A Sound Mind

I'm a big fan of 70s and early 80s amplifiers. This may sound odd, considering all the new features that home audio equipment offers today, but I have my reasons...

A. You can find some kick-ass old amps at thrift stores that are still in great condition. I mean stuff from Yamaha, Harman/Kardon, and Marantz. These things are all 20-30 years old, but they were built like tanks, and now they can be had for under .

B. The "dirty little secret" of today's receivers is that they are more computer then amplifier. Do you ever wonder how that Pioneer can be 0 and have all of that stuff on there? Dolby Digital, DTS, DSP modes? How does it do all of that?

Essentially there's a single, programable processor in there that does all of the decoding and DSP tricks. Want DTS? It loads the DTS program. Dolby Digital? It loads the Dolby Digital program. All of the DSP settings are also programs.

Now, this isn't a bad thing at all. Hell, I think it's kind of cool. My main problem with this is that when you are paying for the receiver, you're paying for a bunch of computers as well as the amplification circuitry (which for now, is all analog). In the old days, you payed for an amp. That's all it was. And they built them well, which brings me to my next fanboyish point...

C. Today, you talk about a "500-Watt" receiver. That means that it has at maximum of 500 watts of total of power spread across five channels. However, the rear channels need less then the front, so it's probably something like three 120s (fronts) and two 60s for the rears...

However, those power ratings are for the maximum posible power that the amp could put out for a very short period of time (like a fraction of a second). The constant maximum is far lower then that, though the specs don't say that.

I have a Marantz Model 2235 which is speced at 35 watts per channel...Must be not be as loud, right? Nope. Back in the 70s, 35 watt/channel meant that the amp could keep that level up for an hour, from both channels.

Another issue is that the power supply must be able to supply power to the amps...Check to see if the power consumption rating of that 500-watt amp is anywhere near 500 watts...My guess is that it's somewhere around 320 watts...How are 300 odd watts supposed to come in from the wall and 500 watts are supposed to come out of the speakers? Obviously, today's spec sheets are loads of bull.

That brings me to my next point...

D. Sound quality...Now, in 1976 that Marantz amp sold for 0...According to this inflation calculator, that's a staggering 00 in today's money! For that 0 (in 1976 money), you got a power supply, two amps, some switches, some lights, an RIAA preamp (which is used for records), and an AM/FM tuner. Today, for 0 you are getting five amps, all of that computer circuitry, probably some kind of nice LCD screen, and all kinds of other stuff. In that Marantz, the focus of that 0 was on the amps; the sound quality...Now, the amps are mere fraction of the cost of that Pioneer.

It just strikes me as something to think about...