New member & new amp

F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Hello.....just purchased a clean 1976- 1978 Pioneer SA. 8500 Amp & TX 720 tuner....I have them paired up with my 1994 Onkyo CD deck & 1990 Polk monitor 5 spea kers......sounds great.....powerful Amp / 60 watts per channel...
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
So all that old stuff still works? Awesome. :)


ps 60wpc isn't much.
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Yes...I have been using a 1997 Teac AGV8520 reciever for years & always thought it sounded pretty good...rated @ 130 watts.....but I found out the ratings have changed over the years & are very mis - leading....these older units...rated @ 60 - 80 WPC....have plenty of good , clean, power....you have to hook it up & compare & hear the difference.....love it!
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
So all that old stuff still works? Awesome. :)


ps 60wpc isn't much.
That's what I was thinking too....but on a 2 channel system that's equals 120 watts....all I know is this Pioneer. SA 8500....or the 9500....kick ass!
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
I got mine from a friend for $300....cleaned & inspected.....just saw one on E bay for $700....which is too much$$$
 
A

Arkintosh

Audiophyte
Glad to see you here buddy. Hope you'll enjoy this great community. All the best!
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
So all that old stuff still works? Awesome. :)


ps 60wpc isn't much.
Having browsed many schematics of amps built in those old years, I would say back then they might have got stuck in the belief that "continuous" rated power is more important than dynamic power, though we both know now, that it is practically more important for music enjoyment in most cases and for most people.

The Pioneer SA 8500 most likely could do 60 WPC literally continuously, into an 8 ohm resistor and 75 ohm into a 4 ohm resistor. For practical use, that lighter Teac might actually be a little more dynamic and seem more powerful to the ears, all else being equal but would be more likely to blow up you crank it up to output 100 W average for longer than just a few minutes, just an educated guess. The OP's reported difference could well be another case of expectation bias, or the Teac is not in top conditions whereas that Pioneer is. Comparing used old gear like those, anything can happen... The fact is, if in top condition, any 60 W amp with build quality like that pioneer, could feel very powerful driving sitting 8 ft from the speakers listening at 75 dB average spl, but then any modern Pioneer receiver rated 100 WPC could too.
 
Last edited:
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Having browsed many schematics of amps built in those old years, I would say back then they might have got stuck in the belief that "continuous" rated power is more important than dynamic power, though we both know now, that it is practically more important for music enjoyment in most cases and for most people.

The Pioneer SA 8500 most likely could do 60 WPC literally continuously, into an 8 ohm resistor and 75 ohm into a 4 ohm resistor. For practical use, that lighter Teac might actually be a little more dynamic the seem more powerful, all else being equal but would be more likely to blow up you crank it up to output 100 W average for longer than just a few minutes, just an educated guess. The OP's reported difference could well be another case of expectation bias, or the Teac is not in top conditions whereas that Pioneer is. Comparing used old gear like those, anything can happen... The fact is, if in top condition, any 60 W amp with build quality like that pioneer, could feel very powerful driving sitting 8 ft from the speakers listening at 75 dB average spl, but then any modern Pioneer receiver rated 100 WPC could too.
Thanks for the input........just another reminder how many factors there are to consider, when choosing your Amp / Reciever....the newer equip, have remotes & more bells & whisdtles..which is nice...but its a trade off.....I am going to keep my Costco / Teac reciever for back - up....and enjoy the Pioneers simple , solid, build quality & good looks......reminds me of my time in the Navy over in Guam.....
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
That's what I was thinking too....but on a 2 channel system that's equals 120 watts....all I know is this Pioneer. SA 8500....or the 9500....kick ass!
Not really, it's just 60 watts available for each of the two speakers. I more meant that there are much more powerful amps than one with merely 60 wpc, I consider that power range more a minimum than anything, but it would depend on the speakers and at 90 dB sensitivity (per this) 60 wpc should do nicely in any case.
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Spartan
Back in the 1970s 60 WPC was considered pretty powerful as I remember. Hell my 1st hi fi receiver in 1978 was a 25 WPC Nikko and I was in heaven with some small Marantz speakers.:)
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Back in the 1970s 60 WPC was considered pretty powerful as I remember. Hell my 1st hi fi receiver in 1978 was a 25 WPC Nikko and I was in heaven with some small Marantz speakers.:)
Ten four....a lot of these Amps & reciever s don't have high ratings....so I was kinda Leary until I got it home. & fired it up...and was pleasantly surprised.......it was obvious that the ratings or quality were not the same as modern equipt....my Pioneer SXD 7000 Reciever I brought back from Guam in 1980 was rated @ 120 & that was alot....but this SA 8500 has plenty of power....I can't turn it up past half throttle.....usually it's between 1/4 & 1/2
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Not really, it's just 60 watts available for each of the two speakers. I more meant that there are much more powerful amps than one with merely 60 wpc, I consider that power range more a minimum than anything, but it would depend on the speakers and at 90 dB sensitivity (per this) 60 wpc should do nicely in any case.
Ten four...at my age I don't crank my music up super load anymore....well maybe once in awhile......but with my Polk monitor 5 speakers it sounds good.....
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Does anybody know if these older amplifiers have cooling fans?
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I doubt much of the gear from that era had active cooling, particularly from what I had and from what I remember, except for pro gear.
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
Just picked up a 1989 Luxman R115 today & in the process of comparing to my Pioneer & I would say the Lux does have a little more power under rated @ 70 WPC & sounds great...paired with my 1989 Polk monit or 5s ..but the Pioneer is still a keeper
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
See this at hifi-classic.net for lab tests on the R-115:

"Lab Tests
The R-115's power output at clipping into 8-ohm loads at 1,000 Hz was 105 watts per channel, well above its 70-watt rating. Into 4 ohms, the output was 148 watts, and into 2 ohms it was a potent 210 watts. The dynamic power output during a 20-millisecond tone burst was 170 watts into 8 ohms, 275 watts into 4 ohms, and 350 watts into 2 ohms. The 8-ohm clipping and dynamic headrooms were 1.77 and 3.85 dB, respectively.
The 1,000-Hz amplifier distortion was 0.01 percent or less up to the clipping point into 8- or 4-ohm loads and only slightly higher into 2 ohms. The distortion varied only slightly with power across the audio range, measuring between 0.006 and 0.02 percent from 20 to 20,000 Hz at power levels from 7 to 70 watts. The slew factor exceeded our measurement limit of 25.
The tone controls had a maximum range of about ±12 dB in the bass and ±10 dB in the treble. The loudness compensation was moderate, boosting the output by 8 and 6 dB, respectively, at the low- and high-frequency extremes. The subsonic filter appeared to have a 6-dB-per-octave slope, reducing the response by 2.5 dB at 20 Hz. The RIAA phono equalization was extremely accurate, varying only + 0.2, -0.1 dB from 20 to 20,000 Hz. The phono-input impedance was 47,000 ohms in parallel with a 175-picofarad capacitance.
The sensitivity for a reference output of 1 watt was 18 millivolts (mv) at the CD input and 0.3 mv at the phono input. The respective A-weighted noise levels were -77 and - 76 dB referred to a 1-watt output. The phono preamplifier overloaded with inputs from 170 mv at low and middle frequencies to 136 mv at 20,000 Hz.
As good as the amplifier section was, the fm tuner of the R-115 provided the major surprises of our test. It was very sensitive (10.8-dBf mono usable sensitivity and 14-dBf 50-dB quieting sensitivity) and had low distortion (about 0.05 percent in mono and 0.08 percent in stereo).
The frequency response was exceptionally flat, and the channel-separation readings were among the best we have measured, reaching 65 dB at 1,000 Hz. The 1-dB capture ratio was excellent, and the image rejection, 138 dB, was among the best we have encountered. The narrow - if operating mode for fm provided good selectivity without any significant increase in distortion, which remained under 0.08 percent in both mono and stereo. Even the am tuner was one of the better-sounding ones we have tested, with a frequency response down 6 dB at 20 and 3,000 Hz and a relatively low noise level."
 
KenM10759

KenM10759

Audioholic Samurai
There was a brief period when Luxman gear was rather 'pedestrian' but most of it is very high-quality gear. I've always loved the look, and today it's definitely high-end stuff that not many can afford.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
As Ken mentioned, Luxman has gone high end but not way back then. Based on specs, the two amps are very comparable. The R-115 may have higher peak output but the Pioneer probably has better continuous output rating. I noticed that the R-115's block capacitors are rated 61 V vs the SA-8500's 50 V. All else being equal, the R-115 is 15 years newer so it may be a better choice.
 
F

Fomoco69

Junior Audioholic
As Ken mentioned, Luxman has gone high end but not way back then. Based on specs, the two amps are very comparable. The R-115 may have higher peak output but the Pioneer probably has better continuous output rating. I noticed that the R-115's block capacitors are rated 61 V vs the SA-8500's 50 V. All else being equal, the R-115 is 15 years newer so it may be a better choice.
Thanks.....appreciate it!
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top