A lot of the older stuff I try has a pretty grainy sound compared to what I’m used to. That sometimes improves with a recap. I notice that vintage amps and receivers are quite popular around here. The prices on Kijiji have gone up lately and there are fewer out there to buy. There is a 3155 on there right now. Asking price is 325$ which is a bit steep for me given that there will likely be a recap needed and perhaps switches, pot’s and connectors that need attention. I have a Kenwood KA 3500 on my bench right now and I am just finishing a recap. It was given to me and I’m fixing it and will verify that it’s working properly before giving it to a friend. I’m curious to see if it can meet it’s specs for distortion, power out etc.
I recently needed a replacement amp for a second system. I ended up getting a Cambridge Audio 551R receiver from Parts Connexion. It replaced a Parasound HCA600, a homemade preamp and a tuner. It has 90w/ch with 2 channels driven into 8 ohms and has a stereo direct mode for shortest signal path if you only want to use it as an analog integrated amp. It also has DSP 7.1 decoding, sub out, pre outs, amp inputs, DAC, remote etc. It also sounds very nice, clean but not aggressive. Check these out if you haven’t seen them. I think they are about 300$ US.
I recently needed a replacement amp for a second system. I ended up getting a Cambridge Audio 551R receiver from Parts Connexion. It replaced a Parasound HCA600, a homemade preamp and a tuner. It has 90w/ch with 2 channels driven into 8 ohms and has a stereo direct mode for shortest signal path if you only want to use it as an analog integrated amp. It also has DSP 7.1 decoding, sub out, pre outs, amp inputs, DAC, remote etc. It also sounds very nice, clean but not aggressive. Check these out if you haven’t seen them. I think they are about 300$ US.
Last edited:
I joined up with this forum because it seemed the most lively and mentioned the amp I was inquring about. But I'm not really an electronics person. I think I understand but have no talent for doing. By way of analogy, I'm like the guy who loves and studies classical music but never got beyond a high school level of actually playing. So maybe I don't have too much to contribute too in terms of working on stuff. But I do have a great ear and understand acoustics.
As someone who has owned older gear (along with my sibs) I can say that it varies in quality probably just as much as newer stuff. I haven't heard too much newer stuff in my home. Hence my question at the top.
Back in the day there were known "crap" brands among so-called audiophiles, and other "respected" brands. How much of that was hype vs. reality I can't say for sure, because you really just have to listen and see what moves you.
...
I once had a Yamaha Natural Sound amp and it was super clean but sounded so "small." The replacement NAD sounded clean and "bigger."
...
Do you know what model the Yammy was? Growing up, my father had a Yamaha Natural Sound M80 amplifier fed by a C60 preamp and powering a pair of base model Polk Rta 8t's and I can say that the combo never sounded small to me. My brother and I abused those speakers at parties when my parents were away and they still sound great to this day (probably 30 years later). The Yamaha amp lost a channel several years ago and my father sadly gave it away. Probably just needed a little tlc and some recapping.
H aha hah... You've got a point there but we also have the concept of depreciation. Like when you drive a new car off the lot... it suddenly loses thousands of dollars of value!You don´t mention year but just for reference=
I gave that Yamaha away to a university roommate who paid the same rent as me but had a smaller room. It seemed only fair. But looking back I probably should have kept it! It had adjustable loudness which for some reason I didn't like but probably would now. 60W per channel. Just an amp not a receiver. Purchased in about 1977 or 8. If I can find an image I'll ad it. Currently using a tablet which is a bit slow for enhanced searches...
Edit - I'm pretty sure it was a CA 810. 65W I guess.
Why did I let this go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
I joined up with this forum because it seemed the most lively and mentioned the amp I was inquring about. But I'm not really an electronics person. I think I understand but have no talent for doing. By way of analogy, I'm like the guy who loves and studies classical music but never got beyond a high school level of actually playing. So maybe I don't have too much to contribute too in terms of working on stuff. But I do have a great ear and understand acoustics.
As someone who has owned older gear (along with my sibs) I can say that it varies in quality probably just as much as newer stuff. I haven't heard too much newer stuff in my home. Hence my question at the top.
Back in the day there were known "crap" brands among so-called audiophiles, and other "respected" brands. How much of that was hype vs. reality I can't say for sure, because you really just have to listen and see what moves you.
Lots of folks come here with little or no knowledge about electronics, but like you have an appreciation for good music. This is a great place to increase your knowledge of electronics or to just to learn more about equipment in general. Some people get hooked on building and enjoying their own equipment. For them, this forum is like a candy store.
Yes, I think I am learning by osmosis, as it were. Just reading over what everyone is doing sinks in. I would like to fix, modify even build a lot of things, from computers to sound equipment. But then again, I would like to be a concert pianist! (and I'm not...).
I, too, have an appreciation of older solid-state amps, but. .. I also participate in other forums where people actually compare amplifier sound, and like them, I have never actually heard much in the way of differences between amps driving reasonable loads.
While some amps can certainly get into trouble driving very low impedance loads, or very reactive loads, most reasonably modern amps simply have no sound of themselves. If you are looking to improve your sound, the very first place to look is speakers, not amps.
Oh, yeah. Currently using a very old Sony 3200f and an actual original Phase Linear 700. Both have been working nearly daily for 40 years. Speakers? KEF R 101 and 4x 10" subs. DSP crossover.
While some amps can certainly get into trouble driving very low impedance loads, or very reactive loads, most reasonably modern amps simply have no sound of themselves. If you are looking to improve your sound, the very first place to look is speakers, not amps.
Oh, yeah. Currently using a very old Sony 3200f and an actual original Phase Linear 700. Both have been working nearly daily for 40 years. Speakers? KEF R 101 and 4x 10" subs. DSP crossover.
Well said. I agree with every word.
Peter Walker of QUAD fame came to the same conclusion many decades ago. Even back then, there were virtually perfect amplifiers (all distortion artifacts were below human audibility.)
But the speakers, and the room they're in, remain imperfect. We don't need "golden ears" to hear the differences between speakers, because they all have imperfections sufficiently large to be quite easily audible.
-Gnobuddy
Seems like when I can afford something, it is soon obsolete. I have a very nice reel-reel tape machine and one of the best cassette deck in my junk pile. My receivers are all freebies that I fixed, one I actually use, rarely. New receivers are tempting but what I need is a good computer speaker system. Show me a receiver with Bluetooth, HD radio, Internet radio, USB and a hard drive, and I may be interested. I'm not interested in HDMI and 7.1 channels.
Tapes, records and even CDs are history. Even radio is mostly from the internet. Multi speaker systems never worked because media was never commonly available; Just not worth the trouble. Something that does work is a sub-woofer, because it makes the system as a whole more compact. So I think the future is a good 2.1 channel computer speaker.
Tapes, records and even CDs are history. Even radio is mostly from the internet. Multi speaker systems never worked because media was never commonly available; Just not worth the trouble. Something that does work is a sub-woofer, because it makes the system as a whole more compact. So I think the future is a good 2.1 channel computer speaker.
We think along similar lines. I have a PC set up to provide audio and/or video. The audio goes to a stereo receiver found on Craigslist (cheap, but all distortions are below audibility, so it's perfect, practically speaking.)
Video goes straight to the TV via an HDMI cable. The TV speakers are turned down to zero volume, because they're awful, like 99.9% of TV speakers these days.
The receiver drives a pair of Alesis Monitor One Mk II speakers placed left and right of the TV. These are near-field monitors designed for critical audio monitoring during music recording and mixing, and provide much more accurate and neutral sound reproduction than the vast majority of consumer speakers.
The one thing the Monitor One's lack is deep bass, so they hand over to a single Velodyne subwoofer at low frequencies.
I have a pair of newer active monitors, and they are better than the older Monitor One Mk IIs in the midrange, but deep bass is boomy and poorly controlled, so I prefer the older passive speakers.
I bought my Velodyne on sale, and the Monitor Ones from Amazon after they had become unpopular due to the arrival of active monitors, so this is a pretty inexpensive system. Sound quality is quite good, and it would take quite a lot of money to make any audible improvement.
As far as I know, there are no "computer speakers" on the market that come anywhere near this quality. But there's nothing to stop you making your own, either with a thrift-store receiver and a pair of passive monitors, or with a pair of active studio monitors which can be found at Sweetwater.com or other pro-audio vendors.
-Gnobuddy
Just to sum up what I'm hinting at below... for me, the sound that hits the ears is the result of a total and complicated system. I'm always mixing up my components for fun. Source, amp, speakers and speaker location all matter. Yes, speakers are important but if we define "amp" as I have below, then there are audible differences for me. Sometimes dramatic.
Again, it's a total system. This morning I'm listening to Yes Close to the Edge thru Spotify. I began with my old Win XP laptop (for fun) but couldn't get a satisfactory sound. So I switched to my Lenovo tablet (which comes with Dolby Atmos EQ) and it's great. Same amp. Same speakers.
Now, if I went up to my room and brought down our vintage HK receiver, it would sound even different (I have done this before).
My speaker history (some still with me others no longer) - homemade ones, starting with speakers my dad and then a friend made. Also Genesis. Polk. Paradigm. Mirage. Acoustic Research. Yamaha. Zoltrix. And yes, Insignia (gotta keep an open mind). I've tried many things and still like to mix and match.
Spoken like a true Dane!
Well, when I say AMP I mean something like what I pictured above. It has 'crossovers' for bass and treble. And I'm sure other factors affect the sound. I compare that with the NAD and an HK thru the same speakers and I'm telling ya... there's a lot of difference. Each has its own sound.
Perfect amps? Distortion may be measured comparatively low but again, there must be other differences.
Again, it's a total system. This morning I'm listening to Yes Close to the Edge thru Spotify. I began with my old Win XP laptop (for fun) but couldn't get a satisfactory sound. So I switched to my Lenovo tablet (which comes with Dolby Atmos EQ) and it's great. Same amp. Same speakers.
Now, if I went up to my room and brought down our vintage HK receiver, it would sound even different (I have done this before).
My speaker history (some still with me others no longer) - homemade ones, starting with speakers my dad and then a friend made. Also Genesis. Polk. Paradigm. Mirage. Acoustic Research. Yamaha. Zoltrix. And yes, Insignia (gotta keep an open mind). I've tried many things and still like to mix and match.
Spoken like a true Dane!
Well, when I say AMP I mean something like what I pictured above. It has 'crossovers' for bass and treble. And I'm sure other factors affect the sound. I compare that with the NAD and an HK thru the same speakers and I'm telling ya... there's a lot of difference. Each has its own sound.
Well said. I agree with every word.
perfect amplifiers (all distortion artifacts were below human audibility.)... But the speakers, and the room they're in, remain imperfect.
-Gnobuddy
Perfect amps? Distortion may be measured comparatively low but again, there must be other differences.
I have two of these in cheapie form... one came with a computer and the other was in the neighborhood trash.
There aren't, and haven't been, any audible differences between input signal and output signal in a good audio amp for many decades.
The acid test is a very simple one: set up a circuit that subtracts the input signal from the output signal (divided down to the same size as the input). If the result of the subtraction is so small as itself to be below the threshold of human hearing, then the output is such an exact copy of the input that the amplifier is audibly perfect. Quite literally, it has no imperfections that can be heard by human ears. If A-B equals zero, then A=B, no ifs, ands, or buts.
I first read about this test being used by Peter Walker (QUAD) before I was even born, I think in the 1950s or early 60's. Even then, good amps passed the test.
Solid-state power amplifiers developed tremendously since the 1960s, largely by borrowing ideas from opamps. Nowadays, audibly perfect audio power amplifiers are everywhere.
No such luck with speakers, though. They still have big enough imperfections that each one sounds different. While we worry about amplifiers with 0.001% THD and ruler-flat frequency response, we are all too likely to ignore our woofer with 10% THD and +/- 3 dB ripples in its frequency response. I once measured 18% 3rd harmonic distortion from a subwoofer!
There is plenty of distortion from vinyl, too. Tracing distortion (playback stylus with radiused edges doesn't follow the same physical path as the knife-edged cutter that made the groove) can be several percent near the center of the disc, yet people ignore that while complaining about 0.0005% THD from their amplifier.
Audio amplification has been a done deal for decades, as far as audio quality goes. What's left is cost reduction, size reduction, reliability improvements, electrical efficiency improvements, et cetera. None of it is very glamourous, which is why there aren't that many engineers or researchers working in audio amplifier development any more.
-Gnobuddy
A friend of mine was dumping his gear. An Integra (Onkyo) receiver was up for grabs. I didn't actually want it, but I needed an amp for another room. Although I have amps coming out of my ears, this one had a remote. Acquired for $150, several channels at 100W per. After tracking down a schematic that would be similar, it indicated the two main channels were designed slightly differently from the others. The parts used were good quality and the output devices were fast BJT, favs of this forum. The amp schematic looked liked it had been designed, not thrown together.
Older gear doesn't have the advantage of modern devices. This doesn't mean old gear is handicapped. The Audiolab 8000A is excellent. However from this experience, I would say $150 is not much to risk and second hand prices for models like these, are way below the cost of the parts.
Older gear doesn't have the advantage of modern devices. This doesn't mean old gear is handicapped. The Audiolab 8000A is excellent. However from this experience, I would say $150 is not much to risk and second hand prices for models like these, are way below the cost of the parts.
Op-amps yes, caps mostly small electrolytics, but the main problems with discrete circuits, power amps was the lack of circuit features like cross coupling and current mirrors that significantly improve old amps. If old power transistors survived without cross coupling, then keep them. You may want to replace a quasi-comp circuit with a complimentary pair and adjust the bias and drivers accordingly. The main problem I have with old receivers is bad switches and pots.
And it's also about expediency. I have a Sansui G-4700 that 30 years ago, I rebuilt and added current dumping slave transistors so there is no way to blow it up again, but I did not take the tone controls out of the power amp feedback because it would mean gutting the whole thing. Sometimes it's just a matter of removing bad ideas. Decades later with a little help from LTC Spice, it's easy to be better than the professionals were back then.
The quality of older mass-produced gear is under estimated. A Sony receiver dating from 1990 has a sophisticated power amp section. It has matched differential transistors for its input in a cascode configuration with constant current source and current mirror, and 20Mhz output devices.
The lack of boutique build doesn't stop it sounding good. Dadod's OITPC compensation can easily be applied with minimal hacking which would take it to another level. The core weakness is using 4066 as switches but these could be replaced with newer versions with half the on-resistance.
The lack of boutique build doesn't stop it sounding good. Dadod's OITPC compensation can easily be applied with minimal hacking which would take it to another level. The core weakness is using 4066 as switches but these could be replaced with newer versions with half the on-resistance.
I understand what you're saying for the AMP section of an amp ( lowercase = total package of what you buy in the store). But commercial amps also have bass, treble, maybe loudness, subsonic filters and who knows what else. Bass and treble 'crossovers' (not sure if that's the right term but u know what I mean) may be assigned at different frequencies. I think this might be in part where audible differences come in. Possibly some amps allow for more distortion to make it sound bigger (like older, 1980s Harmon Kardons... but I'm not sure).
Our HK and NAD have always sounded quite different. Every amp/receiver I've owned has had its own sound. If anyone cannot hear that, they might have less than idea hearing, imo. And that includes Mr. QUAD too.
Again, I do understand electrical similarity. But you talk about similarity, not equality. From my experience, due to the very complex nature of sound waves, even small differences can make an audible difference.
Example - I mix my own original songs in Reaper, a Digital Audio Workstation. Reaper allows users to render their project to a WAV file with a variety of settings. Some people might not be able to hear the difference but others can. The differences are subtle but those waves bounce around and create all sorts of interference all along the frequency range (which you can see with meters). And different render settings, even small ones, make a difference how that complicated interference takes place.
With Reaper we can check A and B sound files for equality or difference using a phase test. We simply invert the phase of one version and play the two versions together.
If they are the same, they cancel each other out and there is no sound. Meter reads 0db thru the whole song. If they differ, we can hear sound because they do not cancel each other out. And the db meter shows this too. Instead of 0, there is deflection (to use the old term).
I wonder if these A and B signals you talk about would pass a digital phase test. I doubt it.
And these different signals interact with all other sonic factors we've discussed before it hits your ears.
So I'm inclined to think there would be audible differences among amps, even in the AMP phase. But again, one has to have ears to hear it, imo.
Just because Mr. Quad was good at electronics does not necessarily mean he was a good listener.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.