Two comments at random:
I think one reason is that expectations from 'modern' amplifiers are sometimes overrated. We fit all manner of boutique parts, e.g. exotic capacitors - which has no effect on audio. "If it is better it must sound better" - no; mercifully hearing has limitations. Above a certain quality (these days found quite commonly) the component will not affect the sound. So-called exotic components are there for more critical applications than audio (the medical field, measuring equipment etc).
Then the subjectivity of hearing - NO!, no debate invited over this (done to death elsewhere). Only kindly stop to ponder the following:
While researching for a series of articles on "Audio over the years" some 12 years ago, I came across the following amazing piece of information. The advent of electronics almost a century ago plus the almost simultaneous introduction of fm, widened the broadcast frequency response from about 4kHz to over 10kHz, apart from obvious higher fidelity. Surprisingly this development was initially rejected by the public with a majority of over 3:1! Astonishingly musicians rejected it with a majority of .... almost 15:1! That while the real thing i.e. live concerts existed for comparison.
This tells us ... what?
I think one reason is that expectations from 'modern' amplifiers are sometimes overrated. We fit all manner of boutique parts, e.g. exotic capacitors - which has no effect on audio. "If it is better it must sound better" - no; mercifully hearing has limitations. Above a certain quality (these days found quite commonly) the component will not affect the sound. So-called exotic components are there for more critical applications than audio (the medical field, measuring equipment etc).
Then the subjectivity of hearing - NO!, no debate invited over this (done to death elsewhere). Only kindly stop to ponder the following:
While researching for a series of articles on "Audio over the years" some 12 years ago, I came across the following amazing piece of information. The advent of electronics almost a century ago plus the almost simultaneous introduction of fm, widened the broadcast frequency response from about 4kHz to over 10kHz, apart from obvious higher fidelity. Surprisingly this development was initially rejected by the public with a majority of over 3:1! Astonishingly musicians rejected it with a majority of .... almost 15:1! That while the real thing i.e. live concerts existed for comparison.
This tells us ... what?
I dissagree. Distance on a PCB costs inductance/resistance. If the distance is shorter (including component leads and bonding wires), the effects are less particularly with high frequency RF BW. This prototype stereo amp module that is self contained, thanks to SMDs, in a realitively small area, the output stages are driven by an error amplifier that must work at frequencies well above the audio ban so the shorter the traces the better. There is a lot going on, on that PCB.
This one is version 2, as a single 2 sided PCB with daughter boards attached and the minor errors worked out with a few improvements like the addition of relays. This makes it completely self contained and all that is needed is a 35VAC CT transformer, connect the input source, and connect the speakers. It will have 2 seperate channels, DC detection/protection, momentary push button to switch between standby and active mode, where standby mode turns off the output stages/bias. Also clipping detection, short circuit protection, and thermal protection/management with a DC fan control circuit and a thermal cutoff limit.....All thanks to those tiny SMDs.
Attachments
Last edited:
I only know audio snobs who claim they don't like old SS amps. I'd bet anything that a double blind listening test would tell quite a story.
Go ahead and do a blind test. The 1970s SS amps I've heard sound pretty terrible to me. People who couldn't tell it apart from a good modern amp (SS or tube, doesn't matter) needs to have their hearing checked.
Depends on how well it was designed and built, are we comparing 20 watts a channel consumer gear or "State of the Art" stuff meant for serious use by serious people. Certainly older better amps offer much better value for money than many current consumer offerings and the power supplies are robust and well built and quiet compared to cheap switch-mode crapola
I'd buy something like a mack if I could but until then i use the Rotel and my old Kenwoods.
There are some SS amps out there using a large double-die transistors that seem to have a definite "Sound" to them that many people prefer and when working well perform as well as anything reasonably affordable made in the last decade
I'd buy something like a mack if I could but until then i use the Rotel and my old Kenwoods.
There are some SS amps out there using a large double-die transistors that seem to have a definite "Sound" to them that many people prefer and when working well perform as well as anything reasonably affordable made in the last decade
I fairness, most of the IC's in the '70s were pretty lame. Some of the IF strip chips were OK and the FM stereo decoders were better than the discretes but the audio opamps were quite bad.
The best power amp I heard back then was the Marantz 15 dual monoblock. At the time I thought it was the most transparent thing I'd heard. Every now and then one turns up on eBay and goes for a decent price. I guess I'm not the only one who likes it.
G²
The best power amp I heard back then was the Marantz 15 dual monoblock. At the time I thought it was the most transparent thing I'd heard. Every now and then one turns up on eBay and goes for a decent price. I guess I'm not the only one who likes it.
G²
Read up on the skeptic's views
Here is an excellent source of anti-psychotic for the music lover:
Why We Believe
Winer, and his recent book "The Audio Expert" (geared more to pro audio however) help debunk the many myths that plague our hobby. Consider that, in this whole thread, only one person mentioned "blind test." While it is of course possible that differences (measureable) exist, it does not mean that differences are audible in a fair (e.g. blind, double blind) test. If you do a search, you will find few, very few, fair tests where a consistent difference is heard. If such happens, then the reason why should be a cause for much investigation. Also this is not to say that technology won't improve. Most people can tell the difference between LP and CD sound. Much harder is to discern amp A from B (assuming fairly matched) in a fair test. Finally, valid for the hobby, but not maybe for sound quality, is the satisfaction of building, tweaking, owning, etc. certain type of equipment.
Here is an excellent source of anti-psychotic for the music lover:
Why We Believe
Winer, and his recent book "The Audio Expert" (geared more to pro audio however) help debunk the many myths that plague our hobby. Consider that, in this whole thread, only one person mentioned "blind test." While it is of course possible that differences (measureable) exist, it does not mean that differences are audible in a fair (e.g. blind, double blind) test. If you do a search, you will find few, very few, fair tests where a consistent difference is heard. If such happens, then the reason why should be a cause for much investigation. Also this is not to say that technology won't improve. Most people can tell the difference between LP and CD sound. Much harder is to discern amp A from B (assuming fairly matched) in a fair test. Finally, valid for the hobby, but not maybe for sound quality, is the satisfaction of building, tweaking, owning, etc. certain type of equipment.
Naturally I would be talking about high quality, all discreet amplifiers with oversize linear power supplies.
I will admit that Phase Linear, SAE, and the like were mostly junk. Sansui, Marantz, Pioneer, Kenwood and some other Japanese brands made some seriously good gear. Much of it easily holds it's own against the great majority of modern gear.
FWIW, I have owned modern Denon, Bryston, and Parasound equipment (not HT receivers, either) and gotten to play with some Conrad-Johnson, Mark Levinson and Aragon gear. I'll keep my old stuff, thank you.
Like I said before, I'm not smart enough to design my own amplifiers.
Yes, I have collected vintage amps and am familiar with many of them. But we have to be specific, about which level/class. The majority use EF Lin topology, and I think one mistake is to connect driver's emitter to the output. I think this is responsible for the "terrible" sound of the most vintage amps.
For this topology, output device defines the "sound". Most vintage amps use obsolete output devices, which sound different with newer devices. Often, better/faster devices do not make it better in the original circuit.
I don't know why big audio companies do not have engineers who can build better amplifiers. May be most engineers are/were not audiophiles (who have heard many amps to compare and be familiar with) and simulation tools and internet power were not available back then.
But better amps are currently only available in DIY level. Many do not even know what a resistor is, and commercial good amps are too expensive because of the cosmetics. So used vintage amps are the good option (If you look at the original price and the exchange rate, many of those amps are as expensive as a... how many monthly salary?
)
I like the look and the feel of the old 70's/early 80s monster receivers. The guts can be kinda pedestrian. With that in mind, I have a beautiful old Kenwood KR-6600 receiver. Some time in the future I intend to gut out the audio chain and redesign it, so it is a complete impostor, but still with the gaudy/beautiful 70's look. The Sansui receivers of that era were even more gaudy, if that is possible...
That the artists we're afraid to loose listeners because not everybody could affort the more expensive fm hardware ? Nowadays it's relatively easy to adopt new tech because it's cheap. At the time FM came around everything was still handmade costing month salaries. No planned obsolescence.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The most common problem with SMD components is that some of them are so small that to troubleshoot or to replace them is a pain in the a$$! You must have Good eyes and steady pulse and do not mention those ic's that have so many legs the size of a hair...
SMDs come in a range of sizes, some of them are almost invisible and probably violate airborne particulate levels - but there are sizes that are fairly reasonable. I use a size that allows easy handling with tweezers and I can generally read the numbers printed on them too.
to make profit one has to stay in business.
To stay in business one has to sell product.
To sell product one has to discover how bad a product can be made for the least cost and still sell.
These companies have discovered that production costs are down to:
1.) how little they can spend on the PSU,
2.) how little they can spend on the output stage,
3.) how little they can spend on the components.
4.) how much they have to spend on advertising to make their product seem good against the competition that is built down to the same woefully inadequate performance.
5.) somewhat related to 4.
how to con the public into thinking that today's new clothes make the product better than what they sold just 6months ago.
Whereas, when one looks at the product that was thought to perform well, we find that most of the manufacturers no longer exist.
The product simply did not sell well enough to sustain the business.
To stay in business one has to sell product.
To sell product one has to discover how bad a product can be made for the least cost and still sell.
These companies have discovered that production costs are down to:
1.) how little they can spend on the PSU,
2.) how little they can spend on the output stage,
3.) how little they can spend on the components.
4.) how much they have to spend on advertising to make their product seem good against the competition that is built down to the same woefully inadequate performance.
5.) somewhat related to 4.
how to con the public into thinking that today's new clothes make the product better than what they sold just 6months ago.
Whereas, when one looks at the product that was thought to perform well, we find that most of the manufacturers no longer exist.
The product simply did not sell well enough to sustain the business.
Last edited:
There s a misuse of the term 70s in that an amplifier from 1971 has nothing
to do with an amp from 1979 , it s just often another world as the qualitative
evolution wich we are used with theses days was fully accomplished in a few
years , so much that there s few current products that could rival the 70s
ultimate years amplifiers.
Now find me a single amplifier in this forum that match JVC s 1979 production...
Even looking at commercial offerings you ll be in trouble finding such high performing
items for reasonnable pricings.
JVC A-X7 | Owners Manual, Service Manual, Schematics, Free Download | HiFi Engine
JVC A-X9 | Owners Manual, Service Manual, Schematics, Free Download | HiFi Engine
to do with an amp from 1979 , it s just often another world as the qualitative
evolution wich we are used with theses days was fully accomplished in a few
years , so much that there s few current products that could rival the 70s
ultimate years amplifiers.
Now find me a single amplifier in this forum that match JVC s 1979 production...
Even looking at commercial offerings you ll be in trouble finding such high performing
items for reasonnable pricings.
JVC A-X7 | Owners Manual, Service Manual, Schematics, Free Download | HiFi Engine
JVC A-X9 | Owners Manual, Service Manual, Schematics, Free Download | HiFi Engine
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.