PCA Forums

True, so true. The power supplies on older receiver/amps were massive but very clean.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20082 ... -new-ones/

They do sound better. They also have better FM tuners.

I understand where he's coming from. However, in my opinion, 100 watts is fine for most of the people who are usually pushing a surround setup. Thus, where the most power is needed (subwoofer) is on a separate amplifier. But yeah, I won't say that most receivers these days are of any note in the sound quality department. My personal setup uses studio amplifiers & that's the way to go if you care.

My only grip about the old equipment are the buttons. As they become dirty, turning the pots to increase volume or bass, you can get noise as the pots are turned. I've even tried to clean mine with mixed results.

I still have my Pioneer SX-525 receiver with the QL600 for descrete quad sound. I'm not use the QL600 only the receiver and its in my garage. I bought that when I was only 18 back in 1973.

Executioner wrote:My only grip about the old equipment are the buttons. As they become dirty, turning the pots to increase volume or bass, you can get noise as the pots are turned. I've even tried to clean mine with mixed results.

I still have my Pioneer SX-525 receiver with the QL600 for descrete quad sound. I'm not use the QL600 only the receiver and its in my garage. I bought that when I was only 18 back in 1973.

Yeah that and they are fugly

CaterpillarAssassin wrote:Yeah that and they are fugly

LOL, I know some people who buy them specifically for their looks.

Every old amp or receiver I had (even Carver) eventually suffered from bad volume level contacts at lower sound levels especially, probably because there was more resistance going through the contacts. Newer stuff doesn't do that. I also use subs with their own amps so in my world, I'll take the newer stuff.

Some think LPs sound better than CDs/MP3s too but I also doubt that. I've never thought that with my own stuff comparing apples to apples.


I did prefer the older controls of amps back then when you could easily add, subtract things. I'm not fond of todays pre-selected sound settings in comparison.

In that articles tests, did they test different amps, receivers with everything else being the same, like speakers?

Well the problem is that, even with expensive hermetically sealed potentiometers, eventually the contacts would wear out because all a potentiometer is, is a metal wiper running across either a carbon stripe or (in the case of a high quality pot) a wire coil.

The high end audiophile amps had very good pots but eventually you start scraping metal off the wiper and it contaminates the innards.

I'd never go back to mechanical controls, but design of the amplifier stages and the power supplies were extremely clean back then in a quality amp. I'd love for someone to make a retro amp with digital controls.

Yeah, can't win with potentiometers. I will say that some modern designs are better due to materials, but they will all eventually fail with time & use.

Most manufacturers have pretty much hit the head of the nail though. People don't care so long as it makes noise these days. Heck, most youth haven't even heard a CD to realize the difference from compressed music. There IS a difference. I doubted it at first, but then when I converted my collection that I had listened to over & over again I could pick out the parts that suffered.

FP, like I said, most manufacturers have left the high end goods to their studio/stage stuff. You need to find a studio/stage amp. Unfortunately, none have digital controls that I'm aware of (even after a quick google search).

Which is why my old rig is in the garage.

I don't know if anyone here has seen the stuff but 10 years ago I met a guy who was into high end tube amps. I've seen the stuff in catelogs too but it's all stuff for those with disposable income. The guy I met had all tube stuff and the amps alone, new retailed for over $10K each, one for each channel, each on wheels because they were very heavy. They also took over 20 minutes to fully warm up. As cool as the stuff might be, I heard it and couldn't honestly say that it sounded any better than other equipment I've heard.

My opinion on people who buy tube amps is similar to my feelings about people who still listen to records & buy silver cables for their speakers. They're searching for something that isn't there. Decent properly designed solid state audio equipment will get you 99.5% of the sound. The rest is up to the speakers. Anything else is in your head.

Well said Norm!
Gotta say too those old recievers were NOT ugly IMHO. I had and STA 95
(1979) that gave me 20 years of problem free listening pleasure. But yes the pots and switches began to fail and had to let the ol girl go..

The aluminum faced ones are pretty nice. The faux woodgrain ones... not so much. You should have sold that STA 95 on craigslist. I bet someone would have still paid good money to fix it up.

LOL... tubes. They have their place.. but not as main listening amplifiers. My home theater has 4 Crown 2 channel amps. A nice 2k for the subs and about 500 watts each for the other 6 channels. Amps never work had except for the sub amp. sounds nice and clean.

My "old" receiver that i bought when i was 15 is from a time when amps where crappy. Stupid thing is I still have it. Its ok to use on small speakers. But compared the the Crowns its a POS.