mcintosh vs jeff rowland

The obvious thing is matching your speakers with the right amp. I would expect both the MA7000 and the Continuum 500 to be excellent units, I'd love to experiement myself.

I have owned two Concentra II's. The first I had I loved and always regretted selling, it was a great match wth the speakers I had. But I replaced the speakers and after doing so I wasn't so pleased, so I played with amps. (It was the speakers, I eventually sold them.)

I later purchased another CII in hopes of selling my spearates, as I had spent a lot on speakers and wanted to even the finances out. My separates were (and are) McIntosh MC402 and C46 and the CII was no match, at least with the speakers I was using.

Above Jimmy mentions the MA6900, which IMO is not on par with the newer MA6600 and MA7000. A friend recently purchased a MA6600 and is extremly pleased with it, replacing Bel Canto mono blocks and pre.

Again, speaker matching is important, but if you have to lean on opinions, Jprice would have to be one of your best sources as he has owned both. After reading his comments, I'd love it if he could have a Continuum placed back in his system, after some more time with the MA7000, and get further thoughts; I am surprised by the lack of 3d with the Mac, a usual strong point for them.

I am suprised by the comments about McIntosh not being 3d. I think it has to be something else in the system. When I hear systems that are supposedly 3d, 99% of the time they sound thin and sterile with no bass. Usually a very uninvolving sound. Accurate, detailed, sterile, thin and no bass. Lifeless. Many like this sound. I can listen to it for about 30 minutes. Then the fatigue starts setting in. Not my idea of enjoyment. Each to their own. We all hear differently, that is for sure. A friend of mine had Pass Aleph's hooked up to quads and then Atmosphere hooked up to quads and he asked what do you think? I said, could you turn it up, I can't hear it. Detailed, thin, accurate, "3D", no bass, as usual. I bet some could go to the actual venue itself and say it did not sound 3d to me. lol

I suggest we eliminate "3D" from the Two Channel Terminological Dictionary of Audiophilia. Or TCTDA (if there is ever one to be written that is). It is a confusing description. A well staged image is not 3D. Live music is not 3D. Any source of 2-channel audio is not 3D. 3D is something forced, that pretends to imitate a phenomenon where pinpoint imaging can emanate from any direction, at any time. Peripheral imaging happens all the time in any channel environment. This can be either from reflections, surround speakers, etc. Standing on a street, in a busy city, will give you the exact idea of what 3D imaging sounds like. A well staged HT scenario will do similar. Two channel NEVER can in any way be authentic 3D. Please take this as a suggestion Tzh21y and not a directed argument towards you. I agree with your overall sentiments.

I agree with you.

I think you are both wrong. Three dimensional (3D) means height, width and depth. Any two channel system that is worth having or is not broken will have all three dimensions. Three dimensional does not mean having sound coming at you from all directions as you would on a busy street. 3D has nothing to do with surround sound or home theater. It is what it is!

Look up the definition please!

Three-dimensional: adjective
having or appearing to have length, breadth, and depth :
a three-dimensional object.

I think 3D is a good descriptor for a sound system, and should definitely be included in the TCTDA. Good two channel sound is very three dimensional, as is live music.