• 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

Realistic SA 2000

JustinHachey

New Member
So I'm pretty new to vinyl collecting. I just got my first setup: a Sansui FR-D3 table with a Kenwood KA-5700 however, a problem arose with the Kenwood and it seems to keep cutting out in one channel... In any case I have a 90 day warranty on it and instead of fixing it, the guys at the store are offering me a really good looking Realistic SA 2000... As I don't know that much about receivers I just wanted to know if this was a good exchange. If I decide to refuse, they said they would attempt to fix the Kenwood at no cost.
 
Register to hide this ad
Realistic had a lot of nice gear that flew under the radar of the audiophile world. The SA2000 is 60wpc compared to the Kenny at 40wpc. I was never crazy about the slider volume controls but that's just me. Personally, I would do the swap.
 
One of Realistic's sharper looking units. Those big blue meters make one think of Accuphase gear. Neither of these are receivers, fyi...the proper term would be Integrated Amplifiers. To be a receiver, they would have to have a FM tuner built in as well.

All a receiver is, really, is what is considered 'separates' all in one box. Your unit is actually two units...a power amplifier, which does all of the work in making your speakers make noise and a preamplifier (sometimes called a control amplifier) which does things like controls bass, treble, balance, volume, etc. and switches where the signal is coming from and going to, like tape monitor loops, the selector switch, etc. Some people split those out into separate units as well. If they are packaged together, it's an Integrated Amplifier. Throw in a tuner and it's a Receiver.
 
The RS sa-2000 is, essentially, the same amp as: the rarely-seen NAD 90 and Sherwood S-9400 (built in Japan, very likely, by Foster -later "FOSTEX"- Electric). A very good "sleeper" with a bit more power even than both a Marantz 1060 and 1070:thumbsup:.
 
The RS sa-2000 is, essentially, the same amp as: the rarely-seen NAD 90 and Sherwood S-9400 (built in Japan, very likely, by Foster -later "FOSTEX"- Electric). A very good "sleeper" with a bit more power even than both a Marantz 1060 and 1070:thumbsup:.
Is the SA2000 a power amp, or integrated amp?
 
I'm partial to the looks of the Kenwood, and it's a nice sounding unit, but the Realistic will sound at least as good and will probably be more durable.I don't know if this is accurate, but my sense has always been that some of those mid-late 70s Kenwood integrateds were prone to have issues as they aged.
 
I'm partial to the looks of the Kenwood, and it's a nice sounding unit, but the Realistic will sound at least as good and will probably be more durable.I don't know if this is accurate, but my sense has always been that some of those mid-late 70s Kenwood integrateds were prone to have issues as they aged.
Just so you know, the OP hasn't been on the site in over five years. So he's likely made his decision by now :)
 
SA 2000 is an integrated amp, and probably a solid one. I have the next gen of these great Realistic amps, the SA 2001 (60 watts) and also the SA 1001 (35 watts). I posted my owners manual for the SA 1001 on HifiEngine for download. Both are fantastic and superbly built integrated amps. My SA 2001 is unfixable (by me) because it got dropped (long story) but I currently run the SA 1001 in my home office with a Dual 506 turntable driving two pairs of speakers, ADS 520 as desktops (to the front side of my desk, sitting on top of a pair of EPI M110's) and Acoustic Research AR4x's in the rear. The SA 1001 drives both at the same time easily. Just give the SA 2000 a good Deoxit bath and you should be golden!
 
Just so you know, the OP hasn't been on the site in over five years. So he's likely made his decision by now :)

Whoops! I should always look at the date of the original posts... Well, my preference is saved for posterity I guess...
 
Back
Top Bottom