I Joined the MC2301 Bandwagon!!! Wow!!!

[miner]

Not for my Electa Amator III. Plus, real estate is a factor.

[Formerly YB-2]

Dan was also quite fond of the MC75MkIII in his living room system.

[McMan]

All of the McTube amplifiers implementing the KT88 tubes are fantastic amplifiers. That is probably one of the reasons why it has been such a long run for the MC275vi and MC2301.

Makes me wonder if Mc is having trouble improving these products without increasing the price substantially.

So, Mc make the new MC2301 v2, keeps the front half of the MC901, and updates the technology.

If Mc builds it, I would buy that. I have a feeling many others would, too.

[audioquest4life]

Originally Posted by ken

now if anybody happens to be near DC/MD/VA and has 2301's , I'd love to hear what 2301's sound like.....just sayin...(: thanks for the vote of confidence Charles, I'm gonna try.....

Man….I had a setup in Virginia last year but moved to Michigan. It was quite impressive and the room was built to federal sound proof standards plus our typical hobby tweaks, minus the RFI/EMI shielding, LOL.

These amps were reviewed by Audio magazine in Germany and I thought some one like Anthony Cordesman or other US magazine reviewed them.

Excerpt from Audio mgzinee im Deutsche:
https://www.connect.de/testbericht/e...c-1054057.html

With an 8 ohm load and connected to the 8 ohm terminals, Audio test labs measured 350 plus watts. I have 16 ohm speakers.

Enjoy listening.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by McMan

All of the McTube amplifiers implementing the KT88 tubes are fantastic amplifiers. That is probably one of the reasons why it has been such a long run for the MC275vi and MC2301.

Makes me wonder if Mc is having trouble improving these products without increasing the price substantially.

So, Mc make the new MC2301 v2, keeps the front half of the MC901, and updates the technology.

If Mc builds it, I would buy that. I have a feeling many others would, too.

I can tell you that for the foreseeable future there will be no MC2301 v2 or MC2KW MKII much as I would like to see both. I also think Mac dropped the ball with the MCD12000 by not adding enough digital inputs and not including a volume control so that it could function like an improved D1100. The D1100 is a much simpler piece than an MCD12000 and although it has a better DAC, I believe that its the circuitry around the DAC that is much more important. I think the added complexity the new reference gear adds to the equation makes it less desirable, although it would not stop me from buying it. I talk to Mac frequently about this: updating the 2301 and the 2KW and the need for less complexity in their reference gear. I really hope that Mac will change its mind and listen to its customers, and perform these needed updates. I don't like the hybrid drive concept or the hybrid drive amps. Too complex.

Also, it's curious to me that the 3500 has substantially better specs than the 2301, less distortion (.3% vs .5%), better S/N (by 3dB), much higher damping factor, much more headroom, much more continuous power, and no worry about tube rolling. If the amp is quad balanced, it should be less in distortion than the 3500. Unlike specs in other tube amps from other tube amp manufacturers like ARC or VAC, published specifications with Mac tube amps are minimum specs. Mac amps are guaranteed to exceed their published specs. Tubes are quite expensive these days.

Best

Charles

[ken]

Charles, I remember when we talked last you mentioned a McIntosh specific tube the 3500 uses, what do they call that tube? I guess its close to a KT88 But some way different?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by ken

Charles, I remember when we talked last you mentioned a McIntosh specific tube the 3500 uses, what do they call that tube? I guess its close to a KT88 But some way different?

Ken, it's a completely different tube called the EL509S. According to my Mac friend, "3500" is a misnomer for the amp but because of its heritage, it had to be an MKII version of the original. The amp will put out about 500 watts continuous. I have never seen the amp's Powerguard circuit come on but it did shutdown one time (R amp) at a volume lever of 86% on some ridiculous bass. I turned the volume level down to 83% and all was fine. The amp simply turned off. No pop or thump. Ron Evans took two years to design the 3500 and according to my Mac friend, its the high power tube amp that Mac plans to sell for the foreseeable future. So there will be no update for the 2301, sadly.

Best

Charles

[Formerly YB-2]

Originally Posted by McMan

Makes me wonder if Mc is having trouble improving these products without increasing the price substantially.

Why would Mc waste time & money changing things that don't need to be changed?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Formerly YB-2

Why would Mc waste time & money changing things that don't need to be changed?

I agree with you and disagree with you. First of all, I repeat, Mac should have added more digital inputs to the MCD12000, i.e. 3 coaxial and 3 optical. Then added the necessary circuitry for a reference grade digital pre. I would have bought one the minute I saw it. I have no interest in vinyl. I'm not going to pay 40+K for a DAC. I regard this as a significant mistake on Mac's part.

Second, Mac has the money to update both the MC2KW, i.e. solid cinch binding posts and the same internal upgrade they gave to the 1.25KW, and do the same for the 2301 especially, the Power Guard Screen Grid Monitor which is very valuable. I think there would be little if any improvement in the sonics of either amp. With the 1.25KW, the change in the output transistor to Thermal Trak was critical but not so with the 2KW. However, if I were CEO, I would have made these changes when the circuitry and parts upgrades became available.

I think this hybrid technology that Mac is pushing is marketing hype. It's too complex for me and ultimately will not be successful. No one ever talks much of the binding posts but I never liked the old binding posts. The solid cinch posts are superb. I thought seriously about trading in my 1.25KW's for a MC2KW and would have done so, if there were a new MC2KW MKII.

I am really sad that Mac has gone down the path they are going of unnecessary signal complexity. I want a tube digital pre MCD12000 with plenty of digital inputs and a tube C-12000 if I am interested in vinyl. The simplest signal path is always the best. This principle will never change. It has guided me for 40 years.

Best

Charles

[Formerly YB-2]

Charles - the original reference was only about McTube amplifiers, MC275 & MC2301.