Ok I know this isn't 'pro-audio' equipment, but it's what I have to work with
and I will be making recordings using it, as well as for general use, so which
would you use for monitoring, if you were me? I'd like to hear comments from
people who appreciate the quality of 70s consumer hi-fi equipment.

JVC JR-S201 receiver - This a big receiver from 1980, before JVC started making
crap. I find the amplifier to be very quiet and it's what I'm currently using.
It has a subsonic filter to protect my speaker cones which the others don't
(I will be sampling from vinyl occasionally), and uses Darlington power packs.
Probably around 70watts per channel

Rotel RA-611 amplifier - This is an amplifier, probably from the late-70s.
It's smaller than the JVC's amplifier, probably around 40 watts per channel.
No subsonic filter, though.

Sansui 221 receiver - This is an early 1970s receiver from a line
highly-regarded by Sansui enthusiasts. It's very small, 20watts per channel.
Again, no subsonic filter.

So far I like the JVC the best, it has the subsonic filter, an extra 5-band EQ
that I rarely use but occasionally comes in handy when listening to spoken
lectures, and it seems to be very well-built. But Rotel is a better name, and
the Sansui has a pretty sweet sound - I've heard that smaller amplifiers
generally sound better at average volume levels than large amplifiers, is that
true? Also, both the Sansui and the JVC can accept 4ohm speakers on one set of
channels, whereas the Rotel's channels are both only rated for 8ohms, and
although I don't intend on using 4ohm speakers, it leads me to believe the
Sansui and JVC have more robust amplifiers than the Rotel.

Any comments other than telling me to go buy a better amplifier would
be appreciated! I do not go out and buy things when I think I need them. I
make do with what I have until something better comes along that is a really
good deal, which I then take advantage of.

I used to sell those JVC receivers back in the 70's when I worked in a
hifi shop. At the time I thought they were pretty decent amps. FWIW,
I use a late 70s Yamaha Integrated amp to power monitors in my studio.
60 watts per channel, built like a tank and it sounds great in a small
room. If you're in a buying mood, you should check out Bryson amps.
They build a stereo 60 watt that sells new for around $450.00.

Beyond that, if what you have sounds good and you're mixes translate
well, I'd say use the JVC.

DaveT

Chevdo wrote:
Ok I know this isn't 'pro-audio' equipment, but it's what I have to work with
and I will be making recordings using it, as well as for general use, so which
would you use for monitoring, if you were me? I'd like to hear comments from
people who appreciate the quality of 70s consumer hi-fi equipment.


I would work with the unit that has the lowest THD unless you need more
wattage to drive your speakers. At the level you're working with it
also may be a matter of what you, as the engineer, prefer subjectively.
Listen to them on sample work and see what sounds best. That's the
only way to differentiate when push comes to shove.

Craig

http://www.pro-tape.com

Adobe - Apple - Audio-Technica - Denon - Digidesign - Marantz -
Panasonic - Quantegy - Sony

Chevdo wrote:
Ok I know this isn't 'pro-audio' equipment, but it's what I have to work with
and I will be making recordings using it, as well as for general use, so which
would you use for monitoring, if you were me? I'd like to hear comments from
people who appreciate the quality of 70s consumer hi-fi equipment.

JVC JR-S201 receiver - This a big receiver from 1980, before JVC started making
crap. I find the amplifier to be very quiet and it's what I'm currently using.
It has a subsonic filter to protect my speaker cones which the others don't
(I will be sampling from vinyl occasionally), and uses Darlington power packs.
Probably around 70watts per channel

You could look up the spec's on this one, but it's probably what I would
use. It's got the most power, and the distortion and s/n is probably at
least comparable to the rest. There's little substitute for power,
although the difference is only a few dB in your case.


Rotel RA-611 amplifier - This is an amplifier, probably from the late-70s.
It's smaller than the JVC's amplifier, probably around 40 watts per channel.
No subsonic filter, though.

I'm not sure I'd even keep this one. Rotels are highly rated these
days, but back in the 70's it wasn't the case...especially the smaller,
cheaper ones.

Sansui 221 receiver - This is an early 1970s receiver from a line
highly-regarded by Sansui enthusiasts. It's very small, 20watts per channel.
Again, no subsonic filter.

I'd put this one in my bedroom and use it to go to sleep to. Sansuis of
the era were better than average, even the smaller ones.

So far I like the JVC the best, it has the subsonic filter, an extra 5-band EQ
that I rarely use but occasionally comes in handy when listening to spoken
lectures, and it seems to be very well-built. But Rotel is a better name, and
the Sansui has a pretty sweet sound - I've heard that smaller amplifiers
generally sound better at average volume levels than large amplifiers, is that
true? Also, both the Sansui and the JVC can accept 4ohm speakers on one set of
channels, whereas the Rotel's channels are both only rated for 8ohms, and
although I don't intend on using 4ohm speakers, it leads me to believe the
Sansui and JVC have more robust amplifiers than the Rotel.

Keep in mind that, at least in the 70's, as the power went up in a
particular line of receivers, the features were more complete, and
usually the quality and specs were better as well. All that said, my
opinion of JVC in the 70's was not all that positive. Although I never
owned one, back then I sold Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood and a couple of
other lines, including Sansui. I kept up with the competition and my
impression of JVC was that they were a little gimmicky and not as high
quality as any of the above. At the time, I thought Rotel was complete
crap, and refused to carry the line.

I understand that Rotel is one of the better brands these days. Things
change.


Any comments other than telling me to go buy a better amplifier would
be appreciated! I do not go out and buy things when I think I need them. I
make do with what I have until something better comes along that is a really
good deal, which I then take advantage of.

You might not want to hear this, but depending on the efficiency of your
speakers, the size of your room, and a few other variables; you 'might'
want to get something better. That said, I have a soft spot for those
old silver-faced relics. Since you have three of them, why not buy
another...maybe a Marantz or Pioneer with about twice the power (100 wpc
or better), and unload the rest?

Otherwise, I think I'd just use the JVC, as long as it's working properly.

jak

Thanks for the replies, guys, all comments were appreciated. I think I will
stick with the JVC, I just wish it weren't so ugly!

In article ,
says...


I'm not sure I'd even keep this one. Rotels are highly rated these
days, but back in the 70's it wasn't the case...especially the smaller,
cheaper ones.

ahhh good to know, thanks!


Keep in mind that, at least in the 70's, as the power went up in a
particular line of receivers, the features were more complete, and
usually the quality and specs were better as well.

good point.

All that said, my
opinion of JVC in the 70's was not all that positive. Although I never
owned one, back then I sold Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood and a couple of
other lines, including Sansui. I kept up with the competition and my
impression of JVC was that they were a little gimmicky and not as high
quality as any of the above.

Well I don't know about any other JVC models from the era, but I am familiar
with Pioneer and Kenwood's offerings. I was a big fan of the Pioneer
Flouroscan series, but my SX-3800 just kept having problems so I retired it.
The JVC JR-S201 is of comperable quality. In fact, the Pioneer sx-3800 has a
very low turntable preamp noise floor rating, but the JVC even seems to be
lower. It's definitely quieter than the SX-3800 on the line-level channels, I
crank it to the max volume and barely hear a hum, whereas with the SX-3800 the
hum is about twice as loud as the JVC at comperable volume level. But to put
this all in perspective, my first stereo component (after ditching ghetto
blasters in my teens) was a large Pioneer A/V receiver from 1993, which I
bought new at that time for $600. That thing is the noisiest piece of crap
I've ever heard. Cranking the volume of that thing on an empty channel
produces a massively loud wash of white noise, in fact, it is clearly audible
with the volume only half-way cranked! In fact, your observation of bigger
receivers having more bells and whistles and better specs in the 70s was
completely reversed by the 1990s - the big Pioneer A/V receiver had every bell
& whistle available at the time, and yet its noise and distortion specs are
terrible. The worst thing about that A/V receiver was how hard it was to tune
the radio. It's like they figured anyone buying an A/V receiver then would
only care about their whiz-bang surround-sound movies. I was just the type of
naive sucker they were marketing to at that time.




You might not want to hear this, but depending on the efficiency of your
speakers, the size of your room, and a few other variables; you 'might'
want to get something better. That said, I have a soft spot for those
old silver-faced relics. Since you have three of them, why not buy
another...maybe a Marantz or Pioneer with about twice the power (100 wpc
or better), and unload the rest?


Well ditching the JVC might be difficult, because like you, most people think
JVC is crap, and it is a very ugly receiver, too. I was lucky to get it for
$20 from a guy locally off craigslist, but nobody else wanted it, the guy had
been trying to flog it for a week at that price! It really is a nice receiver,
so I'm pretty happy with it. I still have a soft-spot for those Pioneer
Flouroscans, but those things still sell for over $100 on ebay, since a lot of
people like them.

In article 4GOag.19113$Qq.15650@clgrps12, says...


All that said, my
opinion of JVC in the 70's was not all that positive. Although I never
owned one, back then I sold Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood and a couple of
other lines, including Sansui. I kept up with the competition and my
impression of JVC was that they were a little gimmicky and not as high
quality as any of the above.

In fact, the Pioneer sx-3800 has a
very low turntable preamp noise floor rating, but the JVC even seems to be
lower.

FWIW, I doubt that JVC would have stuck Darlington power packs into this
receiver and then cheap out on the rest of the components. Nope, this
particular JVC, anyway, is a high-quality unit. I've been pretty lucky with
JVC, actually, I have a JVC direct drive turntable from the 80s which is also
pretty decent quality for a cheap turntable, definitely a lot better than a
typical $100 turntable these days. But it's not as good as the Sanyo table I'm
using now.

Chevdo wrote:
In article ,
says...

You might not want to hear this, but depending on the efficiency of your
speakers, the size of your room, and a few other variables; you 'might'
want to get something better. That said, I have a soft spot for those
old silver-faced relics. Since you have three of them, why not buy
another...maybe a Marantz or Pioneer with about twice the power (100 wpc
or better), and unload the rest?


Well ditching the JVC might be difficult, because like you, most people think
JVC is crap, and it is a very ugly receiver, too. I was lucky to get it for
$20 from a guy locally off craigslist, but nobody else wanted it, the guy had
been trying to flog it for a week at that price! It really is a nice receiver,
so I'm pretty happy with it. I still have a soft-spot for those Pioneer
Flouroscans, but those things still sell for over $100 on ebay, since a lot of
people like them.


I'd go back a little further for a good Pioneer. I was talking 70's.
The florescent ones were early 80's, IIRC. That was pretty much when
most agree that consumer hifi quality started to slip. OTOH, the high
power Pioneers like the SX 1250 still command a pretty high price...same
with the Marantz. I've got a Technics SA 5760 on the bench which is a
monster: 165 wpc @ .08 THD, 65 lbs. AT it's intro (1977) it was the
highest power receiver on the market.

jak

In article ,
says...



I'd go back a little further for a good Pioneer. I was talking 70's.
The florescent ones were early 80's, IIRC.

They were sold between 1980-1982, actually.

That was pretty much when
most agree that consumer hifi quality started to slip.

Well the Flouroscan receivers are highly sought after because they are some of
the last of the old 70s high quality pieces, with a digital readout that
surpasses any digital displays put in any consumer-grade receivers since then.
I know all about the earlier Pioneer SX models as well, but the Flouroscans
are superior simply because they are just as beefy, newer, and have that
awesome digital readout. That's why they go for well over $100, all the way up
to $300 for immaculate SX-3900s on ebay.. Sometimes you can get one around
town, like I did, for a good price, because people tend to think along the same
lines that you do, that no good 70s receiver could possibly have a digital
readout, so it must be 80s crap. Of course if you pick it up and see how heavy
it is you would likely realize it's not cheap 80s crap. So in fact its easier
to find a cheap Flouroscan than a cheap older SX Pioneer, because everyone and
his uncle knows that those old Pioneer SX receivers were top quality. I still
see good representations once in a while around town at reasonable prices, but
they're all low-wattage. The fabled SX-1980, for example, is probably the best
known 70s monster receiver, and can fetch up to $500!



I've got a Technics SA 5760 on the bench which is a
monster: 165 wpc @ .08 THD, 65 lbs. AT it's intro (1977) it was the
highest power receiver on the market.


yeah I am always on the lookout for one of those big ones at a reasonable
price, but in 6 or 7 years of looking, I haven't come across one yet... It's
probably for the best anyway, it would just make me want to go buy giant
speakers...

In article F8Qag.23615$Fl1.22271@edtnps89, says...

yeah I am always on the lookout for one of those big ones at a reasonable
price, but in 6 or 7 years of looking, I haven't come across one yet... It's
probably for the best anyway, it would just make me want to go buy giant
speakers...



Actually what I'd really like is a high-powered 4-channel quad receiver because
I managed to pick up a very high quality Akai quad 8-track deck for $20 a few
years ago and I'd rather not have to set up two amps to use it, but now that I
think about it, since I've got these extra amplifiers and receivers around I
should hook one up to drive two of my channels and hook up that quad 8-track
deck and play around with it.. I think I will actually record and 'release' a
quad 8-track tape at some point. There is a small group of quad 8-track
afficianados who would be willing to buy just about any new quad tape since
very few weirdos are still putting them out.

In article w1Pag.23603$Fl1.6316@edtnps89, Chevdo wrote:
lower.

FWIW, I doubt that JVC would have stuck Darlington power packs into this
receiver and then cheap out on the rest of the components. Nope, this

"Darlington Power Packs?" Do you mean the dreaded STK modules? Not
really a sign of expensive construction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , says...

In article w1Pag.23603$Fl1.6316@edtnps89, Chevdo wrote:
lower.

FWIW, I doubt that JVC would have stuck Darlington power packs into this
receiver and then cheap out on the rest of the components. Nope, this

"Darlington Power Packs?" Do you mean the dreaded STK modules? Not
really a sign of expensive construction.

I have no idea what 'stk modules' are, but 'darlington power pack' is commonly
listed as a sign of a higher than average quality 70s consumer amplifier, which
is uncommon, though they seem to be quite common in car stereos, probably
because the interest in quality consumer stereos shifted from the home market
to the car market after the 70s... As I stated in my original post, this thread
is not about pro-audio equipment, and that I was hoping to hear from people who
appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

In article 9U4bg.20650$cl1.20163@edtnps90, Chevdo wrote:
In article , says...
I have no idea what 'stk modules' are, but 'darlington power pack' is commonly
listed as a sign of a higher than average quality 70s consumer amplifier, which
is uncommon, though they seem to be quite common in car stereos, probably
because the interest in quality consumer stereos shifted from the home market
to the car market after the 70s... As I stated in my original post, this thread
is not about pro-audio equipment, and that I was hoping to hear from people who
appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

Back in the seventies, a lot of manufacturers went to hybrid modules that
had all the power output stage for one channel on a ceramic hybrid. Most
of the popular modules were made by Sanyo and were called "Darlington Power
Packs" but techs usually refer to them as STK modules by the part numbers
on them.

For the most part, these are the most godawful output stages you can imagine.
They all run way into class B, and they all rely on huge amounts of gain
in order to linearize them. Also, of course, if something fails you have
to replace the whole damn module rather than just a single output transistor.

If this is "higher than average quality," I'd hate to see the poor quality
stuff. Look inside the McIntosh and Marantz amps from back then and you
aren't going to see any STK modules.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:35:17 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article , says...

In article w1Pag.23603$Fl1.6316@edtnps89, Chevdo wrote:
lower.

FWIW, I doubt that JVC would have stuck Darlington power packs into this
receiver and then cheap out on the rest of the components. Nope, this

"Darlington Power Packs?" Do you mean the dreaded STK modules? Not
really a sign of expensive construction.

I was given a quad receiver about 20 years ago that had four STK
modules, and it always sounded nociably worse than a lower-power
stereo amp I had (I've never claimed to have golden ears, so it must
have been really bad to bother me). I wish I had kept it just for the
discrete quad LP decoder circuitry. And to measure the power amp
distortion products.

Googling "darlington power pack" brings up pages with various STK
power amp modules. I looked up models STK-0050 and STK-0080 that go by
this name, and they're not even a complete power amp. It's a
complementary emitter-follower output stage with each 'output'
transistor' being a Darlington-wired pair, and a fifth transistor for
bias with appropriate diodes and resistors.
FWIW, here's a couple data sheets with schematics:
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0050.html
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0080.html

Conceptually, this seems like a great idea for biasing to have all
the temperature-dependent components track temperature-wise. I can
only wonder how they messed up the design of these things to make them
sound bad. Perhaps a designer actually got it right, but the
manufacturing cost pressures Muntzed it.

I have no idea what 'stk modules' are, but 'darlington power pack' is commonly
listed as a sign of a higher than average quality 70s consumer amplifier, which
is uncommon, though they seem to be quite common in car stereos, probably
because the interest in quality consumer stereos shifted from the home market

I recall a semi-honest mark of "quality" was "Discrete Output
Stage" meaning the power amplifier used individual output transistors
instead of these power module things. I just barely remember seeing
"DOS" and I forget which brand name used it.

to the car market after the 70s... As I stated in my original post, this thread
is not about pro-audio equipment, and that I was hoping to hear from people who
appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about those things,
but if you care about getting the best sound, you can't do much better
than read and heed Scott's posts.

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:35:17 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article , says...

In article w1Pag.23603$Fl1.6316@edtnps89, Chevdo wrote:
lower.

FWIW, I doubt that JVC would have stuck Darlington power packs into this
receiver and then cheap out on the rest of the components. Nope, this

"Darlington Power Packs?" Do you mean the dreaded STK modules? Not
really a sign of expensive construction.

I was given a quad receiver about 20 years ago that had four STK
modules, and it always sounded nociably worse than a lower-power
stereo amp I had (I've never claimed to have golden ears, so it must
have been really bad to bother me). I wish I had kept it just for the
discrete quad LP decoder circuitry. And to measure the power amp
distortion products.

What were the modules??

Googling "darlington power pack" brings up pages with various STK
power amp modules. I looked up models STK-0050 and STK-0080 that go by
this name, and they're not even a complete power amp. It's a
complementary emitter-follower output stage with each 'output'
transistor' being a Darlington-wired pair, and a fifth transistor for
bias with appropriate diodes and resistors.
FWIW, here's a couple data sheets with schematics:
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0050.html
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0080.html

Conceptually, this seems like a great idea for biasing to have all
the temperature-dependent components track temperature-wise. I can
only wonder how they messed up the design of these things to make them
sound bad. Perhaps a designer actually got it right, but the
manufacturing cost pressures Muntzed it.

These sound bad? Darlington power packs? These modules were the
biggest ones with much of the amps circuitry. I used the STV4050V's.
I like the price and they stood up well in use, but sound was OK at high levels
up over the low power crossover distortion. There were better complimentary
modules as well as lower distortion products.

http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/sub/stk4050v.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/sub/stk4050II.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/sub/stk4048XI.pdf
http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/sub/stk4048V.pdf



I have no idea what 'stk modules' are, but 'darlington power pack' is commonly

listed as a sign of a higher than average quality 70s consumer amplifier,
which
is uncommon, though they seem to be quite common in car stereos, probably
because the interest in quality consumer stereos shifted from the home market

I recall a semi-honest mark of "quality" was "Discrete Output
Stage" meaning the power amplifier used individual output transistors
instead of these power module things. I just barely remember seeing
"DOS" and I forget which brand name used it.

to the car market after the 70s... As I stated in my original post, this
thread
is not about pro-audio equipment, and that I was hoping to hear from people
who
appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about those things,
but if you care about getting the best sound, you can't do much better
than read and heed Scott's posts.

In article ,
says...


appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about those things,
but if you care about getting the best sound, you can't do much better
than read and heed Scott's posts.



the only thing Scott has ever validated for me is his inability to maintain
honest discourse. And whatever Scott posts to this group is going to have
absolutely no bearing on the quality of sound I receive from my JVC receiver,
which happens to be the highest quality of any of the dozen or so receivers
I've used. He's nothing but a waste of time and frankly I'd appreciate it if
he could corral his ego enough to refrain from trolling me whenever he feels
the need.

Ben Bradley wrote:
Googling "darlington power pack" brings up pages with various STK
power amp modules. I looked up models STK-0050 and STK-0080 that go by
this name, and they're not even a complete power amp. It's a
complementary emitter-follower output stage with each 'output'
transistor' being a Darlington-wired pair, and a fifth transistor for
bias with appropriate diodes and resistors.

The idea seems like a good one, but in fact the actual dissipation per
transistor is lower with the STK packs than with TO-3 packages. But it's
pretty much all the output stage for a power amp right there. It's very
easy to integrate into a design.

Conceptually, this seems like a great idea for biasing to have all
the temperature-dependent components track temperature-wise. I can
only wonder how they messed up the design of these things to make them
sound bad. Perhaps a designer actually got it right, but the
manufacturing cost pressures Muntzed it.

A lot of it has to do with running them WAY into class B and then using
feedback to try and deal with the crossover distortion. You wind up with
great full-power specifications on the data sheet, but lousy sound at
normal listening levels. And of course, you can't easily get inside the
box to change that.

Some of these things were designed with careful thermal compensation and
most of the data sheets bragged about the thermal compensation inherent in
the design. On the other hand, lots of blown-up modules showed signs of
thermal runaway.

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about those things,
but if you care about getting the best sound, you can't do much better
than read and heed Scott's posts.

I disagree. Don't listen to me, listen to amplifiers. It's one thing for
some guy on the internet to tell you it's better, it's a very different thing
to listen to the difference between a typical STK-module output stage and
a decent mid-fi amp like the Adcom GFA-555. It's not subtle, especially at
lower levels. Listen to some amps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 23 May 2006 00:19:00 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

the only thing Scott has ever validated for me is his inability to maintain
honest discourse. And whatever Scott posts to this group is going to have
absolutely no bearing on the quality of sound I receive from my JVC receiver,
which happens to be the highest quality of any of the dozen or so receivers
I've used. He's nothing but a waste of time and frankly I'd appreciate it if
he could corral his ego enough to refrain from trolling me whenever he feels
the need.

Although you appear to have no sense of humor, it hasn't
spread contagiously to the rest of the newsgroup.

Thanks for the chuckle,

Chris Hornbeck

Chevdo wrote:
Ok I know this isn't 'pro-audio' equipment, but it's what I have to work with
and I will be making recordings using it, as well as for general use, so which
would you use for monitoring, if you were me? I'd like to hear comments from
people who appreciate the quality of 70s consumer hi-fi equipment.

Would it bother you a whole lot if I suggested that:

(1) You listen yourself and make a judgement or
(2) It wouldn't make a darn bit of difference?

You've admitted more than once that you aren't a really critical
listener (at least not yet) and if you can't hear a difference between
the amplifiers, you won't be able to take advantage of the better one,
if indeed there really is one that's better than the other.

In the words of Scott Dorsey, who I know you don't consider gives you
useful advice, "you worry too much."

One piece of advice I can give you is that if you use the built-in
equalizers, filters, or even tone controls, you should only use those
to compensate for deficiencies in your speakers, and once you set them,
you should never change them. That will surely corrupt your mixes.

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:Uxscg.26471$Fl1.24736@edtnps89
In article ,
says...


appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're
such a professional, perhaps you needn't be replying...

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about
those things, but if you care about getting the best
sound, you can't do much better than read and heed
Scott's posts.

the only thing Scott has ever validated for me is his
inability to maintain honest discourse.

?????????????

Rule of thumb - nobody ever agrees with *everything* that anybody else
writes. However, that does not necessarily impugn the honesty of anybody.

Usenet is about casual conversation. Anybody who expects every post to be a
technical paper, ready for the referees of some well-known professional
organization, is likely to be disappointed over and over again.

There are such things as errors, and there are such things as incomplete
expressions of one's thoughts.

And whatever
Scott posts to this group is going to have absolutely no
bearing on the quality of sound I receive from my JVC
receiver, which happens to be the highest quality of any
of the dozen or so receivers I've used.

IMO ranking the quality of stereo receivers is something like ranking the
quality of mudpies. Not that I don't have a few *mudpies* of my own that I
listen to quite frequently. They serve a need, and some serve the need at
hand quite well. However, receivers are by design and application expedient,
and not to be taken overly seriously.

He's nothing but
a waste of time and frankly I'd appreciate it if he could
corral his ego enough to refrain from trolling me
whenever he feels the need.

Ah Chevdo so you admit that you have a problem controlling your sphincter of
a mouth. Well, you're making progress. The *problem* with the human
sphincter is not what it is, but what it is connected to.

You know nothing, and don't even know that you know nothing. Scott is one
of my go to people for getting complex jobs done. He's more than
knowledgable, he's experienced. He will break a piece of equipment down and
fix it right on the spot, and has done so a number of times. He's easy to
work with because I know I don't have to babysit him. I give him a job and
he gets it done. And I'm talking over a five day period. I only come back
to check with him to see if he or Melissa need food or drinks. I never have
to ask how things are going because the client always comes up to me and
tells me how much they love the work he does.

The know-nothings you seem to refer to all too often are people that don't
do the work for a living. Scott is worth the extra dollars he can get and
anyone who's worked with him knows that.

You, however, have always been a question because you only espouse bull****
opinion rather than knowledge. We all know your type. Please go away and
come back when you have something positive to say, even if it is about
yourself. You are like Dick Cheney with an opinion gun.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Is our children learning yet?" George W. Bush
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/


"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:Uxscg.26471$Fl1.24736@edtnps89...
In article ,
says...


appreciate 70s consumer stereo equipment. Since you're such a
professional,
perhaps you needn't be replying...

Sorry if Scott didn't validate your feelings about those things,
but if you care about getting the best sound, you can't do much better
than read and heed Scott's posts.



the only thing Scott has ever validated for me is his inability to
maintain
honest discourse. And whatever Scott posts to this group is going to have
absolutely no bearing on the quality of sound I receive from my JVC
receiver,
which happens to be the highest quality of any of the dozen or so
receivers
I've used. He's nothing but a waste of time and frankly I'd appreciate it
if
he could corral his ego enough to refrain from trolling me whenever he
feels
the need.

"Ben Bradley" wrote in
message

I was given a quad receiver about 20 years ago that had
four STK modules, and it always sounded nociably worse
than a lower-power stereo amp I had (I've never claimed
to have golden ears, so it must have been really bad to
bother me). I wish I had kept it just for the discrete
quad LP decoder circuitry. And to measure the power amp
distortion products.

Googling "darlington power pack" brings up pages with
various STK power amp modules. I looked up models
STK-0050 and STK-0080 that go by this name, and they're
not even a complete power amp. It's a complementary
emitter-follower output stage with each 'output'
transistor' being a Darlington-wired pair, and a fifth
transistor for bias with appropriate diodes and
resistors. FWIW, here's a couple data sheets with
schematics:

http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0050.html
http://pdf1.alldatasheet.net/datashe.../STK-0080.html

Conceptually, this seems like a great idea for biasing
to have all the temperature-dependent components track
temperature-wise. I can only wonder how they messed up
the design of these things to make them sound bad.
Perhaps a designer actually got it right, but the
manufacturing cost pressures Muntzed it.

AFAIK the history of the STK modules is that in the late 1960s the Japanese
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) poured millions of
dollars into the development of a standardized solid state stereo receiver.
The various subsystems of the stereo receiver were assigned to various
manufacturers who had recognized expertise with that area of circuit
development. For example, the FM section might have been assigned to Kenwood
(Trio). My recollection is that Sanken were assigned the power amplifier.

Apparently, MITI repeated this process to expedite the development of a
consumer HDTV receiver, which is now considered to be a failure. I can't
find any evaluations of the earlier effort, no doubt due to the time that
has elapsed.

Most Japanese stereo receivers sold in the US during the 1970s contained
some of the fruit of MITI's efforts.

I recall a semi-honest mark of "quality" was "Discrete Output
Stage" meaning the power amplifier used individual output transistors
instead of these power module things.

I've seen the use of discrete output stage transistors touted in sales
literature as recently as just a few years ago. Apparently the Sanken
modules left a bad taste in many people's mouths. I would sincerily hope
that in the past 40 years, the industry has corrected the problem.

Arny Krueger wrote:
AFAIK the history of the STK modules is that in the late 1960s the Japanese
Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) poured millions of
dollars into the development of a standardized solid state stereo receiver.
The various subsystems of the stereo receiver were assigned to various
manufacturers who had recognized expertise with that area of circuit
development. For example, the FM section might have been assigned to Kenwood
(Trio). My recollection is that Sanken were assigned the power amplifier.

Apparently, MITI repeated this process to expedite the development of a
consumer HDTV receiver, which is now considered to be a failure. I can't
find any evaluations of the earlier effort, no doubt due to the time that
has elapsed.

MITI did this with a lot of things, including the whole JIS open reel
tape system. Also they are responsible for the MTX home computer standard
which never caught on in the West but was almost universal in Japan (and
did show up occasionally in US studios because of the integral MIDI support).

I've seen the use of discrete output stage transistors touted in sales
literature as recently as just a few years ago. Apparently the Sanken
modules left a bad taste in many people's mouths. I would sincerily hope
that in the past 40 years, the industry has corrected the problem.

These days, the problems are just different. The STK modules are gone,
and today consumer receivers use monolithic output stages that are much
cheaper. For the most part the newer monolithics sound better too, but
not always. The Philips Semi databook has a bunch of decent ones in it.

More and more we are seeing class-D amplifiers, usually monolithic other
than the output integrator, showing up in consumer receivers. They are
starting to replace the usual monolithic output stages.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."