Gang-Twanger
Resident Wharfedaliophool
I've realized over the last year or two that most of the receivers and amps that were made in the early to mid '70's sound excellent, in comparison to what has been made over the last 20 years. I've seen quite a few entry-level receivers from the early '70's that just smoke the majority of the new stuff - in terms of overall sound quality. A big part of it is that they're so-much-warmer-sounding than the new stuff. This is due in large part to the fact that back in the pre-"home theater" days, manufacturers weren't worried about "surround sound" and all the other "bells and whistles"-type stuff that you see today, and they were free to concentrate on the pre and power amps and the overall sound quality. Onboard phono preamps (which you hardly even see at all these days) were a much-higher priority back then, and they sound as good or better than many of today's outboard units.
Anyway, I stumbled onto a Rotel RX-203A receiver (from the early-to-mid '70's) while picking up a set of speakers that a guy was selling on Craigslist for $30 - While I was carrying the speakers out to my car, I happened to notice this dirty, beat-up, old Rotel unit sitting on top of a shelf, and when I inquired about it, the guy said "You want it? Take it." - and so I did. I had already purchased an NAD 3140 off Ebay to power the speakers I bought, so I shelved the Rotel until a later date. Then about 9 months later, I got the urge to drag it back out and hook it up to my speakers to see how it sounded. I was amazed to find out that this cheap-looking, little receiver (around 20w-25w per channel, I think) sounded WAY-better than the NAD that I had been listening to for the last 9 months. I couldn't believe the sound I was missing out on all this time. It sounds clear, yet warm and lively, and with a much-better soundstage than my 3140 had. So needless to say, I shelved the NAD, and the Rotel is pulling a quite-respectable backup duty until my Sansui 4000's left channel is up and running again.
Now, like I said, this is an entry-level model, as far as I can tell (from the fake vinyl paper-veneer and the basic look of the interior), and it seems to put out somewhere around 20w-25w per-channel. But even though I have to turn this up a lot louder than I had to with the NAD, the sound itself is much-better. So if one of you spots one of these units sitting in the Swap Shack at your local dump, I urge you to grab it and bring it on home with you. These make great backup receivers and would also be great for a simple bookshelf system on the cheap. There's not much to them, and they're not exactly "mid'70's Marantz"-pretty, however, I assure you that these sound very, very-good for an old, entry-level, low-wattage receiver. Two nights ago, I listened for 16 straight hours, and I loved every minute of it. I actually enjoy it more each time I listen to it. Between the Rotel receiver and the old Wharfedale speakers that I got from the same guy ($30 for everything), I'd say it was the best $30 I ever spent.
If you're ever looking for that warm and lively, early '70's receiver sound, but you don't want to pay more than a few bucks to get it, I urge you to check these out. Despite their entry-level looks, these things can deliver that warm, classic sound in spades (Sorry, I can't put up a picture - If I can find one online, I'll try and get that up).
Anyway, I stumbled onto a Rotel RX-203A receiver (from the early-to-mid '70's) while picking up a set of speakers that a guy was selling on Craigslist for $30 - While I was carrying the speakers out to my car, I happened to notice this dirty, beat-up, old Rotel unit sitting on top of a shelf, and when I inquired about it, the guy said "You want it? Take it." - and so I did. I had already purchased an NAD 3140 off Ebay to power the speakers I bought, so I shelved the Rotel until a later date. Then about 9 months later, I got the urge to drag it back out and hook it up to my speakers to see how it sounded. I was amazed to find out that this cheap-looking, little receiver (around 20w-25w per channel, I think) sounded WAY-better than the NAD that I had been listening to for the last 9 months. I couldn't believe the sound I was missing out on all this time. It sounds clear, yet warm and lively, and with a much-better soundstage than my 3140 had. So needless to say, I shelved the NAD, and the Rotel is pulling a quite-respectable backup duty until my Sansui 4000's left channel is up and running again.
Now, like I said, this is an entry-level model, as far as I can tell (from the fake vinyl paper-veneer and the basic look of the interior), and it seems to put out somewhere around 20w-25w per-channel. But even though I have to turn this up a lot louder than I had to with the NAD, the sound itself is much-better. So if one of you spots one of these units sitting in the Swap Shack at your local dump, I urge you to grab it and bring it on home with you. These make great backup receivers and would also be great for a simple bookshelf system on the cheap. There's not much to them, and they're not exactly "mid'70's Marantz"-pretty, however, I assure you that these sound very, very-good for an old, entry-level, low-wattage receiver. Two nights ago, I listened for 16 straight hours, and I loved every minute of it. I actually enjoy it more each time I listen to it. Between the Rotel receiver and the old Wharfedale speakers that I got from the same guy ($30 for everything), I'd say it was the best $30 I ever spent.
If you're ever looking for that warm and lively, early '70's receiver sound, but you don't want to pay more than a few bucks to get it, I urge you to check these out. Despite their entry-level looks, these things can deliver that warm, classic sound in spades (Sorry, I can't put up a picture - If I can find one online, I'll try and get that up).
Last edited:
