Cosmos said:
I paid $200.00 for my Kenwood KR-9050 (200 wpc).
Receivers versus Separates
- Thread starter Cosmos
- Start date
I paid $200.00 for my Kenwood KR-9050 (200 wpc).
Damage said:
You got that right! :thmbsp:
I run 13 miles a day and when I get home, I have all these wonderful Receivers to play with. It's like Christmas every day here in LA LA Land..........
dr*audio
Fish fingers and custard!
Cosmos said:
Those are some really good deals, and perhaps the exception rather than the rule. Go check the prices on Onkyo Grand Integra M-508 and M-510 amps. The amp alone could cost you $800. I contend that the older SAE equipment is not as reliable as some other equipment, both vintage and not, so the price is going to be lower. I worked on that equipment when it was only a few years old, and I repaired MANY of the SAE amps. Check the prices on Marantz 510M, 240, 250, 500. Check the price on Sansui BA-5000, BA-F1, Perreaux amps. I think you will find the price goes up with the quality and reliability. (The SAE MK4 was one of the better amps they made, though.)
On the other hand, I couln't tell you why anyone would pay $2850 for any reciever. That has to be a collectability issue.
FWIW, I paid $50 for my G-8000 before E-Bay existed.
vintagestereo said:I paid $200.00 for my Kenwood KR-9050 (200 wpc).
That is well worth buying.. great deal.
dr*audio said:
Another great deal as well!
At the right price, I'd buy too, but some of the super receivers have gotten insane IMHO. I guess it isn't any different than paying $50K for a 50s T-Bird or Corvette. But, I wouldn't do that either.. My intent isn't to say it's wrong to pay those prices, I just don't get paying the difference.
I am quite sure that the existence of EBay fuels the collectible values. Years ago, you had to give used audio gear away to sell it or be a dealer..
dr*audio said:
I think they are pretty much the going prices for that stuff.. I didn't do much research to find it.
As far as reliability of EARLY SAE gear, I'd totally disagree. They did have issues with the later 01 and 02 and T series SAE coming from the orient, post James Borginio's (sp?) departure, but the early stuff was all mil-spec boards, cases and finishes. They used great components and built the units very well. In fact, the only issue I am aware of with early stuff was the digital readout on the Mk VIII/8000 tuner which required a resistor to be added to prevent over driving the displays. Other than that I have at least 15 original pieces I bought new, when I sold it back in the 70s, none of which required any repair with the exception of my 8000 tuner.
I would say that the 2400L is a great amp and at $285 a great buy as well. However, there are also many other well respected amps (crown, Carver, Adcom, SUMO, GAS etc.) bringing similar prices if you really dislike SAE.
I just bought my Sansui G-9000 for $225 plus shipping, less than $300 total. I paid almost that much for my Amber 17 pre-amp. I run the pre with a Mackie M-1200 power amp, 225 WPC @ 8ohms, 400 @ 4 ohms and that with S/N, slew rate, damping factor, and distortion specs that would make most high end amp manufacturers cry. The 'Sui sounds just as good and plays nearly as loud. Also, it is easier to get the female(s) in the house to accept a receiver in the living room over a big stack of gear. They seem to like the one power switch idea.
tarior said:
Finally, THE TRUTH!!!!!!
We all know, the sound is the critical issue and I am not one to judge what methods a person uses to get to the point that they like their system. I hope we all can be happy with what we have in our system. I am quite willing to employ tone controls, equalizers and sound processors to get there. I am really happy when I don't have to, but if that is what it takes.. GO FOR IT!
I hope that persons reading my original question do not gather from that, that I am an audio snob... rather i am anything but. I do want good sounding music and employ whatever vehicle it takes to get there.
That said, judging by the e-bay pricing, I still think, in many cases separates offer a better value. Not in every case, certainly. If a person can buy a SX-1980 for $300 or so, I have to believe that is a great buy and I'd likely be inline to buy. I just don't get $2K plus..
I hope that persons reading my original question do not gather from that, that I am an audio snob... rather i am anything but. I do want good sounding music and employ whatever vehicle it takes to get there.
That said, judging by the e-bay pricing, I still think, in many cases separates offer a better value. Not in every case, certainly. If a person can buy a SX-1980 for $300 or so, I have to believe that is a great buy and I'd likely be inline to buy. I just don't get $2K plus..
The real beauty of messing with vintage gear is the possibility of getting an obscenely good deal on a system. Either with a receiver or separates, you can get something really great for not a lot of $, relatively speaking.
As far as buying new gear, separates are the way to go as I don't know of any new receivers that come close to the performance of the 70's monsters.
As far as buying new gear, separates are the way to go as I don't know of any new receivers that come close to the performance of the 70's monsters.
bordeno
Super Member
dr*audio said:Those are some really good deals, and perhaps the exception rather than the rule. Go check the prices on Onkyo Grand Integra M-508 and M-510 amps. The amp alone could cost you $800. I contend that the older SAE equipment is not as reliable as some other equipment, both vintage and not, so the price is going to be lower. I worked on that equipment when it was only a few years old, and I repaired MANY of the SAE amps. Check the prices on Marantz 510M, 240, 250, 500. Check the price on Sansui BA-5000, BA-F1, Perreaux amps. I think you will find the price goes up with the quality and reliability. (The SAE MK4 was one of the better amps they made, though.)
On the other hand, I couln't tell you why anyone would pay $2850 for any reciever. That has to be a collectability issue.
FWIW, I paid $50 for my G-8000 before E-Bay existed.
Agreed. I wouldn't pay big bucks for a monster receiver, or even small bucks for that matter unless I was flipping it on eBay. Don't get me wrong, I love my Yamaha and Sony "mid-powered" receivers, but for high power why not go the separate route. For one thing you don't have to lift 80 lbs at once. I have nothing against the monsters, I just don't seek them out...
Tarior: point taken, and in some cases, like this, "size does matter."
However, so do numbers. I don't know all the intricacies of electronics theory and design, but certainly one thing I've learned, ample reserves of clean power make a huge differnece. The 9000 above certainly has a power supply that can make a difference AMONG LIKE RECEIVERS. However, in well chosen and well designed seperates, you have a large power supply and ample capacitance for the amp, and then a power supply and capacitance for the preamp (and tuner, etc.).
There are a few receivers out there that are "dual mono", but with a single power supply. Fewer still have true dual signal paths and dual power supplies. The latter group might have the best chance to be competitve with seperates, but can also be impacted by other design limitations in the preamp and tuner sections, which must also tap into the power supplies used for the amp, and are often not built to the same standards as seperate preamps and tuners.
So, in the end, I suspect it is the VERY rare receiver that has a chance to be truly competitive with well designed seperates.
But, at the end of the day, if it still sounds good to you, then that's REALLY what this is all about, right??
However, so do numbers. I don't know all the intricacies of electronics theory and design, but certainly one thing I've learned, ample reserves of clean power make a huge differnece. The 9000 above certainly has a power supply that can make a difference AMONG LIKE RECEIVERS. However, in well chosen and well designed seperates, you have a large power supply and ample capacitance for the amp, and then a power supply and capacitance for the preamp (and tuner, etc.).
There are a few receivers out there that are "dual mono", but with a single power supply. Fewer still have true dual signal paths and dual power supplies. The latter group might have the best chance to be competitve with seperates, but can also be impacted by other design limitations in the preamp and tuner sections, which must also tap into the power supplies used for the amp, and are often not built to the same standards as seperate preamps and tuners.
So, in the end, I suspect it is the VERY rare receiver that has a chance to be truly competitive with well designed seperates.
But, at the end of the day, if it still sounds good to you, then that's REALLY what this is all about, right??
I've used separates for years, and compared to MOST receivers they do have an edge. I also believe that in the under $750 price range (used, which should easiliy get you a nice ~160 wpc receiver w/5 gang FM front end and have it serviced) you'll have tough time beating the price/ power/ performance/ build quality/ sound quality of a TOTL receiver. I do like to mix and match gear, and will probably have separates in my main system again one day, when I'm over my receiver mania.:thmbsp:
jimfet
Lunatic Member
I have Philips power amp on my work bench as we speak. Doing a clean up job. The power supply in it weights almost 50lbs. The whole unit is 67lb. It's only 210 wpc.tarior said:Just look at the skimpy power supply in this receiver, you can see that there were some real compromises made here:
My McIntosh 2105 weighs 67lbs. It's only 105 wpc, and quite a bit of the weight is in the autoformers.
The combo of the 2105 with Marantz 3800 pre and Mac MR 77 tuner (which I have) sound about as good as the G 9000, but 2105s go for $650 to $1000, 3800s go for $250 to $500 and MR 77s go over $600, all likely needing to be cleaned and serviced.
I 've seen a few G-9000/901s and some Pioneer SX 1250s go well under $500 on the 'bay lately. Even at $200 for a servicing, that's still less than a Mc 2105 or Marantz DC 300. Not to mention a G 9000 or SX 1250 will absolutely rock circles around the 2105, and probably the DC 300, too. In fact, the G 9000 blows my Crown Power Base One (200 wpc @ 8ohms) out of the water!
The combo of the 2105 with Marantz 3800 pre and Mac MR 77 tuner (which I have) sound about as good as the G 9000, but 2105s go for $650 to $1000, 3800s go for $250 to $500 and MR 77s go over $600, all likely needing to be cleaned and serviced.
I 've seen a few G-9000/901s and some Pioneer SX 1250s go well under $500 on the 'bay lately. Even at $200 for a servicing, that's still less than a Mc 2105 or Marantz DC 300. Not to mention a G 9000 or SX 1250 will absolutely rock circles around the 2105, and probably the DC 300, too. In fact, the G 9000 blows my Crown Power Base One (200 wpc @ 8ohms) out of the water!
I've found great amp sections, great preamp sections in receivers, and currently have a receiver in my triamp system (using main amp only) doing the mid frequencies. I don't think you can count out any receiver against seperates without evaluating them on a case by case basis. I have mainly seperates, and one of the reasons is that they are tons easier to work on! Receivers cram alot into a package and for people like me with limited experience/skills, seperates are alot simpler to work on. Give me a recap job on a seperate any day. To sum it up I like them all, and there are good and bad examples in each group.
SuiDog
Well-Known Member
Consider the Kings; the Big G-33000 receiver, vs it's separates counterpart, the Big Ass BA-5000/CA-3000 and TU-9900. I'm talkin' Sansui, of course.:thmbsp:
This discussion is in the Exclusively Sansui forum. Most would prefer the separates, for pure sound and capabilities; while Most also desire the Big G, primarily for looks first, capabilities and collectibility second.
A simple matter of preferences and priorities.
This discussion is in the Exclusively Sansui forum. Most would prefer the separates, for pure sound and capabilities; while Most also desire the Big G, primarily for looks first, capabilities and collectibility second.
A simple matter of preferences and priorities.