[SpeakerBox]

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.

 
They are great units (want to hear a 1980 some day).  Got one of the two output driver boards on the 1250 re-capped and re-soldered last night.  Number two will be done tonight.  Can't wait to hear what this change does for the sound.  Great anticipation!

 

[PhoenixG]

   
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.

So I had some time when I was definitely not procrastinating about packing to A/B the sony str-6120 and the mac-1900. I gave them both a few minutes to warm up, then I listened to the FM radio back to back through each receiver. I tend to agree with your impressions, the 6120 is ruler flat and very good across the entire range and is my reference amp while the 1980 and 800c are out for a refurb. The mac was "mellow" and "laid back", which I think are words that indicate somewhat higher, but not annoying, distortion and noise levels. It's important to say that it really wasn't annoying to listen to: it was smooth enough to listen to for hours without going crazy.
 
I felt like there was more distance between me and the music, and it wasn't as detailed as the sony. I flipped back and forth mid-phrase to catch the same passage on both amps. The highs are somewhat muted on the mac, maybe indicating a lower rolloff frequency on the 1900, possibly around 20-ishkHz for the -3dB point. It was able to bring them back forward with about 2dB of treble adjustment to a fairly flat response, but that also brought up the noise floor a tad with it.
 
I took another pass at the 1900 through the phono 1 input, playing a few songs off of "History of Eric Clapton", try and get a better sense of how the amplifier section sounds. I'm fairly pleased with it. It was very nice quality; silkier, with less noise. There was still a decent amount of rolloff, which makes me continue to think the amp has a -3dB point around 20kHz. The phono section was much less noisy than the tuner and basically made the entire amp for me. It was easy to listen to and detailed enough to satisfy me. The same songs on the sony had a cooler character with clearer highs, but it was good listening on both for sure. 
 
I found the mids to be fairly warm. If you have very bright, analytic speakers/headphones, then this might be a good amp to tame them. 
Looking under the hood, this amp is 100% McIntosh based on build quality. I think there must be some servicing that will bring the noise down and clean up the sound. Since it is largely card based, I think this amp would be relatively easy for a DIY'er to work on and/or modify.
 

 

[Seamaster]

Dry out capacitors will limit the frequency responds range. Recap may help out your Mac

 

[Oregonian]

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

and half the night..............LOL.................as does the SX-1050, SA-9900 and Spec 1/2 from my experience. 

 

[Silent One]

 

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

and half the night..............LOL.................as does the SX-1050, SA-9900 and Spec 1/2 from my experience. 

As does the Sansui G-22000. 

 

[Oregonian]

As does the Sansui G-22000. 

Likely the pinnacle of all the great equipment owned by this distinguished group.

 

[terry parr]

appreciate the few who quickly chimed in with some help.
 
 i feel like good amplification is still the missing link for my system.
 
i knew this was the thread to "vent" a few frustrations.  i knew there would be some on here who knew exactly what i was talking about, and could probably make specific recommendations based on first-hand experience.
 
i've wrote the model numbers down of the pieces mentioned so far and stuck 'em in my wallet.  now, when i go by a couple of electronic shops in the area that have advertised vintage gear (or getting in touch with a couple of people selling older audio gear on local craigslist), i'll have particular models in mind.
 
thanks, guys.

 

[captouch]

  So I had some time when I was definitely not procrastinating about packing to A/B the sony str-6120 and the mac-1900. I gave them both a few minutes to warm up, then I listened to the FM radio back to back through each receiver. I tend to agree with your impressions, the 6120 is ruler flat and very good across the entire range and is my reference amp while the 1980 and 800c are out for a refurb. The mac was "mellow" and "laid back", which I think are words that indicate somewhat higher, but not annoying, distortion and noise levels. It's important to say that it really wasn't annoying to listen to: it was smooth enough to listen to for hours without going crazy.
 
I felt like there was more distance between me and the music, and it wasn't as detailed as the sony. I flipped back and forth mid-phrase to catch the same passage on both amps. The highs are somewhat muted on the mac, maybe indicating a lower rolloff frequency on the 1900, possibly around 20-ishkHz for the -3dB point. It was able to bring them back forward with about 2dB of treble adjustment to a fairly flat response, but that also brought up the noise floor a tad with it.
 
I took another pass at the 1900 through the phono 1 input, playing a few songs off of "History of Eric Clapton", try and get a better sense of how the amplifier section sounds. I'm fairly pleased with it. It was very nice quality; silkier, with less noise. There was still a decent amount of rolloff, which makes me continue to think the amp has a -3dB point around 20kHz. The phono section was much less noisy than the tuner and basically made the entire amp for me. It was easy to listen to and detailed enough to satisfy me. The same songs on the sony had a cooler character with clearer highs, but it was good listening on both for sure. 
 
I found the mids to be fairly warm. If you have very bright, analytic speakers/headphones, then this might be a good amp to tame them. 
Looking under the hood, this amp is 100% McIntosh based on build quality. I think there must be some servicing that will bring the noise down and clean up the sound. Since it is largely card based, I think this amp would be relatively easy for a DIY'er to work on and/or modify.
 

 
Thanks for the detailed impressions.  I still haven't used the phono of the Mac - mostly just the tape inputs for CD.  Definitely non-fatiguing and buttery smooth, though I agree it may be rolled off.  I can only hear up to 13kHz or so, so I can't comment on anything going on above that, but if you want lively, the Sony gives that more than the Mac.  Luckily, we don't have to choose.  
 
I've heard nothing but good things about the 6120.  It probably sounds pretty similar to my 6055, but with more power.  Sony's aren't as outwardly pretty or flashy as others, but understated elegance I'd say.  Put it in a wood case, and it's still a real looker.  And it's right up there with the top tier on sound quality.  I was curious about vintage Sony, but never went out of my way to get one.  A friend gave me his, and it really exceeded my expectations.
 
I just brought up a Yamaha CA-600.  One of these days, I want to do a "battle of the 30-40W" receivers/integrateds:
Sony STR-6055 vs
Marantz 1060 vs
Yamaha CA-600
 
That would be interesting. . .

 

[analogsurviver]

  I have read that the DQ-20s are better than the 10s.

I have only seen and heard DQ-20 once - at SIM audio fair, Milan, Italy, either 1979 or 1986. I remember it sounding "nothing special" - but since then I did learn that "nothing special/nothing to comment about" is the hallmark of the upper echelons of anything audio. In that sense, it certainly is better than DQ-10.

 

[.Sup]

Cap tell us how the CA-600. I have been eyeing a CA-610 for a while now.

 

[Oregonian]

Finally figured out where to put the SX-1050.......

 

[Seamaster]

That beautifully monster shadows your speakers

 

[Oregonian]

That beautifully monster shadows your speakers

Those tiny satellites you see are for the Samsung surround receiver thankfully....................lol.
 
I've got a pair of Polk's hidden behind the system that handle the Pioneer pretty well.  They sound extremely good.  As long as I don't get crazy with the volume they should stay together.  Had my Klipsch 3.2's in there but the WAF didn't fly. 

 

[captouch]

Cap tell us how the CA-600. I have been eyeing a CA-610 for a while now.

It's built really well (25lbs or so, solid metal selector knobs with set screws, metal covers over many boards), access to most boards is pretty easy.  Elegant, understated, simple face.  Pre-out/main-in jacks with coupler switch so you don't need the U-shaped metal jumpers, two phono inputs (one with adjustable R settings), two AUX inputs, defeatable tone controls, variable loudness.
 
Bias and DC offset easy to set with test posts for bias test locations.
 
I was expecting fairly lean sound based on reputation, but it's very smooth and effortless with my Yamaha NS-690 II speakers.  I haven't done a face off with other similar powered amps yet, but plan to do so at some point.  It's sonic character may be more obvious in a A/B with others.
 
The case is wood, but covered with vinyl woodgrain covering.  I plan to strip this off and see how the underlying wood will look if sanded/finished.  Otherwise, wood veneer.  Here's a few pics:
 

 

 
This last pic here shows some of the flexibility of settings.  Can output multiple mono modes - L channel only, R only, or blend of L&R to both speakers.
 

 
It doesn't have a Class A mode like the CA-800 and CA-1000, but I was lucky enough to get this unit as a needs-repair unit from a kind AK'er, and after fixing a couple of things, it seems to be running great.

 

[Oregonian]

I always liked the concept of adjustable loudness. That's a nice Yamaha there.