wear off. This "camp" feels that recordings that have been "Spectralized" are no longer an entire group presenting cohesive works of emotion and art, but highly processed and mechanized reproduction of individualized notes. That is, the "life" has been sucked out the recording and you are left with some type of facsimile or clone of the original music.

On the other hand, those that are fans of Spectral ( and other similar designs ) tend to think that Mac ( and other similar designs ) are sluggishly inarticulate, bloatedly congested sounding and completely lacking in "transparency". To them, the end result is a highly coloured blur, albeit somewhat pleasant sonically due to being "warm, round & fuzzy" i.e. my comments about being more forgiving.

As such, you can see how / why some people could cling to one type of presentation over the other. That is, you've got the old "audiophile vs music lover" type of situation going on here. Much like the "analogue vs digital" camps, you'll rarely find someone that is equally devoted to both sides of the street and / or willing to admit that both camps have something valuable to offer.

Personally, i think that both sides of the street meet in the middle. A good system should provide great detail and control without sacrificing musicality. I've made mention of this many years ago using the term "accurate musicality". Then again, that's just my opinion and portrayal of how i see / want to hear things. Obviously, others might see / think / hear things differently, hence my recommendation to check things out for yourself and be patient in doing so. Sean
>

completely afree with Sean on Spectral though i would not stereotype as SS. Its Spectral itself. I audtioned them vw/ Wilson Watt Puppy 7s and Magico Minis and in both cases I came away with impressions of being accurate but dry, a bit thread bare and lacking soul. Also I do not think you have to go to the completely opposite direction towards warmish tubes: there are plenty of alternatives in the middle both SS and tubes.