|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.216.2.59
In Reply to: RE: A new Mac in the house posted by Bold Eagle on January 28, 2017 at 11:18:54
Jerry thanks for the excellent information! Your comparison to the 8900a is spot on! In fact I tried the 8900a a few weeks back with the 3's and it too was a wonderful match. I kept reading about how the electronics that AR made back in the day had no issues driving the AR3/3a, that they were made to drive them, with only only 60 watts, and I decided to try the 8900a. Now mine is completely stock with no updates, so I was ready for disappointment but was quite surprised when it sounded terrific with them. And now the 1700 is doing the same.
I'm going to guess that more then a few folks had the same receivers driving their AR's back in the day.
Thank again for your comments.
Follow Ups:
You're welcome!
I found an owner's manual on line, at Hi-Fi Engine and they give the source impedance at 0.04 which is quite low, so the DF is considerably higher than 100.
I'd have to think the 1700 would compare pretty favorably with most 60 w/ch receivers. Interesting that you actually had an 8900a to compare. I always lusted after one of those; but never had one.
By the way don't use tuner or contact cleaner on the volume controls of either the 1700 or the 8900a. They have the power switch on the back of the volume control, and the little plastic part that connects the switch to the back of the pot shaft becomes brittle if exposed to the chemicals. I found out the hard way with a Sherwood S7200. Replacement parts are unobtainable.
Jerry
Thank for the tip. I actually use a power strip to turn both receivers on/off so as not to wear out the volume control.
I tried almost to give the 8900a away awhile back attempting to sell it locally and there was no interest. Very few folks realize what excellent stuff Sherwood made when they were still doing it in Chicago. Now I'm glad I didn't.
I have a 1700 as well, restored by a local tech (PS capacitor and cleaning of the switches.) See one of my oldest posts (I don't post very often)on the tuner forum describing the type of work he does. At my request, he altered the circuitry allowing the tube tuner section to be used as a separate tuner. The AUX input was changed to an output that can be fed into a pre-amp. I also have a Mac MR 71 tuner in a separate system. The 1700's sound as a stand-alone is surprisingly close to the MR 71's, lacking just a bit of the clarity and sound-staging of the 71. DX-ing of the 71 is also a bit better, but I have considered letting the 71 go and using the 1700 as my main tuner. Bought it off ebay for less than $600 and it included a near mint wooden cabinet. Total investment about $750. It really blows away a Marantz 2220B I was using in my bedroom system.
LowIQ
The tuner section is wonderful. Have been enjoying it a lot as we have such great FM here in the San Francisco area.
I've used a lot of very good receivers over the years, but the 1700 may be the most enjoyable one yet.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: