Hello, Does anyone have any feedback on this unit? Does this integrated standup to other Mcintosh amps and preamps? There are so many models it is a bit confusing.
Jan, I hear you however with so many models from vintage to current I am a little overwhelmed on which unit would best fit a need or how to compare apples to apples, tubes to SS, prices also seem to be at about every level in this given manufacture.
You pick Mac by your power requirements and and the flexibility you require in switching. With a not terribly difficult load to drive virtually any McIntosh amplifier will sound very much like all the rest. If you're running Klipschorns, you can buy the least expensive Mac amplifier that suits your input/output needs. If you're running B&W 805's or Martin Logans buy lots of power in reserve. The sound is not all that different between the two extremes. With the bigger McIntosh amplifiers you'll get a greater sense of ease with difficult loads. With the newer amplifiers you'll get slightly better sound quality as the product has improved over the years. But Mac always built for the sound quality, so they had a target to aim for from the beginning. If you know what music sounds like, your product doesn't change its sound much over the years.
Between tubes and solid state Mac has less difference than you would expect. A solid state Mac will sound somewhat like a tube amplifier playing music and a tube Mac will sound somehwat like a transistor amplifier playing music. Most McIntosh amplifiers still use autoformers so the lowest output impedance possible is probably not an issue with a Mac amplifier. Tubes work differently than transistors and you choose sometimes for no other reason than you like one or the other or because transistors don't begin to age as soon as you play them and higher wattages. Mac only made a 300 watt tube amp for a very short time period in the mid to late 1970's and all others over 75 watts per channel have been solid state.
Newer Mac gear has better provisions for input/output speaker facilities. Older Mac has nickel plated jacks and spring loaded speaker clips. If you don't think these things make a sonic difference, buy an older amp and save some money. In a double blind test, it would be very difficult for most people to consistently identify which amplifier is which if they are from the same vintage. If the load is not too difficult and the volume levels aren't pushing the amplifier to lease breaking peaks, it might be difficult to pick between various vintages even.
Ask Mike Wodek about his amplifier. He borrowed my MA6200 which prompted him to buy a separate Mac amplifier. He will be able to tell you more about the differences between the various McIntosh amplifiers and their sound. He has also heard my Mac tube amplifiers on several ocassions.
First I agree with everything Jan posted above. I do find that I am more willing to push my 7300 than I would Jan's 6200. However this makes for a very hot amplifier. Tool's Aenima CD was the only thing I played that I felt I needed to turn the volume down a bit as I did not like how hot (to the touch) the amplifier was getting. There is a warmth that the tubes have that exceeds that of the solid state, even with the MAC amps. The sound is very similar between the MAC amps Jan identified above, but the tube amp is still warmer sounding IMO.
The 7300 not only has a higher output than the 6200, 300 wpc vs. 80 wpc (I think), but perhaps being a newer model, I find an overall larger soundstage and extensions at both the bass and treble beyond that of the 6200. Subtle, but noticeably better with the 7300. I would expect newer models would be even moreso of what I just indicated.
But, if your speakers can thrive on 25 watts, which Mike's can't, you probably won't notice the difference in the frequency extremes as much as Mike does. Mike's speakers tend to like power. Part of this difference is simply newer amplifier (with better quality parts) vs. older Mac amplifier but also Mike's separate power amp uses autoformers where the 6200 is direct coupled. His power amp also weighs about three times what the integrated 6200 does.
Keep in mind the tube amplifiers Mike has heard in my system are original Mac tube amps (MC240's) from the 1960's with forty plus years of service on them. They have been updated with newer parts all around but the circuitry and the tansformers remain original. On the other hand, the new MC275 is a current re-issue of the original amp that was one up in the line from my amplifiers in the 1960's. With only a few revisions to the original circuit (mostly to provide balanced inputs in addition to the original's single ended connections) and the same tube compliment as the original, the current MC275 ($3995?) is a Class A recommended product in Stereophile's tube amplifier section. The current MA2275 (tubed integrated) is a simplified version of this power amplifier paired with a simpler circuit C22 pre amp. It is what I would buy if I were looking for a Mac integrated.
Finally, the (Svetlana Winged "C" 6L6GC) tubes I currently use are regarded as providing a "warm" tone true to the original output tubes Mac supplied with these amplifiers. I have two sets of the original Mac tubes (mixed with some original Telefunken small signal tubes) and these aren't quite the same but they're close. New tubes themself don't sound quite like NOS tubes but are affordable.
$4000 for a Mac tube amp? Yes, if you can afford it. I'd love to have that Mac.
I shopped the MA6800 in Albany, and I liked it a lot. But that money went for a new MacBook Pro. I settled on a Binghamton area vintage 6100 in mint condition and I love it.