Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Fisher Receiver - 400, 500 or 800
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fisher Receiver - 400, 500 or 800

post #1 of 4
Thread Starter 
Any thoughts about which model is best for headphones first, followed by tuner quality second? Distance reception is not an issue. All desired stations are strong and local.

Also, might consider conversion to 400-x. Any thoughts about whether this improves the original sound?

post #2 of 4
I purchased a Fisher 400 off of ebay and am having Paul at Bizzy Bee Audio restore it, all 400-x mods except output stage. You might try calling him or sending him an email (web @ 2baudio.com). In my conversations with him he felt 400 was best, due to less complication. I asked a lot of questions here before taking the plunge, so if you do a search there is a lot of recent info, courtesy of mkmelt and others. Good luck!
post #3 of 4

Read the forum archive

Please read the forum archive, you can search on "Fisher" and read a good deal of information about the vintage Fisher gear.

For comparison:

Fisher 400 - Last all-tube design. FM mono/stereo only, no AM tuner. Has headphone jack.

Fisher 500B - AM/FM receiver. No headphone jack. Required optional FM multiplexer board for FM stereo.

Fisher 500C - AM/FM receiver, has headphone jack.

Fisher 800B/C - Probably the largest most ambituous all-tube receiver ever built. Features separate AM/FM tuners and tuning dials originally designed for an early form of stereo broadcasting that combined AM (L - R) and FM mono (L + R) signals to achieve true stereo. Features one of the finest AM tuners ever made. I believe the 800C has a headphone jack, not sure about 800B.
post #4 of 4
I think Fisher 500C does not have AM function.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Fisher Receiver - 400, 500 or 800