Most powerful receiver ever manufactured?

[acdc7369]

The Pioneer SX-1980 was rated at 270 wpc...however, in the September 1978 issue of Audio Magazine, Leonard Feldman did a spec test on the SX-1980 and concluded that the rating of 270 watts per channel was too conservative. He stated in his report, "Though the new [IHF mandated] 'Dynamic Headroom' measurement is specified in dB, it should be mentioned that based upon the short-term signal used to measure the 2.3 dB headroom of this amplifier, it was producing nearly 460 watts of short-term power under these test conditions!"

At 460 watts per channel (2.3 dB dynamic headroom) into 8 ohm loads with THD 0.03%...even beating the Technics SA-1000... doesn't this technically makes the Pioneer SX-1980 the most powerful receiver ever manufactured? What do you guys think?

[Jon S]

I think the Marantz 2600 receiver was the highest rated receiver at 300wpc. marnzt also was very conservative in rating their units so it is possible that this unit could even exceed your Pioneer.

[Inkara1]

We'd need to see the same test done on the Technics to know for sure.

[Glen B]

Sansui G33000, also 300 w.p.c. ?

[mhardy6647]

In terms of FTC-compliant power specification, it was the Technics SA-1000 at 330 wpc.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/mhardy6647/scan0002.jpg

[Soran]

why bother anyway ? it's the sound quality that matters, 10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp.
be serious ! 270wpc i saw the mighty quadral titans of 260lbs/piece almost killing at 2x300 watt on the pioneer meters. wich speakers can handle this amount of power perfectly pure without any more distortion than usual ?

[ManFromPorlock]

Power levels like that are probably better delivered by separates, anyway. Easier to lift, if nothing else. :p:

[KlipschFan61]

That Technics would sure look good next to my SL1210..

[toxcrusadr]

Power levels like that are probably better delivered by separates, anyway. Easier to lift, if nothing else. :p:

Ohh, m'groin...:yikes:

[Gibsonian]

"Though the new [IHF mandated] 'Dynamic Headroom' measurement is specified in dB, it should be mentioned that based upon the short-term signal used to measure the 2.3 dB headroom of this amplifier, it was producing nearly 460 watts of short-term power under these test conditions!"

The Marantz 2600 and the Technics SA-1000 would need to be tested with the same conditions to compare. I'm thinking the Pioneer would come in last place here.

[whoaru99]

...10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp....

Surely you jest? ;)

[acdc7369]

why bother anyway ? it's the sound quality that matters, 10 watts of perfect music on a pioneer or sansui sounds more powerfull than 1000 watts on a disco amp.
be serious ! 270wpc i saw the mighty quadral titans of 260lbs/piece almost killing at 2x300 watt on the pioneer meters. wich speakers can handle this amount of power perfectly pure without any more distortion than usual ?


The SX-1980 was designed for Pioneer's HPM series of speakers, wasn't it?

[John L]

I have a question: why is it so important to be able to have a sound system that can work within the entire SuperDome? Who gives a contential Damn about the most powerful amplifier.

I guess you may be able to tell that I am a big valve person, so anything over 35-40 watts RMS is overkill anyway.

[AnalogDigit]

Has anyone who had these receivers had it up to their max power? I wonder if listening at those levels for a extended period of time would effect your hearing.

For myself, I have an SX-950 that I only crank it up to 1/4th of the way up. I don't like it too loud anyways. I once had it to 12:00 position and I could not hear myself talk or yell.

[Njord Noatun]

Based on nominal power output, the answer is simple: Technics SA-1000.

[John in MA]

I used to own the second-most-powerful receiver ever made, the Marantz 2600. In addition to being a massive mooring to haul around when needed, the interior looked like the wiring inside an ICBM casing. I went the seperates route and I greatly enjoy the ease of maintenance, moving, and mixing and matching. When you pack everything into a receiver that size corners are bound to be cut. I have an unremarkable 200WPC power amp that weighs almost as much as the 2600 and is just as large, so that says something.

[mhardy6647]

Who gives a contential Damn about the most powerful amplifier.
It was the late 1970s, and fast, fuel-guzzling automobiles were rapidly becoming unfashionable as surrogates for penis size. For a brief time, the gap was filled (so to speak) with hi-fi power.

Now, of course, in the sophisticated 21st Century, it's flatscreen TV sizes.

[xoaphexox]

Now, of course, in the sophisticated 21st Century, it's flatscreen TV sizes.

Precisely! or the iPenis

[John L]

It was the late 1970s, and fast, fuel-guzzling automobiles were rapidly becoming unfashionable as surrogates for penis size. For a brief time, the gap was filled (so to speak) with hi-fi power.

Now, of course, in the sophisticated 21st Century, it's flatscreen TV sizes.

As John Ringo has stated in some of his novels, it's like a bunch of guys standing around, banging their dicks on their desks to show who is the most Macho of them all. :D

[SoCal Sam]

Is the SA-1000 capable of generating MORE power into 4 ohm?

The 300 wpc Marantz 2600 has an FTC rating of 400 watts into 4 ohm.

The dual toroidal G-33000 has an awesome amp section so I'd imagine it has plenty of headroom.

[John in MA]

I compensate by buying really big speakers.

[Njord Noatun]

Is the SA-1000 capable of generating MORE power into 4 ohm?

The 300 wpc Marantz 2600 has an FTC rating of 400 watts into 4 ohm.

The dual toroidal G-33000 has an awesome amp section so I'd imagine it has plenty of headroom.

You're raising an interesting question, Sam: The SA-1000 is the undisputed king into 8 ohms, but the picture might be quite different in 4 ohm.

I am not sure if anyone has done a 4 ohm monster receiver compilation, at least not here on AK, and we really should have a list of 4 ohm outputs just like Bully (et. al.) has done for receivers into 8 ohm (http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1019).

I will create a thread in VSS - perhaps I can even twist someone's arm to make it a sticky!

[BrocLuno]

I'm still looking for one of those questionably rated SA-1000's to show up at a local thrift? I'd say that could make my day, if not my year :)

[HiFiber]

I have to pay this :

Precisely! or the iPenis

LMAO!

I love the look of that SA-1000, what other receivers were in that line up?
I have a technics receiver around somewhere, it has a massive transformer 2X10,000uf caps and very strangely it has digital-motorised volume control (very scratchy when adjusting). I dont particularly like those features, however I do believe that Technics have one of the highest build qualities and really go all out to impress and I like their equipment a lot.

[Gibsonian]

I have a question: why is it so important to be able to have a sound system that can work within the entire SuperDome? Who gives a contential Damn about the most powerful amplifier.

I guess you may be able to tell that I am a big valve person, so anything over 35-40 watts RMS is overkill anyway.

Obviously many AKer's have an interest in powerful amplifiers. They are capable of reproducing without clippiing - very dynamic music that smaller amplifiers just cannot do.

270 watt amp would be insufficient for the Superdome, by the way.

[John in MA]

There's always lots of hype on both ends. Guys saying you don't need more than 10WPC, guys saying you need at least 500WPC. Depends on the speakers, the room, and your listening habits. I can honestly say that I've had my amp close enough to the 200W limits that if I had a larger room I'd be considering a 250W+ amplifier. Although if I wasn't prone to cranking it up for whole-house music I could probably get by with a 125WPC.

[mhardy6647]

The difference between 250 watts and 200 watts is about 1 dB (I calculate 0.97 dB).

[riverrat]

....the Marantz 2600. In addition to being a massive mooring to haul around when needed, the interior looked like the wiring inside an ICBM casing. I went the separates route and I greatly enjoy the ease of maintenance, moving, and mixing and matching. When you pack everything into a receiver that size corners are bound to be cut....

A bit off the topic of the original post, but this is exactly where I am WRT giant receivers. I guess the fascination with them is similar to the appeal of a 1977 Cadillac Eldorado with the 500 ci engine. Or the current trend of commuting in a Ford F350 4x4 crewcab. Wretched excess but kind of cool in a certain way just because they are so huge and over the top. Either that or the whole penis extension thing, which I think certainly applies to the big trucks and maybe explains some of the fascination with big receivers?

For value, performance, reliability and flexibility the monster receivers leave a lot to be desired IMO. But in the end I guess that is not what its all about. Its about having the BIGGEST.

[mjr4077au]

I think a happy-medium is the best. I don't think 10wpc can deliver the dynamics a powerful amp can and I think for Stereo that anything 250wpc+ is somewhat silly and just for bragging rights. They don't serve a real purpose as most rooms in houses aren't big enough for the sound and they're not powerful enough for commercial use. Realistically, I don't think anymore than 150wpc is required unless you're using stupidly inefficient speakers.

[BTW... My rant is about Solid-State, not valve equipment - sorry to semi-hijack thread].

[onepixel]

How about Bob Carver's Sunfire RS 232 receiver at 200 wpc on each of it's 7 channels?

[mjr4077au]

Is that 200wpc with every channel under load or the BPC method of measuring one channel under load and x'ing it by 7? I specifically used the word "stereo" before to signify I was talking about stereo equipment, Surround is a different ballpark and one I honestly don't partake in at present so I have nothing worthwhile to add about that.

I have nothing against big amps or small amps - all have a purpose. It's just that I don't think huge receivers in homes are necessary and they're not powerful enough for a concert/disco/rave and quite honestly, they're extremely overpriced down under then compared to the US.

And by the same token, I wouldn't put a 150wpc amp in an office, a little 10-20watter will do the job nicely, if not better than a big one.


In any case, the Technics is the biggest, although from what I've read, it's sound leaves something to be desired.




P.S. Can someone where VintageStereo is. He's the one who said the Technics didn't sound that good. I haven't seen him for ages as I haven't been on AK for a good few months now.

[oldschoolADS]

luxman r-117 :)

[RadShak1251]

IMO these monster receivers, while I am sure were bought by some simply for bragging rights, were mostly sold to help owners power there large acoustic-suspension speakers to their full potential.

Take a look at the efficiency ratings of many of those sealed systems and you'll see what I mean! But SPL numbers don't tell everything (as owners of many *modern* hi-end speakers like B&Ws can tell you).

* all those heavily damped felt or thick plastic-based woofer & midrange cones and tweeter domes w/thick coatings --> to move all that mass, more power was needed;

*complicated crossover networks that sucked up power while flattening dips and peaks in the system's overall output AND reducing the tweeters' and the mids' outputs to match the woofer(s) & sometimes at the same time introducing weird phase shifts that could literally fry a 75 watt/channel $300 receiver in one listening session (ask owners of large Infinitys from this period about this). Look up reviews for the BBC LS3/5 monitor, a highly respected/highly accurate loudspeaker with a 5" woofer that was also a major power sponge - doing so will shed more light on this issue.

* woofers whose efficiency was low from the start because of their large voice coil gaps needed because of the mushy surrounds & spiders such drivers needed for their required large cone excursions.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's favorite speaker brand (I've owned Advents since 1984 and several other sealed loudspeakers), but if you look back, there was a reason starting around 1980 that more and more speakers converted to bass reflex or sealed speakers that didn't reach as low as earlier versions & receivers becoming less powerful.

[titanstats]

Can someone where VintageStereo is.

Banned, I believe.

[Negotiableterms]

I have an SX-1980 and a Marantz 2600. I think of them as historical icons. In its period of fastest technological growth, the audio industry focused on learning how to build high-power amplifiers at reasonable cost and weight, preamps with little noise, and tuners with good FM specs. The Monster receivers are the results of the competition, and thus historically interesting.

Their sound is very difficult to assess. In the case of my SX-1980, it didn't sound very good at all until I sent it to Glenn. Now, it sounds very good indeed. Similar results for the 2600.

Whether all the power is "needed" or not isn't a reasonable discussion, IMHO. All you "need" to have sound is an iPod. After that, it's all about preferences and room acoustics and features and on and on.

I recall at the time that I always found the TOTL to sound better than all the lower units. I assumed the mfrs planned it that way, and hated the fact that I couldn't afford the best back then. I like collecting them now.

[John L]

No, there is more to it than that. It really became a 'sort of' beauty contest... In other words, it's a sexual thing to men... I'm not a psychologist, but have no doubt that this is the main reason...

***Moderator Note: This post was significantly edited to avoid rule violations.***

[oldschoolADS]

don't feel the need to have the biggest appendage in the neighborhood.


....shhh but theres huge money to be made selling large appendages or the illusions of such ;)

and hated the fact that I couldn't afford the best back then. I like collecting them now.

yes thanks to ebay and craigslist i have a lot now of what i lusted after in the 80s

[motorstereo]

Not to derail the thread but I'm wondering if there were any American mfgr's involved in the monster reciever wars of the 70's? If there was any I'm wondering how they stood up against Japanese offerings?

[Negotiableterms]

Not to derail the thread but I'm wondering if there were any American mfgr's involved in the monster reciever wars of the 70's? If there was any I'm wondering how they stood up against Japanese offerings?
I don't believe there really were any. By the time the monster receivers were built, Fisher, Scott and Marantz were no longer in US hands. Only McIntosh survived, and they never attempted to build a monster receiver. I cannot recall any other brands that were truly US-made.

Anyone know a US entrant?