I currently have an Acurus 5 channel amp in my home theater.
For kicks I hooked up my dads old Pioneer SA 6800 integrated amp to my main speakers. It kind of through me back a bit. It didn't go nearly as loud as my Acurus but there was a warm inviting sound to the presentation that I kind of enjoyed.
At only 45 watts per channel compared to the Acurus' 200 watts it can hardly be suitable for loud listening or home theater but it got me thinking.
What if I were to sell the Acurus and pick up a bunch more of these or similar amps, (they sell for dirt cheap on e-bay) and bi-amp my whole system. All the amps would reside in a closet so space is not an issue.
Was the quality of these amps as good as something that I have now?
Has anyone else gone this route before?
Or is it that my current stuff is more accurate and I like the sound of some of that old coloration?
Sorry if this kind of thing has been discussed before.
For kicks I hooked up my dads old Pioneer SA 6800 integrated amp to my main speakers. It kind of through me back a bit. It didn't go nearly as loud as my Acurus but there was a warm inviting sound to the presentation that I kind of enjoyed.
At only 45 watts per channel compared to the Acurus' 200 watts it can hardly be suitable for loud listening or home theater but it got me thinking.
What if I were to sell the Acurus and pick up a bunch more of these or similar amps, (they sell for dirt cheap on e-bay) and bi-amp my whole system. All the amps would reside in a closet so space is not an issue.
Was the quality of these amps as good as something that I have now?
Has anyone else gone this route before?
Or is it that my current stuff is more accurate and I like the sound of some of that old coloration?
Sorry if this kind of thing has been discussed before.
Hi fazman,
Just wait until you hear some of the straight amps from the Seventies and early Eighties. There are jewels from every era. Some are still being designed as we speak.
In general, the average stereo from the mid - late Seventies was far better than what is produced now as volume stuff. Something good today will best the older units.
So doing what you suggest would involve a lot of investigation on your part. Keep in mind the older units need to be gone over to perform at their initial (new) level.
-Chris
Just wait until you hear some of the straight amps from the Seventies and early Eighties. There are jewels from every era. Some are still being designed as we speak.
In general, the average stereo from the mid - late Seventies was far better than what is produced now as volume stuff. Something good today will best the older units.
So doing what you suggest would involve a lot of investigation on your part. Keep in mind the older units need to be gone over to perform at their initial (new) level.
-Chris
I had experience biamping in my past system and I was very impressed with the results. The only problem is now my speakers are only set up for single wire. I'll have to take the crossover out and reconfigure them which shouldn't be a problem as I'm use to doing this sort of thing.
If I decide to this then what kind of wattage should I be looking for (tweeter and woofer) to match the output I currently have with my 200 watt per channel Acurus?
Can I get away with lower wattage for each woofer and tweeter?
The other thing I guess is matching the volume levels perfectly.
Anatech, what do you mean by straight amp from the 70's and 80's?
If I decide to this then what kind of wattage should I be looking for (tweeter and woofer) to match the output I currently have with my 200 watt per channel Acurus?
Can I get away with lower wattage for each woofer and tweeter?
The other thing I guess is matching the volume levels perfectly.
Anatech, what do you mean by straight amp from the 70's and 80's?
anatech said:
Didn't do anything yet, but I like this little amp. There are no switching noises and it's in very good shape. I just ordered service manual, so I might do some mods.
http://www.sansui.us/images/AU7700_Series/au7700_5.jpg
Hi fazman,
I meant an amplifier without a tuner, volume or tone controls. Just a power amplifier. The circuits were normally a little more advanced over the combination units. Almost every manufacturer made a decent power amplifier at one time or another. Which one sounds the best isn't a debate, it's a war.
-Chris
I meant an amplifier without a tuner, volume or tone controls. Just a power amplifier. The circuits were normally a little more advanced over the combination units. Almost every manufacturer made a decent power amplifier at one time or another. Which one sounds the best isn't a debate, it's a war.
-Chris
Agreed - I have a Sony 333ESG, I think circa late 80's, and it does sound pretty good. Line level is very low though, as the amplifier stage's closed-loop gain is pretty high. This series has been a good seller for Sony I think, given the number of generations (ES, ES-II, ESX, ESG, ...)
Fazman, suggest using two different kinds of amps - since the Pioneer is only 45 watts (and you seem to like its 'warm' sound, use this to drive the MF and HF, and use a more powerful amp to handle the bass. Having another 45W unit handle the LF frequencies isn't going to give you the slam you want for AV. You can match any gain differences by putting a potentiometer on the higher-sensitivity amplifier.
Cheers!
Fazman, suggest using two different kinds of amps - since the Pioneer is only 45 watts (and you seem to like its 'warm' sound, use this to drive the MF and HF, and use a more powerful amp to handle the bass. Having another 45W unit handle the LF frequencies isn't going to give you the slam you want for AV. You can match any gain differences by putting a potentiometer on the higher-sensitivity amplifier.
Cheers!
clem_o said:
Agreed, use the larger amp for the bigger bass speakers, and use the Pioneer for the mids/highs or fullrange if you have subs.
My setup is similar to that, and uses 100W/ch front speakers playing full range to my front speakers.
My 240W amp drives 12" sub for the bass. will be replaced soon with a 300+W amp I've almost completed.
However my amps aren't old, but I agree, some older amps sound pretty good. My dad's old 50w/ch Magnavox amp has good lows and highs and plays good full range, and when we first put a Technics CD player on it, (only prev used it with cassettes and records) the treble was amazingly clear, and bass hit good, and was amazed the older amp had such a good dynamic range. Just had to use a better source, heh.
I just scored a Pioneer SA7500 II. I'll tell you what i think of the sound when i hook it up. The SX1280 receiver i have as a really good tuner, a poor preamp, and a power amp suitable primarily for a subwoofer. Real honkin transformer -- i'm going to strip it down till it is just a power-amp.
dave
dave
While I don't consider the 1280 to be the end-all be-all of vintage Pioneer amps. I think I'd give it considerably more credit than that. The preamp needs tweaking, but had potential. Ain't nothin' wrong with the amp section.planet10 said:
Cry foul!! Nay, unless it looks like a badly beaten hound, I'd stay thy hand!!
Quote:
Hi fazman,
I meant an amplifier without a tuner, volume or tone controls. Just a power amplifier. The circuits were normally a little more advanced over the combination units. Almost every manufacturer made a decent power amplifier at one time or another. Which one sounds the best isn't a debate, it's a war.
-Chris
I will give an example of Power amplifiers from the 70's that I believe Chris is talking about. Example: The Marantz M250, M240,
M500. The SAE 2400, 2400L. The Ampzilla, Son of Ampzilla.
These are power amplifiers and power amplifiers don't contain preamp sections, tuners, or other frills.
A present day example of a fully complimentary power amplifier would be a Bryston. The circuitry is the same as in the Ampzilla and SAE but the Bryston has double the outputs and therefore doesn't suffer the untimely death the Ampzilla and Sae products did.
I personally prefer the sound of fully complimentary class A/AB if I am going to listen to sand amps.
Hi fazman,
I meant an amplifier without a tuner, volume or tone controls. Just a power amplifier. The circuits were normally a little more advanced over the combination units. Almost every manufacturer made a decent power amplifier at one time or another. Which one sounds the best isn't a debate, it's a war.
-Chris
I will give an example of Power amplifiers from the 70's that I believe Chris is talking about. Example: The Marantz M250, M240,
M500. The SAE 2400, 2400L. The Ampzilla, Son of Ampzilla.
These are power amplifiers and power amplifiers don't contain preamp sections, tuners, or other frills.
A present day example of a fully complimentary power amplifier would be a Bryston. The circuitry is the same as in the Ampzilla and SAE but the Bryston has double the outputs and therefore doesn't suffer the untimely death the Ampzilla and Sae products did.
I personally prefer the sound of fully complimentary class A/AB if I am going to listen to sand amps.
With respect to the Pioneers SX1280, the Sansui's of the day and generally everything stuffed into a box and called a receiver. Back in that era there was a power struggle in the works. The more watts you could stuff into a receiver the better chance the general public was going to purchase it. To hell with quality when it came to a receiver. They marketed a so so product that received stations and didn't sound to bad. Better quality was gotten by purchasing separate components, a tuner, preamp, and power amplifier.
Based on what I have heard today I would still favor the sound and functionality of the older gear, maybe because I am older.
There is something about power IC's that just doesn't sound as good to me.
Just my .02
Based on what I have heard today I would still favor the sound and functionality of the older gear, maybe because I am older.
There is something about power IC's that just doesn't sound as good to me.
Just my .02
So all in all it sounds like you guys favour a lot of these older type amps and integrades.
My speakers sound nice the way they are but they are only set up for single wire. I will have to lift the high pass portion off the circuit board and add another set of binding posts to make them biampable which shouldn't be a problem.
I just don't want to go through all this work for just a marginal improvement in sound .
My consideration here would be to use my Acurus 200 watt home theater amp for the low pass and use the Pioneer SA 6800 for the high pass. Do you guys think that this would make a good combo?
Or I could sell the Acurus 5 channel amp and begin hunts for older Marantz Pioneer Sansui amps or integrated etc... Things just won't look as good as having the acurus in the equipment stack.
I wonder if I could get enough money from the Acurus to finance all the older amps
My speakers sound nice the way they are but they are only set up for single wire. I will have to lift the high pass portion off the circuit board and add another set of binding posts to make them biampable which shouldn't be a problem.
I just don't want to go through all this work for just a marginal improvement in sound .
My consideration here would be to use my Acurus 200 watt home theater amp for the low pass and use the Pioneer SA 6800 for the high pass. Do you guys think that this would make a good combo?
Or I could sell the Acurus 5 channel amp and begin hunts for older Marantz Pioneer Sansui amps or integrated etc... Things just won't look as good as having the acurus in the equipment stack.
I wonder if I could get enough money from the Acurus to finance all the older amps
Hi fazman,
The main reason I haven't tried to encourge you so far is simple. There is more to biamping than doing what has been suggested so far. Thus my comments now.
Done properly, biamping, or complete multiamping (3 or 4 ways) involves the speaker units as well. The crossover points and slopes must be designed carefully to create an electronic crossover. That type of system will blow your mind. This also entails removing the crossover units in your speakers entirely. The amps must be matched in gain and compensated for in phase (inverting or not). Amazing when it works well.
What I feel you are looking for will not be reached unless this is done. You would be much further ahead replacing your current multichannel amplifer with either another one that you like or a combination of nicer two channel amplifiers. Just as an example, if you felt a Nakamichi PA-7II was the best thing you ever heard you would buy three of them and that would be that. Conversely, if X brand of five channel amplifier warmed your soul, you'd buy that. If you want to multiamplify your speakers, there is some research to do first (do not do anything yet). This would be highly rewarding but you will need to invest much time and some extra cash.
I don't want you to be disappointed or waste money. What I got from you so far is that you like the sound of another amplifier over the one you currently own.
-Chris
The main reason I haven't tried to encourge you so far is simple. There is more to biamping than doing what has been suggested so far. Thus my comments now.
Done properly, biamping, or complete multiamping (3 or 4 ways) involves the speaker units as well. The crossover points and slopes must be designed carefully to create an electronic crossover. That type of system will blow your mind. This also entails removing the crossover units in your speakers entirely. The amps must be matched in gain and compensated for in phase (inverting or not). Amazing when it works well.
What I feel you are looking for will not be reached unless this is done. You would be much further ahead replacing your current multichannel amplifer with either another one that you like or a combination of nicer two channel amplifiers. Just as an example, if you felt a Nakamichi PA-7II was the best thing you ever heard you would buy three of them and that would be that. Conversely, if X brand of five channel amplifier warmed your soul, you'd buy that. If you want to multiamplify your speakers, there is some research to do first (do not do anything yet). This would be highly rewarding but you will need to invest much time and some extra cash.
I don't want you to be disappointed or waste money. What I got from you so far is that you like the sound of another amplifier over the one you currently own.
-Chris
Chris, you are absolutely right.anatech said:
Are you speaking of active crossovers? Completely removing the passive one from the speaker?
I've heard many people have lots of success with this but my speakers would be hard to do this to because passively they are a 2.555 way design. Each woofer handing off to the other. So even if I biamp the most I could do is to just seperate the tweeter from the woofer.
I'm by no means dissapointed with my set up in fact it sounds quite nice, it's just hearing the older amp in my system really opened my eyes and got me thinking, how far could I take this without spending extra money because I know my Acurus would have some value on the street.
I'm not dead set on biamping it was more a thought than anything but... I definitely want to investigate looking for some older power amps with some quality. My brother has an old Macinitosh and it sounds great in his set up. The Acurus is no slouch but I think I could do a bit better. Besides I love the hunt for a killer deal on audio stuff!
Hi fazman,
You can still gain quite a bit by simple bi-amping and a relatively simple, passive line-level 1st order crossover before the amplifiers. The idea is to split the frequency way below and way above the expected crossover frequencies for the current MF/HF and LF passive unit (built into the speakers), respectively. This way, your amplifiers don't produce much power into frequencies that the drivers will never respond to anyway (since the built-in passive crossover in them will attenuate these).
I agree with anatech that using active crossovers (thus allowing the amplifiers to directly connect the individual drivers) would produce the greatest benefits, *however* a straight, theory-based active crossover is NOT going to do it. The reason is simple - the loudspeaker drivers just do not behave in the same way as a theoretical design would - impedance is all over the place, the sound-pressure response is not flat, the driver has multiple resonances, the dispersion is not constant with frequency (bla-bla-bla). Only IF the active crossover is designed with these considerations will it be successful (though, improved SPLs can be achieved with separate active drive, no doubt).
Take apart a competent loudspeaker and have a look at the crossover. Simulate it if you want, and be 'surprised' at how ugly the theoretical electrical drive it presents to the speaker looks!
Cheers!
Clem
You can still gain quite a bit by simple bi-amping and a relatively simple, passive line-level 1st order crossover before the amplifiers. The idea is to split the frequency way below and way above the expected crossover frequencies for the current MF/HF and LF passive unit (built into the speakers), respectively. This way, your amplifiers don't produce much power into frequencies that the drivers will never respond to anyway (since the built-in passive crossover in them will attenuate these).
I agree with anatech that using active crossovers (thus allowing the amplifiers to directly connect the individual drivers) would produce the greatest benefits, *however* a straight, theory-based active crossover is NOT going to do it. The reason is simple - the loudspeaker drivers just do not behave in the same way as a theoretical design would - impedance is all over the place, the sound-pressure response is not flat, the driver has multiple resonances, the dispersion is not constant with frequency (bla-bla-bla). Only IF the active crossover is designed with these considerations will it be successful (though, improved SPLs can be achieved with separate active drive, no doubt).
Take apart a competent loudspeaker and have a look at the crossover. Simulate it if you want, and be 'surprised' at how ugly the theoretical electrical drive it presents to the speaker looks!
Cheers!
Clem
Hi fazman,
You have a good understanding then. At this point I feel you should be looking for an amplifier or amplifiers that sound better. There are well respected amplifiers that I don't care for either.
As Clem pointed out, speakers are not flat. Crossovers may have some compensation built in to correct this, but roughly. When a speaker is driven directly, the amplifier can exert full damping. A crossover has the effect of inserting an impedance in series with the speaker where it needs damping the most.
Some thinking and experimentation and thinking is necessary to achieve great results. I'm sure that this has been discussed at length somewhere around here. I don't think you will get there by using random old receivers. There are amplifiers that are considerably better. Look at the Symasym thread for instance (skip near the end).
-Chris
You have a good understanding then. At this point I feel you should be looking for an amplifier or amplifiers that sound better. There are well respected amplifiers that I don't care for either.
As Clem pointed out, speakers are not flat. Crossovers may have some compensation built in to correct this, but roughly. When a speaker is driven directly, the amplifier can exert full damping. A crossover has the effect of inserting an impedance in series with the speaker where it needs damping the most.
Some thinking and experimentation and thinking is necessary to achieve great results. I'm sure that this has been discussed at length somewhere around here. I don't think you will get there by using random old receivers. There are amplifiers that are considerably better. Look at the Symasym thread for instance (skip near the end).
-Chris
altec 710
I just picked up an Altec 710 (60wch) receiver from goodwill last week. My mom wanted a receiver to replace her three poundweight soundesign that pooped out on her. I told her not to worry. Practically anything I found at goodwill would be an improvement.
I found the altec. 15 bucks. It's "bag o'cement" weight I thought was a very good sign for a seventies vintage amp. Sure enough, the right channel was fuzzy and cutting out, obviously the reason why it was delivered unto goodwill - and sure enough, twenty minutes with shop vac and a can of electronic circuit cleaner removing debris and the sound was golden. Astonishing actually. It was in showroom condition, probably never left the shelf it sat on for thirty years.
I know I'd never find parts for this thing if needed, but that's hardly a problem. There isn't an IC or SMC in sight on the board and the inside looks like military hardware. Everything is big and beefy and clearly marked. Any thirteen year old with a soldering iron and the internet could fix it. I'm not into "vintage" by any necessity. But I do recognize high quality build and sound when it's smack in front of me.
I just picked up an Altec 710 (60wch) receiver from goodwill last week. My mom wanted a receiver to replace her three poundweight soundesign that pooped out on her. I told her not to worry. Practically anything I found at goodwill would be an improvement.
I found the altec. 15 bucks. It's "bag o'cement" weight I thought was a very good sign for a seventies vintage amp. Sure enough, the right channel was fuzzy and cutting out, obviously the reason why it was delivered unto goodwill - and sure enough, twenty minutes with shop vac and a can of electronic circuit cleaner removing debris and the sound was golden. Astonishing actually. It was in showroom condition, probably never left the shelf it sat on for thirty years.
I know I'd never find parts for this thing if needed, but that's hardly a problem. There isn't an IC or SMC in sight on the board and the inside looks like military hardware. Everything is big and beefy and clearly marked. Any thirteen year old with a soldering iron and the internet could fix it. I'm not into "vintage" by any necessity. But I do recognize high quality build and sound when it's smack in front of me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.