Stereo equipment

[merlin1952]

I have seen several threads with people looking for a recommendation for a stereo amp or receiver. They say they aren’t interested in surround sound just excellent 2 channel sound. Admittedly I was surprised with some of the recommendations, not that I’m second guessing anyone, I’m just surprised that anyone still makes such a unit. I thought everything had long since gone to A/V equipment. After all it is possible to just listen to 2 channel sound from an A/V receiver. Also, I know on the net that if you search long enough you can find just the answers you’re looking for and I have read that music actually sounds better through the old stuff. Anyway, having said all of that I’m curious as to everyone’s opinion when comparing the new 2 channel equipment to some of the nicer vintage equipment from the mid to late 1970s. I’m talking apples to apples here it wouldn’t be fair to compare an old Pioneer SA-9800 to a brand new $10,000.00 pre/pro or anything but staying somewhat on a level playing field what’s everyone’s opinion? Again let me say that I’m not criticizing anyone or the newer equipment I’m looking to set up a room for music and I’m seriously considering a vintage amp or receiver. Thanks!

 

[GranteedEV]

Don't know what i'm supposed to say but if we're talking tubes, give me a EMP Tek VT-40.2 (60wpc into 4 ohms) driving a pair of sensitive speakers like JTR Quintuple 8s for a grand total of 2400 and send me back to 1975 and i'll sell that to some stereophile reviewer for 60000 and then put the money in the bank and enjoy the added intrest. Would probably have a tough time explaining the lack of a true phono stage though.

But if we're talking about solid-state, some of the old Sherwood and Marantz gear is really noice.

 

[KEW]

Mid to late 70's, that is over 30 years old. All capacitors wear, and I can't imagine any that are still performing to "as new" specs after 30 years.
Certainly there were some great design (both electronics and exteriors), but I would not be too quick to go for the old stuff unless you (or a close friend) is handy with a soldering iron to recondition such a product.

If it is the look that you are after, Yamaha recently introduced a hi-fi line with a "retro" look which I suspect is a fine and well built unit:

They don't list the specs on their site, so I copied them from the downloadable pdf file:

A-S1000 Main Specifications
[AUDIO SECTION]
Maximum Power (4 ohms, 1 kHz, 0.7 % THD, for Europe) 160 W + 160 W
Minimum RMS Output Power
(8 ohms, 20 Hz—20 kHz, 0.02% THD) 90 W + 90 W
(4 ohms, 20 Hz—20 kHz, 0.02% THD) 140 W + 140 W
Maximum Power
(8 ohms, 1 kHz, 10% THD) 115 W + 115 W
(4 ohms, 1 kHz, 10% THD) 190 W + 190 W
Dynamic Power/Channel (8/6/4/2 ohms) 105/135/190/220 W
Damping Factor (8 ohms, 20 Hz–20 kHz) 160
CD, etc. 150 mV/47 k-ohms
Input Sensitivity/Impedance
Phono MM 2.5 mV/47 k-ohms
Phono MC 100 μV/50 ohms
Main In 1 V/47 k-ohms
Maximum Input signal
CD BAL, 1 kHz, 0.5% THD —
CD, etc, 1 kHz, 0.5% THD 2.8 V
Frequency Response
CD,etc. to Speaker Out, Flat Position 5 Hz–100 kHz, +0 dB/-3 dB
CD,etc. to Speaker Out, Flat Position 20 Hz–20 kHz, +0 dB/-0.3 dB
Total Harmonic Distortion
CD, etc. to Speaker Out 0.015% (90 W/8 ohms)
(20 Hz–20 kHz)
Phono MM to Rec Out 0.005% (2 V)
Phono MC to Rec Out 0.05% (2 V)
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
CD, etc. (150 mV, Input Shorted) 98 dB
[IHF-A Network]
Phono MM (5mV, Input Shorted) 93 dB
Phono MC (500 μV, Input Shorted) 85 dB
Residual Noise CD, etc. [IHF-A-Network] 73 μV
RIAA Equalisation Deviation
Phono MM 20 Hz–20 kHz, ±0.5 dB
Phono MC 20 Hz–20 kHz, ±0.5 dB
Channel Separation
CD, etc., Input 5.1 k-ohms Terminaled 74 dB/54 dB
(1 kHz/10 kHz)
Phono MM, Input Shorted, Vol: -30dB 90 dB/77 dB
Phono MC, Input Shorted, Vol: -30dB 66 dB/65 dB
Bass Boost/Cut (at 50 Hz) ±9 dB
Tone Control Characteristics
Bass Turnover Frequency 350 Hz
Treble Boost/Cut (at 20 Hz) ±9 dB
Treble Turnover Frequency 3.5 kHz
[GENERAL SECTION]
Dimensions (W x H x D)
435 x 137 x 465 mm
17-1/8” x 5-3/8” x 18-5/16”
Weight 22 kg; 48.5 lbs.

They also make a nice CD player to go with it:

 

[PearlcorderS701]

KEW makes some excellent points about the new Yamaha "retro look" gear -- they even have introduced a stereo receiver with the same look if an integrated isn't what one wants...it was reviewed here a little while ago...

As for the initial question, it's a common one amongst those first discovering two channel, or for getting back into it after being away from some time (as was my case) -- I too thought no one made a quality modern two-channel stereo receiver any longer with the explosion of A/V receivers and the interest in surround aside from the $99 specials you see at Best Buy (you know...the cheapo Sonys you see lying around on top of their stock boxes in the "receiver" section of the store ), but then I started doing research, and it's surprising just how many companies still make one -- Onkyo has two top notch models (the better of which I bought for my 2-channel setup) as does their Integra line (only one model there) and there are even some high end options like the TEAC Reference Series and a small batch of others. At one time in audiophile history, the 2-channel receiver was the be-all, end-all of home audio -- you couldn't have a serious home setup without a good Fisher, Marantz, you name it in your closet with its glowing slide rule tuner peeking out while you listen to your vinyl...

As surround took hold, the stereo receiver became an afterthought -- but it shouldn't have. As for your comment about surround AVRs being able to play in stereo, they sure can -- and almost all do a fine job in this regard for all but the most fanatical golden eared audiophile. It's also a choice when there is no choice -- that is, for those who need to share their home theater room with their 2-channel listening space from one system. This happened to me in several apartments I lived in, where I had no choice but to combine my stereo gear with my HT gear, and my Onkyo surround receivers worked just fine in stereo or Pro Logic II Music mode (of course, there is the argument by audiophiles that a serious two-channel amp and preamp can be added to a surround system just for music listening, and there is some validity in that if one is inclined to dedicate themselves to such a project, monetarily and otherwise). But, I am of the opinion that if you have a second room in which to set up an audio-only system (as I was when we moved into our new house), you should definitely go with a stereo receiver or integrated amp, or separate two channel amp/preamp, for music listening -- even though the surround AVRs do fine in stereo as I said, there's something just more...I don't know exactly...dedicated to duty about a stereo receiver for music purposes...

 

[3db]

NAD makes some very nice integrated amps, 5 models to choose from from their most powerful .

http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-375BEE-Integrated-Amplifier

to their least powerful

http://nadelectronics.com/products/hifi-amplifiers/C-315BEE-Stereo-Integrated-Amplifier



Another good product is from Outlaw..this one being a receiver and not an integrated amp. This unit has a very sturdy power supply and amplifier section.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html

 

[markw]

Apples to oranges?

Believe it or not, some people only want and/or need two channels for some applications. Music-only systems come to mind. for some people, video is an afterthought.

And, when you say you want to compare the new stuff to the old stuff, you must factor inflation and technological and manufacturing advances into the equation.

For instance, in 1965 I purchased, NIB, for $59.95 a Lafayette LA-224A tube integrated amp which was rated at a whopping 6 wpc. This was adequate for the Lafayette Criterion 50a two way speakers (29.95/each) but proved totally inadequate when I upgraded to Wharfedale 40C speakers.

Taking inflation into consideration, that same amp today would cost about $390.

Now, consider that today one can purchase a current manufacture Sherwood RX-4105 100 wpc receiver (yep, tuner included) for under $100,

Even discounting that, you can find several other modern integrateds/receivers that come in around the $400 mark, any of which will easily outperform my trusty old LA-224A.

I think you can see that a direct comparison between old and new is sort of an apples to oranges consideration in itself.

Oh, FWIW, here's the inflataion calculator I use. It's pretty handy to keep around.

 

[highfigh]

I have seen several threads with people looking for a recommendation for a stereo amp or receiver. They say they aren’t interested in surround sound just excellent 2 channel sound. Admittedly I was surprised with some of the recommendations, not that I’m second guessing anyone, I’m just surprised that anyone still makes such a unit. I thought everything had long since gone to A/V equipment. After all it is possible to just listen to 2 channel sound from an A/V receiver. Also, I know on the net that if you search long enough you can find just the answers you’re looking for and I have read that music actually sounds better through the old stuff. Anyway, having said all of that I’m curious as to everyone’s opinion when comparing the new 2 channel equipment to some of the nicer vintage equipment from the mid to late 1970s. I’m talking apples to apples here it wouldn’t be fair to compare an old Pioneer SA-9800 to a brand new $10,000.00 pre/pro or anything but staying somewhat on a level playing field what’s everyone’s opinion? Again let me say that I’m not criticizing anyone or the newer equipment I’m looking to set up a room for music and I’m seriously considering a vintage amp or receiver. Thanks!

Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I was selling Pioneer in '78 and there was nothing magical about it. It was mid-fi and will never be considered anything more than that. I had a Pioneer SX-525 that I took to an amplifier clinic that tested power and distortion. It didn't do well- at rated distortion, it wasn't within 20% of the rated power output and it never sounded all that great. I replaced it with a 30W/ch Sony VFet integrated amp and the difference was night & day without getting into high power.

Unless I had a reliable parts supplier and/or access to a good service tech, I wouldn't buy vintage unless it's really special because at ~30 years old, it's doe for some major upgrades and parts will be hard to find in a lot of cases.

Denon has some 2ch equipment now that looks pretty nice.

 

[Pyrrho]

I have seen several threads with people looking for a recommendation for a stereo amp or receiver. They say they aren’t interested in surround sound just excellent 2 channel sound. Admittedly I was surprised with some of the recommendations, not that I’m second guessing anyone, I’m just surprised that anyone still makes such a unit. I thought everything had long since gone to A/V equipment. After all it is possible to just listen to 2 channel sound from an A/V receiver. Also, I know on the net that if you search long enough you can find just the answers you’re looking for and I have read that music actually sounds better through the old stuff. Anyway, having said all of that I’m curious as to everyone’s opinion when comparing the new 2 channel equipment to some of the nicer vintage equipment from the mid to late 1970s. I’m talking apples to apples here it wouldn’t be fair to compare an old Pioneer SA-9800 to a brand new $10,000.00 pre/pro or anything but staying somewhat on a level playing field what’s everyone’s opinion? Again let me say that I’m not criticizing anyone or the newer equipment I’m looking to set up a room for music and I’m seriously considering a vintage amp or receiver. Thanks!

I have both old and new gear (most of my old gear was not that old when I got it, but it is old now). The old gear tends to have a higher quality of construction than most new gear, which in part is due to how expensive it was (you must consider inflation in this; in the 1970's, good stereo equipment was expensive). The old gear also tends to be easier to use, both because the controls are on a "silver" background with black lettering (there is a reason why books are not white letters on black paper, aside from the extra ink it would take) and because each control does exactly one thing (unlike modern computerized equipment, where what a button or knob does depends upon what was pressed or turned before it). And in the 1970's, FM was considered a serious source of music, so they actually tried to put good tuners in the gear, particularly at the high end, which tends to be much better than what is put in most gear today. Old gear can also often be gotten very inexpensively today. On the other hand, there are some units for which fanatics will pay crazy amounts of money, so they can be a very bad deal at auction sites like eBay.

Now, the downsides include that, being old, the likelihood of something not performing up to specifications is much higher, there tends to be no remote controls, and the controls tend to need cleaning occasionally.

As for what sounds better, you need to be more specific, as there is good and bad in old gear, and good and bad in new gear. In my opinion, people who say that old is better without qualification, or who say that new is better without qualification, are simply wrong, as there has always been junk, and there still is junk being made. I tend to prefer more recent speakers than the older units, though, again, we need to be comparing them at similar relative price points for it to be fair. But sometimes one can get high end older units for pennies on the dollar, and the current dollar isn't worth nearly as much as it used to be, so in the real world, sometimes the old is going to be better at a particular price point, and sometimes not, depending on the particular deals you can find. And since deals are changing all the time, it may be that one week the best deal going that you can get is old gear, and the next week it might be new gear.


And obviously, there were no CD players in the 1970's, so such sources have to be newer.


As for going with 2 channel over multichannel, if you spend the same amount of money on each system, you can have much higher quality speakers with the 2 channel system, and that will very significantly affect the sound. For example, if I had no gear at all and had only $1000 to spend, I would buy a 2 channel system, and would not even consider a surround system. I would spend over half of that on a pair of speakers. And although I do have some multichannel audio discs (SACD, DVD-Audio, DVD music concerts), most of the music I listen to is 2 channels (CDs, mostly). So for most of the music I hear, I have no need at all for a surround system. In point of fact, I have three systems set up in my home, two of which are 2 channel. If I want to listen to my multichannel sources, I do so in my home theater room. But most of the time, I listen to the 2 channel system in my living room.

 

[merlin1952]

Thanks to everyone for their responses. A lot of good points were made in favor of the new equipment. As I stated in the beginning I wasn’t looking to start an argument I was just looking for points for and against. Back in the day I had wanted a Pioneer SX-980 but never got one. I did have a SA-8800 that I used for many years until I upgraded about 5 years ago to a Yamaha RX-V750. The tuner went out in the Yamaha a few months ago and I decided to go back with a Pioneer so I got a VSX-1020 that I like okay. The VSX-1020 is in my living room as part of my HT setup though admittedly I listen to much more music than anything else. I’m in the process of having a new workshop built out back and it will have a room where I plan to set up a “music room”. I was thinking of maybe going vintage with either a SA-8800 or a SX-980 (eBay has plenty of them) but after reading everyone’s comments I’m thinking that maybe I’ll go with some new or at least more up to date equipment. The little Yamaha A-S700 appeals to me but haven’t read a lot on them yet. Perhaps an A-S700 and a good matching tuner and I should be set for many years to come. What are everyone’s thoughts on the Yamaha A-S700?

 

[KEW]

The little Yamaha A-S700 appeals to me but haven’t read a lot on them yet. Perhaps an A-S700 and a good matching tuner and I should be set for many years to come. What are everyone’s thoughts on the Yamaha A-S700?

Check your PM.

I'm a bit concerned that the AS700 spec's do not give a RMS power rating at 4 ohms while Yamaha did give this information on the more expensive models. If you are certain of your speakers and know they are 6 ohms or greater, the AS700 may work for you, but I'd really want to go with the AS1000 (or AS2000) as being a unit to live and grow with for the next few decades.

HTH

 

[planeboy]

hi I have chosen you because I really don't undrestand how to put an AD or a comment on the community' I have looked and could not find anything, ok maybe because I am stupid yes I admit but the site is not clear.

how do I put an AD, I have looked everywher and cannot find a friendlly place to put my words in.

 

[jamie2112]

hi I have chosen you because I really don't undrestand how to put an AD or a comment on the community' I have looked and could not find anything, ok maybe because I am stupid yes I admit but the site is not clear.

how do I put an AD, I have looked everywher and cannot find a friendlly place to put my words in.

You need 25 posts to place an ad.This is a means to separate the spammers from the real AH posters on this site.There are so many spammers that this is a good way to make sure you are not just joining to sell something.That can be done on www.audiogon.com if you wish..This is a friendly place you just need to be here because you are interested in audio and NOT sales...

 

[markw]

This is a community first, and a swap meet second.

hi I have chosen you because I really don't undrestand how to put an AD or a comment on the community' I have looked and could not find anything, ok maybe because I am stupid yes I admit but the site is not clear.

how do I put an AD, I have looked everywher and cannot find a friendlly place to put my words in.

The "For sale" forum exists to facilitate the exchange of equipment between members of the community.

As was noted above, you have to become "one of us" before you are accorded the privelege to sell to us.
But, I must say, derailing an existing thread for your own selfish purposes isn't really a way to endear yourself to us. If all you want to do is sell, there's always Ebay, audiogon, craigslist, and others as well.

 

[its phillip]

I like how he says he's "chosen you," when nobody has any idea who he's actually chosen.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Believe it or not, some people only want and/or need two channels for some applications. Music-only systems come to mind. for some people, video is an afterthought.

Precisely my point in my post early on, when I was describing the fact that some people have a secondary room just for music listening (as I was able to have in our new house) and thus any kind of "stereo" equipment could be considered -- be it a receiver, integrated amp or full-blown separates.

As for the video, indeed I wish my stereo receiver wasn't so video-centric and instead concentrated on just audio functions -- because of its lack of pure audio inputs, I have to plug my Numark dual CD/mixing console into the receiver's "VCR/DVR" input, and I hate seeing that light up on the display when I select that input...

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I like how he says he's "chosen you," when nobody has any idea who he's actually chosen.

You know something, Phillip -- you're exactly right...I don't even know who or what he was talking about in that post about "choosing someone;" was there a post by him before that comment??

It seemed so random and senseless...

 

[merlin1952]

I’ve been persuaded to look at the current offerings for a system for the new room. I’m still months from having the room ready but still it’s a lot of fun shopping. Also it should help me make a more knowledgeable decision. Currently I’m looking at the Yamaha R-S700 or the A-S700. Obviously with the amp I’ll need a tuner but besides that is there really any difference in the two pieces of equipment? Internally are they the same quality? I assume I’d never notice any difference in the quality of the sound but was curious as to the internal parts. Thanks,

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I’ve been persuaded to look at the current offerings for a system for the new room. I’m still months from having the room ready but still it’s a lot of fun shopping. Also it should help me make a more knowledgeable decision. Currently I’m looking at the Yamaha R-S700 or the A-S700. Obviously with the amp I’ll need a tuner but besides that is there really any difference in the two pieces of equipment? Internally are they the same quality? I assume I’d never notice any difference in the quality of the sound but was curious as to the internal parts. Thanks,

If those Yamahas are integrateds, then you will need an external tuner if you listen to broadcast radio -- the benefit of a stereo receiver is that it has the tuner built in. Are both those models you mentioned integrated amps, or is one a receiver?

 

[merlin1952]

The R-S700 is a receiver and the A-S700 is an amp. The specs seem quite similar I was just curious about the internals are they the same, other than the lack of a tuner in the amp of course. Thanks,

 

[PearlcorderS701]

The R-S700 is a receiver and the A-S700 is an amp. The specs seem quite similar I was just curious about the internals are they the same, other than the lack of a tuner in the amp of course. Thanks,

Are these from that new generation of receivers and amps Yamaha released with the retro looks, which we were discussing before? If so, you'll probably be hard pressed to hear a difference between them, no matter their internals...