• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

Now that's the build quality I'm talking about

HooEEE that's a lot of money. It doesn't seem to me as though the specs or apparent build quality surpass many of Yamaha's classic amps such as the MX-1000, B-2X, MX-2000, B-1, M-2, etc. And those go for a lot less. Sure, I'm comparing integrates and power amps (mostly) but even so.

I am curious though whether any of those were MOSFET besides the Centennial serious (MX-2000/MX-10000).
 
Bigerik said:
15 years ago, a 41 lb Sunfire could absolutely decimate the AU-X1 in any performance category.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the Sunfire but it doesn't seem that the 15 year newer 54lb flagship Yamaha A-S3000 surpasses the X-1. What gives?
 
Vintagear said:
Not sure about the Sunfire but it doesn't seem that the 15 year newer 54lb flagship Yamaha A-S3000 surpasses the X-1. What gives?
Click to expand...

You said we couldn't talk sound quality, cause I believe that is "what gives".

The spec wars ended 30 years ago.
 
Vintagear said:
It seems like you really have to pay for that build quality of yesterday. The inflation adjusted price of the Sansui was $2,500 "street price" and $3,993 retail vs. the Yamaha at $6,999.99 "street price" and $7,999.95 retail. Notice how Yamaha highlights the innards of this bad boy (nice video too).

I can't imagine what something with the performance and build quality of a 61 lb. Sansui AU-X1 would cost today.

http://audio-database.com/SANSUI/amp/au-x1-e.html
Click to expand...

I look at it from a different perspective. If a modern integrated amp was available in 1978 sitting on the shelf playing clear quiet detailed and accurate music from a digital server everyone's jaw would have hit the floor and nobody would have bought the Sansui on the shelf next to it until the Sansui was at liquidation prices. I bought my first decent stereo in 1978 and have no doubt that meters and knobs and weight would have quickly been perceived as obsolescence, not quality.

If someone tooled up and built a few 1978Chevy Chevettes today they might cost $100,000 each. Says nothing about quality oh $30,000 cars today.
 
Last edited:
Pointless imagining about digital music in 1978. May as well wonder about F15s in WW2.

Meters and knobs and weight were more the victims of cost cutting and reduction in quality, as opposed to obsolescence. Metal knobs and controls became plastic "chromed" affairs. Quality, back in the early 80s, was based upon appearance and the ability to keep up with new tech. Digital ready! That sort of thing. And new LED lights and digital tuner displays. Rotary controls gave way to electronic push buttons. So, the advancements were more in line with keeping up with new tech, rather than sound quality.

Prior to the heady early days of CDs and digital controls etc there was nothing much to advance in your system except pure quality.
 
Bigerik said:
You said we couldn't talk sound quality, cause I believe that is "what gives".

The spec wars ended 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Who knows, maybe I'll agree with you if I ever hear a restored Sansui AU-X1. Maybe it does sound terrible. The AU-20000 and the AU-X1 have different sound characteristics with the X1 striving for a fast & clean sound.

So to be clear you concede that the specs of the AU-X1 decimate the Yamaha A-S3000 (and possibly the specs on the Sunfire, I'd have to check) but you feel the AU-X1 doesn't sound as good as either. Fair enough.

I have never listened to any of the three but I have read & heard good things about them. Me personally, I do think specs are important if accurate (proven on a bench). Measurements matter. Now if we don't like what we hear, well that's a different story so you're right, we should leave it out.

Now back to build quality and specs, you have to admit that the AU-X1 has the build quality and specs of a beast (that some may think sounds terrible)!
 
Last edited:
river25 said:
Pointless imagining about digital music in 1978. May as well wonder about F15s in WW2.

Meters and knobs and weight were more the victims of cost cutting and reduction in quality, as opposed to obsolescence. Metal knobs and controls became plastic "chromed" affairs. Quality, back in the early 80s, was based upon appearance and the ability to keep up with new tech. Digital ready! That sort of thing. And new LED lights and digital tuner displays. Rotary controls gave way to electronic push buttons. So, the advancements were more in line with keeping up with new tech, rather than sound quality.

Prior to the heady early days of CDs and digital controls etc there was nothing much to advance in your system except pure quality.
Click to expand...

Big knobs and faceplates were just the style of the late 70's. Nothing more. By the early 80's the were unstylish and obsolescent. Lots of great 60's gear had small knobs. Didn't matter to the operation any more then it did in the 80's. We traded off heavy knobs for high current power supplies and moving coil phono stages. Good trade if you ask me.
 
river25 said:
Pointless imagining about digital music in 1978. May as well wonder about F15s in WW2.

Meters and knobs and weight were more the victims of cost cutting and reduction in quality, as opposed to obsolescence. Metal knobs and controls became plastic "chromed" affairs. Quality, back in the early 80s, was based upon appearance and the ability to keep up with new tech. Digital ready! That sort of thing. And new LED lights and digital tuner displays. Rotary controls gave way to electronic push buttons. So, the advancements were more in line with keeping up with new tech, rather than sound quality.

Prior to the heady early days of CDs and digital controls etc there was nothing much to advance in your system except pure quality.
Click to expand...

That's right, Yamaha is even highlighting that in the A-S3000 literature:

"Since the controls—the volume dial, switches and so on—are the parts of the amplifier which users actually touch and feel directly, their surface texture and design were created with the strictest attention to detail. Individual controls such as the volume or input switching dials, emanate a richly elegant feel thanks to the use of cut aluminum knobs. Switches, including the power switch, were made with obsessive attention to texture in every detail; they were shaped with refined craftsmanship so that when they are raised or lowered, the gap between the switch and panel surface is impossible to see."


Let's talk build quality guys, not sound. It's easier that way.
 
No doubt attractive looks, including meters, are probably in most cases natural evidence of top notch build quality and no doubt may very well lend itself to the psychoacoustic sound quality of a very expensive well built amplifier.
 
RamblinE said:
But you can't hear build quality.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh boy, again with the sound. :sigh:

No but if executed properly the build quality you can't hear will allow you to enjoy what you can hear (assuming you like it) for longer as well as satisfy you on a different sensory level.
 
No way on EARTH I'd even consider $8K for a Yamaha integrated amp when for ~$5000 I could get an Aragon 8008 amp, and with the leftover money, a separate preamp and still save money compared to the Yammie.

For that matter, I bet the Acurus amps are of equivalent internal build-quality, and better parts-quality compared to the Yamaha, at even greater cost savings. The exterior won't equal the Yammie, however. Like the current Aragon product line, there is no matching preamp; but that's rectified by buying an older Aragon or Acurus preamp, or picking up your choice of preamp from another manufacturer.
 
I must add my vintage Yamaha CA-1000 is very well built and still functioning 35+ years without a hitch, DC offset measures well and most importantly sounds very good.
 
Last edited:
Schurkey said:
No way on EARTH I'd even consider $8K for a Yamaha integrated amp when for ~$5000 I could get an Aragon 8008 amp, and with the leftover money, a separate preamp and still save money compared to the Yammie.

For that matter, I bet the Acurus amps are of equivalent internal build-quality, and better parts-quality compared to the Yamaha, at even greater cost savings. The exterior won't equal the Yammie, however. Like the current Aragon product line, there is no matching preamp; but that's rectified by buying an older Aragon or Acurus preamp, or picking up your choice of preamp from another manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Did you have a point to make? Many AK'ers would "no way on EARTH" pay more than a few hundred bucks for an amp AND preamp. Many of them would consider your choices laughably overpriced.
 
Steve Huff, who is a familiar name to photographers, is also an avid audiophile with a system that costs tens of thousands. Here's his rave review of the A-S3000 which he ultimately returned after 3 weeks due to shut down failures with the amp.

To sum up, he liked the amp better than various amps including Line Magnetic, McIntosh, Accuphase, Luxman and others. He also states it's a huge improvement over the A-S2000 and also compared it to a vintage Yamaha unit which according to him wasn't even close.

www.stevehuffphoto.com/the-yamaha-a-s-3000-integrated-amp-review/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom