|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.25.108.3
I've been looking for a good MC225 or MC240, but then started reading about the Rogue Atlas - and maybe the Cronus.Is there a clear benefit to going vintage? Is there a clear benefit for going new?
Follow Ups:
What have you listened to and what do you like. Rule one: LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. Rogue, VTL and many others are out there and they all do good things. It really comes down to personal taste, what fits your system and of course finances.
I have owned some used tube gear and had to have it repaired to get it up to snuff. I would not recommend buying used tube gear, especially power amps.
Stay away from vintage tube amps ? There are thousand of models out there that colectors fight to get not that they're colectable but they're sounding good and look greaaat. Yes some of them broke after so many years used but what's not ? There're lot of them last forever with little maitainants and easy to fix. Those tube amps you've had were they McIntosh ?
over a used one without a warranty that may need to be repaired or refurbished.With a new amp, you pretty much know what it sounds like. Ok, there are break in issues. A used amp? Maybe good, maybe not. Power amps generate a lot of heat.
I realize that some people like a challenge. But, some do not.
It's a no-brainer. To say the Marantz is sonically superior is to say that 40 years of development and evolution is irrelevent. Just look at it from a part by part standpoint.
Now you Marantz owners (I love Marantz gear) don't attack me and twist it to say that I'm saying the Marantz does not sound good. I know it does.
Rogue is everything Audio Research is sinically and even better built in most cases.
I own and love ARC gear too but Rogue is now the big kid on the block. We won't even talk about the price differences.
are you referring to Marantz gear? Then you segway into Audio Research
gear. I have owned Macs, Marantz, and presently own a AR Classic 60 and I can tell you they all are excellent amplifiers.
I've asked this question ad naseum and NO BODY gives a clear response. what exactly has progressed in the past 40 years with respect to tube amplifiers? besides paralleling 14,000 tubes for 1.21 gigawatts ;-)I'm am NOT talking about better caps, resistors, wire, etc. (which you can install in vintage amps) I'm talking how much better are modern transformers compared to McIntosh and marantz's tour de force from the golden era? are they even better? if so, how much better?
what's changed in tube amp circuit topology in the last 40 years?
and to realte to this thread, but specifically makes the rogue better sonically than the mcintosh MC225, besides output power.
Not much. Claims about huge advancements are marketing hype. The basic circuits are the same.I hate to rain on anybodies parade but I don’t particularly like the McIntosh stuff. To my ears, a re-worked stereo 70 beats a 225 hands down for a 3rd of the cost.
thanks for your post Marty. as i said before everyone's ears are different. i had the opportunity to compare my MC225 to a heavily modded Dyna stereo 70. it was the one in vacuum tube valley nearly 10 years ago (geez, I'm getting old :-(it had a cast aluminum module over where the stock circuit board was. if my memory serves me correct, it had an EF86 and a 6J5 per side with cool tuning eye level indicators. regulated power supply and just all around built to the hilt. we ran it up against my restored MC225, running 400uf of filtering on the front end. we all liked the mac better. both amps had sweet, sweet mids/highs, but the bass slam of the unity coupled mac amps is hard to beat, at least for a tube amp.
You asked for a synopsis of 40 years of delevelopment?!
Do you have any idea how much all (tubes included) technology has progressed?
Do you realize that tubes are primarily used for hundreds of RF applications?
If you are willing to pay for someone to stay home from work and write for hundreds or thousands of hours to explain to you the advancements of the last 40 years?
Again. Listen for yourself and buy what sounds good and you like.
Something tells me you won't believe what you hear!
Wow!
truly knowledgeable people can surmise a few basic principles that point the student in the right direction. fakers attack those who they fear might expose them as a fraud.still waiting to hear some of your worldly expertise chief. you say you are a college professor. TEACH ME!
What has 40 years of progress brought us?
Again!
Listen for yourself and buy what you like!
Who cares about my opinions?
Unless you are taking my (semester length) course, I suggest a simple alternative. Listen for yourself and then decide.
Wow.
wow? meaning you think I'm an idiot for asking?well, if that's the case, then i think you have no idea either because you can't give me an educated response. not even a damn link to help educate me on my question.
it's not like i was being a dick in my post. i was very humble and asked for someone to teach me about the progression of technology regarding tube amps.
and to the point, listen and see for myself? what the heck does that have to do with anything? I've listened to many new tube amps, including a pair of Lamm monoblocks on eggleston andra II for extended periods. i liked my Bozak 302A and McIntosh MC60s better for the jazz i was listening too. it was my CD, it was my friend's audio salon.
my personal sonic preference means nothing with regards to how much tube amps have technologically progressed.
actually, i have no point of reference for the rogues, so i can't comment. how much are they new? look sorta like beefed up Dyna ST70s.BUT, I've owned both the MC225 and the MC240. the 240 is purdy, but i like the sonics of the 225 much better. both were restored. the 225 is probably mac's sweetest sounding amp. it will put out 38wpc before clipping for reference.
one thing to keep in mind is that you can always at least get your money back out of the macs if you no likey. maybe even make a profit. the rogue is a losing investment from a monetary sense.
Your Macs will probably not depreciate any more than they have.
I just think that good new gear has the potential to sound better because the individual parts are usually better. There are exceptions though. I had a new ASL that used very poor parts. It was not very good sounding either. In the case of Mac their transformers have not been surpassed, however. Modifying them with better parts to improve musicality or lower noise can actually hurt resale value.
There are good tubes available but there was a better choice of truly high quality tubes available then. Although during the industry wide changeover to solid state, tube quality did generally suffer. I've had a lot of NOS duds over the years. It may have been due to rough handling though.
junior!
Rogues are increasing in value.
Did you not admit you know nothing?
Don't polute the waters with crap.
Study up.
still waiting for you to impress me with all your technical knowledge. zzzzzzzz......the question remains:
WHAT MAKES THE ROGUE TECHNICALLY BETTER THAN A MCINTOSH MC225???????BTW, i just read in your bio that you are a community college professor. wow, you must be a real hoot of a teacher.
i can just see it now:
"umm, professor, i have question..."
"shut up you little retard! why don't you do the world's genetic pool a favor and kill yourself!"
LOL!
I'm having some anger issues as a result of recent events. The asylum is supposed to be fun but sometimes I let it get the best of me.
New gear is not necessarily beter, it's true. There is/was good stuff available and vice versa. There are many more choices today. True junk is harder to find now than in past times. Component parts quality is much better now, across the board. Resistors have much lower noise and longer life, film capacitors are light years ahead of the old paper and ceramics. Electrolytics of old saw short life, higher failures and poorer performance than today's best.
Keep in mind that Mac and Marantz was very expensive gear in the '60s. Dynaco was mainstream. Some of the older gear must surely sound better than the ASL I bought a few years ago. It was a dog. Cheap parts and only average sound. I should have researched it more closely but there were no local dealers. I have an ARC D75 which despite being restored, sounds only so-so.
I'm a big fan of ARC, C-J, Quicksilver and Rogue. They are all high quality at different price points. ARC and C-J seem to be more expensive than they should be, but I'm sure it is expensive to produce such quality in relatively low numbers, provide worker healthcare, etc.
vintage classics. If that is true, I don't see where he can give an objective opinion.
and which one you just "like" better, whether it's due to appearance, price, reputation or panache. Which one is better with respect to implementation of new (over the past 40 years) technologies is really irrelevent at this stage, because it cannot be immediately understood without foundation.
It seems that you want to dissect the two with a simple explanation of every single component's attributes and reason for inclusion. This is exactly what you cannot have at once. Understand that 40 years of component evolution and the design philosophy of such a component could fill volumes and take years to understand. If you are ready to buy then take a little time to study your options. If you want to understand the technological advancements made in the late '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s until now, and how they affect what you would hear now, understand that this is not simply rolled off the tongue. Also by component I mean every individual part, not the device as whole.
Whatever your ultimate quest, I hope you find it and I wish you well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: