[CFC]

i thought i was firmly settled on goin with either zotl or maestro when i came across threads discussing vintage gear. its clear buying old stuff is always a bit of gamble, but the difference in pricing really made me think... if it was cd players we talkin about, then there are some technological advancements we cant do without (sacd comes to mind...) that are only found in newer models. but with amps/receivers tho, i dont see how you could go wrong with vintage models. how does fisher 400 sound in comparison to say zotl or melos SHA-1?

 

[Wodgy]

In my humble opinion, the Fisher 400 destroys the Melos SHA-1 in terms of bass control and musicality. The Melos has better and more extended treble. I've owned both, and still own the Fisher 400, but one of the output coupling caps blew and I've haven't gotten around to fixing it.

 

[Hirsch]

The Fisher 400 I have cannot compete with the SHA-1 at the low end. There's a lot of bass, but a definite lack of control relative to the Melos. The Fisher is a classic tube sound, which neither the Melos nor ZOTL is. The ZOTL has the weakest bass of the three, but is strong in the midrange and highs. The Fisher has a gorgeous tube midrange, but the highs are rolled off and the noise floor is higher than the other two. The Melos has a good low end and midrange, but doesn't have the air of either the Fisher or the ZOTL. I haven't heard the Maestro version of the Melos. Of the three I have, I'd rank them ZOTL > Fisher > Melos, but that's a strictly personal preference.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hirsch The Fisher has a gorgeous tube midrange, but the highs are rolled off and the noise floor is higher than the other two.

That's interesting. I agree on the first two points, but the noise floor on my Fisher is better than on my old SHA-1. (There is no detectable noise on the Fisher, but the SHA-1 had some minor noise at higher volumes.) Perhaps it depends on the age of the components, the tubes, or the particular power supply the amp is used with.

 

[Hirsch]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy That's interesting. I agree on the first two points, but the noise floor on my Fisher is better than on my old SHA-1. (There is no detectable noise on the Fisher, but the SHA-1 had some minor noise at higher volumes.) Perhaps it depends on the age of the components, the tubes, or the particular power supply the amp is used with.

Could well be, particularly the tubes. I've only listened to my second Fisher for a short while (I don't want to use it too much until I've replaced some caps), but initial impression is a cleaner sound than my first.

 

[Tuberoller]

This topic is always the subject of great debate amongst my audio friends.I tend to straddle the fence when asked to state a preference between old and new gear.I love my Fishers to death and had a very hard time finding a newer reciever or amp that compares in terms of sonic pleasure.Sure,it does not do all things well,but the things it does well it does best.My modern gear has never failed to impress me and amps like the Wheatfield HA2 and RKV leave me in awe at times.I do think the Fisher has better bass than any tube amp I have heard,including the mighty RKV,but the quality of the bass seems to very tube dependant.Since I have been using the Sovtek 12AX7LPs tubes,the bass is just unreal.keep in mind that the Fisher 400 that was at the Chicago meet was 100% stock and had generic tubes(the Service Master tubes are all GE) and was not restored.It still sounded awesome.It has since undergone a complete restoration and NOS tube roll and sounds amazing in all ways.

When talking solid-state gear the choices are easier.I think modern solid-state gear is sonically superior but lacking in overall build quality.I own some old Marantz,Harmon Kardon,Sony,Pioneer,Mac and other solid-sate gear and most of it is great,but the best modern gear always outperforms it.

This also brings the subject of modern vs. vintage tube sound to the surface.This has been a raging debate as well.This requires us all to agree on a typical sonic signature of both modern and vinatge gear.I think the common perception is that the "vintage sound" is one of distortion or inaccuracies at the upper and lower frequency extremes and very nice midrange vocals and soundstage depth.The common perception of "modern" sounding tube gear is that they have a much more balanced overall presentation while maintaining or even improving on the midrange and soundstage.This is too easy.I have heard modern gear that sounded very vintage(Glass Audio amps come to mind) and vintage gear that sounds very modern(Harmon Kardon Citation amp) so this remains open for debate.What do you guys think?

 

[CFC]

thats some good reading material there tuberoller, hats off to you

speaking of tube dependant, quick search on ebay turned this up : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=1943466873
its missing some 13 tubes and most probably is in dire need of restoration. but at that price can you go wrong? i wonder... the seller seems to have a ok feedback if it means anything... are there any catches i am missing out?

 

[mkmelt]

Well, for one thing, the Fisher 500B does not have a headphone jack.

The model 400, 500C and the 800C have a headphone jack.