I compensate by buying really big speakers.
Most powerful receiver ever manufactured?
- Thread starter acdc7369
- Start date
Njord Noatun
Super Member
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.
I will create a thread in VSS - perhaps I can even twist someone's arm to make it a sticky!
I have to pay this :
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.
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.
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
Lunatic Member
The difference between 250 watts and 200 watts is about 1 dB (I calculate 0.97 dB).
riverrat
professional camper
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.
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].
[BTW... My rant is about Solid-State, not valve equipment - sorry to semi-hijack thread].
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.
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
New Member
luxman r-117 
RadShak1251
Super Member
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.
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
Go Habs Go!
Banned, I believe.
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.
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
Chief Bloviator
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.***
***Moderator Note: This post was significantly edited to avoid rule violations.***
oldschoolADS
New Member
....shhh but theres huge money to be made selling large appendages or the illusions of such
yes thanks to ebay and craigslist i have a lot now of what i lusted after in the 80s
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?
Big Tuna
Too Much Power!
Hi Rat, I know this is 3 years later, but my curious browsing has brought me to this thread. I must correct you, in a polite way, the last year for the 500 cube caddy was 1976. Today the "Big is Back", in a modern way, however. We all know the shiny knobs, and buttons and the "look" will always be a thing of the past, but There's just no substitute for cubic inches.
Last edited:
