What vintage receivers handle 4 Ohm speakers?

[axelsrd]

Looking to buy a new (vintage) amp that will handle 4 Ohm speakers and I have not the foggiest idea who offers this option. Most vintage receivers were 8 Ohm so I can use all the help I can get. Price range approx. $300 to $500

Thanks in advance
Randy

[Mr Peabody]

Why would you want to buy old "vintage" receiver when it may not be as good as one that is new. Vintage is a fad but not all vintage is better.

First to answer your question the only receiver probably built to drive 4 ohms would be a Harmon Kardon, excellent receivers in the 70's & 80's. Onkyo would do it if you could find one. Others may still be able to drive a 4 ohm load but may run a bit hotter. Also, and my recommendation would be to look for a used Adcom preamp and power amp which you should be able to get for the $500.00 range, Adcom will rock a 4 ohm speaker and sound better than almost anything vintage. The power amp gfa 535 is about 8x2 and would be the cheapest, a gfa 545 or 5400 is a very strong 125x2, I think if you went larger you would be out of your budget. You can get a gtp-450 preamp with built in tuner used for under $200.00. Actually I have a gtp-450 & gfa-535 around I'd sell under your budget, if interested send me a private message (PM) or eamil. Older and usually highly sought after Sansui integrated amps are very good, especially certain models. I had a AU9500 which was not probably designed for 4 ohms but drove my 4 ohm Dynaudio Audience 60's very well. Older Arcam Alpha series integrated could be found in your price and were built for 4 ohm loads and sound very good, they put Arcam on the map.

I would suggest taking a look at a NAD or Cambridge Audio integrated, or even Jolida which all would be in your price new. That is assuming you want only 2-channel playback which is reasonable since you were looking at vintage. Be sure to check the specs on the NAD I bought my mom a NAD combo unit and the manual recommended staying with 8 ohms but typically their integrated amps are at home with 4 ohm loads.

All of the above would give you more for your money than going out and buying an old Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood etc receiver.

Welcome to the forums

[Geoffcin]

Many people enjoy the sound of vintage receivers, and there are MANY that can drive 4 ohm speakers. Almost all the Marantz and Pioneer receivers from the 70's can drive 4 ohm speakers, (and were rated for such use) and if you go back to the 60's you can get yourself a classic tubed receiver like my Fisher 500c. A decent example of which can be had within your price range.

As to Marantz I would start looking at a 2270 model and go up from there. With Pioneer your range should start looking at the SX950 level. Both these often come up on Ebay.
If you can snag a Marantz 2325, or Pioneer SX1250 in good condition for under $500 your in for a treat. Either of these receivers will shame most modern recievers in both sound quality and shear power.

[thekid]

First let me second Mr.P's suggestion on the Adcom gear as I have been very happy with my Adcom gear. Secondly I would be curious as to your definition of vintage? I have owned and currently own vintage gear from the 60's and 70's but some people consider the 80's vintage now as well based strictly on age. In your title you ask about vintage receivers but then ask about vintage amps so I am not quite sure what you are looking for an amp or a receiver.

In a sense your definition of vintage defines your budget and choices. When you go back to the 60's and 70's for example you can find an amp that can drive a 4-ohm load but the better ones can be quite pricey. The higher end Kenwood KA, Harmon-Kardon Citation, Pioneer SA series integrated amps are fairly good and would fit in your price range. Higher Sansui, Pioneer and Marantz receivers from that period could also drive that load.

The speakers you are driving them with and the levels you are going to play them at are also factors that will affect your choices.

[axelsrd]

I have a Marantz 2270 but it says only 8 Ohms. I just bought a pair of AR 11's that are 4 Ohm and dont think the marantz will work.

[axelsrd]

Why would you want to buy old "vintage" receiver when it may not be as good as one that is new. Vintage is a fad but not all vintage is better.

First to answer your question the only receiver probably built to drive 4 ohms would be a Harmon Kardon, excellent receivers in the 70's & 80's. Onkyo would do it if you could find one. Others may still be able to drive a 4 ohm load but may run a bit hotter. Also, and my recommendation would be to look for a used Adcom preamp and power amp which you should be able to get for the $500.00 range, Adcom will rock a 4 ohm speaker and sound better than almost anything vintage. The power amp gfa 535 is about 8x2 and would be the cheapest, a gfa 545 or 5400 is a very strong 125x2, I think if you went larger you would be out of your budget. You can get a gtp-450 preamp with built in tuner used for under $200.00. Actually I have a gtp-450 & gfa-535 around I'd sell under your budget, if interested send me a private message (PM) or eamil. Older and usually highly sought after Sansui integrated amps are very good, especially certain models. I had a AU9500 which was not probably designed for 4 ohms but drove my 4 ohm Dynaudio Audience 60's very well. Older Arcam Alpha series integrated could be found in your price and were built for 4 ohm loads and sound very good, they put Arcam on the map.

I would suggest taking a look at a NAD or Cambridge Audio integrated, or even Jolida which all would be in your price new. That is assuming you want only 2-channel playback which is reasonable since you were looking at vintage. Be sure to check the specs on the NAD I bought my mom a NAD combo unit and the manual recommended staying with 8 ohms but typically their integrated amps are at home with 4 ohm loads.

All of the above would give you more for your money than going out and buying an old Pioneer, Yamaha, Kenwood etc receiver.

Welcome to the forums

gfp/gfa???

[thekid]

I have a Marantz 2270 but it says only 8 Ohms. I just bought a pair of AR 11's that are 4 Ohm and dont think the marantz will work.

I would think the 2270 could handle the load though like my 2245 I have not seen specs on it with a 4-ohm load.

You could give it a try and and play it for a while and see if the Marantz heatsink is getting too warm. I think if it does not seem to be getting pushed too hhard and you restrict your listening to moderate levels you should be fine.

BTW- when dealing with Adcom abbreviations

GFA = Amp
GFP = Pre-Amp
GFT = Tuner

[Geoffcin]

I have a Marantz 2270 but it says only 8 Ohms. I just bought a pair of AR 11's that are 4 Ohm and dont think the marantz will work.

All the Marantz receivers were rated to drive 4 ohm speakers, even their base 18wpc model.

http://www.hifi-museum.com/js/marss/images/b1_Page_047.jpg

[Geoffcin]

The thing to remember is that a 4 ohm load will draw twice the current per watt. You may run out of juice depending on how loud you like to play it. Also, on vintage receivers (and amps) the capacitors are at or near their service life. I recapped my Fisher 500c filter and coupling caps. It makes a big difference and is not too expensive.

[axelsrd]

Not all.

2218= RMS Power Per Channel 18 @ 8 ohms, 24 @ 4 ohms
2252= RMS Power Per Channel 52x2 @ 8 ohms 65x2 @ 4 ohms
2270= RMS Power Per Channel 70

[axelsrd]

Not all.

2218= RMS Power Per Channel 18 @ 8 ohms, 24 @ 4 ohms
2252= RMS Power Per Channel 52x2 @ 8 ohms 65x2 @ 4 ohms
2270= RMS Power Per Channel 70

[Geoffcin]

I really find that hard to believe. I mean it would put a hole in their argument that their receivers are rated for 4ohms. Do you have the spec sheet?
Also, if it says " 8 Ohm speakers" and the receiver is designed so that it can drive two pairs simultaneously, then it CAN drive a 4 ohm load.

[axelsrd]

No, I don't have the spec sheet. I just went here:
http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html

[Geoffcin]

That's a cool site, but the information is a bit limited on the full specs. For instance they don't have a 4 ohm rating on the Pioneer sx1050, a receiver that I know for sure that can drive 4 ohm speakers.

As I've said; If the receiver has taps for two 8 ohm speaker sets, and it was designed that both can work at the same time then it can drive 4ohm speakers.

[axelsrd]

I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, I'm just trying to understand. So, using your logic, a receiver is capable of running three sets of speakers (8 Ohm) then it can drive a 2/3 ohm speaker?

[Geoffcin]

I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, I'm just trying to understand. So, using your logic, a receiver is capable of running three sets of speakers (8 Ohm) then it can drive a 2/3 ohm speaker?

It's not logic, it's physics. Hook two 8 ohm speakers up in parallel and the resultant resistance will be 4 ohms.

Several of the more powerful vintage Pioneer receivers were designed with three speaker outputs, but you could only have two switched on at any given time. Also, there were some receivers made that could drive two sets of speakers but both sets would have to be 16 ohms. Not many receivers were made like this, really only a few at the start of the solid state age. I actually have one, the Pioneer SX1500t. (circa 1969)

[axelsrd]

It's not logic, it's physics. Hook two 8 ohm speakers up in parallel and the resultant resistance will be 4 ohms.

Several of the more powerful vintage Pioneer receivers were designed with three speaker outputs, but you could only have two switched on at any given time. Also, there were some receivers made that could drive two sets of speakers but both sets would have to be 16 ohms. Not many receivers were made like this, really only a few at the start of the solid state age. I actually have one, the Pioneer SX1500t. (circa 1969)

I found a copy of the owners manual for the 2270 and it states this:

70wpc RMS at 4 and 8 ohms, 40 watts at 16 ohm.

So, it seems that the 2270 will indeed drive the AR 11's if I read this correctly.

[Geoffcin]

Well that's good. I can keep my reputation now. FWIW; I think your Marantz will do fine, but remember what I said about the caps. If you intend on doing any high powered listening I would consider having them replaced. Cheap insurance, especially if you've ever seen one fail!

[axelsrd]

Well that's good. I can keep my reputation now. FWIW; I think your Marantz will do fine, but remember what I said about the caps. If you intend on doing any high powered listening I would consider having them replaced. Cheap insurance, especially if you've ever seen one fail!

I wasn't challenging your reputation, I was just trying to get an answer.

[Mr Peabody]

As The Kid mentioned, gfa/gfp/gft are just part of Adcom's model number.

Interesting the 2270 keeps the same power at 4 or 8 ohms, does it have a switch?

[budgetaudio76]

Sansui would be another example. Ive got a 2000x im using as a preamp. for four other amps/recievers. As well as using the internal amp in it.

A night mare of wires.

[Dual-500]

As The Kid mentioned, gfa/gfp/gft are just part of Adcom's model number.

Interesting the 2270 keeps the same power at 4 or 8 ohms, does it have a switch?
Probably just a "Ratings game". The Adcom stuff I'm familiar with will drive 2 ohm loads effortlessly. I have a GFA-2535 driving 8 pairs of bookshelf speakers throughout my house. There are cooling fans on it however as it's in a rack with other amps.

They probably just used conservative ratings.

[Dual-500]

I have a Marantz 2270 but it says only 8 Ohms. I just bought a pair of AR 11's that are 4 Ohm and dont think the marantz will work.
As has been noted, the 2270 will handle 4 ohm loads just fine. Without knowing your listening habits or physical location of the amp, let me offer a suggestiion. Don't let it get hot. If you listen at high levels and the amp heat sinks get warm to the touch, I would put a couple of small whisper fans blowing directly onto the heat sinks.

For a 100wpc amp of that period, the heat sinks are sufficient for normal 8 ohm operation. They are not sufficient however for high power listening at 4 ohms. This is my opinion only - but, I've burnt a few down and also had many success stories (after frying a few) in clubs and such.

Here's a picture of the 2270 innards.

It's a very nice piece btw. The FM front end in one of these classics sounds much better than the newer PLL digital junk.

http://www.senorpanadero.net/uploader/userfiles/stevew/Marantz%202270.JPG

[Glen B]

As I've said; If the receiver has taps for two 8 ohm speaker sets, and it was designed that both can work at the same time then it can drive 4ohm speakers.
I concur. :thumbsup:

Interesting the 2270 keeps the same power at 4 or 8 ohms, does it have a switch?
There's nothing wrong with that. :smile5: There have been many fine amps over the years that have the same, or almost the same output spec into 8 and 4 ohms.

[Mr Peabody]

Didn't say anything was wrong with the amp providing the same watts at 4 or 8 ohms but it's interesting because wattage nearly doubles into 4 ohms if sufficient current, so the 2270 must either have no high current at all which is not good for a 4 ohm load or deals with it in some other manner which I'd be interested in knowing.

And, keep in mind a vintage receiver may drive 4 ohms but there's not to say there isn't going to be consequences. Back in the day of "vintage" receivers I can't think of a 4 ohm speaker built. There could have been but the standard was definitely 8 ohms so no need for manufacturers to make 4 ohm stable receivers. Brands like HK and Onkyo did high current because they realized the improvement the design had on sound quality. There's a difference between what a receiver is designed for and what some are willing to subject it to.

[Geoffcin]

but it's interesting because wattage nearly doubles into 4 ohms if sufficient current, so the 2270 must either have no high current at all which is not good for a 4 ohm load or deals with it in some other manner which I'd be interested in knowing.

And, keep in mind a vintage receiver may drive 4 ohms but there's not to say there isn't going to be consequences. Back in the day of "vintage" receivers I can't think of a 4 ohm speaker built. There could have been but the standard was definitely 8 ohms so no need for manufacturers to make 4 ohm stable receivers.
.

Wattage is a measure of electrical power, basically the ability to do work. Ohms are a measure of resistance to current. 2.83v into an 8 ohm load = 1 watt, 2.83v into a 4 ohm load is 2 watts, 2.83v into a 2 ohm load is 4 watts. As you can see it takes more current (amperes) to to keep the same voltage as resistance is lowered. However, a 4 ohm speaker does not necessarily use more power (wattage) than an 8 ohm speaker.

While you may not remember a vintage speaker that had a 4 ohm resistance, there were, not the least of which is the legendary AR3a. Many vintage receivers were designed to drive 2 pairs of 8 ohm speakers hence a 4 ohm load. Making a receiver that can drive a 4 ohm load was common back then, even more so than today.

[Tarheel_]

There is another route to take...if you have pre-outs, buy a cheap separate amp to drive them. I was just given a pair of Yamaha floor standers which are 6ohm, plus i drive 3 sets of speakers in other rooms

Instead of replacing my 1980s receiver, i purchased a NAD 902 off ebay for $105 shipped. I run it to all the speakers (via speaker selector) and it does a great job without straining my vintage receiver.

[Geoffcin]

There is another route to take...if you have pre-outs, buy a cheap separate amp to drive them. I was just given a pair of Yamaha floor standers which are 6ohm, plus i drive 3 sets of speakers in other rooms

Instead of replacing my 1980s receiver, i purchased a NAD 902 off ebay for $105 shipped. I run it to all the speakers (via speaker selector) and it does a great job without straining my vintage receiver.

Excellent idea!

FYI; Even if your receiver doesn't have pre-out you can still use the tape monitor loop to output signal from the receiver. This is exactly the configuration I use my Pioneer 1500t with. The vintage Pioneer has spectacular FM reception, miles ahead of any garden varity HT receiver.

[Mr Peabody]

Geoff, how would you control volume from a tape monitor out? Just using the receiver tuner into an integrated I could see but into a power amp would not be a good idea.

[Geoffcin]

Geoff, how would you control volume from a tape monitor out? Just using the receiver tuner into an integrated I could see but into a power amp would not be a good idea.

Your right, there's no volume control out of a tape monitor. The good thing though is that the output signal is the cleanest possible, as it bypasses all of the receiver's control circuitry. I send the signal into my integrated amp. The amp uses a high(er) quality ALPS volume control, and and also has a remote. Something you don't get with vintage gear. Best of both worlds!

[Poultrygeist]

My friend has a Harmon Kardon A500 tube amp from the 1960's that has 4,8,and 16 ohm taps. It has gobs of headroom and drives his 4 ohm ADS L710 speakers with ease. It was recently overhauled and is still breaking in. He also has a mint Fisher 400 tube receiver that also has 4,8,and 16 ohm taps. He just bought a Dynaco ST-70 so I believe he might be willing to sell the HK or the Fisher. I can ask if you're interested.

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder what one of those vintage tube amps would sound like using the 16 ohm tap with Omen or Superfly?

[Poultrygeist]

I had my friend's gear at my house for several days and have driven my 12 ohm Omens from the 16 ohm taps of the HK A500 and Fisher 400. I really couldn't tell any difference from the 8 ohm taps on these vintage tube amps.

While the HK and Fisher sound fine with other conventional speakers they lacked the clarity and detail retrieval of the Miniwatt when paired with the Omens.

[Mr Peabody]

The Miniwatt is probably just a better amp. It would be interesting to see what an HK of that age sounded like.

[Poultrygeist]

The HK and Fisher have been totally overhauled with new parts and tubes so I suspect they sound pretty much as they did when new. One major reason the MW sounds better with FRSD speakers is that it's an SET amp.

[Mr Peabody]

The HK and Fisher have been totally overhauled with new parts and tubes so I suspect they sound pretty much as they did when new. One major reason the MW sounds better with FRSD speakers is that it's an SET amp.

Don't be going all RGA on me now :) LOL

[axelsrd]

The AR's arrived. I hooked them up to my Marantz 2270 and guess what? They work just fine. The Marantz is pushing them with no problem at all. No clipping, no overheating, just great sounds. I did, however, buy a Rotel RX-1050 just in case. I am going to hook up the Rotel this weekend just to see what it will do.

My wife keeps asking why I need so many speakers and radios (got to love her)

[Dual-500]

The AR's arrived. I hooked them up to my Marantz 2270 and guess what? They work just fine. The Marantz is pushing them with no problem at all. No clipping, no overheating, just great sounds. I did, however, buy a Rotel RX-1050 just in case. I am going to hook up the Rotel this weekend just to see what it will do.

My wife keeps asking why I need so many speakers and radios (got to love her)
Very good on the 2270.

For the wife, just come clean and tell her it's an obsession. :wink5:

[Geoffcin]

The AR's arrived. I hooked them up to my Marantz 2270 and guess what? They work just fine. The Marantz is pushing them with no problem at all. No clipping, no overheating, just great sounds. I did, however, buy a Rotel RX-1050 just in case. I am going to hook up the Rotel this weekend just to see what it will do.

My wife keeps asking why I need so many speakers and radios (got to love her)

Glad to hear it. I for one had no doubt that it would.

[axelsrd]

Glad to hear it. I for one had no doubt that it would.

Geo, I hooked the AR11's up to the Rotel RX-1050 last night. All I can say is WOW. The Rotel really made those AR's sing. I mean, they sound sweet. Nothing against the Marantz mind you. I love my Marantz. I will just dedicate it to FM running through Klipsch RB-35's

[Mr Peabody]

People probably think I bash vintage but that proves my point, vintage receivers are nice compared to some of today's receivers but people need to realize the word "vintage" is NOT synonomous with high end or even mid-fi, it's still a receiver. And, I wouldn't even bother to make this a point except for the fact people are paying a lot of money for old gear when the same money could buy a better performing integrated in most instances. To be fair though Rotel makes some respectable gear to be sure. The key to vintage, as I guess with audio in general, is knowing which models are the over achievers.

[Geoffcin]

People probably think I bash vintage but that proves my point, vintage receivers are nice compared to some of today's receivers but people need to realize the word "vintage" is NOT synonomous with high end or even mid-fi, it's still a receiver. And, I wouldn't even bother to make this a point except for the fact people are paying a lot of money for old gear when the same money could buy a better performing integrated in most instances. To be fair though Rotel makes some respectable gear to be sure. The key to vintage, as I guess with audio in general, is knowing which models are the over achievers.

I don't think it "proves you point" at all. The Rotel receiver specs out higher than the Marantz power wise, and these speakers are without a doubt current hungry. Of course in your eyes it's still only a receiver, and not worthy of even a "mid-fi" ranking.

Vintage is synonymous with VINTAGE. People like collecting vintage gear, and people also like the way the gear sound even if it doesn't come up to your standards. If people are paying a lot of money for this kind of gear it's because of the rarity of the item, as these are collector pieces in addition to being working audio electronics.

Finally, If your intent is to disparage vintage gear, please do NOT continue to post to this forum, which happens to be named "VINTAGE GEAR".

[Dual-500]

I have a Pioneer SX-1250 receiver (1976) and a Marantz 4415 receiver (~1973).

The FM front end in both sound much better than any of the newer stuff I've heard - much better. Certainly better than anything of today's Phase Locked Loop technology within their respective class of receiver.

At least to me they sound better.

[axelsrd]

My opologize GEO, I wasn't trying to start an arguement. I don't know what Mr. Peabody;s problem is. My original concern was that I wasn't sure the Marantz would run the AR's being that they were 4 Ohm speakers. However, the Marantz as it turned out, did run the AR's...just fine. It just so happenes that the Rotel did a better job. This was just an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know where the "one upsmanship" attitude comes from. Yeah, maybe I spent money I didn't need to by buying the Marantz when I could/should have gotten the Rotel in the first place. But I love the Old Marantz receivers and have no regrets at all. I was just currious regarding the 4Ohm issue and that is why I came here...I needed some advice and I thank everyone who provided their take on this.

Randy

[Geoffcin]

My opologize GEO, I wasn't trying to start an arguement. I don't know what Mr. Peabody;s problem is. My original concern was that I wasn't sure the Marantz would run the AR's being that they were 4 Ohm speakers. However, the Marantz as it turned out, did run the AR's...just fine. It just so happenes that the Rotel did a better job. This was just an observation. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know where the "one upsmanship" attitude comes from. Yeah, maybe I spent money I didn't need to by buying the Marantz when I could/should have gotten the Rotel in the first place. But I love the Old Marantz receivers and have no regrets at all. I was just currious regarding the 4Ohm issue and that is why I came here...I needed some advice and I thank everyone who provided their take on this.

Randy

No apologies nessasary! A lot of us love old receivers, and we should have a place we can chat about them if we want without people criticizing our choices. I'm glad your speakers are rocking out with the Rotel!

[axelsrd]

Hey Geoff, here is another question for you. The Rotel states that for speaker A or speaker B, that the speaker should be 4 Ohms min. For speaker A and B, the speakers need to be 8 Ohm min. I have a pair of Pioneer HMP-60's that are 8 Ohm. Can I hook up the Pioneer's to speaker B (since I have the AR's (4 Ohm) on speaker A) and switch between A and B and still be OK? in other words, I would listen to the AR's or the Pioneers separately and never together? Does my question make sense?

[Geoffcin]

Yes you can, but you'll have to be careful that nobody switches them both on at once. The Rotel most likely has overload protection, but you never want to find out if it does or doesn't the hard way!

[E-Stat]

in other words, I would listen to the AR's or the Pioneers separately and never together?
If you were to run both, it would nominally work out to 2.67 ohms.

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

If you were to run both, it would nominally work out to 2.67 ohms rw


Just to add some Math to this answer for future reference (parallel circuits only);

Total Load (Ohms) = (R1 x R2) / (R1 + R2);

where; R1 is first speaker load (Ohms) and R2 is second speaker load (Ohms)

[Geoffcin]

Let's not forget that most speakers present a dynamic load. Even nominal 8ohm speakers often dip lower at certain frequencies.

[Dual-500]

If you were to run both, it would nominally work out to 2.67 ohms.

rw
8 ohm and 4 ohm nominal connected in parallel should net 3.2 ohms nominal impedance.

[Luvin Da Blues]

8 ohm and 4 ohm nominal connected in parallel should net 3.2 ohms nominal impedance.


Uh? (8 x4) / (8+4) = 32 /12 =2.66667

[Dual-500]

Uh? (8 x4) / (8+4) = 32 /12 =2.66667
You're right - don't ask me where I pulled 3.2 ohms from. No idea, but it sounded good at the time. :frown2:

4 & 16 in parallel net 3.2.

[Geoffcin]

In any case the point is moot, as speaker are not resistors. Typical resistance looks more like this;
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1009Zuefig01.jpg

[Luvin Da Blues]

You're right - don't ask me where I pulled 3.2 ohms from. No idea, but it sounded good at the time. :frown2:

4 & 16 in parallel net 3.2.

No problem. That is as long as you don't work for the Treasury Dept. LOL

[Luvin Da Blues]

In any case the point is moot, as speaker are not resistors. Typical resistance looks more like this;
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1009Zuefig01.jpg

One is not going to analyze every frequency, that's why we talk in nominal resistance. I'm sure the manufacturers take this into consideration when they spec the acceptable loading.

[Dual-500]

In any case the point is moot, as speaker are not resistors. Typical resistance looks more like this;
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1009Zuefig01.jpg

Yes indeed - why I always state Nominal Impedance.

[Geoffcin]

One is not going to analyze every frequency, that's why we talk in nominal resistance. I'm sure the manufacturers take this into consideration when they spec the acceptable loading.

Actually not. It's really a chap shoot as to how a speaker is rated in resistance. Besides considering the resistance at frequency, phase angle can seriously effect the load an amplifier sees.

[arrow 68]

I have a Rotel RX 1050, Yamaha CR 2040, and a Sansui AU 919. The Sansui is superior to the Rotel. And the Rotel is superior to the Yamaha.
I must admit I am not a big fan of vintage receivers. But you would have a tough time beating many of the big Sansui Integrateds form the late 70's, early 80's.
I also had the Sansui 9090. Did not like it at all. The sonics on something like the AU 919 VS the 9090 differ greatly.
And many $500 units new today, or less then 5 years ago are really average at best. Most modern stuff in this price range is just not worth it. But to beat something like the 919 you have to spend close to a thousand, or more in a modern amp. An AU 20000 just sold for around $1100 on Ebay. 170 WPC Beast that sounds great! It's not just about Watts. It's about how those Watts Sound.
I picked up a Carver HR 895 recently and outside of some low volume intermittent static in one channel (I have cleaned the switches with contact cleaner) it is also very impressive. Clean with tons of power.
Anyway best of luck.

[JoeE SP9]

Emotiva, arrow 68. IMO, fairly good new gear, very reasonably priced and (I think) very good looking.

[arrow 68]

Emotiva, arrow 68. IMO, fairly good new gear, very reasonably priced and (I think) very good looking.

Some yes. Some Eh. I am not trying to say everything that is modern is bad. But much of the $500 or less gear new is just not that great. Again, NEW. I am not referring to something modern that is selling on the secondary market. And I would not take any of those Amps on that list over any of Sansui's larger Integrateds. Also while some nice things are on that list, it looks like you were reaching a bit. Restrict the list to Power, Integrated, and Receivers. All made in the last decade that are exceptional (Really good) for under $500.
And to be fair I am quite the thrifter. I never buy anything unless I get a deal. At my age I have found at least for me that I don't need to spend the money. And I do not have piles of equipment laying around. People that do this, and have all this excess equipment that is average at best don't know what they are doing. Buy great stuff to try, buy to sell, and you never have a dime in anything.
BUY LOW, SELL HIGH, NO WHAT TO WALK AWAY FROM, AND WHAT TO RUN AWAY WITH! And yes, it is hard to find great stuff, but I have done it, and with the exception of a couple pieces, I have found everything one mile from where I live. I get criticized for this but the people being critical can't, or won't try it, and in many instances are impetuous. To the point of being defensive. How dare I suggest this almost like attitude. Pretty funny.
Also what is you ROI? Very few pieces are kept indefinitely, although you always think you will keep something for ever. I bring something in, something usually goes.
And one really has to think when they do buy something higher end it may very well reveal flaws more prevalently in other areas of the set up. So it's like searching for Nirvana and never finding it. Although many of us do.
I wonder how much better that VPI Deck sounds then my Luxman, or Yamaha? Is it a big difference, or a small one? Some will say big. I have heard VPI's Scoutmaster. Nice Deck. But that much nicer? Eh.
So if you have the dough................then let it fly I guess.

[Mr Peabody]

It's interesting how you really have to find out the character of a speaker by it's reputation, hopefully a dealer is knowledgeable and on the level, some speakers 90dB or more, Paradigm comes to mind, may need a great deal of current while Harbeth is 86dB and is easily driven by a good 40 watt tube amp. I was surprised a certain dealer drove Harbeth fine with that 40 watt tube amp but switched to a Naim integrated when playing a Totem. I believe Totem is lower impedance than Harbeth's 8 ohms though.

[Mr Peabody]

I had a Sansui Au9500 that amazed me at how well it sounded, and, how well it was built. I actually can't think of much else I've seen built with the same quality of knobs and switches.I knew a guy who worked at a thrift store and sold it to me for little of nothing. I didn't know what it was either but I sure got educated when I hooked it up. It was easily on par with Arcam and other $1k and under amps. I've also had some entry Sansui receivers that were not great, they had a nice warm presentation but easily out classed in detail by an entry Luxman.

[thekid]

I had a Sansui Au9500 that amazed me at how well it sounded, and, how well it was built. I actually can't think of much else I've seen built with the same quality of knobs and switches.I knew a guy who worked at a thrift store and sold it to me for little of nothing. I didn't know what it was either but I sure got educated when I hooked it up. It was easily on par with Arcam and other $1k and under amps. I've also had some entry Sansui receivers that were not great, they had a nice warm presentation but easily out classed in detail by an entry Luxman.

As impressed as I am with my little AU-505 I can only imagine how good that 9500 must sound. Sansui is another one of those companies whose former self does not represent what they are today.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I had a Sansui Au9500 that amazed me at how well it sounded, and, how well it was built. I actually can't think of much else I've seen built with the same quality of knobs and switches.I knew a guy who worked at a thrift store and sold it to me for little of nothing. I didn't know what it was either but I sure got educated when I hooked it up. It was easily on par with Arcam and other $1k and under amps. I've also had some entry Sansui receivers that were not great, they had a nice warm presentation but easily out classed in detail by an entry Luxman.

Ditto for my AU6700. I just can't bear to part with it. It will be part of an all analogue vintage office system when I can find an appropriate speaker to mate with it.

[thekid]

Ditto for my AU6700. I just can't bear to part with it. It will be part of an all analogue vintage office system when I can find an appropriate speaker to mate with it.

LDB

Just stop by the museum and I will hook you up with a pair of vintage speakers. So many to choose from and I am sure my wife would be more than glad to help if it means a pair of speakers is leaving the house........ :D

[Luvin Da Blues]

LDB

Just stop by the museum and I will hook you up with a pair of vintage speakers. So many to choose from and I am sure my wife would be more than glad to help if it means a pair of speakers is leaving the house........ :D

Thanks for the offer Kid. Since I live in the neighborhood anyway, why not. LOL

(I'm on the wet coast of Canuckland)

Actually, there a pair of Cornwalls for sale in the local classifieds that I may check out. A bit large for my space tho.

[Mr Peabody]

I'd love to have the space for some Cornwalls. I think you'd be very happy with the Forte if you found any and they take up a bit less space.

I passed the 9500 on to a friend who would really never be able to afford that type of quality for himself but really loves music.

[arrow 68]

I'd love to have the space for some Cornwalls. I think you'd be very happy with the Forte if you found any and they take up a bit less space.

I passed the 9500 on to a friend who would really never be able to afford that type of quality for himself but really loves music.

Can I be your friend? :biggrin5:

I really like Musical Fidelity Gear. Expensive, but not unrealistic, and reliable. But is the A300 Integrated that much better then 9500, or the 919 that I have? Since it costs twice as much it better be.
If I had to choose between wanting something like the AU 20000, and A300 I would have to go for the A300. Or for a little extra the A 308. You can get the 300 for about $1000, and the A 308 (Great Amp) for just under $1400. The AU 20000 is still an amazing AMP.
Seems like I have to many happy faces. Duh.