Implemented poorly? I understand if someone doesn’t like it. But their design implementation is how they chose to make it. So how is that implemented poorly?
Flaw, wrong, poor implementation all these words to me are simply a denial of a deliberate design feature. Your dealer should have shown you how to use it and explained the differences over other headphone products so you could be clear on your choice to buy one. The flaw I see is buyers not understanding what they bought or are considering buying and how it works.
Yes and no. I’ve been a tube guy for 30+ years (having owned multiple VTL, ARC, AI and Prima Luna, and probably a couple of others I can’t think of right now, not to mention a variety of Marshall and Fender tubed guitar amps. I’ve also had a lot of experience with the MC275 - although I haven’t owned one, my brother does.
Defend it all you like, but it is simply incorrect to label a gain control as volume, and anyone who is flummoxed by this apparently vestigial control is absolutely right to be upset about that totally unnecessary design choice, whether or not you agree with the vocabulary they use to describe their unhappiness. The following is directly from McIntosh’s website regarding the MHA200:
“The VOLUME knob allows the MHA200 to be connected directly to music sources that only have a fixed volume output without needing a preamplifier for volume control.”
Doesn’t indicate that the VOLIME control is anything out of the ordinary, does it? If this was indeed a deliberate ‘design choice’, then it was a dumb one - it serves no purpose other than to frustrate those who want to use the MHA200 in the normal way. I currently use a $6,000 integrated amp, but I also use speakers, so using the pre out means the speakers will also be on when using the preamp’s volume control, and using the line out, as I have been for headphone amps for 25 years, well, we’re back to the same issue. Not everyone has a headphone only system, and not everyone wants to buy a separate preamp as a volume control for a $2,500 headphone amp that could easily have had one with a usable taper from the word go, without affecting the unity gain ‘design choice’. A deliberate design choice that causes an apparently serious convenience issue for a large percentage of end users is, even in its best light, foolish. The only thing deliberate about it would appear to be putting off long time and new customers. How is that not a perfect example of flawed thinking?? Maybe there was a fix or an answer later in the thread - I got bored reading the same newb tube questions and the same complaints about the volume control over and over. Even
@TSAVJason, who mostly seems to be knowledgeable about the product (but maybe not about tube rolling
*), appears to be ducking giving a straight answer on this particular obvious design mistake. Maybe all that’s needed is to replace the 12at7’s with 12ax7’s for more gain in the front section. But no volume change before 10 o’clock on the volume control is manifestly absurd, intentional or not. Intent does not make a patently bad design choice into a good one, so
please stop defending it as if it has ANY merit whatsoever. Gain controls on power amps are mostly an anachronism these days - I’ve only encountered them on my old ARC D-115 mk II, and the MC275. The people who have no problem as the volume control situation on the MHA200 stands still would have had no problem if the volume control were recalibrated. It appears there is no benefit to anyone from the present set up. A design choice implies they chose one benefit over another. That appears not to be the case here, thus, a flaw not a choice.
Mine isn’t even arriving for another day or two and I’m already ready to send it back after reading the first half of this thread. I’m way too old for this crap.
*While I am normally a big proponent of ‘whatever floats your boat’, I can’t abide misinformation. It is simply not possible that you found the Mc labeled current JJ tubes mellower with a better soundstage than NOS Mullard CV4024 or 6201, unless you were referring to the current production Russian tubes labeled Mullard, in which case you should have made that clear, because those are not the Mullards people should be rolling into this amp. Real NOS Mullards are known far and wide in both guitar and audio circles as the mellow, sweet choice. Your description of them as more aggressive with a smaller soundstage simply cannot be reconciled with that reality. Similarly, as to the guys who had problems with their plates going cherry on the 12bh7, it could well be a flaw in the oem Mc tube, which uses a 12at7 size envelope for a tube that was designed for much taller glass and, perforce, a much larger plate. I am confident that changing to the taller tube is what solved the problem (notwithstanding the owners complaint that it was ‘butt ugly’; a truly sophisticated tube user.). Take a look at a 1950’s Sylvania Gold Label or an RCA black plate 12bh7 - both tall with long plates, as the tube was designed. That’s why the replacement eh tubes were taller and, I’d wager, that’s why they solved the cherry red plate issue.
Finally, someone suggested that tube dampers were snake oil because manufacturers don’t use them. That is false information and bad advice. ARC, for just one example, has been using dampers on their small tubes for 20+ years, and I’m sure others are too. Some tubes are more responsive to damping than others, and too much damping will make your amp sound dead, but damping often works well and its effects are obvious and repeatable. In fact, you can ‘tune’ the dampers by moving them up and down the tube as you listen for the seeet spot. I prefer herbies dampers to the rubber band type used by arc, and I usually use them only on input tubes - never on power tubes - and not on every small tube or even on every piece of equipment.
YMMV, just my $.03, etc.,
ad nauseum.