Fisher 400: Voiced like the 500/800 "B" -- or "C"?

[monkboughtlunch]

The Fisher 400 appears to have been introduced in 1963 -- at the same time as the 500c and 800c. But, unlike the 500c/800c receivers, the Fisher 400 has a lower output power rating consistent with the output of the earlier 500b and 800b receivers.

So, for folks that have heard each of these receivers, is the 400 closer in voicing and sonic signature to the 500b/800b or the 500c/800c?

Fisher rated their total "Music Power" as follows in published specs (and yes i know this is not watts per channel):

500B/800B: "65 watts total"
500C/800C: "75 watts total"
400: "65 watts total"

 

[larryderouin]

IIRC, the 400 came out in mid late 63 for the '64 model year, about 6-8 months after the 500-C/800-C. It is the last of the Tube Receiver Models that FISHER designed and built. It was built to a lower price point with less bells and whistles, mainly for those who wanted a FISHER Receiver but couldn't afford a 500-C/800-C, and or didn't want all the extra's. The 400's lower output is due to the simpler circuitry, and the 7868 tubes.

I had a 400, and just rebuilt one. Also have 2 800-C's. The 500-C sounds basically the same as a 800-C. 400 vs. 800/500C are different. 400 is smoother, silkier, and slightly more holographic in sound staging to me. Less bells and whistles equals less circuitry, fewer connections, and a straighter circuit from end to end.

All good receivers, and all have that basic FISHER sound, but the implementations are different. If you changed it to old cars, Say 67 Chevies , The 400 would be a Malibu , the 500-C would be an IMPALA, and the 800-C a CAPRICE.

 

[TheRed1]

If you changed it to old cars, Say 67 Chevies , The 400 would be a Malibu , the 500-C would be an IMPALA, and the 800-C a CAPRICE.

Surely the correct GM analogy would be Coupe de Ville, Eldorado Seville, and Eldorado Brougham. Of course it would have to be GM - Who else advertised a "Body by Fisher"?

 

[monkboughtlunch]

Does the 400 sound more like the 500B or the 500C?

 

[audiodon]

The 400 is designed from, and sounds like, a 500-B.

 

[sony6060]

Does the 400 sound more like the 500B or the 500C?

The 400 is sonically closer to the 500B & 800B. I slightly prefer the 400 for the more holographic signature. Any of the receivers are stunning and the difference in-between the Fisher 400/500/800 is minimal.

 

[Brad Muller]

I'm never selling my Fisher 400! It will be with me forever!:yes:

 

[Thatch_Ear]

I like the FM section of the 400 the best and the overall sound the best. The only receiver I haven't in my system is the polished brass 6BQ5. I just lost a channel in my 400 and I am heart broken. Hopefully it will be an OPT since I have spares.
I use 5751s and 12AY7s in the front, 5751s in the phase inverters. I still have the original Mullards in the MPX and in the original sockets. Some of the tuner tubes have gone but replacing them has so far not meant having it re-aligned.
The 7868 tubes are the same as 7591s but shed heat better. I think the basic amplifier sections in the 400, 500, and 800 are the same, but the 500 and 800 have slightly larger OPTs but the difference is not as much as the x-202-B as compared to the 101 and the 400 which look to have the same size opts.
I like being able to slave a SS amp to the center channel to run a sub with. That way you can control everything with a single volume knob.
Thatch