Do true audiophiles own Mcintosh gear

I presently own Mac's MC501 and their C200 pre driving Dunlavy's SC-IVAs. My previous owned set-ups included Bryston, Classe C200, and a BAT VK 500. I have heard multiple Mark Levinson and Krell systems.

McIntosh clearly smoked my previous Bryston, Classe, and BAT systems. Compared to the Levinson and Krell systems I believe they are easily equal to and probably slightly better in overall performance.

Whether or not anybody out there is a Stereophile Magazine fan; they voted the MC501 amplifier of the year for 2004.
Stereophile also reviewed it as extremely close in performance to Halcro's DM58 amp which is considered by many to be the very best in solid state.

I don't believe in magazine reviewer opinions as much as the next guy. But I do believe in actual test numbers taken from Stereophile Magazine. The MC501 tested very well, see for yourself on the archived test results at stereophile.com. They also reviewed and tested the C200 pre with similar excellent test results.

Lest some of you gentlemen forget, I owned the MC501's and C46 preamp and a C2200 tube pre which was returned quickly! Both my Totem Winds and Dynaudio C4's bled the amps dry..meters were full tilt without pushing the amps very hard. Autoformers..new technology? I think not folks. Build quality is good..parts are fine but not exceptional and musicality is good to better than average (marginaly). At it's price point it is good value gear..nothing wrong with that, it's just not worth cult status! In particular, transparency was not state of the art. Bass was uniquely soft and less forceful than most amp/preamp combos available. Mids were full and pleasant..ripe even (a good thing). Highs were nice, not harsh nor dull, but not as complex and liquid as others. Overall, good gear at a fair price. Anyone who has read Stereophile for more than a few years understands the relationships that are made between reviewers and companies. It is illuminating to re-read reviews of gear one has owned, especially when it has been alot of gear...the small points are key elements of a design (inevitably negative in nature)and the large sweeping praise is conveniently vague enough to attract as many potential buyers as possible (in case you still believe in the tooth fairy). Money makes the audio world go around..world go around! So, like I said before..enjoy your stuff, it's just fine:)

Why people continue to "argue" with Dave, one guy, is beyond me.

I take it all back..Mac is absolutely the finest gear available! Happy?

Dave_b
"Anyone who has read Stereophile for more than a few years understands the relationships that are made between reviewers and companies."

I agree with you 100%. I've been subscribing to Stereophile for more than 15 years. That's why I made the statement, "I don't believe in magazine reviewer opinions as much as the next guy. I also stated, "I do believe in actual test numbers taken from Stereophile Magazine test reviews." Both MC501s and the C200 pre tested with excellent close to the highest state of the art levels of performance. Do you believe reviewers have anything to gain by reporting erroneous test data? It's illegal to publish incorrect data. Why would they put their careers on the line?

I also noticed my Dunlavy SC-IVAs pushing the famous Mac blue meters close to the far right. At that level I am pushing the volume level of the C200 pre to 75% - 80% of it's capacity.
Also, if you remember the last two MC501s meter increments at the far right end of the scale, go from 50 to 500 watts. Even at extreme musical peaks the meters have never hit the 500 watt level. They mostly stay halfway in between 50 and 500 watts. I have a fairly large dedicated listening room that requires high volume/decibel levels. The MC501s do just fine; like I said before they are the best I've heard as far as what I have owned.

This forum is considered a debate where people banter back and forth with their opinions hopefully based on sound experience and judgement. Your experiences are based on personal system set-ups including your own listening room, main source components and various other factors.

Nobody is saying, at least I'm not, that your opinions or observations are wrong, or you don't know what you are talking about. It's just that there are so many variables that dictate a systems performance. Your particular set-up incorporating McIntosh components or listening room geometry just might have not been to the optimum conditions or synergies that McIntosh components excel in.