That would explain some stuff. Performance differences in tuning could just be attributable to the antenna used then and location (both the 1060s are here closer to the city than the 1080). Stereo seperation difference I can't really explain though it might be in the amp stage. Almost all the boards in a 1060 are covered with metal shields, in the 1080 the one board that is covered in a 1060 and the dolby board are exposed (the dolby board can be identified by the chips, and it sits in a part that is empty in a 1060). Gauging differences with the covered boards is not so easy. Both the receivers have the same output transistors, I think they are 2SB600 and 2SD755. Quite big, especially to put in the 1060 at the 125wpc power class. If I remember right these are something like 250w 16 amp rated transistors two pairs per channel offers quite a bit of potential. The tranny is about twice as big in a 1080, caps are 15000uf in the 1060, 22000uf in the 1080. The 1060 is no slouch in any catagory, if in fact it has the 8 gang tuning cap, thats about twice what most of the receivers in the power class offered. It certainly has bigger rated output transistors, a very big transformer. It weighs more than any I can think of in that class (57lbs). Its max power draw sits at 800 watts, which is about 200 more than most of the highest of the class. How this thing only cost $700 in its day in comparison to say the 9090DB running $900 is quite amazing. If you ever are to try one you will see what I mean. I have come up with a theory on how they might have done it too, overall it uses most of the same stuff as a 1080 (case, outputs, etc.). This may have been a cost cutting strategy that went right. They probably used the 1080 design and stripped it down a notch rather than build a seperate receiver from the ground up. Likely saved in R&D costs, kept the price lower as they used similar parts and still offered a more than competitive product. Probably was cheaper to make that way, and ended up being a surprisingly good receiver. I still don't see how it fits in the class either. I have owned quite a few receivers of this power level, I currently have the Sansui 990DB, I had the Marantz 2325, and the MCS 3125. As far as power output it is easily more powerful than those (though I still think the MCS 3125 is the cleanest sounding). Actually it even seems more powerful than the Project One Mark 1500. I seriously wonder why you don't see many around for sale, there probably were quite a few made, mine were seperated by a single model year and have about 12,000 between them in serial numbers. The way I look at it, I can't see anyone wanting to get rid of one after owning it if they were looking for something in that class. After using one for better than a year and getting another I certainly can't see parting ways with either. I would more likely sell my 990DB. I can't think of many other receivers I would go buy over and over again either. I hope some of these surface so some other people have the opportunity to try this thing. Like the MCS 3125 word will probably eventually get out that the TOTL Fisher receivers were indeed some of the better pieces of gear around, then they won't be that affordable deal like it once was. I am sure some here probably wonder why I am so adamant about what I say about these big Fishers, I have no other reason other than that these are amazing receivers that no one seems to have much knowledge about. I have stacks of receivers and am going out looking for these, there must be some reason.
