Newb needs a new amp in the $500 range.

[Permanent Waves]

You are sitting on one of the best amps that ever put out 170 wpc . You can't purchase better gear for the cost of getting your Yams repaired.

Missed this.

Sure you can. For $250 to $300 (if that's how much it would cost to fix up the old amp w/shipping and all...maybe it's more, maybe less) you can buy used (or even new) "hi-fi" amps that I'm sure will sound just as good and probably much better (based on my experience of what I've owned and what I've heard of newer and vintage gear).

 

[Art K.]

Since I recently bought one and I'm very happy with it, I highly recommend the NAD 326BEE. Perhaps you've read the TAS review from last year? The conclusion was that he had absolutely no reservations whatsoever about recommending it, and that it's better than the best amps of 20 years ago? Based on that I got it, and let me tell you, for $500 it is a damn fine amp.

The only potential issue is the power rating: 50wpc. In a smallish room and/or with efficient speakers this should not be a problem at all. It seems to be able to provide a ton of current when needed, and frankly I rarely turn the volume knob past 10 O'clock. The sound is neutral and clean, lots of detail, there's really little to complain about.

So definitely keep that one in mind. Also bear in mind this is a site with a huge amount of vintage audio fans, and that's cool, but in every case when I've heard newer gear it simply blows away the older stuff, and frankly, this should be expected.

The C326BEE is a very good amp and get another recommendation from me.

 

[CJReaper]

You are sitting on one of the best amps that ever put out 170 wpc . You can't purchase better gear for the cost of getting your Yams repaired.

If I were you, the only reason I would replace you current setup is boredom. I'lll help you get rid of the boredom for $200!!!!!

bhebbel

Thanks for the generous offer but I think I'll try to fix them, not bored with them at all.

How about something like this.

That looks awesome, a tube power amp would be great but my place is too small to really crank it and enjoy it properly.

there are a few people on here who repair these things. I have a C-65 and a M-70 amp, and it honestly sounds amazing when put up against my newer stuff. It is worth repair...

Yep, I've talked to a couple of people on here about that and I'm seriously considering sending it out for repair, despite my mistrust of UPS and Fed Ex. That link for Legendary Amps was very helpful! I sent him an email, haven't heard back yet. I also may have located a local guy that can do it right, I just need to give him a call tomorrow and see what he says. I know he doesn't like to work on BPC but he might be cool with my Yamaha gear. Thanks again to everyone for the replies, all have been very helpful!

Cheers,

CJ

 

[chicks]

Since I recently bought one and I'm very happy with it, I highly recommend the NAD 326BEE. Perhaps you've read the TAS review from last year? The conclusion was that he had absolutely no reservations whatsoever about recommending it, and that it's better than the best amps of 20 years ago? Based on that I got it, and let me tell you, for $500 it is a damn fine amp.

The only potential issue is the power rating: 50wpc. In a smallish room and/or with efficient speakers this should not be a problem at all. It seems to be able to provide a ton of current when needed, and frankly I rarely turn the volume knob past 10 O'clock. The sound is neutral and clean, lots of detail, there's really little to complain about.

So definitely keep that one in mind. Also bear in mind this is a site with a huge amount of vintage audio fans, and that's cool, but in every case when I've heard newer gear it simply blows away the older stuff, and frankly, this should be expected.

Hmmm.... :scratch2: The NAD 326BEE looks like a fine unit, but it has 1/3 the power and 3X the distortion of my "ancient" Pioneer A-80 from 1982. How could it possibly "blow away" the Pioneer, and why, frankly, should this be expected? Your listening tests were double-blind, I presume?

 

[Art K.]

Hmmm.... :scratch2: The NAD 326BEE looks like a fine unit, but it has 1/3 the power and 3X the distortion of my "ancient" Pioneer A-80 from 1982. How could it possibly "blow away" the Pioneer, and why, frankly, should this be expected? Your listening tests were double-blind, I presume?

It's the first watt that counts, Chicks. If it's good then those that follow will be as well. The C326BEE's first watt is better, and so too are all that follow. More power doesn't equal better in fact it often means "bad sound played louder". As I would take the C326BEE over the Pioneer, I would also take a Sugden A21SE over the NAD...at about 4K with 30 watts a side of pure class A bliss...just sayin'!

 

[JohnVF]

Hmmm.... :scratch2: The NAD 326BEE looks like a fine unit, but it has 1/3 the power and 3X the distortion of my "ancient" Pioneer A-80 from 1982. How could it possibly "blow away" the Pioneer, and why, frankly, should this be expected? Your listening tests were double-blind, I presume?

Your comment is not based on any first hand experience I presume? Seriously, stop going by what's on paper and just listen to this stuff. All you have to do to have a worthwhile opinion on any of this stuff is to listen. Many of us have had a boatload of experience with countless (yes, countless..I've lost track completely) vintage units only to discover that a lot of this ongoing AK fascination with vintage is based on very little first hand experience and a lot of assumptions and specs, which often are/were manipulated anyway. When they come up with a 'grainy electronic sound' spec I will happily put my new gear against vintage. My SX-1280 would have the 100% spec on that one.

For once can somebody recommend a humble piece of modern gear without this "vintage sounds better, it has to" remark coming up?

 

[Mr. Lin]

Hmmm.... :scratch2: The NAD 326BEE looks like a fine unit, but it has 1/3 the power and 3X the distortion of my "ancient" Pioneer A-80 from 1982. How could it possibly "blow away" the Pioneer, and why, frankly, should this be expected? Your listening tests were double-blind, I presume?

You can't judge an amp just from measurements. An amp that measures well can sound terrible, and vice versa. Listening is far more important when it comes to amps or any audio gear.

Art.K sums it up pretty well, lots of power means nothing if the amp sucks. Whatever they did to give the NAD some oomph, it gets louder than I would ever listen at 12O'Clock. I couldn't always say the same for my previous amp, which had 30 more watts per channel than the NAD and was much more expensive to begin with.

 

[Old_Tech]

For once can somebody recommend a humble piece of modern gear without this "vintage sounds better, it has to" remark coming up?

John, maybe you would like the Musical Fidelity 3i? I did some reading on it a while back and it seems like a niece piece and not terribly expensive. I would definitely pick that unit for a system like you are building. :yes:

I agree on the vintage thing. It sounds good but no way like todays technology.

 

[chicks]

Well, I believe that you guys probably can hear a difference, but I can't, and I've certainly tried. When double-blind tests were done, most folks couldn't tell the difference between a cheap "grainy" Pioneer SS and exotic tube amps. Not much better than random chance:

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx

BTW, the Pioneer A-80 has 0.003% distortion at 1W, too - it eliminates crossover distortion, so it measures 10-100X better than most '70s amps. A very good first watt...

JohnVF, I didn't say anything like "vintage sounds better, it has to" - I simply questioned why new "has to" sound better.

I started subscribing to Scientific American when I was about 12, and spent many years as an electronics tech, so I am highly skeptical of claims - I like specs, solid data, and double-blind tests. Maybe I just haven't listened to the "right" amps...

 

[JohnVF]

If somebody can't tell the difference between high quality tube mono blocks and a $200 BPC Pioneer receiver, and you actually believe that, I question why you spend any time on an audio board. Just buy that Pioneer AV receiver and be done with it.

One thing I do have a lot of experience with is focus groups. I've sat in on dozens of them, behind the mirror. If you think for a moment that there aren't 100 avenues of data corruption or paths that lead to a completely inaccurate assessment of how a person would react in a familiar environment, then you should sit in on a few. Human psychology is never taken into account. Our senses are fallible and particularly so in strange environments, and when others are there to lead the witness or control the opinion. And all of this is magnified when we are EXPECTED to form an opinion. An accurate ABX test could probably be done but I've never heard one described as it would take too long to do and be extremely involved, spread over many listening environments and ultimately would not have the consistency that the statisticians want or need. And since we all process this stuff uniquely in our own homes with gear we are familiar with, that consistency simply may not be achievable.

Basically...tests are hogwash. The example you linked to, from an objective standpoint, should prove that the test is flawed more than anything, as those amplifiers do NOT have identical specs. Why is the assumption then that the gear sounds alike and NOT that the test is flawed? If you take two amplifiers that you know, from an objective viewpoint, can NOT sound the same...and the group under blind testing, says they do...what further proof do you need that the testing methodology is useless?

This is no crack on your A-80...some of the vintage gear truly does sound fantastic. I'd throw a particular Luxman and Sansui integrated I am familiar with against anything, except in terms of reliability. But in my experience, specs tell nothing about how good or bad that I think something sounds. Our reaction to anything musical, and it's portrayal, is subjective. There is no way around that. I don't know anybody who forces themselves to listen to an ampliier that specs out well but sounds terrible. They will find another one that specs out well, that sounds great.

 

[chicks]

Basically...tests are hogwash. The example you linked to, from an objective standpoint, should prove that the test is flawed more than anything, as those amplifiers do NOT have identical specs. Why is the assumption then that the gear sounds alike and NOT that the test is flawed? If you take two amplifiers that you know, from an objective viewpoint, can NOT sound the same...and the group under blind testing, says they do...what further proof do you need that the testing methodology is useless?

Well, what I took away from it is that modern amps, as should be expected, don't add enough coloration to the sound to be detectable by human ears. Early vintage transistor amps ('60's - early '70's) did add coloration, hence the "trademark" sound of many brands. But more modern designs have surely eliminated detectable coloration, at least the better ones. The Audio Critic certainly asserts this premise.

Again, perhaps my ears simply aren't attuned to the subtleties of minuscule differences in the "sound" of different amps, and I don't doubt that you and others can hear differences.

Not challenging anyone's statements, merely questioning. It's how we learn. I would love to know the technical, scientific reasons why a new amplifier with lesser specs could sound "better" than another amplifier that has better specs.

 

[JohnVF]

At the entrance of the phrase 'audio critic' I am out. It's off topic anyways.

 

[JohnVF]

Actually, I remembered one thing. Chicks..reading what you said at the end of your last post, you might find this article very interesting as it relates exactly to what we are talking about but approaches it in a very objective manner, and with none of the sensationalism that often hovers around these discussions. It involves a blind test, too !

It really is an excellent read.


http://www.milbert.com/articles/future_without_feedback

 

[chicks]

Thanks, that was a good read, especially the Letters at the bottom! There's clearly a lively ongoing debate...

 

[ambient]

regarding the OP's question: new NAD and Marantz integrateds are very nice options for you. you can probably get a very good deal on a 3-5 year old unit on Audiogon. a few years back I got a Music Hall a25.2 for about $300; another nice unit you might consider...

 

[Yamahalic]

Sounds like you may already be on the Yamaha's Team "Natural Sound", so here are a few old options that should be well within your budget:

AX-630
- less power than you had previously, but a solid 85wpc.
- came in black and my favorite titanium

AX-550
- newer ToP-ART design
- also 85wpc
- only came in black

Or, if you are not ruling out a Receiver, an RX-1130 is a powerful alternative at 125wpc, or the RX-950 (120wpc).

 

[CJReaper]

Quick update, I found a local tech who will work on my Yamaha gear!! So, I'm going to try and get these things back to spec before I spend a bunch of cash on new gear. Thanks very, very much for all the replies and great information, I'll let you know how the repair goes! :thmbsp:

Cheers,

CJ

 

[Permanent Waves]

Cool! :thmbsp:

I mean if you liked it for so long you might as well stay with it! Sure you could experiment and maybe find something you liked better, but if you didn't that would be disappointing and a waste of money. This is one reason I myself haven't ordered about half a dozen amps (used or new) from the $200 to $700 range to find which I liked the best, I'm happy with what I got and chances are I wouldn't find anything I liked a lot more. I'd be out some money after selling all of them back besides the one I kept in any case. So I just stick with what works for me and am happy with it. When/if it comes time for repair then I will take that chance to experiment with some other makers though probably, unless I can get mine cheaply repaired (or even fix it myself if it's something simple).

Hope the repair goes well and you're enjoying your gear again soon! :thmbsp:

 

[reggaenaut]

Quick update, I found a local tech who will work on my Yamaha gear!! So, I'm going to try and get these things back to spec before I spend a bunch of cash on new gear. Thanks very, very much for all the replies and great information, I'll let you know how the repair goes! :thmbsp:

Cheers,

CJ

Nice. I hope you will soon be enjoying your Yamaha again, instead of becoming an audio nomad.

 

[marqueemoon]

Quick update, I found a local tech who will work on my Yamaha gear!! So, I'm going to try and get these things back to spec before I spend a bunch of cash on new gear. Thanks very, very much for all the replies and great information, I'll let you know how the repair goes! :thmbsp:

Cheers,

CJ

Where are you taking it if you don't mind me asking? Feel free to PM if you'd prefer.