|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.28.191.52
OK, I will start this one off with my observation on a couple of TOTL receivers that in my opinion, are not the best sounding in their lineup.
Prime example: Pioneer SX-1980- Awesome to look at, sounds pretty darn good, but I think the SX-1280/1250 and even the SX-1080/50 sound better.
Same with the Sansui 9090DB....I think the 8080 and 7070 sound better as well as the G6700 sounds better than the G9700.
Does anyone have examples of this? I'd like to compile a list. It can be on receivers, amps, tuners, speakers, decks or anything audio.
Thanks,
Phil
Follow Ups:
Uhm...the Pioneer SX-1250 is TOTL.
This was back in 1987. I went to an audio dealer prepared to buy a pair of Infinity RS-6000 speakers. They were a medium size floor standing tower design. The sales guy took me into the listening room, asked what I was interested in, and did the what sounds better, A or B, thing. We spent about a half hour in there listening with varied kinds of music.
He then informed me that I definitely liked Infinity speakers, but that I chose every model below the RS 6000, over the 6000. It was a toss-up between the RS 5000 and the RS 4000. The sales guy offered a nice set of spiked stands with the 5000's so I took those. Great speakers, and I still use them a lot.
A lot of the times with the TOTL models you are paying for doodads and geegaws you don't need. The models 1 or 2 down from the top might actually spec the same. I have seen this in CD players and tape decks. Same drives, pickups, converters, in the top, say, three models. I've even seen the audio spec sheets be identical.
--
Mucking around the low-end since 1986.
When I sold them, I thought that the Adcom GFA-535 sounded better than the GFA-545 and GFA-555. With receivers 2, I tended to like the lower powered ones best. Denon had a 25 watt integrated amp that was one of the best sounding amps we sold. I would paired it with Klipsch Forte' speakers and made a customer quite happy. I have read some designers talk about this. It has something do with the capacitance of multiple output devices. I have wondered if using a tube driver stage would help because tubes are less sensitive to driving high capacitance. The one hybrid amp that I have heard, a Moscode, sounded great but I couldn't tell you if that was the reason.
For a transistor amp I think 60 to 80 watts is a good compromise. Of course you don't get that base drive you get with a big amp so YMMV.
Dave
based upon simpler circuits or fewer devices. My Threshold Stasis 3 is the baby of the family at 100 watts / channel using 32 output devices. I have been told by those who have heard the massive Stasis One monoblocks with 144 of the same output devices that the smaller versions sounded a bit better within their power range.
Stasis Family
Warning: big (340k) file!
rw
My personal experience from owning the H/K 330C, 430, 630, 730 and TOTL 930 is that each one sounds just as great as the other. The 330C sounds incredible for its small watts.
In a comparison of 8 low priced receivers, the Boston Audio Society Speaker in the July 1977 rated the 330C and Pioneer SX-550 best buys over average buys which included the much more expensive, Marantz 2275! See http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-05-10-7707.pdf for more info.
The Citation 16 amp did not sound as good as the 12.
rw
I think the SX-1010 is the best sounding pioneer - I owned a SX-1980 for a short while but I guess I didn't have the right speakers to match up with it or something, so I sold it. It was indeed pretty to look at, but a back breaker to pick up and move!
my SX1280 sounds mighty fine. I don't have it hooked up in an optium environment but it still sounds quite nice.
And, it IS a bear to move. Very heavy.
roN
It's not uncommon in speakers, too. Just recently a couple of us listened to the $375/pair PSB B15 and thought they were really good. The shop owner insisted we listen to the $3500 Synchrony big brother. They were not nearly as well balanced. Bigger speakers often add more bass, as that's what bigger models are supposed to give you. But often, the balance is off and they are too bassy. I felt that was the case with the Paradigm Studio 20 and the bigger Studio 40, which seemed too dark with the same mid and tweeter.
Jerry
Hmmm.. High Fidelity claimed the AR 5 gave a better balanced sound than the AR3a, and for most rooms was probably was the better speaker. I never heard the two side by side. THe AR3a is still big in Hi Fi lore, but the AR 5 eas all but forgotten. THe 5 had the 10 inch woofer whereas the 3a was larger and had the 12. THe other drivers were the same.
David,
I have heard the two, side by side, and also the more modern versions, the 91 & 92. By comparison, the 3a and 91 sound darker, and the bass, while powerful, seems to have a ponderous quality. The 10" in the 5 and 91 has a higher in-box resonance, and also a much higher Q around 1.2, so there is some peaking around 55-60 Hz or so. This gives the sense of more punchy and "faster" bass and a different "lighter" balance to the speaker. The 5 and 92 sound clearer as a result.
In my opinion, the woofer in the 3 and 3a makes a great subwoofer with jut a little tweaking.
Jerry
Some of the Bozak gurus also feel the Symphony is a better system for stereo than the big 'un, the Concert Grand. I suspect the issue though is getting a room large enough to support the CG. The best place I ever heard a set was in an auditorium and it was jaw dropping. I've heard a number of very expensive huge speakers that sounded terrible in the 10'x12' rooms of so many. Too mch speaker in too little a space is worse sometimes than the right sized speaker in the right sized room though it may be a lesser model in the lineup.
Brian,
A very well taken point. I agree. Stacked Advents aren't nearly as good in my den as a single pair, too much room gain in the lower octaves.
Jerry
is driver blending. They really need some distance between listener for them to balance properly. Where six to eight feet is fine for singles, I prefer more for doubles.
rw
I believe the TOTL is basically the largest receiver at a point in time in a manufaturer's line up. It usually has the most features, most power (though I think there is at least 1 company line up where this was not the case) and tuner spec. However, many of these are marketing department creations and as a result are somewhat compromised as the parts selection to meet the requirements can be limited to also meet the price points as well as what is availalbe off the shelf. Marketing departments generally were less concerned about the stuffing of the lower level units. Hence, the engineers had more of an oppurtunity to engineer a receiver that was less compromised. They could make a prefectly adequate tuner and put the resources in a well balanced preamp and amp and concetrate on the sound. Besides receivers it is true of integrated amps and separates.
hey-Hey!!!,
Take a look at the Marantz 2 and 9. The 9 was a lot more 'spensive, yet the 2 was done better. Damper diode rectifiers, no specially compensated FB loop on its special winding. And still, there is plenty ov room to make them better...AB bias to duel in the power wars instead of Class A for one.
Happens all the time I think.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
What is the main difference? I have a 2330 sitting here and noticed people go ga-ga over it.
No room to set it up right now as I am enjoying my Sony TA-AV670ES amp with an older Sony CDP-302ES single disc player hooked up to my strange Advent speakers or my wonderful Bozak 302 Urbans. (With lots of power, the strange Advent speakers sound incredible!)
Regards,
Phil
Having owned 2 and 9s at the same time, the 9, especially in triode was the better amp. Out of triode it was a toss up. Compared to the 8 and 8b, the 9 was the better without needing to be in triode. I usually ran mine in triode as power was not an issue. For some reason back whenI was getting them you could find 9s but no 8s. They were being traded in on SS amps but for some reason 8/8b owners were not. About the time the 9s dried up you could find 8 and 8b amps by the fistload on every used equipment shelf. During this period the early Marantz units had such a low trade in value that few owners traded them in but, kept them as backups. Oh, for the good old days.
Many people think that the lower wattage Marantz receivers (i.e. 2230, 2235, 2238 etc.) sound "sweeter" than their larger brethren?
Since my two Marantz receivers (2010 & 2230) are decidedly in the lower wattage column.....I, for one, cannot make a comparison?
Steve
If you utilize efficient speakers, Phil D, TOTL receivers might not be as desirable as their lower wattage bretheren. Got seduced by a Sansui 9090 several years back. It showed signs of having survived s-e-r-i-o-u-s par-tay-ing! Via a '77 Ibanez Les Paul Custom copy thru its' mic input, it wiped out a 12" Electro Voice Force loudspeaker(though the other EV Force survived). Even though it didn't sound that loud, & that damn protection circuitry barely flickered. However, due to over-zealous pre-amping(same levels used to drive a Marantz MR-235), that 9090's protection circuit wiped out a buncha piezo tweets, along with a pair of Advent tweets as well(volume level was around 1/3, just when it wuz soundin' sweetly overdriven). Eventually got tweet replacements, even for the Advents, from San Rafael's Brown Soun(Advent originals were $120, "updated" Advent tweets were $75). Rewired all the 9090's internal connects with 16 gauge, along with replacing caps in the signal chain. Enjoyed that robust quality & expansive soundstage its' reserve power afforded. But wasn't enamoured with a perceived scooped midrange, especially when incorporating hemp-reconed Mesa/Boogie MC90 Black Shadows(damn thing blew out a couple of V30s also). MC90s emulate EV-ish hi-fi sound quality, & can effortlessly absorb 100-plus brutish watts(they sound dyno-myte in Marshall MG100DFX combos also). Recently went back to that trusty auld 235, & that glorious lateral-mosfet midrange returned, especially thru hemp-reconed V30s! But lost that bass wallop & sonorous soundstage! Which inspired moi to mod a Sansui 5000x receiver outta curiosity! Am now enjoying a best-of-both-worlds tonality, with that magical midrange coupled to a scintillatin' soundstage presentation! Might have to rewire them Black Shadows back into the living room system, as that 5000x sounds exquisite via da sound room's Utah Cadence surrounding Jensen 1204 monitors! Aint too shabby via Utility Advent Loudspeakers, either. Heck, it coaxes musical luv from them Jensen P10R RI loaded ESS Model 10s in da den as well! Guess if you've got two ohm terrors for speakers, Phil D, TOTL is the way to go! But if you've been raised on hi-efficiency drivers, mid-to-lower wattage amps-n-receivers will gently soothe-n-caress! Yeah, wuz blissfully seduced by that 9090 for a minute Phil D. But can live harmonically happy e'er after via 5000x cap-coupled amplification!!!
I really like the Sansui 5000X...it's a sweet receiver unmodified, so I cannot imagine how sweet it is now that it has been supercharged!
Post a pic for us to see!
Regards,
Phil
Don't have a digital camera yet, Phil D; only an auld analog Minolta XE-7. But the 5000x mods were direct wiring the speaker outputs to the output caps with 16 gauge wire. Next, wired 16 gauge wire from aux input to tape two's record tap. Then used 16 gauge from monitor tap to tape two access switch. Along with Fader lubing all the push buttons in the signal path. Brought that retro hi-end tonality from a Mitsubishi DA-C20 tuner/pre-amp(a KPFA yard sale find)into full bloom! For as good as stock vintage gear sounds, Phil D, it's phenominal how expansive they enunciate with just a bit o' elbow grease!!!
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: