[Ron]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message
oups.com

For example, I have a Marantz 1090 integrated amp (from
the 70's) that is only 45 WPC that will blow away any of
the junk that you can buy these days with twice the
"watts".

What does "blow away" mean?

It means if you go to Best Buy or Circuit City and buy a 45 WPC (or
higher) amp or receiver it will in no way sound as good as my Marantz.
Especially in the bass department. I'll ever go as far to say that a
modern Adcom 45 WPC amp will not outperform my Marantz. Probably just
as good, but not better.

If we checked out your 1090 on the bench, would it meet original spec or say
have many of the electrolytic caps lost their value and are they now acting
as high pass filters acting at say 100 Hz?

Hell if I know. I do know that it sounds great, so why are you bringing
up bench tests? It is 30 yrs old after all. I have about 8 amps and
receivers that I collected over the yrs and the Marantz is by far the
better amp sound wise, except for my B&K. Lets pretend that the Marantz
is brand new, from 1977 (or when ever it was made) and we are comparing
it to the "junk" that is being mass produced these days, it will "blow
them away". OK?

Hell, it will almost keep up with the amp I'm using on my
main system, a B&K power amp that is 105 WPC.

Under ideal conditions there should be no audible difference between a good
45 wpc amp and a 105 wpc amp, given that both are kept out of clipping which
is usually pretty managable. 105 watts is only 3 and a scosh dB more than
45 watts, and 3 dB is not all that much louder. So even if we ran the 105
watt amp just under clipping, it would not be that much louder than the
smaller amp.

I meant that it can be driven harder w/o clipping than lets say a 75
WPC Yamaha receiver that I own that is about 10 yrs old. It can be
driven harder w/o clipping compared to a Kenwood integrated amp that I
own that was built in the late 80's that is 55 WPC. It can be driven
harder w/o clipping than the Yamaha receiver that I own that is 85 WPC
and about 8 yrs old, Etc. The 75 WPC Yam won't even run my low
impedance speakers for long w/o shutting off, were the Marantz has no
problem at all. And the bass is much stronger on the Marantz when
running all 4 flat.

So in turn, yes, the Marantz is louder than the 3 examples that I just
gave you. I'm sure dynamic headroom as something to do with it. What
ever the other factors are that make it out perform the 3 that I just
mentioned, well, I have no idea because I don't build them, I just
listen to them.

So basically you are saying that ALL amps sound the same? They why buy
Krell when you can get the same performance from a Pioneer or Onkyo?
And why buy amps with more power if it makes no difference?

I've heard this argument before, and I disagree. So do most reviewers
that test amps under "ideal" conditions blindfolded.

Also, the Space Shuttle is still using 60's technology,
sure it has some better computers than the rockets did
back then, but the basic principal is the same.

When you're talking complexity on the level of the Space Shuttle, there are
major prices being paid in terms of increased maintenance, and loss of
function, when you compare 60s technology and Y2K technology. It is your tax
dollars at work! Trouble is, the up front costs for a major update is more
than anybody wants to step up to.

Apparently, that didn't come across the way I meant it to. Space travel
has not evolved as quickly as the auto has in the same time period.
Meaning, that it might as well have been built in the 60's, because the
only real technology that has evolved in space travel since the 60's is
the computers that they use to fly the thing.

On a more practical level, compare a 500 Hp street racer from the 60s (say,
my friend's souped-up 428 1968 Cougar) to a 500 Hp street racer from today
(say the new SVU Mustang 500). No comparison. The 428 is just barely
drivable on the street, and a constand maintenace job, while the SVU
Mustang drives mild when you want it to drive mild, and still nails the 60s
Cougar on either the road course or the drag strip and runs optimally for
10,000s of miles without a tune-up.

I agree. That is why I used autos in my original post (that you
snipped) as a piece of technology that has greatly improved over the
yrs. Not all audio gear as made those kind of leaps in the same time
period when we are talking strictly about 2 channel/stereo
performance.

The best car radio/stereo/cassette that I ever owned was the original
Pioneer Supertuner back in the early 80's (underdash with the round
dial). I haven't had a radio in any car since that would pull in weak
signals like that thing would. And that includes a Pioneer Supertuner
III that I bought some yrs later, a couple of Yamahas, a couple of
Alpines, a couple of Sonys, a JVC, etc. I can't remember them all, I've
had a LOT of different car stereos over the yrs but NONE of them had a
tuner like that Pioneer.