In Reply to: RE: A tale of a Scott 330D and McIntosh MR67 posted by Brian Levy on April 5, 2010 at 17:24:46:
PHOTO: McIntosh MR67 before the cabinet was restored
PHOTO: McIntosh MR77 before the cabinet was restored
Brian Levy,
In 2005-6 when prices appeared to continue to rise, I decided to settle on tuners. I was inspired towards the McIntosh MR67 as I'd been using an MX110 as tuner since 1990 and the tuner section of the MX110 is supposed to be similar to the MR67. I didn't expect though the nearly unbelievable imaging of the MR67. I heard MR71's too and these did not have the same sense of depth and the wonderfully transparent bass.
While I've been very tube-oriented from the beginning, like you, I wanted to consider a good solid state for it's no-fuss factor- I'd had great sound from a 1989 Revox B160. In looking around at comments and talking to people I was tempted by an MR78, but then I read that the MR77 had the same audio circuitry, but was considerably simpler- not so many controls in the signal path and was actually cleaner sounding if DX'ing was not so much an issue.
There are parallels in all kinds of vintage technology for example in which the earlier car is the "purer" expression and more gratifying- I had a 1957 Jaguar XK140MC whereas the earlier XK120 was more prized- even though the XK140 Type C engine had 30HP more, 3" more legroom, and rack and pinion steering. I had a Mercedes 280SL too that was considered a lesser model to the earlier 230SL.
Where the ultimate expressions of the line were the MR71 for tube and MR78 for solid state, I decided to take one step back to the purer form. Sometimes, slightly less aggressive, simpler technology has it's rewards.
Cheers,
Bambi B
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I took the very same attitude towards MR67 to 71 and MR77 to 78 - Bambi B 04/6/1008:13:51 04/6/10 (0)