Frankly Couldn't care less about which is perceived 'better'.
I like what I own... No more 'gotta buy that'.. lust, left.
Hell .. tell me where to buy even a decent recording these days.
My LPs are worn.. Remember that those audibly deteriorated after 8 plays .. Everybody forgotten that bit of trivia?? Imagine 30 years later.
CD? volumes have been written on that 'tinny' sound.
Besides, you seen a CD shop that's still open. I haven't
Downloaded music
Please, Even Children know it's cheap/last resort disposable sound. Only fit for cheapest computer speakers .. maybe.
IMO SMD's are actually going to sneak common sense into/past Audio Weenies....eventually.
It's Genuinely Tough to: Cap or Resistor or Diode "Roll" with these
Lotsa businesses are gonna fail
I like what I own... No more 'gotta buy that'.. lust, left.
Hell .. tell me where to buy even a decent recording these days.
My LPs are worn.. Remember that those audibly deteriorated after 8 plays .. Everybody forgotten that bit of trivia?? Imagine 30 years later.
CD? volumes have been written on that 'tinny' sound.
Besides, you seen a CD shop that's still open. I haven't
Downloaded music
Please, Even Children know it's cheap/last resort disposable sound. Only fit for cheapest computer speakers .. maybe.IMO SMD's are actually going to sneak common sense into/past Audio Weenies....eventually.
It's Genuinely Tough to: Cap or Resistor or Diode "Roll" with these
Lotsa businesses are gonna fail
Last edited:
I always loved those Marantz 22XXB series.
I could spend hours just spinning that flywheel tuning wheel up and down the dial.
se
I always loved those Marantz 22XXB series.
I'm pretty partial to the Sansui G-x000 and Pioneer SX-(x)x50, (x)x80 series of receivers and pretty much any Sansui amplifier made after 1976. Oh, and the Marantz 23xx receivers, too.
and i thought audiophiles liked the sound of polypropylene/teflon can/PIO caps, not electrolytic caps in the signal path.....a lot of them changed beliefs? i am glad that i am not an audiophool...
When do you consider to be an "audiophile"? I ask this because I use high grade polypropylene caps in the signal path and high quality parts as much as I can in my diy amps, but I love the sound of some of those old gears using those "cheap" electrolytic caps in the signal path. AM I an "audiophool"
no you don't qualify as an audiophool.........in my book audiophools are those that will replace ecaps with film types no matter how bulky and how unsightly the end result turns out to be...these are the types that can not sleep well at night untill they have replaced those caps....
i do use these film types on new builds though......i have no problem with that....
i do use these film types on new builds though......i have no problem with that....
Yeah. They put all of those enormous film caps in there and then complain about all of the induced hum.
Just briefly one thing; slightly OT to this thread but cropping up every so often:
Components (mainly capacitors) "in the signal path".
I have never seen a clear explanation of what exacly is regarded as the signal path - it would appear whatever the path of 'live signal' relative to common. But as I was taught, electricity flows in a circle, not simply from input to output. The return path is through the power supply caps and common. So everything is in the signal path! The 'signal path' myth is perhaps one of those logic sounding things to a newby, thereafter to be perpetuated. A coupling capacitor between stages is no more important than the power supply storage capacitor, the cathode bias/emitter bypass or decoupling capacitor ... or where did my basic training go wrong?
Components (mainly capacitors) "in the signal path".
I have never seen a clear explanation of what exacly is regarded as the signal path - it would appear whatever the path of 'live signal' relative to common. But as I was taught, electricity flows in a circle, not simply from input to output. The return path is through the power supply caps and common. So everything is in the signal path! The 'signal path' myth is perhaps one of those logic sounding things to a newby, thereafter to be perpetuated. A coupling capacitor between stages is no more important than the power supply storage capacitor, the cathode bias/emitter bypass or decoupling capacitor ... or where did my basic training go wrong?
Good vintage amps can be really good, cheap rubbish was even worse in the past than it is now - modern basic class B and D chip amps are "acceptable"
My first amp about 1977 was a 30W kit from RTVC in London. It sounded terrible and looking back it was a single rail design like many Sugden, but unregulated and with a feeble transformer. I doubt it could manage more than a few Watts sustained.
Decent amps like Quad and Sugden had large transformers, regulated PSUs where needed and had short circuit protection - something that seems to have often vanished these days - the excuse being sound quality
My first amp about 1977 was a 30W kit from RTVC in London. It sounded terrible and looking back it was a single rail design like many Sugden, but unregulated and with a feeble transformer. I doubt it could manage more than a few Watts sustained.
Decent amps like Quad and Sugden had large transformers, regulated PSUs where needed and had short circuit protection - something that seems to have often vanished these days - the excuse being sound quality
People need language to explain something. You are free (and are encouraged) to propose any new terminology to express exactly the same thing as the "on the signal path".
This doesn't sound right at all. Can anyone elaborate?
Also, what's the issue with "slow output devices"? How does this matter? Most likely the amp employing them has been designed with those in mind, so I don't see how that could be an issue.
Agree that transistor speed is tailored to match circuit. Different transistor (either faster or slower) will give different result, may be better may be worse.
Running more bias current will probably improve the sound, but may be not. But for sure it will improve THD.
Different transistor will give different bias (with the same bias setting circuit). For example, an amp with slow 2N3055 transistors which runs on 800mA may run on 120mA when the transistors are replaced with faster transistor such as 2SC5200.
It is strange, and does not make any sense..but i have made
this several times and many times (majority) the 2N3055 (much worse unit) sounded better...why?
I do not know...matching maybe...i do no know.
I have tried...and was not one or two times...was several times..i have used 2SC5200 and other units...but only some units from Philips (BDY and BD) resulted so good as 2N3055... even the big brother 2N3773 sounded bad when compared to 2N3055.
regards,
Carlos
this several times and many times (majority) the 2N3055 (much worse unit) sounded better...why?
I do not know...matching maybe...i do no know.
I have tried...and was not one or two times...was several times..i have used 2SC5200 and other units...but only some units from Philips (BDY and BD) resulted so good as 2N3055... even the big brother 2N3773 sounded bad when compared to 2N3055.
regards,
Carlos
This is a very interesting thread. I did not read the whole thread, so pardon me if I am redundant.
I'm a big fan of the old equipment. People bring me their old stuff to repair all the time. They are simple to troubleshoot and repair even without a schematic. And many old recievers etc that are correctly repaired (not updated or modified) will bring a higher price on the collector's market.
I must point out that many of these old units use 2N3055s with voltages that exceed their ratings. They simply hand pick the ones that break down at a higher voltage. If you buy any old 2N3055 and slap it in, chances are it will zener and not work.
As pointed out, the old units had great power supplies. Many manufacturers today skimp on the power supplies and their specs really reflect the available headroom. Furthermore, a lot of distortion is produced by an overworked power supply, especially if the voltage gain stages are not properly decoupled.
Chip amps can sound so much better if you overbuild the power supply. I experimented with a cheap power amp module out of a tabletop "hi-fi" and even using two cheap junkbox transformers (like ghetto dual monoblock style) and bigger (much bigger) smoothing caps made a very audible, and measureable, difference in performance. And this was with a small "no name" power amp chip- there aren't even any markings on it. I liked it so much that I fabbed a quick and dirty box for it and it is now my second TV amplifier. It makes an honest 25 watts RMS per channel (with 2 dB headroom), an old school, "Marantz" 25 watts continuous per channel into 6 ohms. If you are used to modern consumer grade equipment, this is a lot more power than you think. Before I messed with it, it only made 12 watts continuous per channel, and sounded very "thin" and muddy. It was marketed as "high fidelity" "50+50 watts RMS" !
So one poster's suggestion of putting a modern chip amp in an old Marantz, while heresy to many, would probably work very well and give surprising results.
I'm a big fan of the old equipment. People bring me their old stuff to repair all the time. They are simple to troubleshoot and repair even without a schematic. And many old recievers etc that are correctly repaired (not updated or modified) will bring a higher price on the collector's market.
I must point out that many of these old units use 2N3055s with voltages that exceed their ratings. They simply hand pick the ones that break down at a higher voltage. If you buy any old 2N3055 and slap it in, chances are it will zener and not work.
As pointed out, the old units had great power supplies. Many manufacturers today skimp on the power supplies and their specs really reflect the available headroom. Furthermore, a lot of distortion is produced by an overworked power supply, especially if the voltage gain stages are not properly decoupled.
Chip amps can sound so much better if you overbuild the power supply. I experimented with a cheap power amp module out of a tabletop "hi-fi" and even using two cheap junkbox transformers (like ghetto dual monoblock style) and bigger (much bigger) smoothing caps made a very audible, and measureable, difference in performance. And this was with a small "no name" power amp chip- there aren't even any markings on it. I liked it so much that I fabbed a quick and dirty box for it and it is now my second TV amplifier. It makes an honest 25 watts RMS per channel (with 2 dB headroom), an old school, "Marantz" 25 watts continuous per channel into 6 ohms. If you are used to modern consumer grade equipment, this is a lot more power than you think. Before I messed with it, it only made 12 watts continuous per channel, and sounded very "thin" and muddy. It was marketed as "high fidelity" "50+50 watts RMS" !
So one poster's suggestion of putting a modern chip amp in an old Marantz, while heresy to many, would probably work very well and give surprising results.
You are absolutely correct, and this point is missed by many builders. Many DIYers and tinkerers gloat about how much better their stuff sounds than commercial equipment (and a lot of it does) because of the super fancy ridiculously expensive coupling caps they used, when in fact it's usually because they put big beefy electrolytics in the power supply. And the simple truth is that even modest components can provide excellent performance (cheap electrolytics and 5532s GASP) if the circuit is designed to work within the limitations of said components.
If you apply Kirchoff's current law to an output stage + load, you will see that the power supply caps are in fact in series with the load. And "right sizing" these caps will make an audible difference in your design. Adding caps to a cheap power supply can sometimes produce an audible difference in "punch" even though it does not actually increase the power output.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.