# Recommendations for a stereo amplifier



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

My son had a birthday party this weekend and managed to blow my 13 year old Pioneer amplifier (SA-300). This was a wonderful amp with clean sound. I brought it over from the UK (had to connect it to a 240/110V converter). I've looked around but there only seem to be receivers onthe market. I just want a simple, powerful, excellent sounding amplifier. No need for all the bells and whistles. Will never connect a home theatre or TV to it. Any recommendations?

Price is a consideration. I cannot afford an audiofile vacuum valve device, for example.... I used the SA-300 with a Technics turntable, NAD CD player and AirTunes.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I currently have four Carver Amps powering my home theater speakers. I have never had a single issue with them.

As far as price goes, I'm not current with the pricing, but you will not find a better quality amp for the price.

I highly recommend you check them out.


----------



## Ants (May 6, 2003)

you may want to check out Audiogon.com, you can sometimes get good deals on used equipement.

cheers
ants


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

You may as well try the Sonic Impact amp first; it's cheap and may be all you need. Get the AC adapter with it. You can find it for less online if you look.

You could also look at the following:

NAD C320BEEE Link

Cambridge Audio AZUR 340A Canadian Dealers

CREEK A50/A50iR or perhaps 4330SE (previous model, might be closeout deals on it) Link

Any used amp from any of those three vendors would be fine as well.

If you just want a general-purpose amp from no particular vendor, I would check classifieds, garage sales, etc. Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon, Technics, etc. The amps above (including the Sonic Impact) sound better though.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for the ideas guys. Bay Bloor Radio stocks the NAD series (the C320BEEE is $500). I think I'll check them out (already have an NAD CD player). I do like UK components, but their worldwide distribution leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Boomcha (Jan 29, 2004)

Hi, have you looked into getting it repaired? Mount Pleasant Stereo repaired an old Pioneer tape player about 3 years ago for and they did a great job. Of course if you feel its time for a new receiver or amp you can have a look at Great Met Sound (http://www.toronto.com/profile/145549) I got my NAD amp there a few years back and its a great product and the staff was far nicer there than at Bay Bloor Radio.

Jorge


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

Good luck on your search. You may have to go into mid to higher end gear to find
something with decent phono inputs. (or any phono inputs at all).
Do you know anyone with some electronic background that could take a quick look inside? Could be as simple as an internal fuse or output transistor.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I bought an NAD C352 ($100 off - $600). It's a nice amp and you can switch out the tonal circuits. It doesn't have any S/PDIF sockets through which would have been nice for connecting the Airport Express. Unfortunately, when I got it home and set it up I found the speakers had been blown too (!!!). So will have to save up for some decent new ones (any suggestions??). 

The Pioneer A-300 was never sold here and was 13 years old. The speakers are JPWs (UK) and were also 13 years old (bi-wired). Both did excellent duty.

I've been to Mt Pleasant Stereo and they are very helpful (bought a mini system there a couple of years ago).


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

If you like the British sound, I would recommend Rega or Quad boxes for taught sound or B&W and Kef for a rounder sound. If you want bass in a small enclosure, I would suggest TDLs. I found this link: it's from 2003 but lists good Canadian manufacturers.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Of course if you change your mind about spending on amplification, you can always check out our Montreal friends...


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Unfortunately, when I got it home and set it up I found the speakers had been blown too (!!!).


Remind me never to lend my stereo to your son


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

I've been very impressed with the Paradigm Products .


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

just curious what kind of speakers you guys with the NAD amps are running. I've been looking at getting a new amp to replace my aging Sony. But at almost 20 years old, its still worth repairing. Its got tons of power, its 100watts a channel. I normally have it hooked up to my tower speakers which consist of 12" sub, 7" mid, 3" tweeter. They are custom built, and are in no way quite. I also have another set i use on occasion that have dual 12" woofers, 12" mid horn, and 7" tweeter horn. And yes they EXTREMELY loud(the neighboors did call the cops once). My Old Sony handles these things no problem, and still has volume to spare even when i have loud enough to break windows. I've recently been buy and returning amps to see how some new ones sound, and i haven't found one thats matched the power of my Sony. I don't use those silly little home theatre "subwoofer" things either. they sound like crap, mostly cause there are tons of lost frequencies. any ideas?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Excellent recommendations - keep em coming. Might want to describe your systems and desired systems!

Don't worry anal-log, he's very pissed off at his friends who let him down (but not as pissed off as I am!). He's a great kid and tonight actualy made his own iPod sock for his new iPod photo!


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

OB:

Amp needs will depend on the sensitivity of your speakers. Horns are very sensitive and do not need any power at all. Your custom build ones are probably regular sensitivity and require middle power. In addition to raw wattage you should look at the continuous level of Amperage they can deliver. A baby Krell amp for example may only be 2x50W but can dim the lights in a small town and therefore drive power hungry speakers such as ribbon panels of high end mini boxes (e.g. Sonus Faber).

My rig includes Quad electrostatic panels that need 2x140W and they don't sound that loud. This is due both to the panel design (natural sounding speakers rarely come across as loud because there is no distortion) and the fact that they have a very low sensitivity.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't have a home stereo. I have no interest in just staring at a blank wall while listening to music. Too boring.

But I DO have a killer sound system hooked up to my big screen TV set...and, guess what, it didn't cost much at all.

I use a mid seventies high end (powerful!) JVC Quadraphonic reciever/amp hooked up to a set of monster Pro-Linear speakers (front) and a set of slightly smaller Sansui speakers for the back channels. I use the stereo speakers built into the TV itself for the front voice channels. The whole setup is hooked directly into the stereo outputs from my sat TV system and is carefully calibrated for the room.

It's stone age stuff. Ancient! Most of it was bought, well used, at yard sales...and I've had many audiophiles comment on this fact. 

Until I fire it up, that is.

Then their eyes bug out and their jaws drop. While the china dances off the shelves and the floor quakes and odd portions of the movie soundtrack seem to be coming from another room. Or from outside the room. 

The sound quality is amazing. Warm and deep and totally around you, all of the time. People are always looking over their shouders when we watch a movie to see where the phone is ringing or a door is opening.

It's nothing like the dry chirpy sound that seems to be a characteristic of the modern surround systems. Of course...it helps that I live on a large country acreaage and can actually turn the volume up past "2" without someone banging on the walls. 

But I should point out that I have never ever used this fabulously powerful system past five on the volume dial. If I did, I'd probably vaporise my favorite cat. Or deafen myself. It's that good.

Best part is?

It cost me a total of 200 bucks. That includes thirty bucks worth of top grade stereo cable, BTW.

Want a really outstanding amp? Try a mid seventies reciever/amp from Marantz or Pioneer or JVC or Akai or Sansui or Kenwood. Or a Macintosh, if you can find one. Like high-end Japanese 35mm cameras from that period, this stuff was all very carefully hand made...and those guys were REALLY trying to impress us back then.

It shows. Even now.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I like Onkyo, but they are really only making one amp right now, the M-282 (Onkyo Amps). It sounds good, though.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Older Onkyo stuff is also good. Especially their recievers from the mid seventies.

Many audio freaks agree that this particular time period was the absolute high point of sound reproduction, and of hand crafted amplifiers. And of warm deep sound...as opposed to high dry sound of today that has NO soul. Which comes from cheap mass produced amplifiers from no-name factories, that have NO soul! No depth or breadth, either. 

BLECCCCHHH.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I have a NAD 7100 receiver from the eighties, powering a pair of Mirage M7si speakers from the early nineties. It's a very satisfying combination, even today. 
So, given a limited budget, don't hesitate to go NAD, and don't hesitate to consider Mirage (a Canadian company) when looking for speakers. I've enjoyed years and years of very good music reproduction from this combo, and have felt no pressing need to upgrade those components.

With a less limited budget, go beyond NAD, but still consider Mirage.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I got a entry level Nad 312 amp, running PSB speakers (also Canadian). Canadian Speakers are known to be the best in the business. Pretty much any Canadian based speaker manufacuturer will be good. Reason being is in Ottawa is the worlds best speaker testing lab.

vince


----------



## anal-log (Feb 22, 2003)

scootsandludes said:


> Canadian Speakers are known to be the best in the business. Pretty much any Canadian based speaker manufacuturer will be good. Reason being is in Ottawa is the worlds best speaker testing lab.


I agree Canadian speakers are some of the best. I have a pair of Energy 22 Pro Monitors from the early 80's that are just as good or better than most speakers out there today. These sound pretty nice with either my mid 80's Kenwood M2A
or Sumo Amp.

So check out the Canadian speakers. A lot more value for your dollar.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I remember listening to very nice Canadian boxes a few years ago. Not really high end but would really sound nice with decent amplification. The manufacturer was Totem. Not sure where they are now.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Beware the new FTC power rating method; it's been changed from the one we're used to for the last 30 years. The new method is very easy to manipulate and is much less stringent.

Old FTC method vs new FTC method:
All channels driven versus one channel driven

20~20Khz signal versus 1Khz signal

Specified impedance vs 8 ohm only

Specified THD (distortion) vs unspecified (could be anything)

Commodity multichannel "home theatre" makers lobbied for the change. Very few home theatre amps can produce the advertised power under the old FTC method and many simple stereo amps cannot either.

Today manufacturers can test each channel by itself (with all the grunt of the power supply dedicated to it) and then add the results up. In some cases you would need 5 home theatre receivers (with 4 of 5 channels unused on each) to get the advertised "500 watts" available to 5 speakers.

If you used the old method, they would probably rate most 500 watt home theatre receivers at perhaps 300 watts before they run out of grunt. If the maker is especially cunning (using, say a 10% THD value) it might only be able to produce 200 watts if called upon at once on all channels simultaneously.

The power is limited by the power supply and it's both a very expensive part of any electronic device and hidden from consumers.

NAD uses the old FTC method as do most reputable makers, but the Sonys and Pioneers of the world use the new method.

Of course, if we're talking car stereos, blasters, TV sets, etc then they don't have to use any specified method at all; all their ratings are widely inflated compared to a stringent test condition. Car stereo companies typically rate their output at higher input power voltages than most cars can provide, for example. With car stereos, your car is the power supply and the ultimate determining factor in how much power an amp can provide.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Totem is doing quite nicely, as are PSB, Energy, Paradigm, Mirage, etc.

I know at least three British loudspeaker engineers who moved to Ottawa to work for one of the Canadian speaker companies (and Mission moved the whole company from the UK) when the NRC built the Anechoic Chamber there.

Bryston, Classe, Sonic Frontiers/Anthem, YBA, SimAudio, Magnum Dynalab, Oracle, etc are all still making well regarded gear. It's entirely possible to build an all-Canadian system without compromising anything if you want to.

The guys I miss most are Dayton-Wright (Toronto). Brilliant engineering killed after the company was taken over by bean-counting idiots.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Beware the new FTC power rating method; it's been changed from the one we're used to for the last 30 years. The new method is very easy to manipulate and is much less stringent.
> 
> Old FTC method vs new FTC method:
> All channels driven versus one channel driven
> ...


Do you have a link specifying these changes? I'll have a look around when I get a chance, but if you have a link - I'd like to read it.

I was pretty sure that previous FTC ratings allowed for various bandwidths, channels and impedances - it was just that they had to be specified. I've got gear from the 80's that had ratings based on a 1KHz bandwidth, for instance.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The "FTC method" specified the "advertised power rating", and specifies exactly what conditions are used to create that rating. It does not preclude the manufacturer from providing other specifications, indeed they encourage it.

Basically it meant that the FTC rating had to be either the most prominent rating or equal in prominence to other included specifications. Consumers could make complaints based on type size, colour, etc if they felt this was not being met.

If advertising used an unspecified figure (ie simply "80 watt amplifier") it had to be the FTC method rating that was cited. Typically an ad that used unspecified ratings had an asterisk which pointed to small type that said something like "via FTC method, x watts per channel, both channels driven into 8 ohms at less than 0.05% THD".

FTC Brief (pdf)

Interesting, if long winded, summary of the issues and comments from industry. The rule amendments are at the end. The most revealing is the original proposal for car stereo regulation, which was abandoned after the industry complained.

NAD's comments


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Kinda like the MHz myth but a lot more deceptive.... My old JPW speakers were British and sounded wonderful for their size but I will likely buy from a Canadian manufacturer (given all of the above posts). I'm saving up and speakers are usually the critical component that people underspend on with respect to the expense of their other components.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My mains are a big set of mid-eighties Pro-Linears made in Vancouver. They are housed in heavy real wood boxes, and have several controls on the front. They sound fan-bloody-TASTIC!! 

They will shake the glass right out of my livingroom windows if I turn the sound level on the big seventies vintage Quadrophonic amp up past "five" or so. They will blow most thousand dollar surround systems right out of the water. And THAT is according to the guys who actually paid a thousand or more for their own home systems...and who've heard mine.

I paid exactly 29 bucks for that pair of vintage Canadian made speakers at Value Village, about six months ago. Including tax. They were in mint shape.

The vintage seventies Quad amp cost about fifty bucks at the same place. And another sixty-five to have it rewired for surround sound. 

Bottom line? Sometimes the very best stuff is right under your nose. And sometimes it doesn't cost much, either.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Lots of good advice and commentary here, but as you can see, there are so many options....where and when do you stop and buy?

I grew up in the audio business (as did macdoc) in the 70s and 80s. I personally use a PS Audio (California hand built) integrated amp and a pair of LS3/5a Chartwell BBC monitors (70s vintage). I can shock people with the beautiful soundstage and clarity of this system. I also have an Advent reciever (Holman designed) in the living room system. The idiots at Consumer Guide gave the Advent a poor score (without listening to it) because the "rated power" was only 20 watts/channel. In reality, this thing was sonically superior to more expensive pieces and could drive a system to pretty loud levels before showing signs of distortion. 
The bottom line is: forget the spec sheets and use you EARS. Only they can tell you if a piece of electronics or speaker is better than another....at least to "your" ears. Some high powered amps sound like crap to a properly designed lower powered one. NAD has done a good job with some of their pieces over the years. The 3020 was a killer in the bargain category. There have been a number of other excellent products e.g. Creek, Naim, Arcam, Cambridge Audio, and others. Just be sure to properly allocate your budget between the electronics and speakers. The system is only as good as the weakest link, so don't blow the budget on one item and then "cheap out" on the others. Speakers will generally show more improvement per extra $100 spent if you listen well and seek the advice of good stereo shops. Box store salespeople know little about good sound, just what plays loud and pays good commissions.
There are a number of Canadian made speakers that are quite satisfying to the majority of listeners and that won't break your bank account. You might find them to be among the "best buys" on the market. For higher end speakers you're into a broad choice of manufacturers, fewer dealers to shop from and price points that can make you head spin.
As mentioned by others, don't be afraid to look for good used items. I see a number of classic audio bargains popping up as trade-ins at some stores. There's always someone looking to upgrade an already decent system so, like cars, you can find good used stuff at substantial discounts from the original price.
Happy shopping!


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Peter Scharman said:


> I personally use a PS Audio (California hand built) integrated amp...


Peter, you've reminded me that I have a PS Model One power amp sitting in my basement. Unfortunately one channel is blown on it. I've never investigated fixing it, or whether it was worth fixing. It was definitely a good Class A amp in it's day. Come to think of it, it's about 25 years old.  

Any thoughts, or is it doomed to a landfill?


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

gwillikers said:


> Peter, you've reminded me that I have a PS Model One power amp sitting in my basement. Unfortunately one channel is blown on it. I've never investigated fixing it, or whether it was worth fixing. It was definitely a good Class A amp in it's day. Come to think of it, it's about 25 years old.
> 
> Any thoughts, or is it doomed to a landfill?


I'd take it to a good repair shop and get a quote. Thr Model One was their first power amp. It is rated at 100 (real) watts per channel and has lots of headroom, giving it a good punch and solid bottom end. I once had one but in an effort to "downsize" the system to fit into a new cabinet, I sold it for the integrated amp. I've always missed that extra little bit of oomph that the Model One had. 
If you decide not to fix it, let me know. I'd be interested in it. BTW, it's a class A/B amp, but that's mute point.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Talk to PS Audio. They can probably tell you more than a repair shop. They are quite proud of their older gear, as they should be.

It's a great little unit; don't send it to the dump for sure. You could also use it as a centre or sub amp if you want, as is (don't leave it on when you're not using it, though, if it's got issues).


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

gordguide said:


> You could also use it as a centre or sub amp if you want, as is (don't leave it on when you're not using it, though, if it's got issues).


I had that thought after posting as well. If you had use for a single channel amp, you could have a repair shop just disconnect the power supply from the defective channel so there would be no more issues to worry about. PS Audio may have a schematic that they could fax you. Unfortunately, the company was sold by Stan and Paul many years back and the new company threw out a lot of parts and support material for older units. Paul bought the company back in later years and seems to be doing well with line conditioners and cables.
The Model One is not a complicated design...just a good clean one with well chosen components. A good technician should be able to trace and test the circuit even without a schematic. I think I may have spare driver transistors for it down in my parts cabinet if you need them, but I don't think there should be a problem getting original Motorola components (that's what they used, if I recall correctly).


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Thanks for the replies on my Model One...
I opened it up many years ago and I recall there was a scorch mark on one of circuit boards. I'll have to take another look to be able to describe it better. I think contacting PS Audio would be a good idea, nothing to lose.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

i think everyone can agree that all the old school amps and speakers sound way better than this new digital stuff. i've listened to some pretty highend new stuff, but it still ain't as clear as my old stuff. and these old amps weigh at least 50lbs more than anything on the market now thats for sure.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... i think everyone can agree that all the old school amps and speakers sound way better than this new digital stuff. ..."

I don't think I would agree with that (about amps and speakers). There is some great old gear and some crap that I wouldn't give away, and some great new gear and terrible new gear. Just like the old days when a Phase Linear 400 sat beside a Bryston 4B on the shelf and outsold it based almost entirely on the spec sheet, when people traded in Dynaco Stereo 60's for Crown DC-150's; vacuum table radios for tinny transistor models; or perhaps an Empire turntable for a Japanese DD model, and though they had "upgraded" to "modern technology".

I've heard the infamous Infinity Switching Amplifier from around '78. Sounded like crap; cost thousands of dollars (my store bought one, possibly the only one in Canada. Luckily there was a small fire one day in the building we were in; light smoke damage and we had a huge sale on all our demos. That one for "some reason" we decided was unrepairable and we let the insurance company buy it).

You can buy a good sounding digital amp now (the new word we use for switching amps; sometimes also called "Class D" or "Class T") or a bad sounding one. 25 years ago you could only buy bad ones.

Sometimes the whole object gets lost in the mix; the only real thing some people notice is they slowly quit using the gear, they don't always realize it's because it ultimately sounds worse than what they had.

Modern digital stored music is finally starting to sound good, 25 years after the promise of "perfect sound forever". That doesn't mean LPs are bad; it just means that we have choices and that new isn't necessarily always better. Record playing systems have improved over the years as well but for the most part, in the first 100 years of the phonograph, it wasn't all that hot. It sounds pretty good now, but the technology has evolved to that point only in the last 30 years or so. Maybe digital has that treat in store for us as well.

There is always some "feature" of new gear that means they can leave something annoying behind (changing tubes, fiddling with records, no more tape hiss, or these days going wireless and saying goodbye to wires everywhere; whatever) and they are happy with the change. Too bad their brain subtly protests when they use it; after a while they "don't feel like listening to music tonight".

Speakers in particular have improved drastically. Although there are older speakers that do sound great, the majority of what passed for an inexpensive speaker in those days was pretty much an exercise in huge profits. Higher priced models were more honest about the whole thing, but I still remember some "snake oil" managed to find it's way into the listening room.

Also, speakers deteriorate in ways that electronics don't. The rubber, Buna and other synthetic surrounds on drivers literally break down over time, cones sag and the voice coils go out of alignment, the capacitors start to leak, the cabinets rattle and joints start to open up.

I would not hesitate to suggest someone start a new hifi with one of the new models of loudspeaker you can buy today. At a minimum, the "consumer" models sound much more like the "audiophile" models of yore, and many sound better. The really good examples are very good bargains. The prices have never been lower, mostly due to modern manufacturing techniques of the cabinets. And they should last longer than used models. There are quite a few excellent speakers from $300 to $2K/pr available today.

If you can find something truly great locally, then a used speaker might be a good idea. Older models that were rather pricey when new are really the only ones worth considering; they used better parts that last much longer. Shipping costs make things like eBay a little expensive for large, heavy objects (while it probably accounts for less than the sales tax at your dealer's).

Electronics is a mixed bag. Some older gear is worth seeking out, and in almost every case costs less than the equivalent stuff does today. A Bryston 4B sells used for about what I once sold them new ($ 1250 in 1977) but that kind of money doesn't really get you similar performance with new gear, usually. Still, there is very good gear available now and I have heard stuff that betters the 4B (now and when it was new); any of the current SST versions are good examples but there are others.

The truth is the really great gear that can truly hold it's own was rare then and is rarer now. I loved the Threshold 400A but we sold two of 'em, total. It's my opinion the PS Audio amp sounded better than most stuff it was contemporary to, but the ordinary stuff is much easier to find. The good gear isn't easy to find even if you know what you want.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Right on, Gord! This like a trip down memory lane. We must have been involved with audio gear in the same time frame. 
Intersested in an old Heathkit receiver (solid state, unfortunately) and a pair of Dynaco A35s??


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Not really, Peter. It's not hard to find stuff around here, and I have my share of old gear that's gathering dust right now. I do have a Dynaco PAT-5, a pair of kind-of-zippy SouthWest Technical 60W monoblocks and two Dynaco 35's in the garage, though. Does the trick.

I wish I could find some old stuff I really miss but I don't know where i would put it (or how I would pay for it; the stuff I'm interested in won't be garage-sale cheap, I'm sure).

People might be interested in the HeathKit online. Some of the older tuners are highly sought after but I'm not really up on the HeathKit line of gear, it was just a bit before my time.

My first stereo was when I was 14 and obviously tight with cash but I had a good summer job; a Sony TT (that I replaced as soon as I could but it was only about $ 140 new and that was lots for me at the time); a Sansui AU-101 amp (13 watts! Per channel!) and a pair of speakers I built myself with Celestion 12's and the Phillips dome tweeter that was so common then. I think about $ 500 worth of stuff. That would have been around '71.

By the time I started working in HiFi (at 19) the Heath gear was getting scarce. I do remember hearing some of it but can't really say what it sounded like. It took me a couple of years to really get a good critical ear. By the time I was 21 I was in debt because I ended up buying the company I worked for along with a few other staff. I'm most familiar with gear from about '77 to the early 80's. Once you leave the industry you lose a lot of opportunity to audition gear, although you can take your ears with you and that helps.

I really didn't revisit hifi until about 10 years ago. These days I listen a lot by visiting stores when I travel; a strange habit I guess but it works. I still know lots of people in the industry and hear about stuff that way or when I visit their homes. There isn't really a big hifi store in Saskatoon anymore, although there is some gear worth hearing nobody carries a lot of lines like we did.

Back when I had the store, every once in a while something would come in and one of the older guys would casually mention I should "give it a listen".

That's usually when I learned which of the older gear was a solid performer or not. My rather vague impression of the HeathKits is they sounded a lot like the better Sansui recievers or perhaps one of the SherWoods. Both rather good examples, I guess, so it's probably allright. But I was no longer interested receivers by then (I had a Luxman T-12 around that beat just about anything I auditioned for FM, and we sold McKay-Dymek AM tuners at the time as well) so it probably just never stuck in my collective memory.

The mid-late 80's were a rather dark period in HiFi, in my opinion. Everything, it seemed, kept sounding worse than what went before; up until 82 or so it was the opposite more often than not. If you wanted good sound, you pretty much had to go with separates in the 80's and the Japanese manufacturers seemed to have decided to abandon the serious listener in favor of the mass-market "bells and whistles" crowd.

I'm pretty happy with the gear I've heard from the 90's up to now. There is some good stuff coming out once again, if you know where to look I guess.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Luxman..... say no more. For another trip down memory lane: http://luxman.fotopic.net/


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The Lux gear had kind of a "Golden Age" where it was just plain outstanding. Apparently the Japanese market loved their gear before you could buy it here in the mid 70's as well. I distinctly remember the "Lux Sound" from that time. The M-4000 was a bit of a reference for a while, and I ended up buying a Luxman Lab Reference Series integrated (5L15; 80 wpc).

The company, which had always been very small, started to go mass-market sometime around the early 80's and it wasn't really for the better. The lost their focus at some point. You really noticed it after the merger with Alpine.

The photos at the site are cool; they are of the era when it meant something to have a Luxman badge on the box. The build quality was amazing for Japanese gear for a while. I'm quite familiar with all the stuff pictured on that site, although we never did bring in a M-6000; the 4000 looks the same.


----------



## oryxbiker (Nov 29, 2001)

i forgot about crown gordguide, yes they are a very nice amp. the only thing that sucks about them is that i don't own one.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Some interesting notes about Crown:
They are a very strong Christian company. "Crown of thorns". No Sunday work, some profit to the church, that kind of thing. They felt that since sound and music was one of God's gifts to the world, they should do their part to make it better. It's kind of ironic that most early 70's "Devil Music" was using their gear in stadiums to "spread Satan's evil".

In Canada and most of the world, they were sold under the Amcron brand after a while due to a trademark dispute. You can find both "Crown" and "Amcron" versions in Canada. The "other" Crown was a taiwanese manufacturer of rather cheap stereo gear and had the trademark to the name outside the USA.

By the mid-70's the shortcomings of the Crown was becoming obvious for hifi use but they still saw a lot of duty as Rock'n'Roll amps and in the studio, mostly due to their superior ruggedness (at the time). They clipped like razors and didn't have any headroom to speak of; if you needed more than 150 peak watts you had to buy a different amp.

Still, that was typical of any transistor amp designed in the late 60's/early 70's, where large amounts of global negative feedback reduced distortion to tiny measured levels (with test signals) but had major problems with dynamic signals (ie music) by increasing intermodulation distortion.

IM wasn't well understood at the time; people were used to the 1% figures of THD with the tube amps of a decade earlier and were still chasing that last bit of THD from the signal, because transistor design simply allowed them to. When they first came out, they were state of the art but the bar had been raised by about '76, in my opinion.

The Bryston 4B had been designed to compete directly with Crown in Pro Sound; the people at Bryston were not, at the time, hifi nuts and were at first surprised to learn that some sound engineers were ordering the amps for home use. They had managed to design a power stage that happened to have the qualities people were looking for by the mid and late 70's in hifi; lots of headroom and lots of excess power supply current combined with small amounts (for that time) of negative feedback which showed up in listening but not on the spec sheet.

Most transistor amps at the time were built rather dirty, using every last ounce of output you could squeeze from the circuit. Then you would apply large amounts of negative feedback which reduced THD to near zero, for a good spec sheet, which people bought on.

Bryston didn't do that because they ran the circuit at pretty much a loafing, easy level for reliability and then just charged more for the extra expense of the parts they used, because Pro Sound guys needed a reliable unit on the road they would pay for it. They burned in each amp for 24 hours at high duty cycles, and tested them individually. Nobody else did that at the time. You could buy a Phase Linear 200wpc amp for $700 then so they had no idea anyone would spend more for their stuff and take it home.

But (because each amp was tested after burn in but before it shipped, and they shipped the individual test data with the amp) I saw a lot of plotter readouts showing 270/8 and 540/4 ohms per channel when I opened a Bryston 4B box.

Bryston had to modify the circuit a bit (2nd generation 4B) to address the complaints some had about the top end in serious listening, which was excellent by Rock'n'Roll standards where smoothness at 15 or 20KHz is an afterthought, not a goal, but is critical in hifi. Their amp had good performance by design, but they also hadn't paid much attention to that aspect of it either. That second amp was a resounding success, but you could also say it was just a happy accident it ever came about in the first place.

As is the case with stuff like this a lot of the time, other designers worldwide were also independently taking the same approach to hifi amps so the competition was pretty decent as well. In Pro Sound the reliability factor was still bigger, they won't chase that last bit of detail for a less stable circuit. For a little while there they did have the best of both worlds and amps like the Crown were the best you could get anywhere.

I would say that after the beginning of the 80's most amps simply refined what we had learned by then (but didn't know 10 years earlier), so from that point on the improvements are small and incremental. So, some of the older gear from that period can still hold it's own today.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Jim,

Have you ever looked at Canuck Audio Mart? 

I just stumbled upon the site.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I was wondering what you guys think some of my gear is worth that I am thinking of selling.

Keep in mind it is all in MINT condition.

• 1 pair of Paradigm Studio Monitors
• 1 Paradigm PS 1200 Active Sub
• 2 Carver TFM 6CB Amps
• 2 Carver TFM 15CB Amps

I'm finding the system too big for what I need now and I am looking to down size the system. So if anybody is interested......


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

MaxPwr good link (Canuck).

Lots of decent gear at good prices (although there are some crazy prices as well; like the guy selling the Luxman MQ-3600 power amp [vacuum tube 50 wpc] for $3200.

Maybe I'm nuts (okay, probably, but that's another topic), but I think 30-year old used gear should sell for less than the price when new. He doesn't even mention what tubes he's using. I should hope they are some rare, low-time NOS ones for that price. Must be trying to hook a collector crowd).


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Speaking of buying good used gear, I came accrossa set of mint NAD products at a pawn shop yesterday. A C521i CD Player, a 116 pre-amp and a C270 power amp for $895. Performance way beyond its price point! Somebody will be happy to get those!


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Kind-of-sort-of related to this topic, some stuff about car amps and power output.

I have a couple of car amps I'm in the process of installing. They're both typical "store-bought" units costing roughly the same as most amps you would find (ie they're not claiming to be "high end units, nor are they el-cheapos).

Popping the cover shows one is a fairly robust design with discreet output transistors which are covered by a heatsink on top as well as connected to a large heatsink on the bottom. I didn't bother to try removing the heatsink to see the values of the transistors; for my casual inspection there's too much risk of damaging the unit and I don't happen to have any heatsink compound around anyway. It's rated at 200 w/ch/4ohms. Fair enough.

The second is rated at 40 w/ch at 4 ohms. That one has a stereo IC amp, Toshiba TA8210AH. Toshiba's datasheet shows the relevant performance details.

THD is 0.03% (1w, 4 ohms) below 200Hz, rising to 0.1% @ 5Khz and 0.3% @ 20Khz (and continues to rise at higher frequencies). Output power at 13.2V (battery level) is around 13 w RMS/4 ohms (100, 1K and 10K specified only). At alternator current (typically 14.6 V) you could get about 17 watts/4 ohms/1Khz.

Into 8 ohms we would expect the power value to be exactly half the 4 ohm rating normally, but it's designed specifically for car audio so there is a possibility it could be less.

So, the "40 watt" amp in a home hifi unit would be rated at about 7 to 8 watts per channel at 0.4% THD 100~10KHz 8 ohms, or perhaps less. With a demanding FTC method it could easily have trouble doing better than 5 watts per channel.

The "40 watts per channel" unit is really what we would refer to in a home setting as a 5 watt per channel amp.

The 40 watt rating could be met only if:
Impedance is 4 ohms, frequency is 1Khz only, one channel driven, THD is 10% and supply voltage is 14.6 volts.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

gordguide said:


> Kind-of-sort-of related to this topic, some stuff about car amps and power output.


And if I'm not mistaken, they rate the power Peak To Peak for car amps to inflate the wattage numbers...


----------



## cdnbacon (Feb 26, 2001)

gordguide said:


> Some interesting notes about Crown:
> They are a very strong Christian company. "Crown of thorns". No Sunday work, some profit to the church, that kind of thing. They felt that since sound and music was one of God's gifts to the world, they should do their part to make it better. It's kind of ironic that most early 70's "Devil Music" was using their gear in stadiums to "spread Satan's evil".
> 
> In Canada and most of the world, they were sold under the Amcron brand after a while due to a trademark dispute. You can find both "Crown" and "Amcron" versions in Canada. The "other" Crown was a taiwanese manufacturer of rather cheap stereo gear and had the trademark to the name outside the USA.
> ...


Crown Audio used to be owned by Christians, but no more, since they were bought out by Harman International a few years ago. They still have many of the same employees at the factory, and retain the same strong work ethic that continues today, however the Christianity part has been toned down considerably (at least when I visited the factory in Elkhart over a year ago). They first started making reel to reel recorders, then progressed to amplifiers, then microphones, and even designed amplifiers (huge ones) used in MRIs found in hospitals around the world. Certainly the earliest Crowns had no clipping circuitry like you find in modern Crown amplifiers, but when you say they didn't have "any headroom to speak of," I would assert that this was more a function of component capability mismatch (which many at the time didn't have any clue how to do properly). At the time, any internal amplifier compression or clipping circuitry was shunned by audio professionals as unnecessary components in the chain that should have such limiting/compression handled by an external unit many times more capable. Some still hold to this position today and choose to bypass this in favour of external limiters.



gordguide said:


> The Bryston 4B had been designed to compete directly with Crown in Pro Sound; the people at Bryston were not, at the time, hifi nuts and were at first surprised to learn that some sound engineers were ordering the amps for home use. They had managed to design a power stage that happened to have the qualities people were looking for by the mid and late 70's in hifi; lots of headroom and lots of excess power supply current combined with small amounts (for that time) of negative feedback which showed up in listening but not on the spec sheet.
> 
> Most transistor amps at the time were built rather dirty, using every last ounce of output you could squeeze from the circuit. Then you would apply large amounts of negative feedback which reduced THD to near zero, for a good spec sheet, which people bought on.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ with your assertion that Bryston started out in competing with Crown Audio. At the time I spoke with a few engineers at Bryston who were astounded that their amplifiers found themselves in concert halls, churches, and theatres in Canada, when their focus at the time was on esoteric home audio and recording studios. About the only place Bryston amplifiers were used in commercial audio were in a few permanent installations, but their use quickly fell in disfavour because this an area where Bryston poorly understood the marketplace. Back then it was Yamaha commercial amplifiers, Crown, or BGW that you'd find in most equipment racks, with QSC, Crest, Ashly, Carver coming around the corner. Maybe one or two tours had Bryston amps, but after having to lift amp racks with a half a dozen 4B's, they quickly fell in disfavour when stage hands would complain about their excessive weight. Not to mention the *&#$%  sharp heat sinks that would slice your hands open when swapping an amplifier out quick, or the screw potentiometers on the front panel that required special equipment to calibrate properly with a two or three way system. Had they designed a lighter package, click stop potentiometers with real knobs, fan cooling, and the ability to drive low impedance loads, then maybe they might have made a dent in the pro audio marketplace. But it never happened (much to my dismay).

Back then there were plenty of alternatives to the 4B that were equal in power and capability, Phase Linears (or should I say "Flame" Linears) were a passing fad years before! To give you credit, the Bryston 4B at the time was a departure from traditional amplifier design of the time, and helped push the industry to refine their designs for better fidelity, more capable power supplies, and component reliability. But from the very beginning, the 4B was designed to live in a fixed rack of a recording studio or living room, otherwise I seriously doubt they would have offered what eventually would become a 25 year warranty.



gordguide said:


> As is the case with stuff like this a lot of the time, other designers worldwide were also independently taking the same approach to hifi amps so the competition was pretty decent as well. In Pro Sound the reliability factor was still bigger, they won't chase that last bit of detail for a less stable circuit. For a little while there they did have the best of both worlds and amps like the Crown were the best you could get anywhere.
> 
> I would say that after the beginning of the 80's most amps simply refined what we had learned by then (but didn't know 10 years earlier), so from that point on the improvements are small and incremental. So, some of the older gear from that period can still hold it's own today.


I would say that advances in amplifier technology over the past 25 years are considerable, and while I appreciate Class A or AB technology has remained largely unchanged, when you look at some of the newer digital amplifier designs, better power supplies, improved front ends, we have better tools to play with today. Not that I would complain if I had a 4B or a Crown D300 in my living room, but I'll take a Macrotech or K2 any day over amps from yesteryear.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... since they were bought out by Harman International a few years ago. ..."

Wasn't everybody? 

" ... when you say they didn't have "any headroom to speak of," I would assert that this was more a function of component capability mismatch ..."

You could say that. They were fine driving nice, steady 8 ohm loads, but a lot of hifi speakers at the time were not so friendly and still demanded high current (or voltage, really, since most are not true current amplifiers) and the Crowns weren't up to it. Not really Crown's fault, they hadn't designed them for that use anyway but of course everyone was looking for something that worked so people tried everything available. Pro sound loads are different and they worked well under those conditions.

" ... Not to mention the *&#$% sharp heat sinks ..."

Hey, I'm trying to forget that. Quit reminding me ;-)

" ... At the time I spoke with a few engineers at Bryston who were astounded that their amplifiers found themselves in concert halls, churches, and theatres in Canada ..."

Chris Russell and Jimmy Tanner visited us dozens of times and Jimmy in particular wasn't surprised at all. Bryston's first two sales were to a recording studio (the "Pro 3" which became the 3B), and I would consider that Crown territory. Touring acts were not the focus initially, I would admit readily, even though that too was Crown territory, and I believe studios still comprise the vast majority of Bryston's Pro Market sales, rather than touring acts. Thanks for helping to clarify that, which I neglected to do.

It sounds like you have a lot of experience in large installations. We sold a lot to people with more limited needs who found them just fine in a rack/case. I don't think any of our clients ran 8 of 'em though ( let alone 8 per rack); 2 would be more like it, sometimes 4, total.

Considering what some older gear can be had for, new amps in a similar price range sometimes aren't up to the same standard. If you want (or can afford) to buy today's best stuff, it is in my opinion better gear. Power supply design is now considered critical by just about everyone but certainly during the late 70's many units had the same philosophy.

Design tools (computers help a lot there) and premium parts quality is in many areas much better today, but parts can be upgraded if desired. Voting with my wallet I like a lot of the older stuff. If I could afford to buy whatever I wanted, I would buy new gear.

Digital amps are, especially in the last few years, coming along nicely and today can most certainly compete. That wasn't true as recently as the 90's in my opinion.

Thanks for adding your comments; they're welcome and much appreciated.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... And if I'm not mistaken, they rate the power Peak To Peak for car amps to inflate the wattage numbers... "

Or not, or sometimes, or who knows what. It's a free-for-all with car stuff.

With the same chip in that "40 watt" amp you can get clean power around 20 watts if you run it at 18 volts (Toshiba does rate it there as a safe condition and it's not impossible to do that internally, by any means, but that would add to the power supply's cost, so it might not make sense. They might instead decide to use a different device). I didn't see much evidence of that kind of supply in the smaller amp, but the larger one did.

I'm going to use the smaller amp to drive a pair of Aura Bass Shakers (which really just vibrate rather than being an actual loudspeaker, in my case they will vibrate the seats, to give the sensation of low bass) and they recommend a 40 watt/ch car amp, so it should be a good match. The larger amp will drive "real" speakers; ie something we can hear rather than just feel.

But, using a higher supply voltage or sometimes just rounding off the input voltage to the next higher full volt is a trick that seems common in car audio. Whether your car can deliver that voltage is another matter, but they're not actually "lying"; they just play a little loose with the rules. "Misleading" would apply in some cases.

You can probably safely assume they are also rating it at the onset of clipping (10% THD is used commonly), which isn't really useable power.

Having said that, there is such a thing as a good car amplifier. It's just not all that easy for ordinary consumers like us to find them.


----------

