phoenixg said:

  Who loves photos? This guy!
I've taken the vinyl plunge, getting a Dual 1229 turntable (audio technica cartridge) and about a dozen decent LPs. I was relaxing with this earlier today while digging into this new-to-me mac 1900.
 
This mac was really rough. Like they used it for the floor of a birdcage or as a filter for a vacuum or something. Here are some before photos:
 
 
This was one of the nastiest encrusted pieces I've ever worked with, though I'm sure many of you have worse horror stories. Now it's fairly clean with nice new blue dials. I'd like to thank captouch for the advice on the blue gels. I was able to get some gels and help from my friend Foxx to make it look as good as it does. TBD on the sound.

P.S. I didn't touch the dial glass at all, some of the lettering just came right off without any provocation, like it was barely hanging in there.

Click to expand...

Well that looks seriously nice now.  And yet another classic Phoenix and Foxx production!
 
Keep us up to date with the Vinyl plunge, and if you prefer the sound etc    

Yup another NAD.... 'Yawn' 
 
Had to snap it up as it was going cheap and in great nick. 
 
3225PE 

 
A quick deoxit and ready to go. Sounds simply lovely with my HD800. More powerful than my 3020, and I think it is a bit louder - could be wrong though..

Nice LugBug!

lugbug1 said:

Yup another NAD.... 'Yawn' :bigsmile_face:

Had to snap it up as it was going cheap and in great nick. 

3225PE 



A quick deoxit and ready to go. Sounds simply lovely with my HD800. More powerful than my 3020, and I think it is a bit louder - could be wrong though..

Click to expand...

Lol I am looking at the same model for a month now and can't decide as its quite expensive. How good is it? I am looking for HD800 use primarily.

speakerbox said:

  Nice LugBug!

Click to expand...

Thank you
 

.sup said:

Lol I am looking at the same model for a month now and can't decide as its quite expensive. How good is it? I am looking for HD800 use primarily.

Click to expand...

Well SQ is always very subjective... But if you want what I would call an effortless, natural sound without any hardness or false resolution (not sure exactly what I mean here.. No added light?) then I can whole-heartedly recommend it. As we all know, the HD800 are extremely transparent and some amps can make them sound overly clinical. So this is why I think they make a very good match. I believe the NAD's have a lower output impedance than most vintage amps and so you do get a more balanced FR with dynamic hp's.
 
Bare in mind I paid £65 for this amp - it is extraordinary good value when you think that I'm amping a £1000 headphone. And amping it better than any other amp I've heard with them.      

Just wanted to add that all 3 of my mid to late 1980's NAD's sound the same -3020i, 3225pe, 7130. So its not just the amp above that I recommend with the Senn's. 

Does it have the same "meaty" sound as older amps? Thanks a lot LB! You are lucky, Ive seen a couple mint 3240PEs but sellers only ship to UK.

lugbug1 said:

  Well that looks seriously nice now.  And yet another classic Phoenix and Foxx production!
 
Keep us up to date with the Vinyl plunge, and if you prefer the sound etc    

Click to expand...

I figured I'd give a better after picture and talk a sec about some vinyl.

Remembering it looked like this:

 
So, initial impressions of my hopefully permanent vinyl rig. Audio technica cartridge, dual 1229 turntable, sony str-6120, mcintosh xr-250 speakers. I'm already convinced that the amplification and speaker parts of the rig are my personal bliss by which I compare all other 2 channel systems, so I was focused on the source today. The cartridge has about 50 hours on it despite being about 40 years old by now, but I assume that's still fairly new. I worked my way through a Queen album (A Night at the Opera) and a BTO album (Not Fragile) today. I was very impressed with how much headroom there was. I was really slammed by the bass when appropriate, and it felt like a very good quality source. It was infinitely better than an ipod and about the same as a good CD player in terms of detail. It seemed to have a slight leg up on headroom/fullness. I ran it with absolutely no EQ whatsoever and was very happy by how naturally balanced it was. I didn't even need "loudness", which I often find myself using to unpack digital sources a bit. Blasting Bohemian Rhapsody just felt amazing.
 
I was a bit frustrated by the dust. Every speck of dust was perfectly (annoyingly) amplified, so I will have to find a more effective way to clean each record before playing it. Also, I felt like there might have been interference between the speaker and the turntable at low frequencies, so I'll have to work on placement once the rig is settled in the new house.

P.S. I didn't touch the dial glass at all, some of the lettering just came right off without any provocation, like it was barely hanging in there.

Click to expand...

 
That looks good, glad the gel refurbishment worked out.  

So that lettering was fine when you got it and just flaked off while you were cleaning it?
 
Looking forward to hearing your impressions of the Mac vs your STR-6120.  I have a STR-6055 and both it and the Mac sound very good.  The Mac may be a bit more mellow/laid back, very smooth, but perhaps a little less dynamic than the Sony.  Impressions not from a back to back or immediate A/B comparison - just general impressions.

quick complaint (or "rant", in everyday discussion forum language).  it seems like i'll never be able to find that one integrated that'll give me:
 
(A   the punch and impact that i want,
 
(B   the ability to deliver the more subtle, nuanced tonal details that i also want to hear.
 
 
i remember hearing the Marantz PM-8004 which i auditioned in the store (bringing along my other gear, and taking music selections that i was familiar with), and while the subtle details were there in this amp it was almost like you had to strain and squint your eyes in order to hear the very subtle harmonics and other characteristics that were pleasing to hear, but this amp didn't have enough ("gain?" / "current?") to really make this a satisfying amp to listen to.  the small details were there, ("buried", it seemed to me),  but nobody wants to have to work this hard in order to hear them. i don't mind "paying attention" while i listen (i enjoy listening for details), but i don't want music listening to seem like "work", either.
 
two questions:  how easy/difficult would it be to modify this particular amp (the headphone amp is more than likely an op-amp, rather than the design for the h/p out using a stepped-down resistor between the h/p amp and the main power supply, but i don't know).
 
question two:  there is a Marantz SR-48 available locally (about an hour-and-a-half away), for a great price.  but the low price doesn't mean much if the h/p out disappoints.
 
 
 
anybody feel free to chime in.  thanks in advance.
 
i feel like i'm still searching for an amp that knows how to rock, but at the same time can deliver sonic refinements (listening to a hard-driving rock/blues piece, then switching gears and putting on a jazz trio piece where the grand piano is recorded well).  it seems like when choosing an amp,  it's "one, or the other."         

captouch said:

   
That looks good, glad the gel refurbishment worked out.  

So that lettering was fine when you got it and just flaked off while you were cleaning it?
 
Looking forward to hearing your impressions of the Mac vs your STR-6120.  I have a STR-6055 and both it and the Mac sound very good.  The Mac may be a bit more mellow/laid back, very smooth, but perhaps a little less dynamic than the Sony.  Impressions not from a back to back or immediate A/B comparison - just general impressions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I just hit it with canned air, not even on the glass, and the lettering lost about 10%. Very delicate stuff. I think just blowing on it from my mouth would have done it.
 
I'm eager as well to get an A/B in, though I'm not sure that this mac will be a good example of its kin. When I listened to it last, it sounded noticeably different 5 minutes after being turned on compared to right away. Like the bass had to find its way to the party.

Just sold off my Pioneer SX-880 receiver and SA-8800 integrated amp prior to a move. Once I get settled in my new place I'll be looking for something new in the receiver/amp department. I'd really like to avoid pieces that have unobtainium parts though.
 
Primarily thinking Pioneer, so are the SX-X50 units better than the X80 units as far as being able to keep them up and running for years to come? What about the integrateds? Also would consider the Sansui integrateds such as the AU-717. Is this a problematic unit to keep fresh? 

.sup said:

Does it have the same "meaty" sound as older amps? Thanks a lot LB! You are lucky, Ive seen a couple mint 3240PEs but sellers only ship to UK.

Click to expand...

Yes. Thats why I love the vintage sound Spent some more time with the 3225pe last night and it is defo louder than my other NAD's. So I would assume that all of the PE models will be louder. I am quite a low level listener and even with the "low level" button pressed I'm just off the floor of the volume pot with classical music! With this extra power I'm sure that there does seem to be more slam and punch - especially in the bass. The sound signature is no different to my other NAD's but it does seem more powerful sounding - this could be my kidding myself because of the extra volume, dunno... 
 
 
 

phoenixg said:

  I figured I'd give a better after picture and talk a sec about some vinyl.
 
Remembering it looked like this:
 
 
So, initial impressions of my hopefully permanent vinyl rig. Audio technica cartridge, dual 1229 turntable, sony str-6120, mcintosh xr-250 speakers. I'm already convinced that the amplification and speaker parts of the rig are my personal bliss by which I compare all other 2 channel systems, so I was focused on the source today. The cartridge has about 50 hours on it despite being about 40 years old by now, but I assume that's still fairly new. I worked my way through a Queen album (A Night at the Opera) and a BTO album (Not Fragile) today. I was very impressed with how much headroom there was. I was really slammed by the bass when appropriate, and it felt like a very good quality source. It was infinitely better than an ipod and about the same as a good CD player in terms of detail. It seemed to have a slight leg up on headroom/fullness. I ran it with absolutely no EQ whatsoever and was very happy by how naturally balanced it was. I didn't even need "loudness", which I often find myself using to unpack digital sources a bit. Blasting Bohemian Rhapsody just felt amazing.
 
I was a bit frustrated by the dust. Every speck of dust was perfectly (annoyingly) amplified, so I will have to find a more effective way to clean each record before playing it. Also, I felt like there might have been interference between the speaker and the turntable at low frequencies, so I'll have to work on placement once the rig is settled in the new house.

Click to expand...

Thanks for those detailed impressions, I'm always interested in how some going back to Vinyl find it after years of digital. 

i feel like i'm still searching for an amp that knows how to rock, but at the same time can deliver sonic refinements (listening to a hard-driving rock/blues piece, then switching gears and putting on a jazz trio piece where the grand piano is recorded well).  it seems like when choosing an amp,  it's "one, or the other."         

Click to expand...

 
The Pioneer SX-1250 will do that all day long.

speakerbox said:

The Pioneer SX-1250 will do that all day long.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that...I was going to post that the SX-1980 I have does too! Which it certainly does. And I certainly agree the 1250 does as well.