A McIntosh Tuner Shoot-Out Report
Tim Britt & Ann Weatherwax <timbritt@...>
THE CHALLENGE
How does a mint McIntosh MR74 compare to a mint McIntosh MX117 (same tuner as the MR75)? INTRODUCTION It's generally known here in the group we are confirmed "tuner-holics" and that much of our listening is done from several really good college public radio stations in our area. Many of you know we think highly of the McIntosh MR74 tuner and chose it for our "reference" tuner here at casa Weatherwax/Britt after holding a shoot-out a while back. Our previous reference was a stock Pioneer Elite F-91 which we compared to a freshly Modafferi-modded McIntosh MR78, a stock Sansui TU-919, a stock Sony ST-S730ES, and the McIntosh MR74. And the Pioneer F-91 had replaced a stock Kenwood KT-815. (Other tuners we've owned and have extensive experience with are a Marantz 125 and a Yamaha CT-1010 and we've had both an Accuphase T-100 and a T-101 in our system for several weeks {years ago} but we've never actually owned an Accuphase.) You can peruse our finding when we did this prior shoot-out at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mcintosh_audio/message/254. We also have a couple of Sony ST-J75 tuners which we'll write about later, but suffice it to say if you can find one of these for under $30 and it works, buy it immediately. You will not be disappointed. Our list is not meant to be all-inclusive: There are many fine tuners we will sadly never have a chance to listen to that are certainly better than our MR74. Units that come to mind are Jim's reference Kenwood, the Burmester, the Accuphase T-109V, perhaps an APS-modded Sansui TU-919 or a TU-9900, or maybe one of the Rohde & Schwarz tuners. But as they say down in Texas, "You dance with the one you brung to the party" and for us, it's our MR74. And we have noticed a "house sound," if you will in the McIntosh tuners we have listened to that we find beguiling and appealing: We call it the "Magical McIntosh Midrange" (MMM). If it is a colouration, it is one we can happily live with, but whatever it is, we have difficulty describing it other than to say the midrange on the McIntosh tuners we have listened to sounds more "real" than the midrange on any other tuner we've heard. Since we liked the sound and the performance of the McIntosh MR74 so much, several friends and acquaintances had been suggesting we should also consider a McIntosh MR75 and/or a McIntosh MR80 as they thought we might like one or both of these better than our MR74. We ruled out the MR80 for several reasons: (1) It does not have AM, we get bad storms in the winter here in the mountains and the local AM station has the best weather reports; (2) The 4 FM presets have reliability problems and eventually have to be re-built; and (3) We think the MR80 is butt-ugly (no offense to you MR80 owners reading this). So we began casually looking for an MR75 (or the MX117 tuner/preamp which uses the MR75 tuner). A while back, an MX117 showed up on eBay, almost no one was bidding on it and we sniped it for much less than they generally sell for. We had the seller ship it directly to McIntosh in Binghamton, NY for a cleaning/alignment/refurbishing just like we did when we got our MR74. So we felt this was a very fair comparison of two different McIntosh tuners, which were not modded but aligned and tweaked by the manufacturer's excellent service department. THE SMALL DETAILS So, how did we conduct this shoot-out? What was in front of the tuner and behind the tuner? Well, in front of the tuner we use an APS-13 on a Channel Master rotor feeding a Wineguard AP-8275 (their best 75-ohm antenna pre-amp). The AP-8275 drives a 150-foot run of RG-6 cable that is normally terminated into a single tuner. For testing purposes, we terminated the antenna feed into a 1 in/2 out 75-ohm splitter so we could feed both tuners simultaneously. The selectivity setting of the MR74 stayed in the "wide" setting throughout the testing, except where noted, while the MX117 has non-adjustable selectivity. Another significant design difference between these tuners is that the MR74 has a 3-position noise filter (Off/10 dB/20 dB) that "blends" the high frequencies to reduce noise. The MX117 has a non-defeatable auto-blend circuit that engages at low signal levels. And bringing up the rear: Or what about the rest of the system? For stereo speakers, we alternate between a pair of Polk RT-2000p's and a pair of B&W DM3000's. Both are large floor standing speakers: The Polk's were not a speaker we would have considered until we read a phenomenally enthusiastic review of them in "Audio" magazine by Anthony Cordesman, one of the few reviewers we respect and generally agree with. In his review of the Polk's Mr. Cordesman raved about their extraordinary dynamic ability and very neutral midrange and high end. So we listened to a pair, were suitably impressed and bought them on closeout when the RT-2000i's replaced the RT-2000p's. The RT-2000p's use a 1" tweeter (aluminum deposited on a plastic & fabric dome) and a 6" midrange, with two 8" powered woofers. The B&W DM3000's were purchased in England while on holiday and were the last series of speakers B&W made before going to metal tweeters. While we like the tweeters in the Polk's, we really don't care for the metal tweeters used in any of the B&W's much to the disappointment of our local B&W dealer. These speakers use a 1" fabric dome tweeter and two 8" Kevlar drivers in a cascaded array (one goes from about 150 Hz down and the other goes from 150 Hz up to 3000 Hz), and a 10" passive ABR. The enclosure is bit unusual in that it is a pentagon so as to help break up standing waves. We would call the Polk's a little more neutral while we'd call the B&W's a little bit "warmer" and more forgiving of poor recordings. When we're doing the home theater thing, we use a Polk CS-400 for the center channel with the RT-2000p's while we use a B&W HTM center channel with the DM3000's. The rears never change, a pair of Polk LS F/X speakers (always in the bi-pole mode) fed from an M&K Goliath II passive subwoofer. And there is a Sunfire True Sub for the front channel subwoofer (and the .1 feed from 5.1 material). Electronics? Front channel/stereo amp is a McIntosh MC2205. Center channel amp, when used, is a McIntosh MC2125 run in the mono mode. Rear channel amp, when used is another McIntosh MC2205. Now for the complicated part: For stereo listening, we alternate between a McIntosh C28 pre-amp and a Marantz 3800 pre-amp. We have not yet tried the pre-amp of the MX117. We like tone controls as we also listen to 78's, and besides, not all FM broadcasts, or recordings are perfect. For A/V use, we'd love to have a McIntosh MX134 (or the current MX135) but we don't have the $6000 these cost new. We brought home an Onkyo TS-DX696 A/V receiver to try as a preamp, compared it to an MX134 we were trying out, and while we heard a slight difference, we didn't hear $5500 worth of difference. The MX134 went back to the dealer and we welcomed the TS-DX696 into our system, used solely as a pre-amp. No disrespect to McIntosh, but the Onkyo TS-DX696's pre-amp is "voiced" amazingly close to the MX134 and we're not sure we could really tell them apart in a true blind listening test. Sources? Well, is there anything else to listen to other than a good tuner? Seriously, we are also "vinyl-holics" with over 20,000 albums in our basement. Our primary turntable is a J.A. Michell GyroDec/Rega RB-300/Shure V-15vMR (not the xMR – we think the vMR is better sounding). For 78's, we use a FONS CQ-30/SME 3009 Improved/Shure V-15III with the 1 mil conical stylus Shure used to make. [NOTE: If anyone has an extra one, e-mail us and we'll buy it since it has long been discontinued by Shure]. We also have a Sony PS-X7 direct drive turntable with the carbon fibre arm Sony made and a Shure VST-III (almost identical to the V-15vMR). The Sony was (and is) a Linn killer and will trounce most other good belt drive turntables, but it never got reviewed and Sony discontinued it after 18 months. For SeeDee, we use a Sony DVP-NS500V SACD/DVD/CD player run into an Adcom GDA-700 DAC (for better sound and HDCD decoding). For tape, we use both a Sony ES cassette deck, and for open reel, a Teac A-4010GSL run into a Teac AN-180 Dolby unit. But no Mini disc, no DAT, no MP3 player (We have never downloaded anything – The MP3's we've listened too REALLY SUCK), and no iPod. Oh, and we get Sirius service free through our DISH network receiver, but we find we can't listen for long periods of time to Sirius – It's too unsettling. And we saved he most important component for last: The listening room. Our den is 12' x 24' with an 8 1/2' acoustical tile ceiling. The floor is pegged oak and there is a full basement underneath, however, instead of the usual 2 x 10's under the floor, the guy who built the house used STEEL BEAMS. The builder was the owner of the town's hardware store and he really went all out when he built this house in 1954. Besides using steel beams, he heavily insulated the house's walls and attic, reinforced the roof for the winter snow loads, and even attached storm doors and windows, all back in 1954. And because the local bank was frequently robbed back in the 1950's (or so we're told), he put a 10' x 12' walk-in safe in the basement with a humongous Mosler door to store his money and his gun collection. And in the den, he paneled the walls with wormy chestnut 1" planks. We don't know if it's the wormy chestnut or what, but this room is the absolute best sounding listening room we have ever had. Our listening biases are first and foremost, the midrange must be absolutely natural and uncoloured – We suppose this is our "British Bias." Next, the music must sound good at low levels as well as at high levels. Then we look for a 3-D sense of spatiality and depth as well as image height – This is generally best heard with full orchestral music and/or opera. Next, the system must be as comfortable reproducing macro-dynamics in the music as well as the all-important micro-dynamics. Finally, we are more interested in the music sounding "real" as if it is actually being played in our room rather than the sound we hear being a 100% accurate reproduction of the source: Would you rather eat real steak or a 100% accurate, protein-enhanced soy reproduction of steak? This is "audiophile anathema" and we suppose this means we like a minimal amount of colouration in the sound, but we just cannot specify what this colouration is nor can we define it. This equipment and listening preference discussion may be a bit long, but we wanted to give you a sense of our listening tastes and how we evaluate what we hear when we compare tuners. SOURCE MATERIAL We live in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains where the NC/TN/VA borders intersect, at a 3,500' elevation, mountains surround us, and the stations we most often listen to are: Freq: Call Sign: City/State: Distance: Format: 88.5 WFDD Winston-Salem, NC 74 Miles Public Radio 88.7 WNCW Spindale, NC 63 Miles Public Radio 89.5 WETS Johnson City, TN 36 Miles Public Radio 89.9 WDAV Davidson, NC 74 Miles Classical 90.3 WFHE Hickory, NC 37 Miles Public Radio 90.7 WFAE Charlotte, NC 90 Miles Public Radio 91.9 WVTF Marion, VA 28 Miles Public Radio 99.7 WRFX Charlotte, NC 88 Miles Clear Channel Rock Notes: 89.5, WETS is the public radio station at East Tennessee State University and they frequently broadcast live music from their studio. Most of these broadcasts are either bluegrass or another variant of Celtic music. The sound quality, is of course, wonderful. WRFX is a ClearChannel station that is the flagship station of "The John Boy and Billy Show" for those of us born with a little red on the back of our necks. The real reason it's here is: (a) The John Boy and Billy Show can be hilariously funny at times; and more importantly (b) their tower is 88 miles from our antenna and it is a real tuner test to pull this one in with a quiet signal. Only several have accomplished this feat in our location. WHAT WE HEARD With the MR74 in place, we heard a slightly narrower soundstage than with the MX117. However, without access to the original broadcast source material, it is impossible to say if this is more or less accurate. We also noted slightly more front-to-back depth, slightly higher image height (particularly on classical orchestral music and opera) with the MR74. Another thing that surprised us was that the highs were much more extended – This was very audible on brushes hitting cymbals, for example. In the all-important midrange, we noted strings sounded better, like the instruments were actually in the room with us. The differences were slight, but we'd say all strings sounded like they had more rosin on them. And both high-level and low-level dynamics were slightly better. With the MX117 we experienced and heard a slightly wider soundstage compared to the MR74, but slightly less front-to-back depth and slightly lower image height on classical orchestral music and opera. Again, without access to the original broadcast material it's impossible to say if this is more or less accurate. We were surprised the highs were not as extended as they are on the MR74: The MX117 is a much newer design that dropped use of the IF RIMO filters used in the MR77, the MR78, and the MR74 - The MX117 uses pizeo-electric filters in it's IF section and the selectivity is fixed unlike the wide/narrow selectivity available on the MR74. We did note the MX117 was a slightly hotter, slightly more sensitive tuner than the MR74. This was very audible on the 99.7 ClearChannel rock station: With our antenna pointed towards Charlotte we got a very good listenable signal while the MR74 was not as quiet on this station and there was a bit of noise in the signal. However, we found we could clean up 99.7's signal on the MR74 when we switched its selectivity to "narrow" and engaged its noise filter. When we did this, 99.7 on the MR74 was just about as quiet as it was on the MX117, but the sound was a bit duller – We think it was duller because of the blending and possible roll-off of the highs by the MR74's noise filter in the 20 dB setting. We found both tuners to be equally quiet with no audible background noise on the stations we listened to with the only difference the one cited previously when listening to 99.7. FINAL NOTES Adjacent and alternate channel selectivity specifications of the MR75 are higher than the "wide" setting specifications for the MR74, so perhaps this accounted for the slightly better high frequency response and slightly better dynamics we heard with the MR74. So how do these two tuners compare to the legendary McIntosh MR78? Well, we no longer have the Modafferi-modded MR78 we previously listened to (and borrowed) when we selected our MR74, but we can distinctly recall more differences between the MR74 and the Modaferri-modded MR78 than we heard between the MR74 and the MX117. To sum up, listening on the MR74 sounded just a bit more "real" than listening on the MX117. All of these differences were slight – We could easily live with the MX117 if we didn't have an MR74 to compare it to. They are both superb tuners and there's just something about that McIntosh "look" of their older tuners that's extremely compelling. But in the end, we thought the MR74 just sounded a bit more "real" and "natural" when compared to the MX117. That "Magical McIntosh Midrange" was just a bit better on the MR74. Copyright 2004 by Tim Britt and Ann Weatherwax. Not one stinkin' word of this missive may be reproduced without our written permission. If you violate this copyright accord, we will hunt you down, pluck out your eyeballs and feed them to British homing pigeons on steroids (they'll always be able to find you for follow-up snacks!). If you use this copy or make reference to this copy or electronicaly link to it via the Internet in an eBay or Audiogon listing you hereby agree to award us 100% of the proceeds from your sale, you plagiarist!
|
|