Amplifier decision

[Nightbrace]

I am trying to decide between a Sansui 7070 and a Pioneer Sx-737 to drive a set of JBL EN3 cabinets loaded with LE25-4 tweeters, LE5-6 midranges, 2214H woofers, with L100 crossovers. I am currently using the Pioneer, but am interested in getting the Sansui 7070, is it worth the effort to try?

[Mr. Widget]

I probably should butt out being that I don't hold classic receivers in the same high regard as some LHS forum members, but I doubt there would be much of a sonic difference between the two... assuming similar power and operation condition. The main differences are typically features and cosmetics.

BTW: by similar power, you have to double the power to make a significant difference. So a 75 watt and a 100 watt amp are essentially the same.


Widget

[Nightbrace]

I probably should butt out being that I don't hold classic receivers in the same high regard as some LHS forum members, but I doubt there would be much of a sonic difference between the two... assuming similar power and operation condition. The main differences are typically features and cosmetics.

BTW: by similar power, you have to double the power to make a significant difference. So a 75 watt and a 100 watt amp are essentially the same.


Widget

Well what receivers would you recommend that will work better than the Pioneer?

[Mr. Widget]

In general receivers are just not as good sounding as separates... there are some separates that are stinkers and there are some very good integrated amps... but in general if you want to go to the next step...

Read this thread:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8131


Widget

[hapy._.face]

I probably should butt out being that I don't hold classic receivers in the same high regard as some LHS forum members, but I doubt there would be much of a sonic difference between the two... assuming similar power and operation condition. The main differences are typically features and cosmetics.

BTW: by similar power, you have to double the power to make a significant difference. So a 75 watt and a 100 watt amp are essentially the same.


Widget

Well said!! I'll admit- the classic Pioneer integrated amps are very pretty; So are all the classic silver faced beauties. Problem is- they have steep competition when compared to the stuff that came out (domestically) circa 1983 through to the mid 90's. (There are a few exceptions- certain Marantz models, etc.)

In contrast to the Pioneer amp you mentioned: A Nakamichi STASIS based integrated amp from the 1990's (which can be had for a song on Ebay these days) will outperform all but the most sonic silver faced vintage integrated amps on all counts. Seperates really are the way to go; But, if budget is of concern and you want to keep an integrated amp- try a used Adcom, Threshold, or anything with the a PASS based circuit. And the beauty is- some of these came with remotes...something nice to have if you've been living with those older integrated amps:)

This is MY opinion- I'm sure I'll get shot down for opening up on this subject as there are soooo- many loyal Pioneer devotees. I can take it..

[Nightbrace]

I'd like to get a Sansui AU-X711 to use with these speakers, but I have no idea where to look, have never seen one on Ebay. I'm just thinking of something else to try, it would have to be pretty good to be better than the Pioneer. I can't afford separate preamps, amps, and tuners. I would be willing to get a Sansui Tuner to match the AU-X711. You guys have any idea where to look?

[Nightbrace]

How favorably will a Sansui AU-717 compare to the coveted AU-X1? Same goes for a TU-717 vs. the TU-X1.

[Michael Smith]

Hi, Ifind it hard to understand why you would be looking for Receivers or Intergrated amplifiers when you will get a significant sonic improvement using seperates. I have looked on ebay and the prices you guys pay for used gear is fantastic,have a go and enjoy
Regards
Michael

[hapy._.face]

...it would have to be pretty good to be better than the Pioneer. I can't afford separate preamps, amps, and tuners. You guys have any idea where to look?

Hey man, I feel your pain. How many "watts" does that old Pioneer say it's throwing? I'm almost ready to give you a free integrated amp that will outblast that thing in every way you can imagine (without the pretty face, though). Keep it till you can swing something better- then ship it back...

What are the specs? I don't want to send something underpowered...

take care-
Mike

[louped garouv]

What are the specs? I don't want to send something underpowered...

take care-
Mike

http://www.classicaudio.com/value/pio/SX737.html

[Mighty Saturn 5]

Hey man, I feel your pain. How many "watts" does that old Pioneer say it's throwing? I'm almost ready to give you a free integrated amp that will outblast that thing in every way you can imagine (without the pretty face, though). Keep it till you can swing something better- then ship it back...

What are the specs? I don't want to send something underpowered...

take care-
Mike

All this talk regarding old Pioneer receivers and the like reminds me of the old receiver I have in the basement-a Pioneer SX-1250...if I recall its rated at 160 watts/ch @8 ohms and about 200 @ 4, I think it weighs about 64 lbs and is pretty large relative to its power. After I purchased something a bit more modest I believe we used it (with a small mixer) for one of my old bands PA systems.

[kingjames]

I like the old Vintage stuff by Pioneer, my SX1250 will rock any set of speakers on the planet.It has super clear sound and an AM and FM circuit that drags any station in. The weight is 64lbs out of the box. It is a very good looking receiver as well. I will match this receiver to any MAC receiver for clearity, my Mac 4200 didn't sound as good as this Pioneer and that is why I got rid of it.Buy Pioneer, but get the 1080,1250,1280,or the best 1980. You can't go wrong with any of those.

[saeman]

Hi Widget: I want to agree with you but can't in total. In a big system there is no substitute for separates. However, a few years back I had a Marantz 2275 sitting around and collecting dust. I decided to put it into service. At the time I was listening to my Sovs in the bedroom running on a mint MC2505 and MX113, with a cd player on the side. I thought it sounded pretty good. I popped in the 2275 instead of the mac and it blew the mac away. I wasn't going to believe it - so - I had an identical MC2505/MX113 pair in the basement. Up they came in place of the 2275. No difference. The 2275 beat that pair too. I pedaled both pairs and the 2275 runs me to sleep almost every night. Now it's been said that the 2505 is not their best solid state performance and that may have something to do with what I heard. But the 2275 and similar Pioneer/Sansui receivers should not be blown off too casually. Ya can't have a big bi-amped killer system in every room and there's good value in some of these 70's vintage receivers.

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.gif Rick


In general receivers are just not as good sounding as separates... there are some separates that are stinkers and there are some very good integrated amps... but in general if you want to go to the next step...

Read this thread:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8131


Widget

[Nightbrace]

I have a Marantz 2250, congrats on the 2275, its a great receiver.

I really don't see the need for separates. Although I see the benefits when using a considerable amount of power, I use less than 4 or 5 watts at normal listening levels and rarely have the need for a high powered amp. I have a Sony GX-10ES hooked up to 2 12" Plus PAudios in custom cabinets for that. I also have a Fisher 400 which I truly love, but its a little too fragile for daily use and can get overrun sometimes with certain music with the JBL's.

I have had a SPEC-1 preamp, SPEC-2 amp combo, and could notice no disernable difference between them and the Pioneer SX-780 which replaced them. I wanted a blackked-out Pioneer with dual meters for FM, and the SX-737 fit the bill nicely, the sound was identical to the SX-780 and I didn't need both. So thats what I have now.

I didn't mean to start a WAR here, I just thought maybe someone else may have had the chance to use the Sansui 7070 with a similiar speaker system before I fork over some money to try the receiver out.

I would like a receiver, or a tuner with an integrated amp to replace it, but it will have to be better than the SX-737 I have. Since I wouldn't like to spend more than $200, I think I may be stuck with the Pioneer for awhile.

[Mr. Widget]

Hi Widget: I want to agree with you but can't in total. In a big system there is no substitute for separates. ...As luck would have it, I too have a Marantz 2275. I would submit it is a bit nicer than the Pioneers mentioned thus far and I think it is nice sounding. That said, there are so many separates that can be had on the used market for just a tiny bit more that will show the Marantz up in quality of sound. The Marantz is good, but a PS Audio pre and a GAS, Sumo, Threshold, Levinson, etc. etc. even some NADs and Adcom amps will open your eyes.

I would suggest that most of the early McIntosh solid state amps and preamps are not in this league.


Widget

BTW: The Levinsons and Thresholds are typically too costly, but one can occasionally find one for a good price.

[hapy._.face]

Hi Riessen-

I think the vintage Marantz receivers/amps sound way better than most Pioneers from the same period. In fact, a few select models of Marantz amps are stellar! I (IMHO) don't think vintage Pioneers are the same caliber.

I also think McIntosh made a few bad amps, too. They also made excellent ones, of course. Like Widget says- you get some stinkers.

As far as there being value left in vintage Pioneer receivers- I agree (somewhat). If for anything else- they did have excellent tuners! I just wouldn't settle for one in my main system when for the same money (under $300) you can do a LOT better. For those people that swear by those older Pioneers- I wonder how many other amps they have listened to in a side by side comparison. (??)

[speakerdave]

I really don't see the need for separates. Although I see the benefits when using a considerable amount of power, I use less than 4 or 5 watts at normal listening levels and rarely have the need for a high powered amp.

One of the problems with the early solid state stuff was that the first watt was the worst. Also, there was often a massive amount of negative feedback, audible at all levels, which was later identified as one source of what was then called transistor sound.

However, for noncritical listening at low levels just about anything will do, since perception of and annoyance at distortion occurs at absolute levels and not percentages. For this kind of listening a pretty face is often enough.

David

[Mr. Widget]

However, for noncritical listening at low levels just about anything will do... For this kind of listening a pretty face is often enough.Hi Dave,

I agree with your entire post 100%

I chose to quote the part I did as I need to keep reminding myself that there are many here who do just that... and some other folks who want SPL over anything else.... there is nothing wrong with either of these ways to enjoy your JBLs and Altecs... I just forget about them and sometimes make a recommendation that flat out doesn't apply to either group.

Widget

[jim3860]

Great I love it when there is several trains of thought regarding an issue. Everyone here has good points. As widget says I believe he is right, As a GENERAL rule. Seperates are better because they put all there money and technology into one thing. Amp- Preamp-Processor-Tuner - etc. of course not every can afford seperates or has the space. Myself I am using a old marantz receiver 2220 for a tuner. its far better than the tuner in my $1500.00 sony da5es receiver, I use it for surround sound the latest dts es discrete etc processing for movies and DVD Audio and SACD multi channel abilitys. I use an Altec Lansing 9440 Alpha pro amp for all 2 channel stuff and as the power for my mains. It is 30 years old but blows away the newer sony for sound reproduction. Even at lower volumes the increase in quality of sound is much better than the sony is. For some reason the increase in power in the Altec amp has made a huge difference in the bass, even if i play it at the same spl. It has made albums that sounded good before, on the sony come to life with the altec. If i didndt know better I would have sworn that someone had replaced my speakers with something far better.:applaud:

[norealtalent]

Partial: If i didndt know better I would have sworn that someone had replaced my speakers with something far better.:applaud:
It's not the speakers, it's the speakers. Garbage in, garbage out. Great speakers reproduce exactly what they're given. Isn't that why we love our JBL's?:bouncy:

[Mr. Widget]

It is 30 years old but blows away the newer sony for sound reproduction. Even at lower volumes the increase in quality of sound is much better than the sony is.Now this is an entirely different discussion. Unless you are talking about the boutique stuff, all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate processors (pre-amps) suck. If you don't pay particular attention to the music, (background music) or are blowing your brains out with speed metal you may not notice a difference... but any $200 Pioneer, Kenwood, Sansui, Marantz, Sherwood, etc. used receiver from the 70s or 80's will absolutely sound better than even a $3000 Yamaha, B+K, Onkyo, Sony, Denon....

The new stuff use chip amps and chip line sections that just plain sound bad... and if that isn't bad enough unless you have one of the better ones that let you direct some sources to stay analog, they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog... From this perspective a 30 watt receiver from 1975 is flat out audiophile quality!

Widget

[kingjames]

I also like Marantz receivers, owned a few in the ole day,but can't remember what model's I had. I also had a real old Technic's as well that sounded very good also.I really like all the old upper end receivers as I don't believed they skimped on the receipe's in those days. With the Monster receiver wars of the 70's there were some awesome units made, Pioneer,Technics' Hitachi,Marantz,Rotel and a few others. I am a firm believer in the saying that"If it ain't broke don't fix it". I am comfortable with the old stuff as I find it to be both reliable and well made. I have heard separates on numerous occasions and like the sound very much, but I have to be Awe Struck in order to pay all that money to replace what I have, and I wasn't. I like a powerful receiver not to blast my speakers but not to overwork it.Like they say it is better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it (wattage).I guess some of us old folks resist change,but then I say there is no need to change after all the old stuff is the shit! Old JBL'S and old Receivers " A Match made in Heaven"

[hapy._.face]

...Unless you are talking about the boutique stuff.... Widget

Yeah- that's what I really dig: Vintage Boutique! Love it!

[jim3860]

Now this is an entirely different discussion. Unless you are talking about the boutique stuff, all of the current receivers, integrated amps, and separate processors (pre-amps) suck. If you don't pay particular attention to the music, (background music) or are blowing your brains out with speed metal you may not notice a difference... but any $200 Pioneer, Kenwood, Sansui, Marantz, Sherwood, etc. used receiver from the 70s or 80's will absolutely sound better than even a $3000 Yamaha, B+K, Onkyo, Sony, Denon....

The new stuff use chip amps and chip line sections that just plain sound bad... and if that isn't bad enough unless you have one of the better ones that let you direct some sources to stay analog, they typically digitize the signal and then convert it back to analog... From this perspective a 30 watt receiver from 1975 is flat out audiophile quality!

WidgetHAHA. If I wanted background music I would listen to my clock radio. As far as heavy metal it hurts my head at low volumes. For those enjoy it more power to you. So to get this correct you are saying that if i want a decent preamp to go with my old Altec Amp I would have to buy one made in the 70s or 80s unless i want to spend mega bucks? Because I have been thinking about buying one. I wanted one that was capable of all the latest digital formats so i could play my SACD and DVD AUDIO Albums in 2 channel or multi channel. They really do sound better in my humble oppinion than the a cassette or regular cd of the same album. even though i still have to use multi channel analog inputs to play a multi channel SACD or DVD AUDIO.No digital connection as yet, the new HDMI cable is supposed to be able to carry a highbandwith signal though. I do want one though that is capable of shutting down all digital processing unless needed. And has balanced xlr outputs, to match the inputs on my amp. Is there such a animal available? P.S Not trying to pick a fight or start a war with you MR WIDGET, but I just tried something out, I ran rcas from my cd player to my marantz receiver and played a couple songs. it sounded pretty bad. I then used my sony receiver, It seemed to clean right up. I then used the pre outs on the sony and ran the signal to the Altec amp sounded even better. then i used a coxaial digital cable to the sony, and used the analog pre outs to the Altec WOW what a difference. much better sound. Is that because of a better connection with coax digital than the rcas? btw I think when i select 2 channel stereo on the sony it shuts down the dsps not positive though. REGARDS JIM

[Mr. Widget]

So to get this correct you are saying that if i want a decent preamp to go with my old Altec Amp I would have to buy one made in the 70s or 80s unless i want to spend mega bucks?Yes. Well actually there are good 2 channel units from the 90's and even today, but be prepared to pay a bit more for them.


I wanted one that was capable of all the latest digital formats so i could play my SACD and DVD AUDIO Albums in 2 channel or multi channel. ...I do want one though that is capable of shutting down all digital processing unless needed. And has balanced xlr outputs, to match the inputs on my amp. Is there such a animal available?Such an animal exists... we have discussed this on more than one occasion, but I don't think there is such a beast that has an analog section that is as good as the better vintage gear for less than several thousand bucks... :(


Widget

[jim3860]

Yes. Well actually there are good 2 channel units from the 90's and even today, but be prepared to pay a bit more for them.

Such an animal exists... we have discussed this on more than one occasion, but I don't think there is such a beast that has an analog section that is as good as the better vintage gear for less than several thousand bucks... :(


Widget Well You have me convinced. I think I will go for the GFP-750 and use it for all my 2 channel stuff. It has balanced ins and outs and i think it will compliment the afore mentioned Altec nicely. It was a 3k amp back in 1975. It deserves a quality preamp:applaud: Now for a cd player with balanced xlr outputs. I seen a esoteric brand cd player recently with those, Any thoughts on that brand good or bad? THANKS A LOT JIM

[jblfreeek]

...Now for a cd player with balanced xlr outputs. I seen a esoteric brand cd player recently with those, Any thoughts on that brand good or bad? THANKS A LOT JIM


I am using Sony CDP-X777ES (http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyes/CDPX7series/CDPX7.html) which has balanced XLR outputs...

I must say it is very nice, built like a rock. :)

So good that the new 24/192 Arcam had to go to living room. :p
Sony stayed in my listening room as my everyday one.
I am not saying Arcam is bad or anything, just that Sony is better imho.
In fact Arcam was better than most players I've listened. Better than Azur 640C, Onkyo line, Marantz CD6000 KI, etc.

And as a bonus, Sony matched my Technics better colorwise :spin:

[louped garouv]

i don't understand everyone's 'obsession' with being balanced....


i prefer unbalanced audio....



can someone 'splain the process most gear uses to create the balanced signal... methinks that most use a transformer to invert the signal instead of having double the components....

[jim3860]

I am using Sony CDP-X777ES (http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyes/CDPX7series/CDPX7.html) which has balanced XLR outputs...

I must say it is very nice, built like a rock. :)

So good that the new 24/192 Arcam had to go to living room. :p
Sony stayed in my listening room as my everyday one.
I am not saying Arcam is bad or anything, just that Sony is better imho.
In fact Arcam was better than most players I've listened. Better than Azur 640C, Onkyo line, Marantz CD6000 KI, etc.

And as a bonus, Sony matched my Technics better colorwise :spin: Thanks i will look into that, A local shop sells Sony Products and they are liqudating, I might be able to steal one.:bouncy:

[jim3860]

i don't understand everyone's 'obsession' with being balanced....


i prefer unbalanced audio....



can someone 'splain the process most gear uses to create the balanced signal... methinks that most use a transformer to invert the signal instead of having double the components.... The reason I am looking for a preamp and cd player with balanced ins and outs is my amp has those connections. The Balanced xlrs usally have a higher sound to noise ratio. which in theory results in a cleaner sound. As to how it all works......... I dunno. Maybe a guru smarter than I will chime in.:)

[JuniorJBL]

Sony CDP-X777ES (http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyes/CDPX7series/CDPX7.html)



Ah! The 777!
To bad they do not make it any more!:(

[Zilch]

Balanced = differential = high common mode noise rejection, hum mostly. Essential for long signal-level lines and/or the snake pits that comprise my equipment stacks.

I've never had any problems mixing unbalanced and balanced, converting to balanced as early in the signal path as possible, though others' difficulties are abundantly documented here.

[jim3860]

Balanced = differential = high common mode noise rejection, hum mostly. Essential for long signal-level lines and/or the snake pits that comprise my equipment stacks.

I've never had any problems mixing unbalanced and balanced, converting to balanced as early in the signal path as possible, though others' difficulties are abundantly documented here. So do you think im headed in the right direction then by using balanced outs from cd player to preamp to amp? This may seem like a silly question to you, but i value your opinion. I dont have the expertise and experince that you do. THANKS JIM:)

[Zilch]

Everything balanced is best, but that limits your equipment choices.

Once the signal is converted to balanced in the chain, I avoid converting it back to unbalanced, though, in theory, that's workable also. The lower the signal level, the more benefit accrues from using balanced interconnects.

My $99 unbalanced output CD player is connected to my balanced input EQ with short (18") conversion cables, RCA on one end, XLR on the other. All interconnects after that are balanced XLR or TRS cables.

If I wanted a preamp/processor in there, I doubt I'd be willing to pay for a pro balanced one, and it'd likely run that unbalanced too, in which case I'd use the shortest unbalanced interconnects that would fit.

[Mr. Widget]

My $99 unbalanced output CD player... Hey Zilch, How come you of all people never bought one of those $10-$15 Playstations? I could see a few thousand posts about how to tweak it.:D


Widget

[Zilch]

How come you of all people never bought one of those $10-$15 Playstations?HUH?

I read YOUR review of them, of course.... :p

[Nightbrace]

I guess some of us old folks resist change

I wasn't even born when these receivers were made, I am 22 now. My first receiver was a 90's Kenwood, and at the time I thought it was great, going from my Sony boom box to it with a couple homemade Radio Shack speakers.

When I was 16 I saved up my money and bought a Sony receiver and Cd player from Best Buy, both served me well, although now I realize how horrible both these units are. And I paid more for the monster cables the guy sold me then, than what I paid for the Pioneer I have now :).

My first true Hi-Fi receiver was bought when I turned 18, a Marantz 2226, I paid $20 for it at a pawn shop at the recommendation of the owner, since then I was hooked, I went from about 70% to 90% of whats possible overnight, it was a sort of revelation to the wool that was pulled over my eyes or my ears I should say. God forbid I begin a debate about IPods, audio has been crappy, at least in the consumer realm, for quite some time now, I have lived through it first hand and know all too well that "video killed the radio star"

The next thing I bought was the JBL L100's at the advice of my grandfather and a better CD player than the Sony I bought at Best Buy. I still have it today, a Sony CDPC701ES, and its nearly as good as my reference NAD player. Both of which are nearly as good as even the Sony SCD-1. (Sorry all you Playstation fans, but both my players were definitely better, although the Playstation did sound eerily similiar to the Sony changer I bought at Best Buy thats in my garage).

Mr. Widget is right. I think it would be real difficult to find a Receiver, or Separates for that matter that will be better for under $200 than what I have with the Pioneer now.

He even goes as far as saying that I would need to spend upwards of $3,000, while I don't agree entirely with that, the fact of the matter is, that if I were forced to buy NEW 2006 components it would cost me that much to get to where I am at now.

And what receiver at any price today can even come close to comparing to the tuner on my Pioneer? Let alone the Sansui TU-717 I have? But hopefully all you guys know the answer to this.

Let me first stress that the Pioneer is NOT being used for my reference system, but to use in my extra room (study), I moved my Sony CDPC701ES cd player in there, and kept my NAD as my reference player, I know all to well the benefits of getting an external DAC, but I cannot afford anymore than the $200 I paid for NAD :(.

The receiver (amp) I use in my reference system is a Sony GX10ES.

http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyes/STRGX10ES/STRGX10ES.html,

You guys might linch me here but infortunately JBL's are NOT my reference speakers either. I use a pair of 12" Plus PAudio drivers in custom 2.8 cabinets. They are at least as good as every JBL speaker I have owned, and have all the same characteristics that have made JBL great for 60 years and counting. In the true tests of a great speaker--realism, clarity, accuracy, speed, truth of timbre, lack of distortion, phase accuracy, time delay, imaging, soundstage, dynamics, and efficiency. No speaker system that I have heard has rivaled these PAudios, and oh believe me, I know how good JBL is, but these are truly better, why else would I have replaced my JBL's with these in my reference system? As you guys can probably tell I am not one who likes change.

As of right now, I truly doubt I could get anything that sounds any better for a reasonable price. The other amplifier I use sometimes is my Fisher 400, its just not as convenient, but I do use it occasionally. I bought it before the Sony and have not been able to get myself to sell it, it sounds too good.

When doing blind A/B comparisons with my Niles switcher (don't be alarmed I only use it for comparisons) I cannot tell them apart. I can hear a slight differnce when I do an A/B with the Pioneer, but it does take me a bit to distinguish them too. I can't even begin to imagine what the difference would be if I tried the Kenwood I once had.

The question I have to ask is how can 2 receivers (amps) made 30 years apart using completely different components for amplification sound identical? Nothing I have heard has yet to sound quite as good. Could I have the luckiest 2 units on the planet, or could it be true that a GREAT amp is a GREAT amp regardless of what it uses? Or am I just as naiive as I was thinking the Kenwood I bought when I was 16 was the Bee's Knees?

I think you guys are all splitting hairs here. The equipment matters little compared to the speakers, why do you guys think I listen to JBL?


In my experience in audio thus far there are 3 types of amps, good ones, bad ones, and boutique. And no Pioneer does not make BAD ones or boutique amps as someone suggested before they are very good, nor does Marantz, they are good also, not the BEST, but definitely good. As to the argument that separates are necessary, I don't buy into it unless music is being played at very high levels. I have heard the best Pioneers ever and to me, at low levels, they sounded identical to the SX-780 I had which I sold to get the Pioneer SX-737 I presently own. All sounded the same, and thats not a bad thing.

And yes thats why I LOVE JBL, they are as true to the actual recording as possible and you can really tell when something sounds good or not. No other speaker that I have listened to really brings out the flaws to my attention or makes great recordings sound even greater like JBL, well maybe except for my PAudios.

Seems as if this animal I created is swallowing up everyone, all I was asking is if it was worth it to try a Sansui, I have yet to hear one. Since I wasn't alive during the time I can only gather that you guys think. And from what I hear, not too many of you are too privvy for my amp selection. The Sansui I mentioned turns out not to be Direct Coupled, so I think I'll pass on it.

I am not bound at the hip to any of my receivers. I'd glady sell any of them, but it would have to be better, althought as I stated it will have to take a lot of convincing.

If anyone has any suggestions on what would be worth my time to evaluate that would eclipse my Sony GX10ES or Fisher 400 for under $500, I am all ears. I can always replace my Pioneer with one of these units in my study :)/

I think that may be the better route. As I know quality audio enough to warrant it.

Thanks, EVERYONE, for your input.

[Nightbrace]

Oh by the way, I am looking extensively for a Sansui AU-X711. This is the model I REALLY want. I have heard it, all be it at another person's house, another JBL fan of course, and was thrilled, if anyone has any ideas where to look for this unit, I'd love to get it to try against my Sony.

[hapy._.face]

As of right now, I truly doubt I could get anything that sounds any better for a reasonable price.

Hi Nightbrace-

I really liked your last post. It kinda went along with what I was trying to illustrate in an earlier one. Man, if what you have gives you that little tickle inside- keep it!! ;) That feeling is elusive to some of us- and we persue it to great lenghts and expense. I said it earlier- I envy you. I swear- I wish I could be satisfied with readily available gear at a reasonable price- so does my wife and kid! lol. You are lucky. Perhaps it's pychosomatic - deep down you know you can't get the stuff you want- so you've learned to acentuate the pros and values of what you have. Not a thing wrong with that- It's an admirable trait.

I used to envy my friends that could get drunk on 3 beers, too! I would have saved a ton of money (actually, I woulda blown it on something else, I'm sure). Come to think of it- audiophilia is kinda like alcoholism: the more you indulge- the more it takes to get you off. My advice- SLOW DOWN! Don't be in any hurry to upgrade your gear if it's making you happy. Milk it for all it's worth- the upgrade bug SUCKS!

I do know of one great value in amplifiers- usually around the 2-3 hundred dollar mark- sometimes less. I think (IMO) it's one of the biggest sleepers in audio- but others may stongly disagree (without actually hearing one, probably). Check out a used Nakamichi STASIS amp. This technology was used by Nakamichi (to great commercial success) as a more affordable version of Threshold amps. Usually integrated- SR2A and SR3A and up. Nowhere near the tuner of your Pioneer- but a much more accurate sound reproduction. It's smooth, clean, flat, focused, well engineered (Pass circuit), and (best part) usually dirt cheap! Try eBay.

That's just my opinion- like all others, take it with a grain (or pound) of salt.

Regards,
Mike.

[jim3860]

Everything balanced is best, but that limits your equipment choices.

Once the signal is converted to balanced in the chain, I avoid converting it back to unbalanced, though, in theory, that's workable also. The lower the signal level, the more benefit accrues from using balanced interconnects.

My $99 unbalanced output CD player is connected to my balanced input EQ with short (18") conversion cables, RCA on one end, XLR on the other. All interconnects after that are balanced XLR or TRS cables.

If I wanted a preamp/processor in there, I doubt I'd be willing to pay for a pro balanced one, and it'd likely run that unbalanced too, in which case I'd use the shortest unbalanced interconnects that would fit. Well I think I see where my money is going to be spent in the next year or so. I am going to upgrade my 2 channel system. I was initally thinking about upgrading my 2 front speakers. But when i hooked up the Altec amp from the preouts on the sony earlier, It was like getting a new set of speakers they sounded that much better. and thinking over what you and bo said earlier about the GFP-750 preamp. considering it does have xlr inputs and outputs, And im sure much better analog abilitys, Than my sony. it only seems to make sense to me to purchase it, to use for 2 channel stereo stuff. cds and music off the tuner. then purchase a quality cd player with xlr outputs also. Is there any quality seperate tuners that you can recomend that utilize xlr outputs? THANKS JIM:)

[Mr. Widget]

The receiver (amp) I use in my reference system is a Sony GX10ES.

http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyes/STRGX10ES/STRGX10ES.html,
SPONTANEOUS TWIN DRIVE!!!! ...and it came from the same company that brought us the Playstation!

:applaud: :rotfl: :applaud:


Damn I love this stuff!;)

Widget

[Mr. Widget]

In my experience in audio thus far there are 3 types of amps, good ones, bad ones, and boutique. ... all I was asking is if it was worth it to try a Sansui, I have yet to hear one. Unlike the boutique guys, I don't go for comparing amps like vintage wines, but I'd suggest there may be 5 levels of amps... anyway, you answered your own question about the Sansui... to use your scale it will be in the first category... "good amps".

Good listening... hey, any idea why 90% of the audio nerds are old farts like myself?


Widget

[Nightbrace]

I am always up for suggestions and thanks for your recommendation, heck I even tried the Playstation, and as crazy as it may sound at my young age, was the first Playstation I ever owned. I kinda stopped at SNES, but I was definitely was a stellar video game player.

If I come across one, I might give it a shot, I got a Nakamichi tape deck, I have all but 5 tapes, but my mom visits and listens sometimes, and heck I paid $20 for it! I think it sounds great, well at least for a cassette player.

I enjoy trying new things as much as I do listening to what I have now. And I don't think my feelings are psychosomatic, I am happy (for now), but know there is better stuff out there. I will slowly get there, but I'm in no hurry, and need to be happy with what I have now in order to be even happier when I get the means to make improvements. Maybe a lesson you should consider?
From here on out its all just small moves up the ladder anyways. Few "normal" people have even had close to as nice of a set-up as I do, well maybe some did back in the 70's, but certainly not now. I have gone into Tweeter and actually laughed at the people working there saying this is the best speaker in the world, or this is the best amp, truth be told a million units and speakers made in the 70's were better than what they have.

Hopefully the prices for a great DAC to go along with my Sony or NAD will start to fall. But with the interest in audio switching to convenience more than quality I doubt they will. Not to mention more and MORE channels, 5,6,7, when will it end?. 5 is more than enough for Home theater, and I doubt anyone can name 10 DVD titles that are recorded in 6.1, so whats the point of 7? All it does is mirror the 6th channel.

SACD however was a great concept and was really a way to set the benchmark for the future of quality recordings, but it wound up being a gimmick to utilize 5.1 as they couldn't fit the rcordings onto a regular disk. Why would I want to hear Eric Clapton behind my head? I could maybe see it to mimic the reverberations of an orchestra, but hey my Sony has a Hall feature with a reverb, whoopee, I have never used it :).

I may start another debate, but I think 24-bit, 192 KHz is perfection, and would really shine if the SACD's and players were intended for 2 channels. I tried a Sony ES SACD player versus the same recording at 44.1 KHz, 16-bit played on my Sony CDPC701ES and the normal CD actually sounded better on the 701ES, and (the 44.1 Khz recording) was noticably worse on the SACD player as compared to the 701ES.

With a better DAC know I could have noticed the difference as the potential for a noticable jump is there, but there's no way to harness it without spending big bucks, what a shame. its like having a restictor plate on a car with 1000 horses. Argh!

Maybe its time for me to roll up my sleeves and do some more CD player modding cause I doubt the SACD format will stick. My NAD is loaded, but could always get drunker :bouncy:

[Nightbrace]

Good listening... hey, any idea why 90% of the audio nerds are old farts like myself?

Um, because you were actually alive when audio meant something to people.

Are you knocking my Sony?

[Nightbrace]

Mr. Widget, would you care to indulge me on the 5 levels?

[Mr. Widget]

...and thinking over what you and bo said earlier about the GFP-750 preamp. considering it does have xlr inputs and outputs, And im sure much better analog abilitys, Than my sony. it only seems to make sense to me to purchase it, to use for 2 channel stereo stuff. cds and music off the tuner. then purchase a quality cd player with xlr outputs also. Is there any quality seperate tuners that you can recomend that utilize xlr outputs? THANKS JIM:)When I was using my Adcom, I found the balanced output helped immensely in ridding me of the GL problems... for sources I used both balanced and unbalanced... it didn't seem to matter they both sounded equally good and equally quiet. Also be aware there is only one pair of balanced ins... so if you wanted to use two sets of balanced sources you need a patch bay or a switch of some sort.


Widget

[Nightbrace]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nakamichi-PA-7-STASIS-STEREO-POWER-AMP-EXCELLENT_W0QQitemZ5859091878QQcategoryZ39783QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

it looks like I'd have to pay a lot more. But it looks neat.

[Mr. Widget]

Um, because you were actually alive when audio meant something to people.That's my question... why doesn't audio mean anything to younger people... I was hooked at 15. I think many of us were...


Are you knocking my Sony?Not exactly... I don't know anything about it, but I thought the name was hilarious.


Mr. Widget, would you care to indulge me on the 5 levels?They aren't set in stone... think of it as bad amps, acceptable amps, good amps, very good amps, and outstanding amps...

All of my amps have always been in the good and very good camp... I've bought and quickly sold some lesser amps... and never been able to afford the outstanding ones.


Widget

[hapy._.face]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nakamichi-PA-7-STASIS-STEREO-POWER-AMP-EXCELLENT_W0QQitemZ5859091878QQcategoryZ39783QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

it looks like I'd have to pay a lot more. But it looks neat.

Hey! First off- that is a flagship model (but good eye!). Second thing- that buyer will not get the opening bid at that ransom. If he does- I will be very surprised!!! I was thinking of the integrated SR series (at the prices I was mentioning)... Search "completed items" and use "STASIS" as the search word. This will give you more of a street value.

[Nightbrace]

gotcha, I don't think my Sony or Fisher are quite to the outstanding level, but I think they are both at the very good level. The Pioneer on the good level on that scale.

LOL, yeah what a name for the amp on the Sony, it just means Class A DC amplification.

[invstbiker]

Jim, Chiming in a little late, I use Audio Experience's Balanced A1 tube preamp http://www.ys-audio.com/ made in Hong Kong. I've actually bought two of these little gems. One I use at the bar in SD, the other at my home in AZ. Point to point wiring, very good quality for the $$. Then I have QSC's for amps at the bar and a couple of MAC daddy's here at home. YS-Audio is listed on Audiogon under Audio Experience. Good Luck :)

[jim3860]

When I was using my Adcom, I found the balanced output helped immensely in ridding me of the GL problems... for sources I used both balanced and unbalanced... it didn't seem to matter they both sounded equally good and equally quiet. Also be aware there is only one pair of balanced ins... so if you wanted to use two sets of balanced sources you need a patch bay or a switch of some sort.


Widget yes I noticed that earlier on ebay when i did a search. Is there any sort of switching box that has mutipule ins and outs that your aware of? Also is there any high Quality tuners that you know of that has xlr outputs? THANKS SO MUCH for spending all this time and effort with me on this JIM:applaud:

[Nightbrace]

That's my question... why doesn't audio mean anything to younger people... I was hooked at 15. I think many of us were...

To answer, its more the media and marketing that drives sales in both the recordings of the actual music and the equipment used to reproduce it. Why do you think the IPOD is so popular, because it sounds the best?

The competition in the 70's was fierce and it forced companies to make things better in order to compete. Now it comes down to what is marketed better, have you paid attention to the number of ads running for the Bose systems, I think its a joke, but then again I see a lot of my friends who have them and go nuts for them, and even show them off to me.

My generation is ignorant to what is out there, not so much because we don't want to have good sounding gear, but because most people my age view the Best Buy equipment as GREAT, I was one of them, but once I heard the Marantz 2226, I was hooked.

Unfortunatly, most aren't that lucky and would not even consider buying something that was made 30 years ago. I thought it was worth a shot for $20, and I was there with my roommate when I bought it, and he said to me, "Are you nuts, my grandpa had something like that, its a piece of junk." And he's an engineer.

Most of my friends know about stores like Tweeter that sell higher end gear, and a few of my buddies have decent systems, but the problem is that no one today can afford to spend the money needed to experience what you experienced when you were 15 with new gear at a reasonable price.
Not that the equipment and speakers in your time was cheap, it was most certainly not, but even the lowest model would sound fantastic, as were many of the entry level speakers like the Dynaco A-25's, Advents, and heck even the L100's weren't too expensive.

This is especially true for speakers, none can be bought for under $1000 to rival even my L36's. So how else is someone supposed to know what they are missing if they truly can't afford it, or truly have no way of finding out when they are content with headphones and MP3's?

I read in my newspaper, The Daily Illini (University of Illinois), in a blind trial with identical stereo systems, I don't remember the equipment used, but less than 10% could tell any difference between a MP3 and a CD.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I just completed this project:

It is not a toy and sounds impressive.

http://members.dodo.com.au/~gregball/guru_002.htm

http://members.dodo.com.au/~gregball/guru_003.htm

http://members.dodo.com.au/~gregball/guru_004.htm

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=827293#post827293

[kingjames]

To answer, its more the media and marketing that drives sales in both the recordings of the actual music and the equipment narketed to reproduce it. Why do you think the IPOD is so popular, because it sounds the best?

The competition in the 70's was fierce and it forced companies to make things better in order to compete. Now it comes down to what is marketed better, have you paid attention to the number of ads running for the Bose systems, I think its a joke, but then again I see a lot of my friends who have them and go nuts for them, and even show them off to me.

My generation is ignorant to what is out there, not so much because we don't want to have good sounding gear, but because it truly is not out there and most people my age view the Best Buy equipment as GREAT, I was one of them, but once I heard the Marantz 2226, I was hooked, but most don't have the chance to even know what Hi-fidelity is and would not even consider buying something that was made 30 years ago. I thought it was worth a shot for $20, and I was there with my roommate when I bought it, and he said to me, "Are you nuts, my grandpa had something like that, its a piece of junk." And he's an engineer.

Most of my friends know about stores like Tweeter that sell higher end gear, and a few of my buddies have decent systems, but the problem is that no one today can afford to spend the money needed to experience what you experienced when you were 15 with new gear at a reasonable price especially not speakers, none can be bought for under $1000 to rival even my L36's. So how else is someone supposed to know what they are missing if they truly don't know?

Not that the receivers in your time were cheap, they were most certainly not, but even the lowest model would sound fantastic, not true today.

You are so right and all I have to say to this is that I'm glad I'm a baby boomer, because there was never a better time to grow up then in the 60's and 70's

[Nightbrace]

sorry, I was revising, please re-read.

[hapy._.face]

I just complete this project:

It is not a toy and sounds impressive.



I like this guy.

[hapy._.face]

Nightbrace-

You're on the right track- hit all the pawn shops, thrift stores, garage sales, etc you can. My L212's were $50 last week. Now I just bought L300's plus some old Audio Research gear all for $200!! It 'really pays to discover'. The reason- most 20 somethings (you excluded obviously) passed up on what they perceived to be "junk". Hey- I make a knot on that all the time! Three cheers for the "best buy kids!" In short- take advantage of what your friends think is a POS and take it to the bank. You'll get the gear you want so long as you buy smart and keep trading up.

[norealtalent]

I like this guy.
You're not alone :bouncy:

[scott fitlin]

To answer, its more the media and marketing that drives sales in both the recordings of the actual music and the equipment used to reproduce it. Why do you think the IPOD is so popular, because it sounds the best?

The competition in the 70's was fierce and it forced companies to make things better in order to compete. Now it comes down to what is marketed better, have you paid attention to the number of ads running for the Bose systems, I think its a joke, but then again I see a lot of my friends who have them and go nuts for them, and even show them off to me.

My generation is ignorant to what is out there, not so much because we don't want to have good sounding gear, but because most people my age view the Best Buy equipment as GREAT, I was one of them, but once I heard the Marantz 2226, I was hooked.

Unfortunatly, most aren't that lucky and would not even consider buying something that was made 30 years ago. I thought it was worth a shot for $20, and I was there with my roommate when I bought it, and he said to me, "Are you nuts, my grandpa had something like that, its a piece of junk." And he's an engineer.

Most of my friends know about stores like Tweeter that sell higher end gear, and a few of my buddies have decent systems, but the problem is that no one today can afford to spend the money needed to experience what you experienced when you were 15 with new gear at a reasonable price.
Not that the equipment and speakers in your time was cheap, it was most certainly not, but even the lowest model would sound fantastic, as were many of the entry level speakers like the Dynaco A-25's, Advents, and heck even the L100's weren't too expensive.

This is especially true for speakers, none can be bought for under $1000 to rival even my L36's. So how else is someone supposed to know what they are missing if they truly can't afford it, or truly have no way of finding out when they are content with headphones and MP3's?

I read in my newspaper, The Daily Illini (University of Illinois), in a blind trial with identical stereo systems, I don't remember the equipment used, but less than 10% could tell any difference between a MP3 and a CD.Yup!

Now you know.

:)

[Nightbrace]

http://cgi.ebay.de/SANSUI-AU-X-911-DG-integr-amp-with-DA-CONVERTER_W0QQitemZ7584811297QQcategoryZ19642QQssP ageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

lemme know what you guys think, the SAnsui AU-X711 I heard is very similiar to this one, don't speak German :(.

[Nightbrace]

Do you think the Sansui is worth a shot?

[Nightbrace]

What benefits would a power conditioner make?