Where does it state this? If you are speaking of the ratings on the rear of the receiver, then realize that there are two ratings. One states 4 to 16 for a or b. Yes, this is for the 8900ZDB. Depends on production year or something, who knows.
Rob
Sansui 8900zdb vs G-5500? Sound Quality? Help today please.
- Thread starter jgscott
- Start date
Where does it state this? If you are speaking of the ratings on the rear of the receiver, then realize that there are two ratings. One states 4 to 16 for a or b. Yes, this is for the 8900ZDB. Depends on production year or something, who knows.
Rob
kevzep
Its all about the Music
Do those receivers have that impedance switch on the back Rob?
Right on the rear panel.
Attachments
Since nothing changed internally that I know of, the "change" was for "marketing" purposes. 4 Ohm speakers will heat up the output transistors a LOT when cranked up. The right channel transistors in this one actually got so hot they blew open circuit! And it wasn't even "cranking" near the limit. So the original silkscreen holds true unless you like the smell of "magic smoke".
What were the production years? From what I read, it was from 1981 - 1983. However the serial number indicates December 1980, and I saw another serial number for October 1980. Unless Sansui changed their date coding.
Don't think there was any production on these in 83, the next series was out by sometime in the first half of 1983 (Z-3000X-Z-9000X). I'll have to check mine now and report back what the impedance markings are with the build date.
The next series was the Z-3000-Z-9000 and was out in 1982. Then the X versions came out in 1983.
I believe the 9900Z series was 1980 to 1982.
This info is from the Sansui serial number database. I believe the 8900ZDB from 1978 may be an error.
Rob
I believe the 9900Z series was 1980 to 1982.
This info is from the Sansui serial number database. I believe the 8900ZDB from 1978 may be an error.
Rob
Last edited:
^^ You are correct. The non-x suffix models had a short run, and were quickly replaced with the revised "X" line in 83. Funny that these were the very last receivers with an almost decent build quality.
I had a Z-9000X for a short time (was thrown in with a lot of gear I bought, I ended up gifting it to someone who needed a receiver to start building up a system) and it had some real heft to it. Lots of plastic, but still had a good amp inside and a serious transformer. The styling was a love it or hate it proposition, though I've come to think of it as not being so bad in the last couple of years. Probably just my sentimentality for the early 80's coming through.
By the time the next receiver model line came out, the wheels had fallen off pretty badly at Sansui. The only bright spots in 84/85 were the X-balanced integrated and power amps. These were good, well built components. The enfeebled plastic receivers and most other cheap, gaudy stuff on offer were an embarrassment to the company name.
Also, I checked my 9900Z and found it lists A, B, C: 4-16 ohms. A+B, A+C, B+C: 8-16 ohms. It was built June of 82, so probably a fairly late production model. It appears I was mistaken about the speaker switching priority as well based on the way it lists the speaker systems in combination on the rear.
The question now is: did the 9900Z not have its minimum impedance de-rated, and that was only done to the lower models in the line, or were the early models de-rated and the later ones "improved" to permit 4 ohm loads?
I had a Z-9000X for a short time (was thrown in with a lot of gear I bought, I ended up gifting it to someone who needed a receiver to start building up a system) and it had some real heft to it. Lots of plastic, but still had a good amp inside and a serious transformer. The styling was a love it or hate it proposition, though I've come to think of it as not being so bad in the last couple of years. Probably just my sentimentality for the early 80's coming through.
By the time the next receiver model line came out, the wheels had fallen off pretty badly at Sansui. The only bright spots in 84/85 were the X-balanced integrated and power amps. These were good, well built components. The enfeebled plastic receivers and most other cheap, gaudy stuff on offer were an embarrassment to the company name.
Also, I checked my 9900Z and found it lists A, B, C: 4-16 ohms. A+B, A+C, B+C: 8-16 ohms. It was built June of 82, so probably a fairly late production model. It appears I was mistaken about the speaker switching priority as well based on the way it lists the speaker systems in combination on the rear.
The question now is: did the 9900Z not have its minimum impedance de-rated, and that was only done to the lower models in the line, or were the early models de-rated and the later ones "improved" to permit 4 ohm loads?
They had the same output transistors so nothing was "improved" except for the marketing. Same with the 8900ZDB. One of the biggest reasons I love my 9090DB is the (rotary) speaker switch. A+B or A+C runs the speakers in series instead of parallel negating any worries of dropping the impedance when running 2 pairs of speakers. In fact, it doubles the impedance in series so running 2 pair of 4 Ohm speakers as A+B (or A+C) is no sweat.
I have a Z-7000 (non-X) and it sounds very good, though a bit "cold". I also have the Z-3000X and you can tell they were beginning to really skimp. The 4 output transistors and emitter resistors are literally side by side and it's like putting a blow torch on the board. The heat is so concentrated in one spot it blackens and cooks the components under the outputs and heats the drivers. I added some heat sinking and raised the emitter resistors and it has helped to keep them a bit cooler. Plus relocated a few components. Though I must say this little unit really sounds amazing! It has the "feed forward" design and is not as "cold" as the Z-7000.
Rob-
Picture isn't working (for me anyway, on phone now) did they put a sticker on it, or was it screen printed? Mine has it screen printed directly on the panel. I'll need to look again to see I what voltage sticker is on it. Thinking it was marked 110V, but can't swear to it. Will check it later.
Skywatcher- interesting your assessment of the difference between the Z-n000 and Z-n000X series. I wondered why the non-X series was so short lived, maybe the customer feedback was unfavorable regarding the sound, or maybe Sansui were desperate to roll out a cost reduced version as the market was really collapsing for hi-fi in 1983/84. Also, I didn't know the models with the X were based on super feed forward design.
I also agree no physical improvement was made to the n900Z units to justify the change in minimum impedance rating. I think they played it safe initially by going 8 ohm minimum and then later deciding 4 ohm operation was safe.
Picture isn't working (for me anyway, on phone now) did they put a sticker on it, or was it screen printed? Mine has it screen printed directly on the panel. I'll need to look again to see I what voltage sticker is on it. Thinking it was marked 110V, but can't swear to it. Will check it later.
Skywatcher- interesting your assessment of the difference between the Z-n000 and Z-n000X series. I wondered why the non-X series was so short lived, maybe the customer feedback was unfavorable regarding the sound, or maybe Sansui were desperate to roll out a cost reduced version as the market was really collapsing for hi-fi in 1983/84. Also, I didn't know the models with the X were based on super feed forward design.
I also agree no physical improvement was made to the n900Z units to justify the change in minimum impedance rating. I think they played it safe initially by going 8 ohm minimum and then later deciding 4 ohm operation was safe.
I never warmed up to the heat pipe style heat sink. This Z-3000X is bass-ackwards with the heat sink (and transistors) in the front! Plus there is plenty of room for them to have used a "conventional" heat sink arrangement and spread out the transistors a bit. I have half a notion to install a conventional heat sink in place of the pipe and put the transistors on it. Maybe one of these days when I get time.
