Budget power amp, without fan
Ken Winokur
PBM 8 MKII. I want to put this in the same room (without
soundproofing), so I am looking for an amp without a fan.
I don't need excessive power - I'll listen at modest volumes, and the
Tannoy's are moderately efficient.
Do any of the old Crown amps still hold up soundwise? Anybody every
listened to Stewart amps? What else is out there at a good price?
This is for a second listening station (my office). I'll check mixes
on it (I've got Genelecs in the studio), but mostly I'll listen to
music or the news. I'll use a NAD preamp as the front end.
Thanks,
Ken
Scott Dorsey
>I'm looking for an inexpensive (probably used) power amp for my Tannoy
>PBM 8 MKII. I want to put this in the same room (without
>soundproofing), so I am looking for an amp without a fan.
>
>I don't need excessive power - I'll listen at modest volumes, and the
>Tannoy's are moderately efficient.
Look for home audio amplifiers of high quality. The Adcom GFA-535 and
GFA-555 are hard to beat and show up used at very low prices. Parasound
made some very nice home amplifiers too. No balanced inputs, but you
don't really need them.
>Do any of the old Crown amps still hold up soundwise? Anybody every
>listened to Stewart amps? What else is out there at a good price?
Crown made some nice amps and some awful ones, and the D-series amps
were not among the nice ones. I have not had any good experiences with
Stewart amps.
>This is for a second listening station (my office). I'll check mixes
>on it (I've got Genelecs in the studio), but mostly I'll listen to
>music or the news. I'll use a NAD preamp as the front end.
Why not consider a NAD power amp to go with it? They made some excellent
ones, which sell very cheaply on the used market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Soundhaspriority
"Ken Winokur" <all...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:38f17ed8-ca24-49b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Acoustat TNT-200
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Les Cargill
I bought a Sherwood RX 4109 receiver at a Black Friday sale a
couple of years ago, and I don't hear anything wrong with it at all.
--
Les Cargill
Predrag Trpkov
"Ken Winokur" <all...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:38f17ed8-ca24-49b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
+1 for Adcom GFA-535. Sounds very good and although marketed as 60Wpc it
allegedly measures ca. 90 Wpc. I can live with that.
Predrag
Soundhaspriority
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hg8ij5$hps$1...@panix2.panix.com...
[snip]
>
> Why not consider a NAD power amp to go with it? They made some excellent
> ones, which sell very cheaply on the used market.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
For a significant period, and I do not know if it ever ended, NAD products
had reliability problems.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Soundhaspriority
"Ken Winokur" <all...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:38f17ed8-ca24-49b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Hafler or Radio Shack.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Arny Krueger
news:38f17ed8-ca24-49b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Behringer A500. 125 wpc and under $200. Reasonably compact and light,
nebulax
NAD was known in the past for great sound, clever circuit designs,
affordable pricing, and unfortunately so-so build and parts quality,
but I think they've improved on those aspects over the years. I have a
NAD 3020 integrated amp I bought new back in 1980, and it still works
and sounds great, tho' I've managed to break several of it's flimsy
RCA jacks over the years when using it with heavier gauge plugs and
interconnects.
-Neb
Soundhaspriority
"nebulax" <neb...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:a1f7c356-c582-4684...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
And I have a tiny 20wpc NAD receiver that apparently runs Class A at low
levels, and it sounds better than it has a right to. It might be related to
what you have.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
![Dec [Cluskey]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXOIdicD27KLgvp612cXlqNm2cXRNukvx0eyr1XYcUrBeGQQfk=s40-c)
Dec [Cluskey]
> I'm looking for an inexpensive (probably used) power amp for my Tannoy
> music or the news. I'll use a NAD preamp as the front end.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken
Ken
You may shriek with laughter at this ...
The Industry standard power amp in studios ... and strangely in TV
studio audience situations was, through 60's 70's, the Quad 303. a no
frills, no fan, small but astonishingly efficient and 'true'. I have
never gotten my head around why they were so efficient, powering quite
massive systems [a lot of them]. No one has been able to explain that
to me.
No controls whatever, simply a power amp. Not even a volume
control .. it is either on or off [no on/off switch either]
I have used one for leisure use and then in my studio as my main near
field monitor amp for years. Its been serviced twice since the 60's
and the bods at Quad are always thrilled when I speak to them ... you
see, they never get any customers returning their products ... ever!
Of course, there are the later models, which I would think would be
classy and sensational. But that old house brick of an amp just sits
there, does its job with no issues whatever ... stunning sound and
reliability. And super quiet.
The original was 303 [see the praise heaped on Quad in Googled
articles] 404 and 405, from memory ... the 606 ... then all the
variants in between and since.
Picked up for pennies on Ebay, this Industry standard was the power
amp used to monitor hundreds of Number Ones through the years.
I still have the matching preamp although it sits fitted in an antique
chest. Must get it out some day ... should be tasty.
Happy Christmas...
Dec [Cluskey]
PStamler
about the size of a large brick. It also didn't get terribly hot, so
you could stash it in a closet or up in the ceiling. Also their
outputs weren't DC coupled, so you never ran the risk of burning up a
woofer if an output transistor shorted out.
We had them at Channel Nine when I first got there, but they were
reaching the end of their use cycle and blew up pretty frequently.
Eventually we ditched them and bought BGW amps. It's not a fair
comparison, since by the time I heard the QUADs they'd been fixed a
whole lot of times, and I'm not sure the maintenance guys always used
the right transistors. But when the BGWs went in the sound improved a
whole lot; clear instead of murky.
Peace,
Paul
circle7
Les Cargill
> Check out Alesis Ra100.
Don't.
--
Les Cargill
Richard Webb
> circle7 wrote:
>> Check out Alesis Ra100.
> Don't.
I was going to say the same thing. NOt impressed with the
1622 mixer, or the MOnitor 1 or 2 either ftm.
Regards,
Richard
... A word to the wise isn't necessary. It's the dumb ones that need it.
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Scott Dorsey
Mike Rivers
> On Fri 2037-Dec-18 19:34, Les Cargill writes:
>> circle7 wrote:
>
>>> Check out Alesis Ra100.
>
>> Don't.
>
>
> I was going to say the same thing. NOt impressed with the
> 1622 mixer, or the MOnitor 1 or 2 either ftm.
The Alesis RA100 was a pretty poor piece of work, but I'm told by
a couple of users who are also good listeners that the newer Alesis
RA300 and RA500 power amplifiers are better than expected for
the cost.
Some people say there's an identical Behringer amplifier, and I'll
admit that their A500 looks an awful lot like the Alesis RA500. I
think it came out while Behringer was still in the mode where, for
them, "R & D" meant "Receive and Duplicate." So it could be
true.
hank alrich
> circle7 wrote:
> > Check out Alesis Ra100.
>
>
> Don't.
Hey, it's inexpensive! Cheap, too.
(Thank you)
(Whew)
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://www.armadillomusicproductions.com/CarryMeHome.html
http://hankalrich.com/
Arny Krueger
news:hgh721$tbb$1...@news.eternal-september.org
> circle7 wrote:
>> Check out Alesis Ra100.
> Don't.
I have a couple, and IMO they are a bit of a strange bird. The inputs
aren't really balanced. There are no binding post outputs. The input and
output connectors are the same type of 1/4" jacks, which makes it
susceptible to damage and improper hook-up.
I modded both of mine to have standard HD binding post outputs. They've been
driving remote listening speakers for maybe 5-7 years at church, and sound
good when I check them out.
I also have a Behringer A500, and it seems to be a much more flexible,
powerful, reasonably configured, and robust item. They also cost less.
Les Cargill
> Richard Webb wrote:
>> On Fri 2037-Dec-18 19:34, Les Cargill writes:
>>> circle7 wrote:
>>
>>>> Check out Alesis Ra100.
>>
>>> Don't.
>>
>>
>> I was going to say the same thing. NOt impressed with the
>> 1622 mixer, or the MOnitor 1 or 2 either ftm.
>
> The Alesis RA100 was a pretty poor piece of work, but I'm told by
> a couple of users who are also good listeners that the newer Alesis
> RA300 and RA500 power amplifiers are better than expected for
> the cost.
>
That's very good to hear. My comment is only specific to the RA100,
which was an option when MARS music had the monitor room, and
you could hear the difference quite plainly.
> Some people say there's an identical Behringer amplifier, and I'll
> admit that their A500 looks an awful lot like the Alesis RA500. I
> think it came out while Behringer was still in the mode where, for
> them, "R & D" meant "Receive and Duplicate." So it could be
> true.
Wow, it really does. It's also for sale at... WalMart - at least on
the website.
--
Les Cargill
nebulax
(Richard Webb) wrote:
> On Fri 2037-Dec-18 19:34, Les Cargill writes:
>
> > circle7 wrote:
> >> Check out Alesis Ra100.
> > Don't.
>
> I was going to say the same thing. NOt impressed with the
> 1622 mixer, or the MOnitor 1 or 2 either ftm.
>
> Regards,
> Richard
The Alesis 3630 compressor is pretty awful sounding, too, but
according to the company it has "...become the most popular dynamics
processor ever made". Another example of "most popular" not equaling
"best".
-Neb
Richard Webb
>> The Alesis RA100 was a pretty poor piece of work, but I'm told by
>> a couple of users who are also good listeners that the newer Alesis
>> RA300 and RA500 power amplifiers are better than expected for
>> the cost.
> That's very good to hear. My comment is only specific to the RA100,
> which was an option when MARS music had the monitor room, and you
> could hear the difference quite plainly.
THe 100 was the one I referred to as well, not other models. Friend of mine used one for awhile, both with the Alesis
monitors iirc and another set. EVentually he moved the
Alesis to a listening room at home and put something else in his control room, a Carver iirc which sounded much better.
The Carver was iirc older than the Alesis.
AS for the 1622, used them as sidecar mixers at a couple of
studios. EVen for just mixing a bunch of synth modules etc. I preferred the little Mackie 1202 vlz to the 1622, miles
ahead.
Regards,
Richard
Mike Rivers
> AS for the 1622, used them as sidecar mixers at a couple of
> studios. EVen for just mixing a bunch of synth modules etc. I preferred the little Mackie 1202 vlz to the 1622, miles
> ahead.
The 1622 was a pretty amazing design. Too bad it didn't work worth a
hoot. It didn't have any
conventional pots and slide faders. The elements were all directly on
the circuit board. They
failed pretty quickly. I wonder if there's still one of those mixers
still working anywhere. People
with original CR1604s and 1202s are popping up on the Mackie forum all
the time.
Richard Webb
YEp, recall that, and they failed pretty quick iirc. WE
never adjusted this one much once we had it dialed in, as we were using it for mixing midi modules, a couple of those
Boss doctor synths, a Peavey midi bass module, and an Alesis d-4 drum module.
Now there was an Alesis box I grew to really dig. I'd like
to have another d-4, especially if I got back into the midi
thing again.
Dec [Cluskey]
> I think one reason the QUAD 303 was so popular is that it was SMALL;
> about the size of a large brick. It also didn't get terribly hot, so
>
> Paul
Paul
Interesting!
I've never been a technical person ... prefer to leave that to others
and get on with life.
I have come across major 'descending to DC' problems ... once on a
tour where the sound crew blew 3 major bottom end speakers in a row,
night after night, before realising th eproblem was a big Yamaha
descending to DC .... I still don't really understand the principles
involved but I installed DC protectors throughout my studio ... even
on the Quad 303 .... now, it seems, I did not need the protection
[grin!]
I have seen NS10's with a circuit brought to the front and a fuse
inserted ... perhaps that was the same idea? that was in a top
studio ... the owner simply said he had to protect them from idiots
who hired the place. again, I don't understand the principle.
My 303 sounds stunning ... but then I keep it well serviced by the
Quad people in Huntingdon, UK [pretty expensive but worth it]
Dec [Cluskey]
nebulax
The original NS-10's were never designed for what most people ended up
using them for, that being recording studio monitors, Their tweeters
are kinda fragile, they don't have much low-end, and they couldn't
handle the dynamics and wattage (sometimes 250w a channel) that a lot
of studio amps could dish out. Unfortunately, some engineers still
want to mix at ear-bleed levels, and will keep cranking the volume
until the drivers completely blow out. A fuse will protect the
speakers at least, and it makes sense that if it gets blown out a lot,
moving it to the front will make it easier to replace.
-Neb