• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Magnavox 9302 or 169?

02County

02County

AK Member
I pickedup a console this weekend for $25. Knew it was tube, 1962 Magnavox, but not what was inside. Just got it home. Looks like a 9302, which I know nothing about. Two EL84s per channel. Looks like a nice little amp!

I have a pair of Maggie 169AA monoblocks that I need to get to as well. Which would be a better project for a stand alone? The 169s are 10W a channel and 6v6. The 9302 are EL84s and I've read something about 12 watts - I'm assuming that is per channel but I'm not sure.

Total noobie to tube stuff and looking for a first time project. Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • 9302.jpg
    9302.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 81
Register to hide this ad
Nice choice to have!
Of course you have to fix them both up!

If you got to pick one to go first, I vote the 9302. One of Maggie's best console amps. Should be easier/cheaper to get a stereo amp up & running vs 2 monoblocks.

I got both of these amps! I like my 9302 better, but both are heavily modified with the 169's having upgraded OPTs, so this may not be the best comparison for you. You can't go wrong with either of your choices!
 
Awesome. Glad to hear it. I'm pretty excited about this console. Just ran the speaker codes back and I think they are Jensen woofers. Never heard of the before, but the tweeters and mids were made by CTS (Chicago Telephone supply?) and Heppner. They don't look like the biggest alnicos in the world, but they do look cool.
 
Great score.

I have the Magnavox 9302-00 as my daily computer system amp.

WoW...its great. It is a wonderful amp.

The 9302-00 has the balance control on the amp itself...it is easy to make it a stand alone. I'm a newbie here too....so don't know much...but perhaps this will help you out.

Looking from the front of amp, top down on the Molex connector....you need to jumper 1 and 3......& .....7 and 10....to get current into the amp and fire it up.

What this does, is take the wall current, and run it through the unused secondary winding of the power transformer...(formerly used to send power to the tuner)....and then into the primary winding of the PT...to power the amp. I have been told this is called using that secondary winding as a "bucking transformer."

The problem is....I'm learning some words, but am woefully short on the theory and working concepts.

Best to use a "dim bulb tester" to fire it up....in case of any problems in the amp....(this will tell you if it is drawing too much current...)

 
Last edited:
Awesome, thanks man. I was meaning to ask if anyone had a schematic for the 9302 they could direct me to.
 
Sure, I've got one.

I'll PM it to you.

Edited:

02Country, AK's msg system won't let me attach a PDF file....(or I don't know how.)

Send me a msg via AK....and include your email address....and I'll send it to you via Email...

Lee
 
Last edited:
I tried that one. It had voltage sag problems on the B+ line that caused mushy bass and I don't agree with the modification of the hum pot wiring. I actually put my power supply back to stock and it sounded better. Voltage sag reduced on the B+ line too. DC on the hum pot is a good thing for reducing heater circuit induced noise too.
 
VERY NICE DILEMMA TO HAVE !

the 93 is certainly a better first project...lots of room under the chassis . Russian pio caps sound great is these amps.......

The mono blocks are a little tighter under the hood....you'll need twice as much of almost anything, but they are super sexy.

Power should be about the same between the amps; 6v6's and 6bq5's are nearly electrically identical.
 
Yeah, I figured the 93 would be a better first-timer project for just the reasons you state, Markus. I don't want to have to do everything twice (and double my chances of doing it wrong) nevermind buy twice the repair parts. The monoblocks definitely show a lot of leg, but I think the 93s tubes glowing alway while pumping out the hi-fi will be sexier than anything I currently have. Which is not saying much :/

Thanks for the help guys - will post pics when/if I ever get it on a bench!
 
I really don't understand the "bucking transformer" concept. I do...but don't.

I looked into it a bit deeper...and realized, I'm just parroting off some things I heard some others say....and how to hook up this 9300 series amp...this way...(Pic posted above.)

I do have mine hooked up this way...and it seems fine.

Perhaps, it helps this way...perhaps not. I just don't know enough to be giving advice here....and thought I should say so.

I'm going to take some voltage readings ...probably tomorrow...or soonest...on hooking it up this way.....and I will post them here.

Even then....I would have not idea...on the effect of the magnetic field...or altering the magnetic field of the PT...hooking it up this way...

Just thought I should say so...
 
The 93xx amps have heavier output transformers than the 169s. Bass will be a little better, and it will have a little more power.

Also, with the stereo 93xx amp- there's an extra tube socket position there, that could be used to add a preamp tube (I usually use a 12AU7 added into that empty socket location). With this, a selector switch, volume control, and some input RCA jacks added, it can be made into an multi-input integrated amp with not a lot of extra fuss. That really make it a true "stand-alone"- it doesn't even need an external preamp that way...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom