vintage Kenwood receiver scroe!

illinoisteve

Super Member
I finally decided to email the guy who's had a Kenwood KR-5150 listed on my area's CL for several weeks and went to see it/test it. As ad said very weak (almost non-existent) left channel, might just need a good cleaning. I know that works sometimes, but my audio horde is getting a bit large to consider buying another boat anchor, ...but from what I've found to read about it--it's a very interesting receiver, with a lot of capabilities I never imagined a receiver might have. Instead of the $25 he'd been asking, I offered a Twenty.

This morning I took off the wood top cover and perforated metal bottom plate and blew out the dust. Then I flushed every control and switch with CRC QD Electronic Cleaner (red can) and worked the budjeezus outa each one. Then, after letting it sit long enough for the last of that no-residue cleaner to dry, I plugged in earphones, plugged the power cord in, and switched it to FM. I'm thinking: this is when I find out it really needs a recap or transistors replaced or something else big that I will probably put off thinking about trying to do. I switched it ON. And the weak channel is BACK and full strength! Wooooo-Hooooooooooooooooooo!

Hooked a little cheapy FM dipole up to the back--WOW the tuner is really strong, picking up stations 35-55 miles away as well as the one 10 miles away. Hooked a little CD player up to AUX 1, and it sounds great. Gonna try my turntable with each of the PHONO inputs in a while. After running it through a few more paces, I'll squirt just a tad of Deoxit D5 in the controls as preventive medicine. I expect to swap it with the Kenwood KR-750 I've been using in my main system later today. The 750 is about 10 years younger, not quite as "vintage," has higher button to knob ratio than I expect for vintage, though still a very nice machine.

This KR-5150 does need a couple of display light bulbs replaced. I believe I read some old AK posts a few days ago about replacing them. "Watch out for the tuner twine" is one of the main cautions.
 
The KR-5150 is in the living room system now, and I am trying it with various components. When I first tested it with my Miracord turntable, I had some issues: constant background hum, distortion in some midrange sounds on records??? I put a ground on the Miracord, which hadn't had one (curse the person who put the masonite bottom on the plinth with 2 dozen staples and glue). I also replaced the rca plugs on the audio cable; one of them was a rather dodgey-looking replacement. Neither of these things were problems when playing the turntable through the KR-750, but the older KR-5150 seems to be more particular. The hum and distortion is gone. It worked. I've got aux 2 hooked up to the TV's audio output, so later I will see how that works with music programming, movies, etc. CD, tape, phono results so far seem great...though a little different from the KR-750, exactly how I'm not sure.
 
The KR-5150 was the first real higher-fi receiver I owned. Great sound, weird cosmetics. My manual and schematic scan is uploaded at the AK database, I think. If not, drop me a PM.
 
Sam, I found the manual and schematic at hifiengine. I'm really not bothered by the design. It's better than a panel of buttons that all look alike.
 
Here's a link to a long review about the KR-5150, especially interesting because it puts it in context with other "mid-fi" makes/models available at the same time:

http://www.epinions.com/content_429699927684?sb=1

Anyone here, who knows this model, want to agree with, amend, or disagree with any of the points in that review.

The review includes a small color picture of a KR-5150. I can't take as nice of a picture of mine, since around half of the display light bulbs on mine need to be replaced. I only have the FM signal strength meter light, the lighted tuner pointer, and some of the source name lights (that come on when the source is selected). The light issues don't seem to have any effect on function.
 
Nice receiver.

You asked for comments about the review.
1) the power output numbers are not complete but that wasn't required until Nov 1974. But the unit has complete power info available which you have in the documents you have downloaded.

2) I agree that Kenwood is excellent with tuners. Their parent company, Trio, was one of the best manufacturers of HAM radio equipment in the world back then. The FM band was easy for them to get right. This holds for many different Kenwood units and you see their tuners and receivers frequently as discussed as amazing tuning results.

3) the reviewer is mired in the early 70s for his vintage gear. We have all seen the transistor gear getting better from the late 60s up to the rack stereo era in the mid-80s. I believe the 60s-early 70s transistor units need to be evaluated sonically on an individual basis. I have heard both good and bad as the manufacturers got better with transistor design. I generally prefer later 70-early 80s gear.

Two issues with the later gear, the design and layout gets better and sometimes if the unit is not too complicated, easier to work on with fewer wires running everywhere and the gear started to be made more inexpensively particularly into the 80s. Less structural rigidity and such are seen throughout the industry.

Other than that the review does paint a very nice picture of the unit and I would expect it to sound very nice. Later Kenwood got cleaner in sound and specs which may not be better for some listeners. The late 70s gear, the Hi-Speed amps and receivers were very clean and clear.

I'm interested to read your comments about that Hi-Speed KR-750 vs. the KR-5150 sound quality. I expect clean and clear vs. musical and full. But let's hear from you on this comparison.
 
Beautiful find and great job on the cleanup!!

I recently gave a 3130 to a good friend who wanted to get back into vinyl.

This looks like the big brother to that model. I agree with the OP that the tuners on these are great!

I paired the receiver with a set of VOM extension speakers for a nice mid century look to match my friend's decor
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0768-cropped-2.JPG
    DSC_0768-cropped-2.JPG
    154.4 KB · Views: 33
  • DSC_0757-cropped-2.JPG
    DSC_0757-cropped-2.JPG
    122.2 KB · Views: 43
3) the reviewer is mired in the early 70s for his vintage gear. We have all seen the transistor gear getting better from the late 60s up to the rack stereo era in the mid-80s. I believe the 60s-early 70s transistor units need to be evaluated sonically on an individual basis. I have heard both good and bad as the manufacturers got better with transistor design. I generally prefer later 70-early 80s gear.

I think he was trying to keep things generally comparable on a power output/price point basis. As the 70s wore on and the receiver power war kept going, the higher-end units kept becoming more and more powerful. The 5150 was (I think) #2 in the Kenwood lineup when it was released. A few years later, it would have been way down the line.
 
Blue Shadow and Sam Cogley,

Thanks for the comments on the review. I haven't yet decided whether I like the sound of the kr-5150 better than the kr-750 I had been using for several months. They are similar in wpc, but rather different designs, and the 750 has that weird automatic tuning feature, which I assumed was made to break, but which works very well. Part of the issue, is I am using some big, not particularly well made speakers which if driven just right sound much better than they have a right to, but the 5150 seems to give them a bit more bass signal than they really need. Also, I seem to be getting slightly less definition in different instruments and voices, noticeable more when I am playing my turntable. To some extent these are guesses, since at times I can't quite put my finger on how the sound is different, though for the most part very good.
 
You need to enjoy the 5150 for a few weeks then swap back and listen to the 750 again for a while as you decide what you like. I think they way you describe the sound is probably correct comparing the two.

The 750 is a 60 wpc unit and the 5150 is a 33 wpc unit both using the true RMS numbers all stereo receiver were required to use starting in 1974. The 5150 does not specify the frequency response for the power but we can assume it is at least the typical 20-20kHz. Similar power really as noticeably louder is twice the power and twice as loud is TEN times as much power. So if your speakers rock with the 750 they should roll with the 5150.

I talked about the cost cutting going on late in the 70s and you can see this as the 750 has at least 3 fewer inputs. Missing are the second phono input and the two Aux inputs. No problem as the tape inputs will take all but turntable level signals including but not limited to the output of CD, tuner, most current phono preamps (ones that output line level) and tape machines of all kinds. Also missing are the mic inputs but most don't use them and if they do, they have a tape machine that has the input. Rationalization of the needs of the consumer and the bean counters at work.
 
Last edited:
You need to enjoy the 5150 for a few weeks then swap back and listen to the 750 again for a while as you decide what you like.

Sounds like a good idea

I talked about the cost cutting going on late in the 70s and you can see this as the 750 has at least 3 fewer inputs. Missing are the second phono input and the two Aux inputs. No problem as the tape inputs will take all but turntable level signals including but not limited to the output of CD, tuner, most current phono preamps (ones that output line level) and tape machines of all kinds. Also missing are the mic inputs but most don't use them and if they do, they have a tape machine that has the input. Rationalization of the needs of the consumer and the bean counters at work.

The 5150 is the first receiver I've owned with two phono inputs or with the ability to separate the preamp and main sections or with microphone inputs. The manual says that the pre in/out and main in/out inputs can be used to connect a second tape player, though it doesn't explicitly say how you would select that player for monitoring. In any case, this level of connectability seems to indicate in part what the reviewer called "mid-fi."
 
I don't think that amount of connectivity is mid-fi at all. The Audio Research SP-3 preamp has Phono 1 and 2, tuner, spare, tape 1, tape 2 and monitor 1 and monitor 2 for inputs.

This Kenwood comes from an era when flexibility was required since no one really knew exactly how these units would be used. A nice TT for the gentleman to use and a changer for the background listening or for 78s. Mic inputs were common. Just more stuff.

Later as the solid state stereo system became defined, only the higher level units had all the inputs...until the large scale integrated circuit gained ground. Then it was a challenge to find more stuff for that chip to do and gear went down hill.
 
I'm interested to read your comments about that Hi-Speed KR-750 vs. the KR-5150 sound quality. I expect clean and clear vs. musical and full. But let's hear from you on this comparison.

Blue Shadow, I think that may be a good way to put it. But the "musical and full" was exacerbating the imperfections in the overgrown, poorly designed Fisher speakers I was using, which if the bass signal has too much punch badly muddy the midrange and bruise the treble somewhat, too. I can see how the 5150 could make tamer speakers more musical, but in this case it was like giving liquor to a drunk. But when sent a flatter, more sober signal those big Fishers can sound very, very good: clear response, a convincing presence in the bass, and tinkling, sparkling highs (perhaps partly because I replaced the tweeters). Trouble was, turning down the BASS control on the 5150 wouldn't get me exactly the right kind of bass taming, perhaps because the control has stops and I might have needed a spot in between. But I have found a bizarrely happy remedy. My mid-80s off-brand Draco 3-way speakers have very flat response, clarity, and big, but not as big woofers that are set up in better balance with their littler partners. I've stacked them, tweeters down, on the Fishers, and now play the two speaker pairs together. Something like half the bass signal is now going to the less-rowdy Draco woofers, and all the mids and tweeters are singing clearly and crisply as they should. When the bass is there, you can still feel it all around you, but it doesn't boom and make other things muddy. The sound now has the clarity of the KR-750 with the Fishers, running tone controls flat, and I'm running the KR-5150 into the stacked speakers with the tone controls flat. The Dracos are flattening out the response curve, but the KR-5150 has to be doing its part to maintain the warmth. It seems to be a happy medium. I've listened to several CDs and so far a few records, and both are sounding great. Going to give the KR-750 a longer vacation.
 
"sounding great"

That is all we are after. Glad you have the gear to be able to set up different sounds until you get what you want.
 
My 1972 Kenwood KA-4002 integrated amp does very well, despite its relatively meager "18 watts RMS" per channel. I would not call it "mid-fi" as it's more pleasant and accurate than my much newer Sony AV receiver, which is adequate but rather pedestrian sounding. The Kenwoods of that era were really good.
 
Back
Top Bottom