Battle of the Integrateds Part II: 717 Returns!

john_w

Miscreant
OK, I hope I made this sound enough like a B-grade Japanese monster flick for at least some twisted minds to catch the irony.

As mentioned several months ago, I got so curious about the differences between the most famous AU-717, and the other most famous AU-919, that I went out and nabbed a 919 on e-bay for a reasonable price, hooked it up, and just as I did with the AU-9500, spent WAY too much time painstakingly swapping cables back and forth well into the night to see just how much of a difference the 919 Diamond Differential actually made. (The binding posts on the 919 are a great feature, but not the best for manually swapping speaker cable!)

Specs:

One thing very noticeable in the specs is the difference in distortion: The 717 is rated at < .025% for all forms of distortion, whereas the 919 measures in at < .008%. That's far lower than most common consumer HT gear made today! But, distortion is hardly everything. In fact, it's not always even a good barometer. I've heard that levels at this range are pretty much undetectable by the human ear anyhow. (Not sure if that's true -- just what I've heard.) :dunno: And, some relatively high distortion amps are commonly favored over some that look quite pristine on paper.

As far as weight is concerned, the 919 is noticeably heavier as one might expect, at 47.2 pounds vs. 39.2 pounds for the 717. (It's also rated somewhere around 30W/ch higher, as I recall)

I won't go into other specs and features, as B/F has repeatedly cited this information in several past threads.

Test gear:

One difference I made since I compared the 717 with the AU-9500 was a huge upgrade in interconnect cables. I picked up some silver core units that I swear really bring out the high frequencies in everything I hook up to them, and make everything seem to respond much faster. Yes, I know some of you won't buy that one. Just another subjective observation, like most of this. (Besides, it's really cool to have interconnects that look like they belong on a space shuttle!) :D

Otherwise, my gear is the same: Pioneer CD changer/laserdisc combo, cheap 14 guage Monster Cable knock-offs for speaker cable (soon to be replaced), Phase Research SN#R speakers.

Sound:

Going into this, I suspected that the 919 would be a tad more clear, and maybe have a little overhead to give it that extra dynamic punch I missed from the 9500. But the actual differences I heard were far different from that, and really took me by surprise.

As far as I can tell, the 919 is actually no more dynamic than the 717. The 9500 is still top dog in that respect, IMO. But the thing that made my jaw drop was the bass. The low frequencies come out much more clear; it's tighter and better defined than with the 717. And I thought the fuzzy bass issue I had was with my rear-vented speakers! The midrange also sounds noticeably better. Treble was less exciting, and if anything, the extreme high end is a little less prominant, and probably in more of a natural balance.

After my AU-9500 comparison, someone commented that I never mentioned imaging. For both of these comparisons, I had about the worst possible speaker positioning for producing a decent image. I also figured that imaging was more a function of the speakers, anyhow.

Just the same, I closed my eyes during an acoustic guitar passage and with the 919, I could more easily picture the artist sitting on a bar stool right in front of me. Of course, having better focused lows and mids can't help but to improve the image.

So what made the difference? The new circuit design? That's no doubt part of it, but I wonder how much of it has to do with those huge custom filter caps, especially since I'm running on raw, "dirty" power. And the power grid in this part of the country is notoriously crappy. That would explain a better improvement in the low end. Of course, there's the possibility that I've just tricked myself into hearing things that justify my extra time and expense. But I think the differences were clear enough to me to trust what I heard.

Of course, the 717 is still a fine old piece of gear. These are the kinds of differences that probably go unnoticed if you hear these two amps days apart, and are only giving them a casual listen. But the extra $, and the extra time spent trying to find the far more rare 919 on e-bay is worth it, IMO, if it fits your budget.

And going back to the AU-9500, the choice is far more clear with the 919. Unless, of course, you want more high end, and prefer a softer, less focused bass. That's entirely reasonably, IMO. "To each his/her own", as they say.

To be fair, the older 9500 does seem to have better dynamic range, and has more features. (Two headphone jacks - as if that were useful, 3-band tone controls with a midrange control, 3 speaker pair connections - though only two run at once, separate left and right mike inputs, and two extra source inputs if you "cheat" by using the NR Adapter and quad adapter inputs for anything but phono.) In fact, the two extra inputs are great for the extra choices in source input we have now (CD, TV, dvd audio, laserdisc, etc, etc...) But no matter what, the sound quality trumps everything else, in my book.

I'm still planning on trying to sell the 717 locally. If I put it on a national market, it'll be posted on audiokarma first, and I'll give this forum a good pre-warning.

If you've read this far, you probably need to be locked up almost as badly as me. :blah: :screwy:

But then, you're just the kind of independant thinker to give me your 2 cents worth about all of this. Am I daft? Dillusional? (Well, the answer is probably "Yes!" But is it evident by this post?)

I wouldn't be surprised or feel put down if this didn't take on any replies. There may not be much more to add. But if you feel like voicing an opinion, by all means go for it! (Remember, there are no wrong answers to this one!)
 
John- I applaud your curiosity about the 3 integrated amp models, however, my feeling is if you are looking to hear significant differences in sound quality, then you would be apt to hear it more by either switching loudspeakers or comparing a given cd with the same one thats been digitally remastered. Loudspeakers and the source recording itself will have more influence on the perceived sound quality than switching amps and listening for miniscule % differences in distortion ratings.

B/F
 
If you've read this far, you probably need to be locked up almost as badly as me.

:D :D

Great review John and thanks for taking the time.

Your comments did not surprise me. Having spent some time with different Sansui amps I have observed the following :

AU555a - dynamic, warm sound but limited sounstage especially where width is concerned. Good detail.
AU7900 - most dyamic, better soundstage then the above. Sound is big and bass has presence.
AU919 - most neutral and detailed, wide soundstage but can top end can sound a bit laid back. Are my eardrums showing their age?:) Sound is more controlled across the spectrum.

Not quite apples with apples but to me consistent with what you've described. I was looking to see if models from different eras had their own characteristic sound. The older Sansuis have a most appealing presence to their sound as well as a warmth that can be tube-like. They are all great sounding amps. If you can keep all three then that's the way to go! :)

I have compared a AU317 to the AU555a and noticed pretty much the same things but to a lesser degree.

Lastly, the differences I mentioned above were quite obvious. Did not have to sit down and listen hard or anything like that.

cheers
Jack
 
I *am* crazy as a loon, so I really enjoyed reading through your comments. Part of what I enjoy are these thoughtful ruminations of our great older gear.
My recent Sansui experience had been with my former G-9700 receiver. Gobs of power, and that power crystal clear at a rated <.002% THD. In many respects its sound reminded me of my Yamaha receiver, but with a superior tuner section.
I really loved the *look* of the Sansui, too. They are gorgeous pieces, even if just about too large for any shelf!
 
To add further to my previous post up above:


I think its great to have the curiosity and enthusiasm to want to compare various Sansui amplifiers (or they could be another brand as well, Pioneer, Marantz, whatever...) HOWEVER, while I think its alright to make some general comments on what one's particular preference is ("so-and-so amp sounds a bit more brighter than such-and-such amp", for example) I think for the sake of Truth and Accuracy, a few things should be kept in mind.


First of all, you are taking 3 models that are approximately 25-30 years old and reciting what their distortion specs are - well, how do you know that those specs are exactly the same now in 2003 as they were when the manufacturer produced the models at the time they were brand new? Also, it must be taken into account that there were thousands & thousands etc... of these units made, so how do you know that the particular 919, 717, and 9500 you have is the absolute best individual model of all the ones ever made to use as a basis to make a final conclusion as to which model sounds superior to another, do you see what I mean?


So, I think that if one were to attempt to make valid comparisons between two or more vintage amps (receivers, etc..) the first thing on the agenda should be to level the playing field so to speak by having all the models checked out internally so as to have some reference on what their actual specs are now in '03, in other words, some tests would need to be done (which requires some test equipment of course) in order to establish a reference point for a basis of comparison. For example, how can someone claim that model A from 1973 has a better tuner section than model B from 1977 just by merely listening to both - dont you think the comparison would hold more validity if it was determined beforehand that both tuner sections were checked out and both are as close to being in 100% alignment as possible? Without doing that, I dont see how anyone can really make an accurate statement that model A's tuner section is better than model B, because its quite possible that model B's might be superior but since its 20-whatever years old, that particular, individual model that you happen to have (which you are using to represent the conclusions on ALL of them ever made) might need to have an alignment or perhaps some other adjustment, or maybe there might be some leaky capacitors inside that is adversely affecting its performance which the other model might not have the same conditions, or not to the same degree. Comprende'?

Also- when you made the sound comparions between the 3 models- it seems from what Ive read that you always knew which model that you were listening to, right? Well, perhaps you might try doing the blindfold test and then report back on the results- in that case, would you be able to consistently distinguish each model's apparent characteristic sound from another?

It would seem the results of a blindfold test would be more valid, right? Then again, there have been numerous articles written on such A/B tests in various hi fi publications, backissues of Stereophile to cite one, and even then, there are so many variables that have to be taken into account, that its not quite so simple & straightforward as one would think, in trying to arrive at definitive answers as to which model amp sounds better than another- what recordings were used when listening to the amps?- are these recordings the best source material to make comparsions?, how about the cables?- interconnects and speaker cables, are the ones you are using doing justice to the Sansui amps you have?, how about the cd player?.... and so on and so on, I think you can see my point.

Again, I am not trying to spoil your enthusiam in any way, but the Audio hobby does lend itself to perpetuating various myths that seem to get easily passed along and find its way settled into a belief in someone's mind that is not really the whole picture in terms of what the actual Truth is. So, while I certainly dont begrudge anyone to have a preference for one amp or receiver etc, over another, I think it is important to atleast have some awareness of various factors (as I mentioned in this post) that should be taken into account before one proclaims they can say that one model is better than another.

Sincerely,

B/F
 
B/F, to a certain extent, I agree with your arguement. My tests were not done in such a painstaking, scientific manner that the results were 100% conclusive. As I mentioned in my post, this is all very subjective, which is one good reason to try and determine a consensus with people who have at least casually listened to the same models, or even their "close relatives", all over the country. If opinions vary widely, then all the factors that you mentioned have to take on more weight.

You also brought up the idea that suggesting something about a particular model is going to perpetuate a myth: We hear what we've been told to hear, in other words. Which is likely true, if you hear an opinion before you actually listen to something. (And yes, I've been guilty as charged of that one, many times over.) But what I look for in a consensus is people who've heard the equipment before forming their own opinions

One thing I should note, however, is that no, the filter caps on the AU-9500 have NOT yet been replaced. (Though the amp has been recently cleaned.) That may be more of a factor than some other items, in this case.

Regarding distortion ratings, I refer you to the following statement from my post:

But distortion is hardly everything. In fact, it's not always even a good barometer. I've heard that levels at this range are pretty much undetectable by the human ear anyhow. (Not sure if that's true -- just what I've heard.) And, some relatively high distortion amps are commonly favored over some that look quite pristine on paper.

So you see, upon a closer read, we actually agree on this one. I only mentioned the distortion ratings as a casual point of interest, and intended them to be taken with a grain of salt.

The weight, however, determines EVERYTHING about the quality of an amplifier, and should always be the ONLY factor in determining which model is better. Forget Sansui -- I now personally now plug all of my speakers and source equipment into a solid lead brick! :p:

(Am I kidding? Maybe...)

And yes, equipment does age, but the important factor with vintage gear, IMO, is how well a given model ages, on average. No two amplifiers are exactly the same in any respect, but I would put money on the idea that two Sansui AU-919's are going to sound a whole lot more like each other, than like a Yamaha A-1, for instance, which is about the same vintage. (And which also kick :butt1: I might add.), Or even an AU-717. And yes, I'd also bet money that's true even after 20+ years.

I would agree that a double-blind test is better, but what I'm looking for is some hot young blond to work the blindfold and the A/B switching for me. Then we would switch. But none of them are willing to let me blindfold them. Oh, well.

And yes, I've seen those articles on testing factors too. As with all scientific testing, you never quite get it perfect. I don't think there's a "scientific study" anywhere that can't be picked apart and discredited, when someone really wants to.

But I don't think we're talking about miniscule differences, here. I've heard professional opinions on this subject ranging from:

"Only look at power and features when buying an amplifier - they all sound too similar to consider the sound a factor"

to:

"The amp is the heartbeat of the system. Consider speakers and amp a matched pair; only listen to them and buy them together."

I'm just somewhat closer in my opinion to the latter quote than to the former.

IMO, sound factors rank as follows:

1. Source recording
2. speakers
3. amplifier
4. interconnect and speaker cabling
5. input device (maybe ranks higher for non-digital sources)

Anyhow, thanks for the input B/F. I don't intend to "blow off" your view; these are definitely things we need to consider. In fact, it serves as a good disclaimer; these are only opinions, and should only be taken as such.

BTW: I am STILL faithful to my AU-9500. It's a great old amp, and I will keep it until I die, it's reposessed or it's stolen.
 
Oh -- and Bully and Jack, thanks for the comments. And for joining me in my insanity.

Any others?
 
Well, it still seems that most folks have it in their mind that they expect to extract significant differences in sound quality from amplifiers when it should be Different Loudspeakers that one should be evaluating and where those differnces are far more likely to be heard. You might also consider comparing the 3 amps into various types of loudspeaker loads to evalute how they each perform in relation to each other (or if multiple speakers in a room is unwieldy, do a simulation via test equipment and a dummy load)

B/F
 
Yes, that would be interesting. Although 3 amps and 2 speakers would equate to 6 combinations. My brain is just too tiny to retain all of that info at once! Or just using a 4 ohm vs. an 8 ohm load. I've done a 3-way speaker comparison with the 919, and one pair of speakers did happen to have a 4 ohm load. It seemed to run a little leaner, but then the speaker was known to be "quieter" anyhow. At least, that's what I gathered from listening to them in the store's environment. (I know, hard to determine anything from a completely different environment.) I was also told that a 150 W/ch amp would be a better match. The amp did indeed heat up quite a bit more with the 4 ohm load, but other than that, it seemed fine.
 
Its possible that the AU-717 can drive a 4 ohm load running cooler than an AU-919 can as the 717 has more space inside for heat sinking than the 919 whose components with the large caps and all take up more space.

Also keep in mind that perhaps the bias settings need to be adjusted on the amps to have them run at a cooler temperature- another example of the truth that be can be obscured in that someone observes an 919 or whatver the amp model might be, gets warmer into lower impedance loads and he's under the impression its the "fault" of the amp, when in fact, the wrong observation was made due to the amp needing some internal adjustments- such as the bias setting. Maybe that isnt the case with yours, and the bias is ok, but as I said already before, there are alot of factors involved before anyone can make an absolute statement that one amp they own is, or sounds, better than another.

B/F
 
You may be right about the bias, since I haven't checked it. (Or had it checked.) I'll have to look into that. When, I don't know. I'm behind in a lot of things in the "real" world right now.

Another concern I have: Are those caps in the 919 truly custom components? I'm wondering how easy it would be to find new replacements when the time comes to re-cap it.

I still think it's a darn fine sounding amplifier, whether the bias is messed up or not. But I suppose I should have had both amplifiers thoroughly checked over before doing the comparison. Of course, that doesn't eliminate all potential factors, but it's a relatively easy one to cover.

How's this for an illustration:

Ever hear the one about the experiment where they placed a beautiful woman in the corner of a room, and a male scientist in the other corner? The scientist never moves an inch, because he knows that no matter how close he gets, he always has to reach a half-way point first, and will therefore never really contact her.
:(

An engineer then replaces the scientist. He immediately runs right up to her, because an engineer knows that he only needs to get close enough! :smsex:

Thus, my philosophy towards reviewing sound equipment.
 
This is an interesting discussion (thanks guys) and plenty of valid points raised. I think it's fair to say there's not many here who aspire to be a hi-fi reviewer and most are just interested to share their opinions and experience. We can throw in the usual disclaimers of YMMV, IMHO, IME etc but these days I take most of that for granted and am usually either to lazy or forgetful to include them.

By all means, ask questions, challenge a point, and throw in your own experience and knowledge whether it is in support, contradiction or just plain different because after all, that's one way we can all learn, and part of what this forum should be all about IMO (there I did it! :)).

On another point, if John w, comments about the amps were based on all other things being equal, i.e. same recording, CDP or whatever, same speakers and same room :), then that's pretty much good enough (for me) as a starting point. What each individual gets out of that is going to vary sure enough, but that's quite normal in most things.

cheers
Jack
 
JOHN. DON'T WORRY. I did a blind-fold test with my AU 717 and a 9090db. I still celebrate the 717 winning.

I was using SACD's and the sound stage of the 717 was beyound compare. I think" Nature Boy".did it for me.

Anyway, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT SPEAKERS.

I use ear- cups. The sound is so much better.

Personal..........


Regards,

Joe
 
Ear-cups, you say, huh Doc? Well, if you begin using a stethoscope on your speakers, then we might have to start being a bit concerned about you :)


Regards,

B/F
 
Actually Fred, in my attic I have 300 pair of government ear-cups. I bought them at a DOD sale. Of course our government cut them into a Right or Left. Being Naval Avaition headsets, you would be amazed at the clarity. Then again pilots have to be able to hear under combat situations.

Of course, the ohm setting is a little off. Easy cure though.

Sorry about some of my spelling.

Regards,

Joe

BTW: I spent all of $34.50 on them.
 
Military issue 'phones, eh? Very cool!

For me, ear cups are great when I want to get my head into something "floydian". (As in Pink Floyd - like). Can't even keep a really good pair on for long, though. My ears and sinuses start to feel all stuffy and worn out. Even with the really big ones that basically place each ear inside a small room.

Can't beat a good, open soundstage for most things, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom