This is no April Fools Joke folks. During the next couple of days, we will be picking a day to migrate HTGuide to a new server. We will have the same reliable service we have always had, as we are not changing Hosting Services, only moving to a new updated state of the art server! Support is working to coordinate things right now.
We will announce the date of migration from old server to the new server in due time. We hope to minimize downtime while the DNS propagates to our new IP address, and service is restored. But some downtime is inevitable.
OK, I am currently running a Rotel 1066 pre/pro with Marsh Sound Design Amps (200 wpc) to run my 804n. I might have the chance to run an older McIntosh MX 130 preamp (tuner with pro-logic and THX) and McIntosh MSD4 (DTS/DD digital adaptor for the MX130).
My dad runs Mc with his B & W 803n and LOVES the set up. Think I will notice much of a difference between the Mc and Rotel??
I would think so. But I'm bias, since I own Mc.
McIntosh has liquid smooth sound. I can listen to it for hours at my normal listening level without fatigue.The metal tweeter of the 804n can definitely use some liquidness from the Mc.
Btw, my gear consists of Mc source, Luxman pre/power amp and B&W 805S speakers.
PRO-Rotel
1. Newer technology, software
2. More formats (DD-ES, DTS-ES, 7.1, etc...)....btw, I only use 5.1 anyway
3. Very simple lay out
4. Great remote and easy set up
5. All the processing is in a digital domain (the Mac will be digital but fed to the MX130 in analog inputs)
6. It is already set up and in my shelf, seems to sound great the way it is.
7. Supposedly Rotel is always a good match with B&W for obvious reasons.
McIntosh
1. Super smooth sound, may actually blend better than rotel?
2. TImeless piece
3. Incredible build quality
4. Unbeatable resale value
5. Always dreamed of running McIntosh
6. Does "looks" count in Audio?
7. I would imagine, BETTER 2 channel sound, without question
I am leaning towards if I did run the mac, to sell my Marsh Amp and get a Mac as well.
PRO-Rotel
1. Newer technology, software
2. More formats (DD-ES, DTS-ES, 7.1, etc...)....btw, I only use 5.1 anyway
3. Very simple lay out
4. Great remote and easy set up
5. All the processing is in a digital domain (the Mac will be digital but fed to the MX130 in analog inputs)
6. It is already set up and in my shelf, seems to sound great the way it is.
7. Supposedly Rotel is always a good match with B&W for obvious reasons.
McIntosh
1. Super smooth sound, may actually blend better than rotel?
2. TImeless piece
3. Incredible build quality
4. Unbeatable resale value
5. Always dreamed of running McIntosh
6. Does "looks" count in Audio?
7. I would imagine, BETTER 2 channel sound, without question
I am leaning towards if I did run the mac, to sell my Marsh Amp and get a Mac as well.
rodH,
I've owned several Rotel preamp's. I recently upgraded to the MAC MX120 pre and MC205 amp. The Rotels were very good performance, especially for the money. However, the Mac's are special pieces. You would have superb two channel and a very nice HT.
Also, the really new audio formats (DD-HD and DTS-HD and DTS-MA) will not be done by Mac (I've asked), especially via HDMI. So, my plan will be to find a blu ray player (now the winner of that war) that decodes these formats internally and outputs them via analog to the Mac. If the Mac has external inputs ( I suspect it does), you could follow the same path (assuming that the MSD4 decoder doesn't already use the analog inputs). HD picture and audio solved.
Probably the best endorsement I can give is that my wife fires up the big system now. She rarely did that before. Also, we both listen to a lot more 2 channel.
I have NEVER been one to worry too much about the updated software once you get to 5.1 DTS and DD. I don't care about 7.1, I don't care about how the movie sounds in a stadium, in a concert hall and all the gimmicks that Yamaha, Denon and Onkyo puts out there. I have always wondered why those guys don't put less effort in all the effects and worry more about pure sound quality, I guess it is all about marketing and such.
My point is that I'd rather have better PURE sound than gimmicks, not that the Rotel is gimmicky at all, but perhaps it is better to go with the Mac and lose the DTS-ES and DD-ES and get better PURE sound.
I have also wondered why B & W always shows Rotel equipment in thier broshures with the high end speakers, I know they are in bed together, but I tend to think that the real high end B & W's might benefit from just a little bit better quality amps and pre/pre.
As for the HDMI (or even component), I just go straight to my TV anyway and run the coax/toslink audio to my 1066 anyways
As for the HDMI (or even component), I just go straight to my TV anyway and run the coax/toslink audio to my 1066 anyways
I agree with your sentiment! If you can get the Mac MX130, I would go for it. Make sure it does have the 5.1 analog inputs as others have suggested so that you can support a Bluray player later on.
Supposedly Mac is working on their next gen AP1000 processor which would process the newer HD audio formats via HDMI, but that piece would be extremely expensive.
Supposedly Mac is working on their next gen AP1000 processor which would process the newer HD audio formats via HDMI, but that piece would be extremely expensive.
I think the AP1000 is around 9 or 10K. Definitely not a budget piece.
Crap, just found out it is the DD only and not the DD and DTS decoder, maybe it doesn't matter all that much?
rodH,
I believe almost all the DVD's I have contain the DD soundtrack. In addition, some contain the DTS soundtrack. I don't think this will be a major issue, as DD is pretty much the standard, especially for new releases. I've not seen a DTS only DVD, but there maybe some.
Also the ES versions of DD and DTS offer a matrixed sixth channel. This might be useful in a larger room to help fill it in, but I prefer discrete channels. It just sounds better to me.
IMO, these issues are not deal breakers in moving to the MAC's.
I have a McIntosh 4300V receiver (100 wats per channel into 4 or 8 ohms). It's about 15 years old, and I was wondering whether its amp would be sufficient enough to run a pair of Nautilus 804's. I understand from the threads that the Mac separate amps would work great, but I'm wondering whether this...
Test Setup:
Source/Pre: HTPC with RME 9632 soundcard/ASIO/flac.
Amp 1: McIntosh MA6800 (used as amp)
Amp 2: Emotiva XPA-5
* All sources switched by matrix switch to prevent less than a second of a gap in the music
**Levels were adjusted one the RME soundcard so that...
Hi Guys,
I have a chance to pick up an older McIntosh MC7106 amp (circa 1992). My setup is B&W CDM7NT's for fronts, CDMCNT ccenter, and CDM1NT's for surrounds.
They are currently amped as follows
CDM7NT - Krell Kav 250a (250 x 2 Watt)
CDMCNT - Outlaw M200 (200...
Anyone used Mcintosh with there B&W's. preferably the 802d's. A retailer in my area is going out of business and said he would sell me an MC207 200wpc x7. brand new for $4000.00. Im still testing the Denon POA-A1HDCI, which If I keep I will pay $4500.00. He also said in January Mcintosh is releasing...
28 December 2008, 16:43 Sunday
Loading...
No more items.
Working...
😀
😂
🤣
🥰
😘
🤔
🤢
😎
😞
😡
😮
👍
👎
☕
Searching...Please wait.
An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.
Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.
Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
Comment