New MCD12000

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

I broke down today, and ordered one. Now the wait…

(When the going gets tough; the tough go shopping)
Masterlu

Ivan, super congrats. It truly is a beautiful piece.

Best

Charles

[W9TR]

It will be interesting to see how this sticks up to the best spinners from Esoteric. Ivan will have them both.

[prepress]

One thing I appreciate about McIntosh is that, though they may use the term "reference" in their ad copy, they don't use that word in the official name of any of their gear. It's almost as if the gear will speak for itself.

I'm so over the term "reference" in equipment names. I think the preponderance of gear with the "reference" tag on it dilutes the special nature the term implies. Now, when I see it in a component's name, my first thought is "Ho hum;" my second thought is "Compared to what?" Since there's no objective standard, everything comes down to opinion or preference. With this new MCD12000, my only concerns would be can I afford it (no), would it sound noticeably better than what I have (most likely yes), and does it fit in with the rest of my gear (I think not). Still, it looks like a masterpiece and I won't be surprised if it sounds like one.

Got that out of my system. I'm okay now.

[Timobi]

Is anyone disappointed in the lack of full MQA decoding? especially with the inability to upgrade via digital module.

I think its glorious looking..just wondering why this was left off. I realize its a spinner BUT also being marketed as a end game DAC. Personally, MQA is not always good I have a plethora of music files that destroys the MQA version. Then again, there are some tremendous MQA offerings that truly are fantastic.

I am guessing McIntosh felt this wasn't a big deal and also am guessing the targeted market for this high end player will buy it anyway

[JBT]

Originally Posted by Timobi

Is anyone disappointed in the lack of full MQA decoding? especially with the inability to upgrade via digital module.

I think its glorious looking..just wondering why this was left off. I realize its a spinner BUT also being marketed as a end game DAC. Personally, MQA is not always good I have a plethora of music files that destroys the MQA version. Then again, there are some tremendous MQA offerings that truly are fantastic.

I am guessing McIntosh felt this wasn't a big deal and also am guessing the targeted market for this high end player will buy it anyway

I think the MQA phase has really cooled off.

[cleeds]

Originally Posted by JBT

I think the MQA phase has really cooled off.

Agreed. Its marketing has been unwise, imo. Its promoters insist it's not really lossy, yet there's evidence that it is. Why does anyone need lossy compression in the third millennium?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Timobi

Is anyone disappointed in the lack of full MQA decoding? especially with the inability to upgrade via digital module.

I think its glorious looking..just wondering why this was left off. I realize its a spinner BUT also being marketed as a end game DAC. Personally, MQA is not always good I have a plethora of music files that destroys the MQA version. Then again, there are some tremendous MQA offerings that truly are fantastic.

I am guessing McIntosh felt this wasn't a big deal and also am guessing the targeted market for this high end player will buy it anyway

prepress, I think "reference" a bit like "flagship" with regard to speakers. It means the top of the line. The best gear of the company.

As I have mentioned before it is not possible to create a plug in module that can equal an all out design. I doubt Mac has any plans for an upgrade in the next 5 years.

While I think the MCD12000 would work well with any Mac pre, it is meant for the C-12000 pre, a fantastic combo by any comparison. You won't see tone controls or plug in modules on reference Mac gear.

Although making comparisons with other reference gear with other manufacturers is inevitable, such comparisons need to be made using Mac reference amplification like a 1.25KW or 3500 and the C-12000 pre. Mac has a sound signature. I have no problem with folks that want to "mix and match" for the best sound. But when you do that, all that they can truthfully say is that this pre or that DAC sounds the best in my particular system with my speakers etc., when compared to similar gear.

Best

Charles

[prepress]

Originally Posted by Charles

prepress, I think "reference" a bit like "flagship" with regard to speakers. It means the top of the line. The best gear of the company.

As I have mentioned before it is not possible to create a plug in module that can equal an all out design. I doubt Mac has any plans for an upgrade in the next 5 years.

While I think the MCD12000 would work well with any Mac pre, it is meant for the C-12000 pre, a fantastic combo by any comparison. You won't see tone controls or plug in modules on reference Mac gear.

Although making comparisons with other reference gear with other manufacturers is inevitable, such comparisons need to be made using Mac reference amplification like a 1.25KW or 3500 and the C-12000 pre. Mac has a sound signature. I have no problem with folks that want to "mix and match" for the best sound. But when you do that, all that they can truthfully say is that this pre or that DAC sounds the best in my particular system with my speakers etc., when compared to similar gear.

Best

Charles

That is a good and preferable (to me) concept of "reference." I hope companies take up the idea and use the term "flagship," if what you say is their real intent; it's more specific. "Reference" is vague, and suggests at first blush that "this piece of gear is a standard (or THE standard) by which you can evaluate other gear in this category, and not just ours." The MCD12000 looks very much the part of flagship or reference gear. If I had the money and comparable gear, I'd probably buy one even though it means more tubes to deal with. It's just too gorgeous, and I'm sure the sound is amazing.

[JBT]

Robb Report


https://robbreport.com/gear/audio/mc...er-1234679970/

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by cleeds

Agreed. Its marketing has been unwise, imo. Its promoters insist it's not really lossy, yet there's evidence that it is. Why does anyone need lossy compression in the third millennium?

Maybe because it sounds better!!