Re: NAD 7080 Receiver

[[email protected]]

On Monday, 28 May 2001 01:49:21 UTC+1, Gary Wolanski wrote:
> Hello
> Can anyone give me some info on an NAD 7080 receiver, I picked it up at
> a garage sale the other day, (well just barely a lot of transformer
> there) and plan to drive my two 15" subs. It works fine after some
> fixing but I would like to know the wattage output of each channel I am
> guessing at 100 +, does anyone have a spec. sheet?.
>
> Gary W

A great piece of kit Gary, Motorola output transistors and a hearty good transformer ensures that this tuner amp gives sonically a great performance even by some of today's amps. A well made and thin on the ground now NAD Classic.

[Julian Macassey]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> On Monday, 28 May 2001 01:49:21 UTC+1, Gary Wolanski wrote:
>> Hello
>> Can anyone give me some info on an NAD 7080 receiver, I picked it up at
>> a garage sale the other day, (well just barely a lot of transformer
>> there) and plan to drive my two 15" subs. It works fine after some
>> fixing but I would like to know the wattage output of each channel I am
>> guessing at 100 +, does anyone have a spec. sheet?.
>>
>> Gary W

> A great piece of kit Gary, Motorola output transistors and a hearty
> good transformer ensures that this tuner amp gives sonically a great
> performance even by some of today's amps. A well made and thin on the
> ground now NAD Classic.

Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
question has not been answered.

--
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the
dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and
fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Once upon a time on usenet Julian Macassey wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT),
> > wrote:
>> On Monday, 28 May 2001 01:49:21 UTC+1, Gary Wolanski wrote:
>>> Hello
>>> Can anyone give me some info on an NAD 7080 receiver, I picked it
>>> up at a garage sale the other day, (well just barely a lot of
>>> transformer there) and plan to drive my two 15" subs. It works fine
>>> after some fixing but I would like to know the wattage output of
>>> each channel I am guessing at 100 +, does anyone have a spec.
>>> sheet?.
>>>
>>> Gary W
>
>> A great piece of kit Gary, Motorola output transistors and a hearty
>> good transformer ensures that this tuner amp gives sonically a
>> great performance even by some of today's amps. A well made and thin
>> on the ground now NAD Classic.
>
> Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
> question has not been answered.

It's getting to the stage where more than 50% of posts are being made by
'necromancers'. Sad. :-/
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[Trevor]

On 31/05/2017 2:25 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet Julian Macassey wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT),
>> > wrote:
>>> On Monday, 28 May 2001 01:49:21 UTC+1, Gary Wolanski wrote:
>>>> Hello
>>>> Can anyone give me some info on an NAD 7080 receiver, I picked it
>>>> up at a garage sale the other day, (well just barely a lot of
>>>> transformer there) and plan to drive my two 15" subs. It works fine
>>>> after some fixing but I would like to know the wattage output of
>>>> each channel I am guessing at 100 +, does anyone have a spec.
>>>> sheet?.
>>>>
>>
>>> A great piece of kit Gary, Motorola output transistors and a hearty
>>> good transformer ensures that this tuner amp gives sonically a
>>> great performance even by some of today's amps. A well made and thin
>>> on the ground now NAD Classic.
>>
>> Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
>> question has not been answered.
>
> It's getting to the stage where more than 50% of posts are being made by
> 'necromancers'. Sad. :-/

We don't know the OP's are now dead surely? :-)
More likely it's just that GG users are brain dead.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 31/05/2017 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
> .
>>>
>>> Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
>>> question has not been answered.
>>
>> It's getting to the stage where more than 50% of posts are being made by
>> 'necromancers'. Sad. :-/
>
> We don't know the OP's are now dead surely? :-)
> More likely it's just that GG users are brain dead.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
Not like us real r.a.t.s ;- )

geoff

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Once upon a time on usenet Trevor wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 2:25 PM, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Once upon a time on usenet Julian Macassey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 06:04:33 -0700 (PDT),
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 28 May 2001 01:49:21 UTC+1, Gary Wolanski wrote:
>>>>> Hello
>>>>> Can anyone give me some info on an NAD 7080 receiver, I picked it
>>>>> up at a garage sale the other day, (well just barely a lot of
>>>>> transformer there) and plan to drive my two 15" subs. It works
>>>>> fine after some fixing but I would like to know the wattage
>>>>> output of each channel I am guessing at 100 +, does anyone have a
>>>>> spec. sheet?.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> A great piece of kit Gary, Motorola output transistors and a hearty
>>>> good transformer ensures that this tuner amp gives sonically a
>>>> great performance even by some of today's amps. A well made and
>>>> thin on the ground now NAD Classic.
>>>
>>> Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
>>> question has not been answered.
>>
>> It's getting to the stage where more than 50% of posts are being
>> made by 'necromancers'. Sad. :-/
>
> We don't know the OP's are now dead surely? :-)

LOL. I was reffering to dead threads or posts, not authors.

> More likely it's just that GG users are brain dead.

Well there is that. ;)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[~misfit~[_3_]]

Once upon a time on usenet geoff wrote:
> On 31/05/2017 7:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
>> .
>>>>
>>>> Poor Gary has waited sixteen years for an answer and yet his main
>>>> question has not been answered.
>>>
>>> It's getting to the stage where more than 50% of posts are being
>>> made by 'necromancers'. Sad. :-/
>>
>> We don't know the OP's are now dead surely? :-)
>> More likely it's just that GG users are brain dead.
>>
>> Trevor.
>>
>>
> Not like us real r.a.t.s ;- )

Indeed.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)