pauln Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 The Yamaha is on the way! Both the Pioneer and Yammy have been serviced/aligned and tested. I had a CR 600 (30W) I like for a long time - I have heard that the Yammys are a little bright in some systems, but I liked the one I had, hope I like the one on the way. Give me a few days to get these in and I'll write my thoughts. I need to stop buying these things, but they are so inexpensive... maybe just one more if the price is right... I like the looks of this one: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 But that's my point, one can never compare anything here that it doesn't turn into what's best..............doesn't matter what is being discussed, I read the thread as an experiment between SET vs old SS, but it seems to me it is slowly becoming a SET discussion, which I should drop out of, because I lack any knowledge on the subject............guess I should learn how to read better, I missed the point..........again........Just trying to learn something...................but, deep down I did learn.................carry on............... They can all be good. I still have both kinds of systems. Different presentations for each, so some music may sound better on one than the other. There is no best here in my mind. I do use SS on two different systems in my house, with the SETs in the LR playing through the LaScalas. It is all good. (then again, maybe I'm just going deaf...) Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I do know that is a good looking Yamaha..........what year was that made? Watts per channel?............................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Very interesting experiments, Pauln. Because of the impossibility of playing the recording on equipment of perfect fidelity, we don't have a way of knowing what is actually on the recording -- the sound on the recording itself could be slightly harsh, and the harshness could be hidden by some slightly "mushy" or "forgiving" components, which could pleasantly soften reality. Some classical recordists (e.g., Leo de Gar Kulka re: Midsummer Mozart) have mentioned that recording the natural sound of strings as they hear them live when making the recordings, is a rarity. I have occasionally heard harsh string sound even in live performance. We judge faithfulness by fidelity to the imagined original, and sadly, by fidelity to the imagined true nature of the recording. The only exceptions to this I can think of are live vs. recorded demonstrations like Paul Klipsch used to conduct, with a (somewhat) acoustically transparent fabric between the audience and the orchestra, with the Klipshorns in artificial corners placed in the orchestra. Even though he fooled a lot of people that way, there was still the problem of the hall acoustics being over-represented in playback, since those acoustics had two whacks at the sound, once at the original playing, and once at the playback of the recording. In any case, what was being judged at PWK's sessions was the fidelity of the whole system of recording and playback vs. the live sound. Years after these experiments by PWK, someone else made a comparison of several systems vs. live, and I believe reality came in third. Was this reported in Dope from Hope? I think so. As far as experiments to determine whether an individual prefers the sound of one of the solid state or tube designs is concerned, I think one needs to use several classical recordings, as well as several from all other genres. One classical recording could sound better with tubes, and another recording of the same piece of music could sound better with solid state. The best sounding, warmest (not necessarily the most accurate) amplification I've had was a pair of McIntosh 40 wt tube amps, but they sent a lot of noise through to the Klipschorns. The failed Luxman integrated amp was probably the best sounding solid state. When I changed from a Yamaha 135 wpc solid state to my NAD 150 wpc solid state amps there was a considerable improvement, and a stark increase in resolution, but a "bad" ("questionable?" "funky?") reed now shows up (a few times) on my favorite Anthony Ortega jazz sax recording( New Dance, HAT ART CD 6065), but all the rest of my jazz collection sounds better, and airier, than before, with reach out and touch 'em cymbals, and tremendous impact. But did the increased detail have to ruin my favorite? Someone suggested that I hook up a "mushier" amp in a switching arrangement, just for the one selection on the Ortega, but I just skip that tune, or grimace, and let it pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB Slammin Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 ............ Now that Seti sent the Canary's to a new home I too can't wait to here his 60WPC Allen's once they get here from the re-builder Sounds like IB will need to bring his big ears on down to LR for a vibrating cochlea party Just let me know when!! Love to hear those Allen's on Seti's Bells! OK, OK. I will leave "fever" at home.[:@] Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hardy Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Well... this has been interesting so far. I like SE amps with my Cornwalls, but I've enjoyed PP tube amps a bit more. An HF-81 that I re-habbed with modest parts has settled into everyday duty in the living room. I recently had the pleasure of re-capping a Marantz 8B. This amp with the Cornwalls was phenomenal. Absolutely incredible. I suspect this is due mostly to the top-class output iron in the Marantz, and Marantz's fine tuning of the output circuit with some trimmer caps and high-precision, 'cut to fit' resistors, and not to the PP topology, nor the "high" output power of the 8B (well, high compared to Paramours or an HF-81). As far as ss amps go: IMNSO, the Pioneer SA-6500 is a pretty ordinary 2nd-half of the 1970's massmarket piece. It was the next to BOTL amp in the line-up at the time. The Yamaha CA-**00 and CA-**10 amps of the same era are the best sounding massmarket ss amps I've heard to date. Yes, I am quite biased, having owned a CA-610II since it was new. I have since collected most of the CR-**20 receivers as well (missing only a CR-620 and 3020). These are fine, clean, neutral, nuanced amplifiers, lacking the 'grain', glare, and two-dimensionality of most of their contemporaries. It'll be interesting to hear how the CA-600 (which is a model year earlier than the CA-610II and IMO much better built, if nothing else) compares with an SA-6500. The big wild card, though, is the condition of the multitude of little electrolytics in their circuits :-( cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 As for Yamaha! I have owned the Yamaha C2 preamp and the B2 power amp both very well made and had great sound I also own and still own a Yamaha CT7000 tuner these componets were truly a joy to own! but would I trade the SET performance that I have now! for them? No [] SET12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pauln, I still prefer the Pioneer SX series of that era over the Yammies but for looks the 1020 was probably the most beautiful receiver of all of them IMHO[] Looking forward to your findings on that one[] Terry, I think Ian really (secretly) loves the "Fever" [] You know I'm having you down once I get the Scally's back up and going[8] You know after Culli hears Richard's Jubs he will be at the next Hope gathering with his new "Jubil-Stiens"! I can see then now, dual bass bins with a pyramid of 402's atop[] 11 1/2 feet tall, 925 lbs of slammin' jammin' spl's[:^)] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pioneer SX series that was good stuff to![8] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Geez that posting button is touchy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IB Slammin Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Pauln, I still prefer the Pioneer SX series of that era over the Yammies but for looks the 1020 was probably the most beautiful receiver of all of them IMHO[] Looking forward to your findings on that one[] Terry, I think Ian really (secretly) loves the "Fever" [] You know I'm having you down once I get the Scally's back up and going[8] You know after Culli hears Richard's Jubs he will be at the next Hope gathering with his new "Jubil-Stiens"! I can see then now, dual bass bins with a pyramid of 402's atop[] 11 1/2 feet tall, 925 lbs of slammin' jammin' spl's[:^)] Timmy, Get those LaS babies up and thumping. Am looking forward to listening to the other half of the BAT's !! If I had known that JW was such an excessive LF- SPL animal, I would have.........Well, too late now......I think that the pot is boiling again in the basement of Dr. Cullistien.......It's Aliiiive!..... I would give anything to have Gene Wilders hair! (or any hair for that matter) regards, tc PS: Seti, shoot me an email ....tcruse@fspecinc.com......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Very interesting experiments, Pauln. Because of the impossibility of playing the recording on equipment of perfect fidelity, we don't have a way of knowing what is actually on the recording -- the sound on the recording itself could be slightly harsh, and the harshness could be hidden by some slightly "mushy" or "forgiving" components, which could pleasantly soften reality. Some classical recordists (e.g., Leo de Gar Kulka re: Midsummer Mozart) have mentioned that recording the natural sound of strings as they hear them live when making the recordings, is a rarity. I have occasionally heard harsh string sound even in live performance. We judge faithfulness by fidelity to the imagined original, and sadly, by fidelity to the imagined true nature of the recording. The only exceptions to this I can think of are live vs. recorded demonstrations like Paul Klipsch used to conduct, with a (somewhat) acoustically transparent fabric between the audience and the orchestra, with the Klipshorns in artificial corners placed in the orchestra. Even though he fooled a lot of people that way, there was still the problem of the hall acoustics being over-represented in playback, since those acoustics had two whacks at the sound, once at the original playing, and once at the playback of the recording. In any case, what was being judged at PWK's sessions was the fidelity of the whole system of recording and playback vs. the live sound. Years after these experiments by PWK, someone else made a comparison of several systems vs. live, and I believe reality came in third. Was this reported in Dope from Hope? I think so. As far as experiments to determine whether an individual prefers the sound of one of the solid state or tube designs is concerned, I think one needs to use several classical recordings, as well as several from all other genres. One classical recording could sound better with tubes, and another recording of the same piece of music could sound better with solid state. The best sounding, warmest (not necessarily the most accurate) amplification I've had was a pair of McIntosh 40 wt tube amps, but they sent a lot of noise through to the Klipschorns. The failed Luxman integrated amp was probably the best sounding solid state. When I changed from a Yamaha 135 wpc solid state to my NAD 150 wpc solid state amps there was a considerable improvement, and a stark increase in resolution, but a "bad" ("questionable?" "funky?") reed now shows up (a few times) on my favorite Anthony Ortega jazz sax recording( New Dance, HAT ART CD 6065), but all the rest of my jazz collection sounds better, and airier, than before, with reach out and touch 'em cymbals, and tremendous impact. But did the increased detail have to ruin my favorite? Someone suggested that I hook up a "mushier" amp in a switching arrangement, just for the one selection on the Ortega, but I just skip that tune, or grimace, and let it pass. Exactly my experiences (with different gear of course), but far more eloquently stated than I'll ever be capable of. [Y] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Rob, give it up we are old farts[] Good call Rivendell61 but I think most of us were onto Duke! Terry, glad to see you redeemed yourself as I was right beside you when those VRD's were driving JW's speakers to very nice "BASS" volumes[] Now that Seti sent the Canary's to a new home I too can't wait to here his 60WPC Allen's once they get here from the re-builder[] Sounds like IB will need to bring his big ears on down to LR for a vibrating cochlea party[] Pauln, I was never a Nikko fan but my first receiver I bought myself in Germany was the Pioneer SX-1050 so I'm really wanting to know what you hear and think of the 6500[] It was really hard to let the Canary Audio 300B 8WPC amps go but I am not made of money and aquired soem Allen 90 organ amps. They are going to have two modes 30wpc triode and 60 pentode so it should be interesting. I found someone really familiar with the amps to build them but I am waiting. The guy that is bulding them is making sure they are quiet and mate well with klipsch. He was excited to be rebuilding them and muttered oh cool 6 stage low mu tube amps and I have no idea what that means. ib, email on the way..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 OldBuckster see here about the CR 1020 http://www.thevintageknob.org/YAMAHA/CR1020/CR1020.html 1977-1979 conservative 70 Watts/ch Yeah, they are really beautiful, here's one on ebay right now with 1 bid at $60.00! How can I resist that!?? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130015009000&indexURL=1&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted August 9, 2006 Author Share Posted August 9, 2006 By the way, I like the way this thread is developing... Appeciate the responces and the maintenance of focus on listening and comparing... I have I high respect for the 70's SS - transition period from post tube through discreet component twith wood to chips and plastic - a golden age. And this was when phono ruled and phono EQ was deliberately well designed. Three more of the CR 1020 from the inside... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SET12 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Allen Organ Monoblocks I have a pair of Allen Organ amps as well they are huge and each uses a quad of 6L6's a pair of 6SN7's, a pair of 5U4's a OD3 voltage regulator the output is potted it is apprx. 6in X 6in X 6in the amps need minor work. But I'm told they run! I am looking to sell them! As I am into SET's If I get them up and running I will ask more than double for what I paid for them but I would let them go for what I got in them plus shipping which is 400$ If anyone is interested in them I will guarantee the Iron and would replace anything faulty by a match pair of Hammond equivalent or a cash settlement of replacement value of the Hammond line. SET12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted August 10, 2006 Author Share Posted August 10, 2006 Wow! Here is a CR 1020 for $20 0 bids http://cgi.ebay.com/YAMAHA-CR-1020-RECEIVER-AWESOME_W0QQitemZ140017241335QQihZ004QQcategoryZ50596QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem And its been services/aligned - checks out 100% They say the face and cabinet are less than perfect, but the pictures look fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerwoodKhorns Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I just passed on a mint Yamaha CR1020 locally. I bought the guy's JBL L100's. Probably should have picked up the 1020, could have had it for about $100 or so. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbuckster Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I hate E-bay, but I'll swallow my pride, I bid on the Yamaha 1020, it's worth $20. to me, although deep down I won't win................some creep will snipe me at the end.........Stop ,I can feel the whining already, maybe I'll run the price up.....................Relax, that's not my show.................Just a nice piece of equipment........Thanks for the tip, Pauln.................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.