dogwan said:

  Haven't posted in this thread in a while. Know this is nothing new or unusual, but picked up this gem the other day. Ignore the price sticker. I get a discount at the thrift where I got it for $38.
 
Fully functioning but has a slightly high DC offset in the left channel and some low level noise that needs to be looked after. Pulls in stations like a champ.
 
Going to use it in the bedroom with a pair of re-furbed Epicure Model 5's. It drives the hell out of my AKG K401's. No thin bass anymore and the dual power supplies really do wonders for the soundstage.

Click to expand...

It's a shame that H/K stuff doesn't usually compete well with other receivers of similar vintage, since they're very handsome.

dogwan said:

 
 
Haven't posted in this thread in a while. Know this is nothing new or unusual, but picked up this gem the other day. Ignore the price sticker. I get a discount at the thrift where I got it for $38.
 
Fully functioning but has a slightly high DC offset in the left channel and some low level noise that needs to be looked after. Pulls in stations like a champ.
 
Going to use it in the bedroom with a pair of re-furbed Epicure Model 5's. It drives the hell out of my AKG K401's. No thin bass anymore and the dual power supplies really do wonders for the soundstage.

Click to expand...

Nice find neighbor!  If you need a place to have it serviced, give Doug at Audio Specialties a call - 503-257-3206 - he's on 102nd and Halsey.  Good man, good prices and you can drool over all kinds of vintage equipment in his store.

ssrock64 said:

  It's a shame that H/K stuff doesn't usually compete well with other receivers of similar vintage, since they're very handsome.

Click to expand...

That's the 1st time I've heard that. I have always had the impression the vintage HK stuff was well respected. Especially the twin power units.

I've decided to look for a vintage amp for my LCD-X. I'm kind of overwhelmed with my choices, how do I choose?

dogwan said:

  That's the 1st time I've heard that. I have always had the impression the vintage HK stuff was well respected. Especially the twin power units.

Click to expand...

 
Twin power H/K units (430, 730, 930) are really nice sounding.  I think the build quality is somewhat below some of the other brands (Sansui, Yamaha, Marantz, etc) of similar time period, but the sound itself is really nice.

Got a new vintage receiver in, a Sony STR-6060F, had it fully recapped.
 
This late 60's Sony receiver has a reputation for being tube-like, so I compared it against both a fully recapped Marantz 1060 and a Fisher KX-100 tube integrated on Vandersteen 2CE Signatures.  Thought I'd post my note here:
 
First: Sony 6060 vs Marantz 1060:

The Marantz 1060 is more polite, a bit fuller/warmer, the bass maybe a touch stronger, and has a somewhat less forward presentation (maybe 5th row).

The Sony 6060F is more dynamic, more forward/live, seemingly a bit more detail and maybe tips up a bit more toward higher mid/treble than the Marantz's upper bass/mid 'emphasis'.

You could say the Marantz has a prettier, more forgiving, but at the expense of some dynamics and transparency/texture.

To my ears, the Marantz is actually more tubey sounding if I think about the stereotypical tubey characteristic of softer, prettier, more mid centric.  That's not to say the Sony isn't tube like - it's just less so relative to the Marantz.  
 
Next: Sony 6060 vs Fisher KX-100:
 
They're more alike than different.  If Sony is a 1st row presentation, Fisher is maybe 3rd.  Not recessed by any means , but not quite as forward.  Both have very good detail and transparency.

The Sony sounds louder at the same SPL level - the cymbals, brushes, high hats,etc are just a bit more apparent and forward - even though I volume equalized using an iPhone SPL app.  The Fisher seems a bit more refined and smooth, but without being veiled or laid back on an objective level.

If the Marantz is at one extreme and the Sony are the other, the Fisher is probably 2/3rd toward the Sony on the same scale.

So both are very good - if you like forward, max PRaT, etc, you might prefer the Sony (at least on the Vandersteens), but on more potentially forward speakers (like Klipsch Fortes for example), one might conceivably prefer the Fisher as it could tame a bit of the brightness/harshness one can hear at times with horns.

All the listening comparisons were done with only 3-4 CD's: Kind of Blue, Diana Krall, Abbey Road, and a Ray Charles duet CD.  Probably more tame material that many might use, but I think Abbey Road presents enough of the rock element to not have my comparison be totally soft/jazz/vocal material.
 
In summary, I enjoyed all three, and it all ultimately comes down to preference of presentation and synergy with speakers.

dogwan said:

  That's the 1st time I've heard that. I have always had the impression the vintage HK stuff was well respected. Especially the twin power units.

Click to expand...

I guess perhaps I was mistaken. I think my impression of modern HK gear was bleeding into what I thought of their vintage units.

captouch said:

  Got a new vintage receiver in, a Sony STR-6060F, had it fully recapped.
 
This late 60's Sony receiver has a reputation for being tube-like, so I compared it against both a fully recapped Marantz 1060 and a Fisher KX-100 tube integrated on Vandersteen 2CE Signatures.  Thought I'd post my note here:
 
First: Sony 6060 vs Marantz 1060:

The Marantz 1060 is more polite, a bit fuller/warmer, the bass maybe a touch stronger, and has a somewhat less forward presentation (maybe 5th row).

The Sony 6060F is more dynamic, more forward/live, seemingly a bit more detail and maybe tips up a bit more toward higher mid/treble than the Marantz's upper bass/mid 'emphasis'.

You could say the Marantz has a prettier, more forgiving, but at the expense of some dynamics and transparency/texture.

To my ears, the Marantz is actually more tubey sounding if I think about the stereotypical tubey characteristic of softer, prettier, more mid centric.  That's not to say the Sony isn't tube like - it's just less so relative to the Marantz.  
 
Next: Sony 6060 vs Fisher KX-100:
 
They're more alike than different.  If Sony is a 1st row presentation, Fisher is maybe 3rd.  Not recessed by any means , but not quite as forward.  Both have very good detail and transparency.

The Sony sounds louder at the same SPL level - the cymbals, brushes, high hats,etc are just a bit more apparent and forward - even though I volume equalized using an iPhone SPL app.  The Fisher seems a bit more refined and smooth, but without being veiled or laid back on an objective level.

If the Marantz is at one extreme and the Sony are the other, the Fisher is probably 2/3rd toward the Sony on the same scale.

So both are very good - if you like forward, max PRaT, etc, you might prefer the Sony (at least on the Vandersteens), but on more potentially forward speakers (like Klipsch Fortes for example), one might conceivably prefer the Fisher as it could tame a bit of the brightness/harshness one can hear at times with horns.

All the listening comparisons were done with only 3-4 CD's: Kind of Blue, Diana Krall, Abbey Road, and a Ray Charles duet CD.  Probably more tame material that many might use, but I think Abbey Road presents enough of the rock element to not have my comparison be totally soft/jazz/vocal material.
 
In summary, I enjoyed all three, and it all ultimately comes down to preference of presentation and synergy with speakers.

Click to expand...

Very nice impression! I had a 6060 and paired it with a pair of modern infinity cmmd type speakers and like it immensely. I also built an adapter to add a woofer that worked nicely and increased the 6060's deep bass substantially to the correct level (15-50 Hz). I think all in the entire system cost under $300. I eventually settled on the sony str-6120 for it's more flat response, better deep bass, and slightly higher accuracy. Don't let the name fool you it is a top tier set of gear. I currently own several of them, with one powering a set of xr-290's. Audio bliss for me.

jjacq said:

  I've decided to look for a vintage amp for my LCD-X. I'm kind of overwhelmed with my choices, how do I choose?

Click to expand...

 
Budget is a good start

jjacq said:

  I've decided to look for a vintage amp for my LCD-X. I'm kind of overwhelmed with my choices, how do I choose?

Click to expand...

 
 
Brands to look at: Pioneer, Marantz, Sansui, Akai,  Fisher, Mcintosh, Kenwood, & Teac. Sony has some nice vintage stuff too.
 
Once you know your budget then there is plenty of good info about vintage amps and receivers online to help narrow it down.

amish said:

   
 
Brands to look at: Pioneer, Marantz, Sansui, Akai,  Fisher, Mcintosh, Kenwood, & Teac. Sony has some nice vintage stuff too.
 
Once you know your budget then there is plenty of good info about vintage amps and receivers online to help narrow it down.

Click to expand...

 You can add the concept line of receivers as well. Seeing you are in California you should not have any difficulty looking one up. Concept was a house brand produced for the now defunct pacific stereo chain. It was I guess their premium house brand. They were a bit cheaper than some of the name brands but their build quality was stellar. They do look kind of hum drum next to the flashier looks of the other name brands but it is their sound and build quality that gave them their good sound so do not be put off but their plane jane looks. I purchased a recapped concept 16.5 which was the flagship model. Wow what a beast it weighs in at sixty seven pounds and has a dual mono power supply with two large frame transformers. It is a very powerful sounding unit. I bought it to drive my audeze lcd2 v2s and boy does it deliver. It leaves most dedicated headphone amps in the rear view mirror. The 16.5 has an authority that I have not heard from just about any headphone amp. But it is pretty large and takes up a lot of space.
Plus it is not exactly easy to move around. But it does drive my lcd2s and my somewhat hungrier akg 701s in a fashion that is very satisfying.
 I did add a couple of premium fuses and the resultant sound was very much more impressive. By the way the two rear accessed plug in fuses were rated at 7 amps each. That should give you some idea of how much power that the 16.5 has on tap. This beast was rated at 165 watts rms per channel into 8 ohms.

@buson160man  You are right! How could I forget that brand? In fact I saw some of their stuff awhile back on the bay.
 
I might add that I've enjoyed some MCS gear too, not owned by me though. This was a JC Penny's brand.

amish said:

  @buson160man  You are right! How could I forget that brand? In fact I saw some of their stuff awhile back on the bay.
 
I might add that I've enjoyed some MCS gear too, not owned by me though. This was a JC Penny's brand.

Click to expand...

The MCS series I remember them. Boy does this blog brings back memories of the glory days of my youth. I remembered running amuck in the plethora of stereo chains way back in the seventies before the accountants started taking charge and started cutting corners to save money. None of the chains from the seventies survived. The days of Japanese mass  produced equipment has long disappeared. The ever escalating prices have made the days of affordable premium equipment a thing of the past.

silent one said:

  Kenwood is loved here in SoCal 

Had always wanted the 9600...
 
In other news...
 
...wandered into my storage unit today to retrieve a couple of very small items. And had to move a lot big items out the way first! 

 

Click to expand...

 Wow the amplifier section from either the sansuii  g22000 or is it the amp section from the big daddy g33000. That's a nice piece to have around. What a waste you are not using it.

buson160man said:

 Wow the amplifier section from either the sansuii  g22000 or is it the amp section from the big daddy g33000. That's a nice piece to have around. What a waste you are not using it.

Click to expand...

The pre-amp for the G-22000 is just out of view with the Pioneer SX-D7000; SX-650. Sadly, my temporary residence is fully furnished and simply no room for my gears. 
Hopefully my next move in autumn/winter will be unfurnished and see the band back together.