Paul McGowan "How Good was audio equipment of the 70s"

It occurs to me that many audiophiles would do better sound quality wise to first focus their audio funds on things like room treatments/design, than buying a mega thousand dollar amp, but that subject doesn't get nearly the traction that amplifiers do. Some of these new amps push the envelope towhat the cost of designing and building the perfect room would be!

It certainly isn't as sexy a topic as modern TOTL amps and their superiority to lesser types, but maybe if one follows the money it is easier to understand why there isn't the pod caster/blogging interest from the business end of fixing a room. Possibly not enough serious interest in room treatment, after all it is a confusing subject that takes thought, research, and work to iron out, and some of the ready made solutions could borderline dangerously on snake oil too. Room treatments can't really be bragged up among, fellow audio enthusiasts, but swiping a credit card on a new PS Audio or other high dollar amp is a far easier path to perceived audio nirvana (and acceptance in the higher echelon levels of audio society) than fussing with the complicated and messy subject of room acoustics even though it is likely there would be more to gain by the latter.. There are exceptions of course.
 
Guys, let's get real here for a second. No consumer ever walked into a stereo shop in the 70s and purchased a $199 integrated to drive their $2,500 boutique speakers. The argument that said unit can't drive said speakers as good as a well designed boutique power amp is just silly.

Hell I guess we should all just drive a Mercedes ... I mean, the road appears to be littered with crap.

With all due respect. Of the receivers I tried with my first pair of Magneplanars ($500 in 1976) none were bargain basement BOTL examples. They were all mid-priced or higher. They all failed miserably. No doubt they would have been fine on a pair of conventional boxes. Unfortunately none of them were satisfactory with Magneplanars.

Maggies are 4 Ohm speakers. However, they are an extremely benign load with no large impedance or phase swings. An inability to drive a benign 4 Ohm load tells me there is something inadequate in the power amp. I would be loath to use such a device on any 4 Ohm speaker.

Alobar;
I've been an advocate of room treatment and measurements for 25+ years.
 
Last edited:
It's sort of narrow minded to think that there has been no progress in the audio arts since your favorite receiver was manufactured 30 years ago.

The only negative comment I've ever made about receivers is that the majority of them are incapable of driving the speakers I like. I have never made any comment as to their sound or quality.

FWIW: I like the old Silver faced look. That's why I like the latest Yamaha gear.
And I never said there wasn't any progress, How much progress and is it worth the money is my question.
 
With all due respect. Of the receivers I tried with my first pair of Magneplanars ($500 in 1976) none were bargain basement BOTL examples. They were all mid-priced or higher. They all failed miserably. No doubt they would have been fine on a pair of conventional boxes. Unfortunately none of them were satisfactory with Magneplanars.

Maggies are 4 Ohm speakers. However, they are an extremely benign load with no large impedance or phase swings. An inability to drive a benign 4 Ohm load tells me there is something inadequate in the power amp. I would be loath to use such a device on any 4 Ohm speaker.

Alobar;
I've been an advocate of room treatment and measurements for 25+ years.

Joe, when I first got my Maggies (1.7) I drove them with a circa 2005 design H/K receiver for about 2 years. The amp in this receiver has a FTC 100 wpc 4-ohm rating across the entire frequency spectrum at a reasonable distortion level. It would run warm but never hot and never any smell of being hot. It ran no warmer than the Carver M500t I am using now. Would it play as cleanly and transparent as the Carver? No, it just did not have the headroom but by no means did it sound bad. The Carver is simply higher up the food chain. I still hook the H/K up to the Maggies every so often to to exercise it, and still impressed with it's sound quality beings I only paid $222 for it.
 
Last edited:
Alobar;
I've been an advocate of room treatment and measurements for 25+ years.
Yes, I know from your prior posts on the subject, and you and a few others here came to mind and that is why I mentioned exceptions to my post.

Edit: I guess what I meant is there is a progression to get to the top sounding setup, and some want to buy there way to the top without the steps in between. I will never afford it myself but I do think there are gains to be had, once the foundation is laid
 
Last edited:
Joe, when I first got my Maggies (1.7) I drove them with a circa 2005 design H/K receiver for about 2 years. The amp in this receiver has a FTC 100 wpc 4-ohm rating across the entire frequency spectrum at a reasonable distortion level. It would run warm but never hot and never any smell of being hot. It ran no warmer than the Carver M500t I am using now. Would it play as cleanly and transparent as the Carver? No, it just did not have the headroom but by no means did it sound bad. The Carver is simply higher up the food chain. I still hook the H/K up to the Maggies every so often to to exercise it, and still impressed with it's sound quality beings I only paid $222 for it.

Had I tried an HK back then (1976) my attitude might be entirely different. By the early 80's I was running full range esl's which are a somewhat difficult load. So just about any receiver was not an option.

I realize many here don't like hearing anything negative about receivers. So I've made no comments as to brand name, sound quality, performance or construction quality. My only observation is that the ones I tried were inadequate driving Maggie MG-1's.
 
Had I tried an HK back then (1976) my attitude might be entirely different. By the early 80's I was running full range esl's which are a somewhat difficult load. So just about any receiver was not an option.

I realize many here don't like hearing anything negative about receivers. So I've made no comments as to brand name, sound quality, performance or construction quality. My only observation is that the ones I tried were inadequate driving Maggie MG-1's.

I think it's possible to be objective. I've worked on a lot of 1970s gear, and usually the integrated amps have some features which the receivers from the same manufacturers do not. Typically separates employ features not found on receivers, for example:

- Better quality sealed volume controls
- More substantial heat sinks
- More output transistors
- Defeatable tone controls
- More robust chassis
- Better layout, for better s/n ratio and channel separation
- Larger power transformer
- Larger filter capacitors.

If you look closely at any brand, be it Yamaha, Pioneer, Sansui, etc.. the extra money for the integrated or separate amp did buy something tangible. I know a lot of people like receivers, and a lot of receivers are great, but there's some limits when you try and cram everything into one box.
 
it all kind of depends on where you are in time. I remember getting one of these for Christmas as a kid and being happier with the sound than anything I have experienced since. :D

index.php

I still have my first radio, bought for me when I was about 4yo. One of these (not my pic- mine is in better condition):
wireless.JPG

wireless.JPG
 
Me thinks Mr Mcgowan wants you to junk that 70's era equipment and buy new.
Notice the amount of enthusiasts re-capping / re-building old stuff.

I think audio gear was mature decades ago
 
I think it's possible to be objective. I've worked on a lot of 1970s gear, and usually the integrated amps have some features which the receivers from the same manufacturers do not. Typically separates employ features not found on receivers, for example:

- Better quality sealed volume controls
- More substantial heat sinks
- More output transistors
- Defeatable tone controls
- More robust chassis
- Better layout, for better s/n ratio and channel separation
- Larger power transformer
- Larger filter capacitors.

If you look closely at any brand, be it Yamaha, Pioneer, Sansui, etc.. the extra money for the integrated or separate amp did buy something tangible. I know a lot of people like receivers, and a lot of receivers are great, but there's some limits when you try and cram everything into one box.
Unless you make a really big box. :D
 
Y As always, enjoy the music. I am music first, equipment serves that music and my use case.

There is a great synopsis, right there, Kent! Thank you for your very kind words. I'm a music lover first and foremost, also, I've never met any audio equipment I didn't like. Pretty forgiving in that regard, I am, lol.

Yep...that is what I was thinking.
This thread reminds me of a thread a while back where the topic of discussion was how good some totl early 2000 AVRs sounded in stereo.It was going just fine and then someone pipes in."yeah but don't be comparing them to hi quality separates".Nobody was except him.Some people just can't let it be.They just got to piss in the cornflakes.

I remember that thread. Just as in real life, you have to simply look past some folk. And yes, some of the seriously built TOTL units sound incredible in 2 channel. I know my big Onkyo TS-DX989 was a beast. Thanks, lightning, for taking my baby. :rant:

it all kind of depends on where you are in time. I remember getting one of these for Christmas as a kid and being happier with the sound than anything I have experienced since. :D

View attachment 1302649
This is very true. My GE boombox was hidden before my birthday under my mom's bed. I would sneak in, remove it from the box it came in, and just gawk at it. Ended up killing it by trying to hook it to the cigarette lighter in the car (had the universal plugin set for 12 volts, which was about 6 too many.

I realize many here don't like hearing anything negative about receivers. So I've made no comments as to brand name, sound quality, performance or construction quality. My only observation is that the ones I tried were inadequate driving Maggie MG-1's.

As adults, I think we can all be mature enough to realize a receiver's limitations. Also, as adults, who in their right minds would try powering Maggies with a receiver??

Jesse Owens was mature for the 38 Olympics. They run much faster now. Audio is like that.

Good analogy.

I think you might have meant the 36 olympics in front of Der Fuhrer. :dunno:
 
Here's an amp by PS Audio that most of us can afford
PS Audio Sprout
Only 2.9 pounds, and 50 per channel. .01 THD (don't ignore the fact that this is @1watt 1khz, no 20 20k)
I somehow think an unrecapped pos Kenny receiver from the 70's would give this thing a run. .. :)
 
Here's an amp by PS Audio that most of us can afford
PS Audio Sprout
Only 2.9 pounds, and 50 per channel. .01 THD (don't ignore the fact that this is @1watt 1khz, no 20 20k)
I somehow think an unrecapped pos Kenny receiver from the 70's would give this thing a run. .. :)
Nonetheless, looks a high value product.
 
Back
Top Bottom