Would Greatly Appreciate Help Choosing An Amp

[oldenough]

Clipper, hi and welcome....I can tell you from my experience that vintage NAD equipment would serve you very well and I personally would highly recommend it. I have a NAD7155 driving my Fortes that I prefer over my Marantz 2245, and any of the vintage H/kardon twins that I have.

[theclipper]

I know, I really dropped the ball on that one. I have never used proxy bidding before so I wasn't comfortable trying it out for the first time on this item. I haven't used ebay in a few years so I need to get back in the groove.

[theclipper]

Thank you for welcoming me, I am getting alot of great info here. Hopefully in time my Forte II's will appreciate my findings. The guy at the local store was really high on the NAD 7155 as well. I'm not sure what I should do yet. What do you think is the most I should pay for something in that ballpark.

[Islander]

Is there a particular reason you're looking for vintage electronics, other than cost? Newer gear is not much more expensive, sounds better and is more reliable. I replaced my 1978 Yamaha CR-1020 receiver (near the top of the line in its time) with a used 1998 Yamaha RX-V392 AV receiver (bottom of its line) for $150 and the sound was very noticeably clearer, plus it would drive 5 channels instead of 2.

When I moved the 392 to the bedroom system and bought a 2005 RX-V750, it was a step up again, with more power and clarity.

If you're on a tight budget, a 3- or 4-year-old amp or receiver won't be expensive, but it will likely please you much more than a 20- or 30-year old unit that may not be very reliable anymore and won't sound as good as a newer unit.

You'll want to keep in mind that the newer units (after maybe 2000 or so) only have a phono input on the midrange or higher models. If you find one you like that has no phono input, you can get a phono preamp for $100 or less, or you can spend as much as you like, with the sound improving accordingly.

[theclipper]

Is there a particular reason you're looking for vintage electronics, other than cost? Newer gear is not much more expensive, sounds better and is more reliable. I replaced my 1978 Yamaha CR-1020 receiver (near the top of the line in its time) with a used 1998 Yamaha RX-V392 AV receiver (bottom of its line) for $150 and the sound was very noticeably clearer, plus it would drive 5 channels instead of 2.

When I moved the 392 to the bedroom system and bought a 2005 RX-V750, it was a step up again, with more power and clarity.

If you're on a tight budget, a 3- or 4-year-old amp or receiver won't be expensive, but it will likely please you much more than a 20- or 30-year old unit that may not be very reliable anymore and won't sound as good as a newer unit.

No I don't necisarilly need something that is really old. I just want to get something that will sound a lot better than my current Kenwood, without breaking the bank. I wasn't sure if the new ones would sound as good since they have 5.1 and all that.

[oldtimer]

If you just want two channel, then look for an integrated (you don't really want radio do you?) and the quality will be there.

[Islander]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

[oldtimer]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Lazy...(lol)

[theclipper]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Lazy...(lol)

Ha, I wouldn't mind a remote either. And yeah, I don't think I really care about the radio. I just want to focus on my Vinyl. Anyone familiar with a Denon PMA 720? I found one for $150, it sounds like it might be pretty good. But I don't know all the details like you guys do. The good thing is I live in Seattle and it seems like there is always some decent stuff put up on CL.

[twistedcrankcammer]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Islander,

There is absolutely a compromise in the amplifier section of a multi channel surround sound receiver vs a stereo receiver, just as there is compromise in a receiver vs seperates, just as there is compromise in a seven channel amp vs mono blocks for each channel and to say otherwise is misleading. They absolutely do not build a stereo receiver like they did back then. Granted that a 19 year old receiver may have issues, but it may not. It can definately have issues on there way, but if it is up to snuff, you cannot compare the two, but have you heard both?? No?? The Nakamichi TA-4A has a very thorough remote, the one in that particular auction was missing said remote. Further, his interests are very frugal, and he listens mainly to vynl, again a compromise with newer units.

Roger

[Islander]

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Lazy...(lol)

My girlfriend's not very heavy, but it's still an effort to lift her off my lap to adjust the volume...[]

[oldtimer]

Still got it eh pat?

[Islander]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Islander,

There is absolutely a compromise in the amplifier section of a multi channel surround sound receiver vs a stereo receiver, just as there is compromise in a receiver vs seperates, just as there is compromise in a seven channel amp vs mono blocks for each channel and to say otherwise is misleading. They absolutely do not build a stereo receiver like they did back then. Granted that a 19 year old receiver may have issues, but it may not. It can definately have issues on there way, but if it is up to snuff, you cannot compare the two, but have you heard both?? No?? The Nakamichi TA-4A has a very thorough remote, the one in that particular auction was missing said remote. Further, his interests are very frugal, and he listens mainly to vynl, again a compromise with newer units.

Roger

I can't speak for all brands, just the Yamaha receivers that I have owned, from a 1975 CR-600, to a 1978 CR-1020, to a 1998 RX-V392, to a 2005 RX-V750. In each case, the newer one sounded better, with vinyl or tuner with the earlier two, to vinyl, tuner, CD or DVD with the newer two.

Monoblocks may have a theoretical advantage over stereo amps, but we're talking sub-$500 units here. No monoblocks in that price range.

Why would a 5- or 7-channel amp necessarily be compromised relative to a 2-channel amp? One advantage the multi-channel amp has is that its power supply is large enough to supply all those channels, so when it's running in stereo, there's a lot of headroom available, so that a receiver rated at 100W x 7 will actually put out 130 watts when driving only 2 channels. I got those figures from a test by AudioEnz, a New Zealand audio magazine, and it makes perfect sense to me.

[Islander]

Still got it eh pat?

[][Y][H]

[theclipper]

Also, I have no real need for deep deep bass, I mainly just want it to be nice and clear.

[bigdaddy]

I've compared the sound of my Yamaha HTR-6090 I bought for a grand in 2006 to a pioneer sx 1500 (NEW IN 1973 ABOUT)that was given to me by my Bro in law. I really liked the Pioneer. My yammie is rated at 120 or 130 watts per channel and the Pioneer is rated at 32 watts per channel. I also have Fortes.

[twistedcrankcammer]

5.1 or 7.1 channels is not a drawback, they sound fine. However, some manufacturers still make stereo receivers that have slightly higher specs than their AV receivers.

Another plus with the newer models is that they'll likely have a remote control. I don't know if that matters to you, but I find being able to go from CD to tuner to TV or just adjusting the volume without getting up to be very handy.

Islander,

There is absolutely a compromise in the amplifier section of a multi channel surround sound receiver vs a stereo receiver, just as there is compromise in a receiver vs seperates, just as there is compromise in a seven channel amp vs mono blocks for each channel and to say otherwise is misleading. They absolutely do not build a stereo receiver like they did back then. Granted that a 19 year old receiver may have issues, but it may not. It can definately have issues on there way, but if it is up to snuff, you cannot compare the two, but have you heard both?? No?? The Nakamichi TA-4A has a very thorough remote, the one in that particular auction was missing said remote. Further, his interests are very frugal, and he listens mainly to vynl, again a compromise with newer units.

Roger

I can't speak for all brands, just the Yamaha receivers that I have owned, from a 1975 CR-600, to a 1978 CR-1020, to a 1998 RX-V392, to a 2005 RX-V750. In each case, the newer one sounded better, with vinyl or tuner with the earlier two, to vinyl, tuner, CD or DVD with the newer two.

Monoblocks may have a theoretical advantage over stereo amps, but we're talking sub-$500 units here. No monoblocks in that price range.

Why would a 5- or 7-channel amp necessarily be compromised relative to a 2-channel amp? One advantage the multi-channel amp has is that its power supply is large enough to supply all those channels, so when it's running in stereo, there's a lot of headroom available, so that a receiver rated at 100W x 7 will actually put out 130 watts when driving only 2 channels. I got those figures from a test by AudioEnz, a New Zealand audio magazine, and it makes perfect sense to me.

Islander,

I can't speak to the specific pieces you have listened to, or the condition they sonically may have been in when you listened to them.

I can address the size and quallity of the power transformer and size and quallity of the caps used in those older units. There is a reason that 19 year old unit only needed serviced once. There is a reason that old Nakamichi at half the physical dementions weighs more than 90-95% of the surround receivers out there now. Do you honestly think that most of these mid priced to cheap surround receivers that are being built now are going to be playing in 20 years with their present build quality??

I can address that at the exact time when the Forte's and Quartets were new, that I listened to many options on them with some of the top equipement from several great brands and can confidently say that trying to explain the differance of the high end Nakamichi gear of that period to someone who has not heard it new, is just like talking to someone with Bose 901s that are the greatest speaker they have ever listened to. Their experience has not encountered the Forte' yet, and they believe because of the marketing techniques and word of mass consumer, that they have the best. The 999 Yamaha was not only Yamahas flagship at the time, and not only was I able to compare my brand new Nakamichi with a brand new 999, but also NAD seperates that were brand new and only cost half as much at the time. Further, I don't know now, but the 999 was considdered Yamahas pinnacle for many years after it ceased production, and was what all other top shelf Yamahas were measured against in the magazines for a long time.

Any of us with much experience should well know that stated specs don't tell the whole story either. Paul Wilbur Klipsch long touted the use of a more efficient speaker, that by driving it less hard, it would inherintly have less distortion, yet while my cornerhorns are more efficient, few who have owned both would say that the cornerhorn is more articulate and quite as capable of bringing out the very subtlest of details the Forte' can if mated with the propper gear and all in perfect working order.

That old Nakamichi TA-4A may be in good shape, it may be out of speck. The same could be said of his Forte's, the crossovers may be out of speck, and they still could be better than anything else he has ever heard. I know this much, I know what that Nakamichi is capable of delivering, and yes, it is that dramatic, and it was geared for a high end vynl listener.

Roger

[twistedcrankcammer]

On a recent similar thread, OB stated that if the Forte's were such a great speaker, why weren't they still being built??

My answer to that would be that for myself, at that time when the Forte' , Chorus, then later the Quartet, Forte' II, and Chorus II were introduced, those of us that had already been into Klipsh prior to their introduction saw them as cheap looking KLipsch wannabe speakers and wouldn't give them a fair audio audition. I was 25 years old and could not afford Cornerhorns then, I wanted LaScalas, I was used to my idea of a Klipsch speaker being fully horn loaded and made from great plywood, not crappy sawdust board, and certainly not with a rear firing fake woofer!! The Dealer in my town carried Cornerhorns and Herisies ac well as the Quartet, Forte", and Chorus in stock. They were not interested in ordering me in a set of LaScalas, and were out of Heresies at the time I bought my speakers. That is how I ended up with the Quartets at the very first, figguring I would get LaScalas or cornerhorns eventually. After owning them, I was able to listen to my gear at my friends house with LaScalas, and Heresies, and later LaScalas and Cornerhorns, then finally my own cornerhorns and LaScalas that I came to appreciate the Quartets and Forte's for what they truely sonically offered. I believe my own initial impressions of those models when they first came out probably echoed that of most Klipsch fans at that precise time, and was probably the reason for their demise.

Roger

[fenderbender]

theclipper:

one other option not to overlook in your price range is a vintage Sansui....you can usually find a AU 7900 for $200-225 .....they are awesome overbuilt units and IMO every bit as good/better than vintage Mcintosh Integrated amps......

I have 5 different Sansui's as well as several macs.....Groomlakearea51 has like 6 different ones and they are awesome with an awesome phono sections......depending one the shape they are in they might be 100% but they are 30 years old so like all vintage will probably need a good cleaning and some caps may need to eventually replaced

[Cal Blacksmith]

I must take exception to Roger with his ranking of equipment.

He posted:

" I will try to put some brands of the era together to give you an
idea of price groupings although I think the pioneer of the day
outperformed their monetary bracket:

Bracket 1) Fisher, Emerson, Radio Shack

Bracket 2) JVC, Technics, Pioneer, Kenwood

Bracket 3) NAD, Dennon, Harman Kardon (We are starting to get into the seperates at lower price levels here)

Bracket 4) Nakamichi, Bang & Olfsen, etc. These were the price prohibitive stuff of the day."

Fisher made some fine gear that goes very well with Fort'e speakers. I have personaly used a Fisher amp with my Fort'e speakers and the sound was VERY good. I think the issue here is that he is limiting his thoughts to SS gear and by any account, the SS fisher gear is not all that great, good for a garage setup at best. Fisher tube equipment is a VERY good way to get GREAT sound at a reasonable price. Is it slightly colored? Sure, but then again so is any output from ANY amp, SS or otherwise. The issue is do you like the coloration that you are hearing. I would whole heartedly endorse tube gear for 2 ch as that is what I have and I love. I also have 7,1 HT, and other SS gear in the home and love each for the things that each setup brings to the table. My audio roots are from the 70s so I have heard much of the gear that he recomends and have owned Yamaha when it was cutting edge equipment sold only in high end audio shops. I still own that gear as a matter of fact though it gets used in other lower glamor setups such as in my shop (a setup that will blow away 75% of the home stereo setups!)

I would recomend that you lood at a good solid tube amp such as this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-FISHER-X-100-2-STEREO-TUBE-AMPLIFIER-X100-AMP_W0QQitemZ230278012176QQihZ013QQcategoryZ119019QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

As for bidding at the last second, take it easy on yourself and let the computer do the work for you. Use a service such as

Auctionsniper.com

They give you some free buys to try out the service. You set your max price, the lead time to bid and let the service do the rest. You remove the emotion from the equation this way and you can choose to not bid if you change your mind, something you CAN NOT DO with Ebay if you place a bid through them.

Welcome to his hobby and I wish you luck in your goal to find quality sound to please your ears. Your purchase of the Fort'e speakers are a great start, they were my first Klipsch speakers and I still have them, they are serving as my main speakers in my 7.1 HT.

Wayne