Phono cartridge sound quality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by 4WD
Yeah, nostalgia has a good feel.
But, last night they got the fire pit going … I walked up and put my fully charged Bose speaker on the table and said one of you guys put on some music.
Out comes the iPhone and we were in business


I do understand what you are saying, we are much the same, but you know, even these bluetooth speakers dont come close to the JVC boombox I had with 2 inch tweeters, 6 inch woofers and 8D cell batteries decades ago..
We would back our boats up to the beach, anchor them in place, put that boom box on a blanket in the sand with a sand dune behind it (to reflect the sound) and it would, literally entertain the entire cove in the bay with our mix of music recorded by me on my BASF high end (metal?) tape, recorded by me at home Akai dual (or triple?) head recorder.

We now have the whole Bose thing, yeah, sounds good but would never ever be able to compete with the set up from the past, we just got used to settling for less now a days.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I had a decent Sony CD/radio box that had good speakers out there … think the moisture got to it.
Maybe you just nudged me to hang a cabinet and put a boomer inside !
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
we just got used to settling for less now a days.

For most, I'd say it's a conscious decision to choose convenience over utmost quality. If you want your music on the go, it's not practical to drag your turntable around with you,
smile.gif
so you choose the next best thing, or else you'd have no music at all. Those of us who take the time to sit down, isolate ourselves, eliminate all distractions, and actually listen to the music are in a tiny minority, I'm afraid. As for the rest, we get so heavily bombarded by various external stimuli (phone, TV, screaming kids) that it would be hard to truly appreciate high quality sound, even if we had it. These days, if I want to hear good sound, I put my headphones on and listen to some lossless audio files as I lack the space to set up a proper listening area. Maybe when I retire, but my hearing may be shot by then...
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy

We now have the whole Bose thing, yeah, sounds good but would never ever be able to compete with the set up from the past, we just got used to settling for less


In some cases, A LOT LESS.

I really do love HP, in my cars, and in my audio systems. I struggled to find speakers that had the punch of the past. I ended up purchasing Polk Rti A9's (tower speakers with 3ea 7 inch woofers) and they have no umph. Sure they sound really smooth, but I had to add a big sub just to get what's missing.

Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

Put those 12 inch speakers with a powerful receiver and a good turntable, and the sound was rock concert loud. Lots of fun. Furthermore, it was not all distorted.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Absolutely! Those "monster receivers" from the 60s-early 80s had true power and were huge and heavy,because of the size of the power transformers they had. The good ones had seperate power transformers for the left and right channels, making them true duel mono amplifiers, one amp for each channel. They were covered in heat sinks and fins and ran really hot. That's why they're in such demand among audiophiles now. I knew people back then who could test their power output and most of them would actually show a higher output than what they were rated on paper.
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Not only was it a "true" 250WPC, it was closer to 380WPC in real world terms.

And yes, you knew it when you cranked 'em up. Clean, crisp and loud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_SX-1980

Note that tests of the 1980 showed as much as 460 watts per channel output!

I guess my point was that it's really difficult to achieve that type of sound today using commonly available equipment. Unlike vintage cars that often under perform, there really is a pleasing performance quality to larger vintage audio equipment. My neighbor a few acres away has a vintage Pioneer setup and it sounds wonderful, even at a distance.
 
Last edited:
I'm restoring a Pioneers SX-1000TW this week. It's rated 50WPC. And what a gorgeous sound. The power consumption is 225 Watts so I can safely say that 50WPC is quite a conservative rating.

I'm a Marantz guy but I'm fond of this Pioneer.
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Absolutely! Those "monster receivers" from the 60s-early 80s had true power and were huge and heavy,because of the size of the power transformers they had. The good ones had seperate power transformers for the left and right channels, making them true duel mono amplifiers, one amp for each channel. They were covered in heat sinks and fins and ran really hot. That's why they're in such demand among audiophiles now. I knew people back then who could test their power output and most of them would actually show a higher output than what they were rated on paper.


You just buy a separate amp. My Denon is paired to a Bryston 4B, which is 272W/channel, you can find a couple of generation old used examples on AudioMart typically priced quite reasonably. HT receivers are designed to provide moderate power to 7+ channels and operate with a dedicated sub, they are not meant to drive a set of massive stereo towers like high-end receivers from "back in the day". They also offer a degree of flexibility that those old girls never did in terms of operating modes and configurability. The usage profile is markedly different now, and products have evolved to cater to that.

And it isn't like every basic 2CH was a raging power house back in the day either. My parents were young in that era and both spent considerable money on stereo equipment. My mom had a Hitachi IIRC and my dad had a Rotel (which he still has) and the Rotel is something like 65W/channel. My aunt had a HK that I ended up with and it was ~70W/channel IIRC. So yes, there were high powered offerings sold back in the day as integrated units, but they were hardly "then norm". And you can still buy those if you look:

https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/integrated-amplifiers/MA9000
http://rotel.com/en-ca/product/ra-1592
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Not only was it a "true" 250WPC, it was closer to 380WPC in real world terms.

And yes, you knew it when you cranked 'em up. Clean, crisp and loud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_SX-1980

Note that tests of the 1980 showed as much as 460 watts per channel output!

I guess my point was that it's really difficult to achieve that type of sound today using commonly available equipment. Unlike vintage cars that often under perform, there really is a pleasing performance quality to larger vintage audio equipment. My neighbor a few acres away has a vintage Pioneer setup and it sounds wonderful, even at a distance.


Yes, however IF you look at the testing parameters the much higher power rating cited was based on short-term power delivered during the 2.3dB of "dynamic headroom", so it does not have the capacity to deliver power at that level continuously like a dedicated power amp would and why it ended up being rated at 270W.

Also noted:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The adoption of a single-stage differential amplifier with low-noise dual transistors, a current mirror load and a 3-stage Darlington triple SEPP circuit provides a bumper power output of 270 watts + 270 watts (20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz with no more than 0.03% THD) which is extremely stable.


While 0.03% THD is probably good for an integrated unit, higher end stuff is measured at a much lower level. For example, the Bryston 4B cubed is rated at 300W/channel in to 8ohms at â¤0.005% and has no dynamic headroom; it can deliver that level continuously.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Not only was it a "true" 250WPC, it was closer to 380WPC in real world terms.


Originally Posted by OVERKILL
You just buy a separate amp.



Yup. In addition to the ones you mentioned, Anthem makes one that's rated at 400 watts x 2 (8 ohms). Not cheap, obviously.
smile.gif


https://www.crutchfield.com/p_973STRAMPB/Anthem-STR-Power-Amplifier-Black.html?tp=48757
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Cujet
Receivers were available with 250 watts per channel years ago. Can't find that today.

HT receivers? Stereo receivers? Was it a true RMS/FTC rating 20-20,000Hz, all channels driven?



Not only was it a "true" 250WPC, it was closer to 380WPC in real world terms.


Originally Posted by OVERKILL
You just buy a separate amp.



Yup. In addition to the ones you mentioned, Anthem makes one that's rated at 400 watts x 2 (8 ohms). Not cheap, obviously.
smile.gif


https://www.crutchfield.com/p_973STRAMPB/Anthem-STR-Power-Amplifier-Black.html?tp=48757




Yup! Lots of dedicated power amps that can deliver far beyond what that receiver offered if you are willing to pay the price. The Bryston 14B cubed is a dedicated stereo power amp that can deliver 600W/channel @ 8ohms @ Beyond that, you have to get into their monoblock stuff.
 
Originally Posted by DriveHard
Power is cheap in today's world...
https://www.amazon.com/Behringer-NU...+amplifier&qid=1583173620&sr=8-4

will it put out what it claims...no, but it will put out well over 1,500 watts per channel.


That's not really in the same realm as the Bryston or McIntosh with these specs:
[Linked Image]


1700W MAX, with no distortion figure listed, and a THD figure of <0.2% with no power output tied to it, whilst the units being discussed are rated power @ <0.005% THD.
 
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
I wonder how it's able to process all that power while being less than 15 lb.


It's class D and those figures are MAX power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

bismillah
Racor 500 fuel filter
Replies
6
Views
1K
NashNative
V
To blend or not to blend is the question (HPL and Renewable Lubricants)?
Replies
11
Views
400
BusyLittleShop
JD!
One year ownership review - 2021 BMW 530e PHEV
Replies
5
Views
971
JD!
M
My 2010 Honda Accord 2.4 (w/186k mi) acts like the torque converter is failing. What do I do?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Gasbuggy
Bailes1992
Dipetane
Replies
10
Views
1K
vOil
Back
Top Bottom