Fisher 500 vs 400

[baronkyle]

Does anyone have an opinion on these two receivers? It appears that the 500c is 30 wpc and the 400 is 25 wpc. Besides 5 watts, are there any reasons to get the 500 over the 400?

Here is what Wikipedia says:

500 Series Receiver A,B,C, FM only, 7591A outputs

400 Series Receiver, FM only, 7868 outputs, similar to model 500, but with fewer features

[jimjimbo]

Go to 6moons.com. Good info there on this

[baronkyle]

Anyone own these, or better yet, own both?

[Taz]

I own a 400 and am very happy with it.  Powering Khorns. 

 

Also have mc-30's.  but listening to the Fisher.  Go figure.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Taz

[Fjd]

Besides 5 watts, are there any reasons to get the 500 over the 400?

 

 

I remember that after this review was published in 2005 the selling prices of the Fisher 500-C increased substantially. 

 

 

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/605fisher/#TuKXKdJ9wCfwuu4G.97

 

 

Back in 1964, Avery Fisher, founder and president of the Fisher Radio Corporation, wrote a short note for the 500-C Stereophonic FM Multiplex Receiver owner's manual. In that note he said, "a door has opened for you, and your family, on virtually unlimited years of musical enjoyment."

 

Little did he know how right he would be. Who could predict that, 40 years later, Avery Fisher's crystal ball had been spot on—that thousands of units of this American audio engineering classic would be the centerpieces of the music and fidelity pastime, of vintage audio?

 

 

 

 

The Fisher 500-C

The Fisher 500-C stereo receiver was the pinnacle of high-fidelity reproduction in 1964. A conservative estimate of the number of 500-Cs built runs to more than 100,000 units. It was a technological tour de force that combined a full-function control center (preamp) with a 35Wpc power amplifier and a stereo multiplex FM tuner that offered the highest sensitivity rating of the time (footnote 1). It's interesting to note that FM tuners from those days continue to offer outstanding performance—witness the $2000-plus resale prices of Marantz 10Bs on the Internet. There is a reason for this, and it's not just nostalgia.

 

Frequency modulation (FM) (footnote 2) was adopted for stereo broadcasting for its ability to reject spurious signals and noise—such as the sound of your vacuum cleaner, static-electric sparks, or lightning. This rejection ability, plus a wide distance between stations (200kHz vs AM's 9–10kHz) gave FM ample room for more than twice the basic audio bandwidth (20Hz–15kHz) required for stereo broadcasts without impinging on adjacent stations. FM stereo combines the left (L) and right ® audio channels in a technique called multiplexing, in which an L+R signal is broadcast simultaneously with an L–R signal. A summing-and-difference amp decodes the two signals as discrete left and right channels.

 

Fisher used the same multiplex decoder in all its tuners and receivers. In fact, many identical parts were shared across Fisher models for cost savings and production efficiency. Today, ultra-rare units such as the Fisher FM1000 Broadcast tuner can be maintained or repaired from beaters and discarded Fisher stereo receivers. Fisher tuners were (and still are) revered for their sound, and were built to such high standards that Fisher maintained tube-based production designs well into the solid-state era.

 

A Fisher 500-C sold for $369 in 1964. That seems like chump change today, but in 1964, $2368 bought you a brand spanking new Ford Mustang (the 1964 New York Auto Show was the pony car's debut). Collector-condition Mustangs now trade for between $10,000 and $15,000. A mint, low-hours 500-C rarely goes for more than $600.

 

[Fjd]

Over the years I've owned the Fisher 500-C, 800-C and separates that included; the SA300 amplifier, CX400 preamplifier and FM1000 tuner.  I know that I wouldn't argue with the choice of either Fisher matched to a pair of La Scalas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Fjd

[thebes]

I have had working  Fisher 400, 500 and x202b (integrated amp).  All versions are un-restored.  Given that very strong caveat, I prefer the 400 and feel it has a smoother sound. Radio stations in my area suck.  I seldom listen to them so I cannot really comment on the tuner sections.

[FishRick]

I have 3 400's and one 500c all of which I've restored. I love them all, classic looks and a great warm sound that is hard to describe. I run them in separate rooms on a daily basis. They all sound great, currently using heresy 2's on one of the 400's, heresy one's on the 2nd 400, Pioneer hpm 60's on the third, and 2 pairs of HPM 100's on the  500c. The Pioneers seem to have a better bass response than the Heresy's but there's a presence to the Klipschs that only horns can give. That being said, I'd be hard pressed to say that any one is better than the other. Don't think you could wrong with either. 

[NOSValves]

On 1/11/2016 at 10:27 PM, baronkyle said:

Does anyone have an opinion on these two receivers? It appears that the 500c is 30 wpc and the 400 is 25 wpc. Besides 5 watts, are there any reasons to get the 500 over the 400?

Here is what Wikipedia says:

500 Series Receiver A,B,C, FM only, 7591A outputs

400 Series Receiver, FM only, 7868 outputs, similar to model 500, but with fewer features

 

WIKI pretty much got it right along with 5 wpc difference. I've rebuilt 100s of both models and if I had to choose one over the other with all other factors being equal it would be decided by cosmetic condition. My advice is always buy vintage gear in as nice as possible cosmetic condition. 

 

  One more piece of advice..pieces this old should never be placed in use without electrical restoration. So plan on either doing it yourself or highering a pro. 

[muel]

I've found the tuner of my 500C to be very good!  

[jimjimbo]

My 500c is damn fine...