Yamaha PC5002M extremely rare
- Thread starter neanderthal
- Start date
sunboy
New Member
That's 34 lbs more than my wife.
My girl friend said that the outlook of 101M is too ugly, not match with my Accuphase pre & cdp. :tears:
I'm not sure PC5002M / 101M can beat the MX-10000 in sound quality,
But i'm sure the PC-5002M / 101M look like a beast more than MX-10000
Hi gentleman, which outlook is better, PC5002M or 101M ??
101M, no doubt. Don't figure there are too many in the US, though.
i have a solution. when does the next boat leave from HK to the US? i'll meet your amp in San Fran and show her everything that America has to offer
With regard to girlfriends,there used to be a T-shirt which summed-up their absolute relevance:
(this was the message on the T-shirt)
Front.
"My girlfriend said that if I don't give-up surfing,she'll leave me."
Back.
"Gosh,I'll miss her."
(this was the message on the T-shirt)
Front.
"My girlfriend said that if I don't give-up surfing,she'll leave me."
Back.
"Gosh,I'll miss her."
sunboy
New Member
I will be killed !! :drool:
Yamahalic
Super Member
If a PC5002m was a car...
Oops, I forgot to finish my amp/car analogy. If the PC5002M is like a Lamborghini LM02, then the MX-10000 is like a Ferrari Testarossa (both built for performance, both the best of their era, both most desirable to this day, both with extremely powerful). They differ in that they are designed for different types of action.
Oops, I forgot to finish my amp/car analogy. If the PC5002M is like a Lamborghini LM02, then the MX-10000 is like a Ferrari Testarossa (both built for performance, both the best of their era, both most desirable to this day, both with extremely powerful). They differ in that they are designed for different types of action.
Both get about 4MPG IIRC! LOL
The 101M.I'm not sure PC5002M / 101M can beat the MX-10000 in sound quality,
But i'm sure the PC-5002M / 101M look like a beast more than MX-10000
Hi gentleman, which outlook is better, PC5002M or 101M ??
I love the looks of the PC5002M too.
Yamahalic
Super Member
Yes, although one outcome of either the MX-10000 or PC5002M designs is heavy weight, I will guess that energy efficiency is not what they will ever be known for. I presume few owners of these statement units will ever care to discover their energy consumption, but like Ferraris and Lambos, high energy use can be presumed in the pursuit of superior sound characteristics.
As for myself, I would very much enjoy looking at, and listening to, an MX-10000 while I rehab a sore back (and legs and arms) from moving it around, and while I contemplate paying the higher electricity bill.
I wonder how much energy they use as well. Maybe I'll try to borrow one of those plug-in usage meters. At idle, the PC5002M's heatsinks run at room temperature, but they're so large they could still be dissipating a fair amount of heat and you'd never know. And of course you have the rest of the surface area of the circuit boards that could be dissipating some power as heat, too. If you think about how much heat a 100W lightbulb generates, it's hard to believe that the amp is wasting much more than that. Mark, I'm assuming you've had a similar experience, but what's the MX-10000 like?
Since these are still at core Class AB outputs with a dual rail supply, they are more efficient than typical Class A solid state amps and of course most tube amps. Higher efficiency needs Class D type amps with switching topologies. However, sonically, I think those types still have a ways to go.
So, you guys who own PC5002M's will just have to deal with the power demands...:yes:...
...tough gig! :thmbsp:I should be so lucky...:drool:
Subsonic button is for the Subsonic filter which is below 20Hz.
There will be no difference in sound unless your speaker can play below 20Hz. I know some speakers with built in subwoofers can play subsonic frequencies. But if you listen to Vinyl, it's a good idea to have the subsonic turned on since the wrap vinyl can cause low subsonic frequencies and it's undesirable (coz it's making the woofers to move unnecessarily).
There will be no difference in sound unless your speaker can play below 20Hz. I know some speakers with built in subwoofers can play subsonic frequencies. But if you listen to Vinyl, it's a good idea to have the subsonic turned on since the wrap vinyl can cause low subsonic frequencies and it's undesirable (coz it's making the woofers to move unnecessarily).
The main benefit of the subsonic filter when using a turntable as the source,is that the power supply of the amp is not directing it's energy to reproducing a type of distortion.This frees that otherwise wasted power supply energy to be utilised within the audible passband.
Even better however,is to devise a way of taming the subsonic resonance by way of a headshell dampening system(as used by Townshend Rock turntables)mechanically,then to utilise the infrasonic frequencies for more realistic playback.Infrasonic signals are 'the 'road less traveled' of audio.It is a crime not to use them.
hehehe...u got me! I am a sinner! :yes:
Me too.I use a turntable as my Source component(without headshell damping).Neither do I run an infrasonic replay system.I do however have the ideal for the purchase of equipment capable of achieving that ambition.Parallel tracking/Linear tracking tonearm.With the correct headshell and a trough the means to damp the arm cartridge resonance is available and easy to optimise through manipulation of the individual elements.
There are superb infrasonic reproducers on the market.They are extremely expensive,however they may be worth-it.We read of many an audiophile who has spent a fortune trying to optimise the lowest audible and the subaudible bands.The lowest frequencies require the most electrical power to reproduce.If we want to reproduce music to a high resolution level,the requirement is not merely power,but low distortion.Traditional approaches have proven to have the highest levels of distortion in the replay chain within this region.Look at the anechoic chamber tests of subwoofer replay distortion levels.The lower the frequency,the higher the distortion.
These regions matter,are difficult and expensive to optimise.For digital,the subsonic resonance isn't an issue.The replay distortion,which almost entirely all transducers have whilst attempting to track the waveform in the lowest audible and sub-audible bandwidths,remains the gross limiting factor in those regions.
That of course is looking at the contribution of the components.The room is an altogether different topic of discussion,co-related,supplementary to having the necessary transducer system.
Having the ideal replay in these bandwidths would be the most difficult challenge in audio.
