What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

Thanks!

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:19 GMT, Michael
wrote:


What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

Thanks!

The point here is not whether older receivers are better or worse, but
what condition they're in and how much it would cost to bring them
back up to spec. Some believe receivers reached their zenith in the
seventies, but those seventies receivers have deteriorated somewhat
since then. I buy and sell amps a little on Ebay, but I wouldn't buy
anything older than ten years and preferably not over five. It's a
matter of pragmatism.

"Michael" wrote in message
t...

What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores
today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

Thanks!

Receivers up until about 1983 had protective circuitry that causes drastic
clipping when played at more than low volumes with CD material. When the CD
came out, amplifiers were improved to meet the need, with much lower
distortion and much higher dynamic range.

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from about 1983 to 1990.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
t...

What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores
today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

Thanks!

Receivers up until about 1983 had protective circuitry that causes drastic
clipping when played at more than low volumes with CD material.

What a bunch of bullcrap... I think the voices in your head are
causing your brain to clip.

When the CD
came out, amplifiers were improved to meet the need, with much lower
distortion and much higher dynamic range.

Yeah.. that explains the relatively ****ty distortion specs on HT
receivers.


The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from about 1983 to 1990.

Your golden age appears to have been 1938 to 1936.

ScottW

"Michael" wrote in message
t...

What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores
today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

If FM is important to you, then look for a new one that has a good FM
section.

In general terms, there is not a lot of differnce, except that a newer one
should give more years of trouble free operation. The newer units tend to
have facilities for home theatre hook up that older ones lack. You can
however get a brand new unit with 2 channels only.

As long as you get something capable of driving your sepeakers, you should
be fine.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Michael" wrote in message
t...

What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores
today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

Thanks!

Receivers up until about 1983 had protective circuitry that causes drastic
clipping when played at more than low volumes with CD material. When the
CD
came out, amplifiers were improved to meet the need, with much lower
distortion and much higher dynamic range.


The first reciever I bought was an HK730 from Harman Kardon, 40 wpc and I
used it with a CD player when the first ones came out. Never had a problem
with clipping, distortion was low, and I can't recall seeing anything with
more than about 2 dB of headroom, on rare occassion 3 dB.

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from about 1983 to 1990.

Based on what criteria?

Most Receivers, are poor although there is no law of physics that
makes it so.

The receivers of the Ford/Carter era are the very thing whose delta
between measured performance and listening quality begat the tube audio
craze. IOW most sound like a dog turd.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Most Receivers, are poor although there is no law of physics that
makes it so.

The receivers of the Ford/Carter era are the very thing whose delta
between measured performance and listening quality begat the tube audio
craze. IOW most sound like a dog turd.


So, you've listened to dog turds?

And I thought I had too much time on my hands!

DAve

DaveW wrote:
snip

So, you've listened to dog turds?

And I thought I had too much time on my hands!

I had a Lafayette integrated with EL84s and at least two Marantz
receivers with module outputs. They were more like cat turds.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Most Receivers, are poor although there is no law of physics that
makes it so.

The receivers of the Ford/Carter era are the very thing whose delta
between measured performance and listening quality begat the tube audio
craze. IOW most sound like a dog turd.


Um, I'll take your word for it, as I'm not likely to put one near my ear.
:-)

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
Robert Morein wrote:
"Michael" wrote in message
t...

What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's)
stereo receivers (Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new
receivers you can buy in stores today?

Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs
alone - except the older ones do seem to have more
power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and better FM.

Thanks!

Receivers up until about 1983 had protective circuitry
that causes drastic clipping when played at more than
low volumes with CD material.

What a bunch of bullcrap... I think the voices in your
head are causing your brain to clip.

Agreed.

When the CD
came out, amplifiers were improved to meet the need,
with much lower distortion and much higher dynamic range.

Yeah.. that explains the relatively ****ty distortion
specs on HT receivers.

??????????


The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

Your golden age appears to have been 1938 to 1936.

Ironically, Robert hadn't yet been born then.

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

Your golden age appears to have been 1938 to 1936.


The "golden age" of audio reproduction is universally considered to
have been somewhere between 1953 and 1971.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

Your golden age appears to have been 1938 to 1936.


The "golden age" of audio reproduction is universally considered to
have been somewhere between 1953 and 1971.

Reflecting further, I think I may have been off a little. Perhaps 1983 to
1993. In the early 90's, Sony made two channel receivers with toroidal
transformers. I have heard one, and been very impressed. I myself own a
Nakamichi TA-4A, which has a Nelson Pass quasi Class A output stage. It
seems fully on a par with separates, but requires very careful ventilation,
perhaps a fan, if used with full size speakers.

With respect to the dates you quote, it may be accurate in terms of
aspirations, but not, in my opinion, in terms of results.

Michael Oct 4, 6:29 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Michael - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:19 GMT
Local: Tues, Oct 4 2005 6:29 am
Subject: stereo receivers
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


What's the view here on older vintage (1970's/80's) stereo receivers
(Kenwood, Marantz, etc.) vs. the new receivers you can buy in stores
today?


Are the older ones better? I can't tell from specs alone - except the
older ones do seem to have more power available (Kenwood kr-9600) and
better FM.

-----------------------------------------------------------

don't listen to half these guys, most spent their childrens college
fund
on some 1000 watt amp to compensate - for the small low watt
penis thing I guess.
many really nice receivers were made in the 70's, many
with power out and preamps in, and if you like tons of headroom
get a "monster" receiver, like the Sansui 9090DB or G-9700,
the whole G series was nicely made and they last a long long
time. 200 watts per channel, RMS too.
I buy used stuff all the time, and I can tell you that the cheap
plastic receivers of the 80s and 90's NEVER work, they
are always messed up, and weigh like 4 pounds.
The big old metal Pioneer SX-1200's and the whole
SX series - I've bought maybe 30, and only 1 didn't work,
dead channel.
A good Marantz 22 or 23 series are good too, they
have a decent phono section too:
http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html
look for a group 1 2 or 3 receiver. get one in a
wood case, and they look nice and are bombproof.
There is usually static in the controls,
clean the pots and the boards, pay more to
buy from someone reputable, and they will
usually do this for you.
there is a reason there is a huge market for
these receivers, they sound nice, almost
a warm tube like quality to them, not the
most precise or technical power amps, so
you aren't gonna get a super large
soundstage or great imaging, but they have heart
and sound good with good speakers.
And the CD player issue, is not really an
issue, I've used the AUX jack fo CD with
many good receivers - no problems.
Get a Marantz 2230, Pioneer SX,
Sansui G-XXX, something nice
with 30-50 watts per channel or more,
put the weight bench in the garage, some
Pink Floyd posters, a few lava lamps,
a few old coaches, smoke a doob with some friends,
and just GROOVE on how good it sounds,
get a quad receiver if you really want to do
this with style.

The "golden age" of audio reproduction is universally considered to
have been somewhere between 1953 and 1971.

Reflecting further, I think I may have been off a little. Perhaps 1983 to
1993. In the early 90's, Sony made two channel receivers with toroidal
transformers. I have heard one, and been very impressed. I myself own a
Nakamichi TA-4A, which has a Nelson Pass quasi Class A output stage. It
seems fully on a par with separates, but requires very careful ventilation,
perhaps a fan, if used with full size speakers.

With respect to the dates you quote, it may be accurate in terms of
aspirations, but not, in my opinion, in terms of results.

As far as receivers, true, but no one bought receivers or even
integrateds in those days if they were serious.

The best amps and preamps of the day-the McIntosh MC240 and 275 amps,
C22 pre, MR67 and 71 tuners, the Marantz 7C pre and 5 and 8B amplifiers
(notice I'm not mentioning the overrated 10B tuner, and the Marantz 7
and Mac C22 being nearly identical)- are still, in blueprinted stock
form, better than pretty good sonically-in particular, only handcrafted
two stage passive phono sections custom-matched to specific cartridges
by very determined DIYers can substantially best the Marantz 7C, and
commercial preamps by Mark Levinson, Jeff Rowland, ARC, c-j, and others
of similar pricing often fail to equal this unit or do so but little or
no better. Half a century on that's no small thing!

And commercially available output transformers, the core component of
the tube power amp, are not substantially improved in performance from
when JFK was President, although the insulation materials certainly can
be. Solid state amps are much better, but the fact people still build
late-70s Nelson Pass circuits avidly says a lot.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...


The "golden age" of audio reproduction is universally considered to
have been somewhere between 1953 and 1971.

Reflecting further, I think I may have been off a little. Perhaps 1983
to
1993. In the early 90's, Sony made two channel receivers with toroidal
transformers. I have heard one, and been very impressed. I myself own a
Nakamichi TA-4A, which has a Nelson Pass quasi Class A output stage. It
seems fully on a par with separates, but requires very careful
ventilation,
perhaps a fan, if used with full size speakers.

With respect to the dates you quote, it may be accurate in terms of
aspirations, but not, in my opinion, in terms of results.

As far as receivers, true, but no one bought receivers or even
integrateds in those days if they were serious.

The best amps and preamps of the day-the McIntosh MC240 and 275 amps,
C22 pre, MR67 and 71 tuners, the Marantz 7C pre and 5 and 8B amplifiers
(notice I'm not mentioning the overrated 10B tuner, and the Marantz 7
and Mac C22 being nearly identical)- are still, in blueprinted stock
form, better than pretty good sonically-in particular, only handcrafted
two stage passive phono sections custom-matched to specific cartridges
by very determined DIYers can substantially best the Marantz 7C, and
commercial preamps by Mark Levinson, Jeff Rowland, ARC, c-j, and others
of similar pricing often fail to equal this unit or do so but little or
no better. Half a century on that's no small thing!

I disagree, not in the spirit, but in the preference. The Acoustat TNT-200
was featured on the cover of Audio Magazine. There was a reason. It is a
must-hear, when matched to appropriate soft-dome speakers. As far as vinyl
issues, I cannot comment, because I don't play there.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

Your golden age appears to have been 1938 to 1936.


The "golden age" of audio reproduction is universally
considered to have been somewhere between 1953 and 1971.

One word: Yeccch!

Audio was really pretty bad until the early 80s.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

That's pretty close. The golden age of receivers started with the
availability of low cost power transistors in complementary pairs. They
removed the last barrier to flat out design excellence. Starting in about
1992 progress in design has simply meant the addition of capabilities and
features to keep up with the release of new types of software.

Norm Strong

wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been from
about 1983 to 1990.

That's pretty close. The golden age of receivers started with the
availability of low cost power transistors in complementary pairs. They
removed the last barrier to flat out design excellence. Starting in about
1992 progress in design has simply meant the addition of capabilities and
features to keep up with the release of new types of software.


Perfectly good solid state amplifiers can be built with only N or P
channel devices. There are even those who believe it preferable to do
so.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com

wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com

The Golden Age of receivers appears to have been
from about 1983 to 1990.

That's pretty close. The golden age of receivers
started with the availability of low cost power
transistors in complementary pairs. They removed the
last barrier to flat out design excellence. Starting in
about 1992 progress in design has simply meant the
addition of capabilities and features to keep up with
the release of new types of software.

Perfectly good solid state amplifiers can be built with
only N or P channel devices.

Agreed that many good-sounding quasi-complementary output
stage audio amps were built, but they had complementary
driver transistors.

The usual alternative to complementary drivers transistors
was driver transformers (e.g., the AR amplifier and
receiver), but this was never a really good solution.

There are even those who believe it preferable to do so.

They're nuts.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:


Audio was really pretty bad until the early 80s.

Arny, you are on powerful drugs.

One of them is digital. But thanks for being closed-minded
and obnoxious, Bret.

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

One of them is digital. But thanks for being closed-minded
and obnoxious, Bret.


Pot calling kettle Kruger noted.