What vintage receivers handle 4 Ohm speakers?

[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.

[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.