|   McIntosh MAC 1700 | moondog
Apr 15, 2001 9:20 AM | | Hey Gang - I seen this on ebay this morning. Can anyone tell me if this would be worth exploring as a lower priced start to McIntosh? They seem to go fairly cheap, so I was curious.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1228983828
Thanks!
mOOn |
| re: McIntosh MAC 1700 | estan
Apr 15, 2001 4:47 PM | | M00n...retail on the unit is about 700 bucks in tip top shape...I don't know much about it but the 1500 at 30wpc was pretty popular. If you can get a good one for 300 I would say you can always get back your investment.
Stan |
| re: McIntosh MAC 1700 | sak
Apr 16, 2001 7:45 AM | | Moon-
I haven't heard a 1700, but I do have a 1900. So, based on my 1900...
it's a really sweet receiver. Sound great, looks great (if you like that look!). The amp section is fine, except for VERY difficult-to-drive speakers at high spl. The tuner section is really good (probably the same as a separate tuner like a 73), certainly better than most around--especially since you're essentially getting it for free along with an amp.
Brian is familiar with both the 1700 and the 1900, and says that the 1700 is better (in his opionion). Another thing to consider is that the 1700 has a tube tuner, which might make it more appealing to you.
The slight difference in power ratings will probably be inaudible. If you need LOTS of power, you might be better off with an integrated amp; otherwise, it should be just fine.
Summary- I agree with Stan. You can't go wrong. You'll probably love it; if not, sell it on eBay. |
| re: McIntosh MAC 1700 | Brian Levy
Apr 16, 2001 4:20 PM | | The 1700 is an interesting receiver. I actually like it better than any of the later McIntosh receivers. The ss preamp/amp, a takeoff of the MA5100 has better resolution and is quieter han the 5100 (At least in every example of both that I've owned over the years including fresh new units). The tuner is tube and while not as good as the tuner in the MX110, is every bit a McIntosh tuner in sound quality.
I am personally looking for a 1700 in mint condition for myself. It is the only receiver that could displace my Fisher 500-C from its space. (if anyone wants a trade, email).
Provided it is within spec, it is a good entry into a McIntosh system. Caution! Once the Mc bug bites, the only cure is moving upward. If you already have the bite, you may want to look at the tuner/preamps as an alternatve coupled with a separate power amp. The receiver was designed for those in limited space areas who wanted the quality/ The tuner/preamp was for those who knew in advance that separates were the way to go but were financially challenged and could not just to buy the separates. Mc's theory was to promote for this group the tuner/preamp with a smaller power amp and then move to a larger power amp, then to a separate preamp and either use the tuner/preamp as a tuner or move to a separate tuner. Frank also believed it actually made more sense than the integrated amp and separate tuner becasue of the power supply problems exhibited by most integrated amps. |
| I own one. | A
Apr 18, 2001 10:19 AM | | You can get more information about it at:
http://www.sundial.net/~rogerr/rcvrs.htm#mac1700
It is very solidly made, and is easy to live with. There is no AM tuner. The filter cuts both bass and treble; you cannot just switch on the high filter or just the low filter. The bass and treble controls can be adjusted in one channel or both channels at a time. The power switch is on the volume control (which, at first, I did not like, but it means that you will not be blasted out of the room when you turn it on by accidentally leaving the volume turned up). It is set up to hook up only one pair of speakers. It accepts a weak input from a tape deck (straight from the heads; it also, via the tape monitor, accepts the usual tape deck connections). I have the optional wooden case (unlike the one at ebay for which you provided a link). I prefer my Pioneer SX-1250, but it is not quite as well constructed as the Mac. The Pioneer also takes up more room and weighs more. |
| Thanks for the info A & Everyone Else (nt). | moondog
Apr 18, 2001 7:16 PM | | |
| |
