Discussion in 'Solid State' started by bully, Aug 10, 2002.
Love that turntable! looks like from the Jetzons!!! (Page 9, post #125)
I see the Fisher RSZ1 isnt on the list. It was part of their Professional Digital Reference Series. It was rated at 150 wpc into 8ohms 20-20khz @ .007THD. In a 4 ohm load it was rated at 227wpc at same distortion level. This reciever had a 2.25db dynamic headroom to boot. Audio magazine rated it as one of the best receivers I believe in 1989 or 1990. I have one that I will try to have restored.
76? I thought it was 77 , 75 WPC dual mono I would love to find a minty one
I am a fan of vintage 70's gear and an owner of Realistic receiver of 22wpc which drive decent pair of British speakers. Sound melts my soul every time I use it and never put volume above 40%, I love it unconditionaly, but recently had a browse through ebay and found a few with more than 100wpc. I have never had a chance to listen to any amp/receiver from that era with such great power as these from list above and have an honest question why are these powerful receivers such desirable. What is the point if most of listening oscilating below 10 watts output and the prices are significant?
My opinion on this . Bragging rights . I guarantee my system is better than yours type of thing . My ears tell me what I need to know . My system / main is Sansui au-g99x 160 per at 8ohm and it's kind of over kill. I like Between 60-80 watt anything more than enough head room and can fill a large large area with music
Carver mxr 2000 is 200 watts per channel
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Gahhhh, just sold one of those. Thought it was only 125 watts.
I own several amps and mono amps that have output more than I need — even for the vintage speakers I use in a small room. I bought them used because the price was right and they were/are excellent machines. I think that I can use use them to advantage because my speakers are sealed boxes with huge drivers and they require power — and they get it!
To answer your question: in the late 70's, through the 80's and into the 90's, many (not all by any means) speaker designs required lots of power. IMHO most if not all of them required no more than 100 Watt amps and many were OK with 50. Electro-static designs were reportedly requiring tons of power. That being said, my Dynaco ST-70 at 35 watts per side drove a big pair of electro-static speakers to some of the best audio I have ever had over all the decades. Mind you, when I took the Dyna apart I found evidence of ... er ... stress:scratch2:
It keeps being said that modern speakers comfortably accommodate much lower amp output. We are now entering a new era and have been doing so for some time. IMHO, the monster amps are almost dinosaurs. I say 'almost' because if you own speakers that require lots and lots of power, you may need the 'dino amp'. You might get away with less — as I have in the past, but with dino speakers it is best to have at least the recommended power as well as having some juice in reserve. Take a 70-80's system — amp/speaker combination: Tchaikovsky's 1812 with cannon should rattle the ice cubes around in your scotch tumbler. But on the other hand, with very efficient speakers powered by a flea tube amp, I have felt and heard the same thing. However, a certain irony came to light: the amp cost a fraction of what the speakers were worth on the market at that time. A decade on, you might do better — I dunno.
Some of these old dinos were just plain excellent electronics — bragging points aside. They are worth collecting and restoring if that is worth your interest.
If I were to start over again as a youngster in audio, I'd be into very sensitive speakers, and either small tube amps or "T" or class "D" amps. In fact, as old as I am, I may do the revision anyway — eventually.
Years ago, I could actually see how much music I was playing by looking at my electric bill. If you think I am kidding, audio friends said the same thing. Today you should be able to put together a system that is powered by a DC supply of 12 - 24 Volts and consuming no more than 2 watts in total. (I hope I have those numbers in the ball park — could be less!)
Final word: have nothing against the 'T-Rex' of amps if they are euphonic. I have some amps that will put out 150 at 4 ohms — less at 8 Ohms. One of them (a huge Sansui) is brilliant, and nothing like anything else I have ever heard in my rooms. But I do not for a minute doubt that today's power misers can match it if the engineering is equal and the speakers match the amp.
wring info I have posted sorry
not that it matters too much but I see the Yamaha 3020 rated at 170x2 .it is in actual fact 160x2.
Crown DC 300A Series II
155 WPC 400wpc bridged
you can add the Heathkit AA1800!
What about the original Beomaster 8000 150w (rms) per channel at 4 Ohms
Fisher Studio Standard CA 276 , 885 , and 890 if I remember they have 150 per channel 8 ohms or is it 200 per channel at 8 ohms ? They are beast but not receivers they are integrated .
Could we amend the list to include those of 100 watts?
I have the Acurus 200X3 and Nakamichi PA-7, both 200W/ch. There are many not on the list!!! Why do you even need 150W+, this is home audio.
Fisher CA-276. 150WPC
IME a high wattage amplifier driving speakers at low volumes is generally better than a low wattage amplifier,
There's more control in the bass, more dynamic sound, some speakers really like high current to come alive..
Pioneer SX-1280. Eldest child of the SX-1250. Better tuner, roughly equivalent power. I've owned mine for fifteen years. Wakes me up every day, looks and runs like it's brand new......
Impressive at 23kg too.
Separate names with a comma.