Vintage amplifiers that could challenge or approach current state of the art amplifiers

[Videopac]

Accuphase M-1000:

 

[dlaloum]

Accuphase M-1000:

With a bunch of lovely classic Quad gear right behind them too...

 

[Videopac]

With a bunch of lovely classic Quad gear right behind them too...

Indeed, and if you look at the speakers on the floor on the left and the rack on the left this might be quite a candy store for us...

 

[pseudoid]

Indeed, and if you look at the speakers on the floor on the left and the rack on the left this might be quite a candy store for us...

You mean to say that you don't own those Accuphase beauties... I was getting jealous... and was going to ask if they came (optional) with dollies!

 

[pma]

Accuphase M-1000:

I would concur. It was an excellent amplifier.

 

[restorer-john]

I would concur. It was an excellent amplifier.

650,000 Yen each in 1987. Awesome amplifier in every respect.

 

[DonH56]

I saw a pair ca. 1988 when I bought my Magnepan MG-IIIa's. The store carried a bunch of Accuphase equipment, including that gorgeous and hideously complicated CD player/DAC, and had those monoblocks hooked to a pair of B&W Nautilus speakers. They hooked them up to a pair of B&W 801s and Magnepan MG-20's for me to audition (I was comparing the speakers, not the amps) but they were (well) out of my price range.

 

[pseudoid]

A brief Accuphase history is one that is worth (y)our 20 seconds to read it:

Accuphase Laboratory, Inc. (originally known as Kensonic Laboratory, Inc.) is a Japanese, Yokohama-based high-end audio equipment manufacturer founded by former Kenwood engineer Jiro Kasuga in late 1972.[1] Kasuga was not happy with the views of Kenwood relating to the follower of their High-End Supreme 1 unit (1967). He hired some engineers from other prominent brands (Marantz, Luxman) and started Kensonic, with Kenwood as a part owner. Some other connections in the early years of Accuphase exist as well. If you compare the parts used by Kenwood and Kensonic throughout the latter's early years, the familiarities show quite easy: knobs, buttons, tuner dials and the general direction of the design. Accuphase's early PCBs are tagged KENSONIC, too, and the early units bore KENSONIC on their frontplates as well. Until the mid-1990s, Kenwood still owned part of Kensonic. It appears that Accuphase engineers may have had a hand in the engineering of Kenwood's last high-end series (L-A1, L-D1 and LVD-Z1). For example, the Accuphase E-405 and Kenwood L-A1 have very similar volume knobs, side panels, and remotes.

Even, if from a wikipedia extract.

 

[Jojo]

Kenwood Basic M2(a):

I bought a M1a 80€ in EU, same series but less output power ("only" 110w - 8ohms) than M2 serie ; i was not prepared for this clean power ! At first i had no intention to keep it for my personnal system but then i was shocked by the purity of the sound of this amplifier. The bass response is just... wow.
Then i went on hifi engine and saw :
Total harmonic distortion: 0.004%
Signal to noise ratio: 120dB
Damping factor: 1000

I said to myself "see, you can "hear" sinad finally"

awesome series of amplifier, outperform everything i tried !

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I bought a M1a 80€ in EU, same series but less output power ("only" 110w - 8ohms) than M2 serie ; i was not prepared for this clean power ! At first i had no intention to keep it for my personnal system but then i was shocked by the purity of the sound of this amplifier. The bass response is just... wow.
Then i went on hifi engine and saw :
Total harmonic distortion: 0.004%
Signal to noise ratio: 120dB
Damping factor: 1000

I said to myself "see, you can "hear" sinad finally"

awesome series of amplifier, outperform everything i tried !

Nice one! But I blame you for that I now have to hunt one down to the collection! You scum..

 

[Els]

It makes sense if you're comparing audibility of old and new amplifiers. Amplifiers from the late 1960s, like the Quad 303, were already audibly transparent when used within their specification. The limitations then were in output power and current delivery, not sound quality. Go on 20 years, and the amplifiers of the mid 1980s didn't have those limitations and amplifiers like the Quad 606, Musical Fidelity Dr Thomas and of course Krell and the like, could drive pretty much most loudspeakers, the Krell even managing the Apogee Scintilla.

Since then, as mentioned above, amps have got cheaper, lighter , more efficient and arguably more reliable (albeit less serviceable when they do go wrong) but not in any meaningful way better sounding.

S.

They have not gotten cheaper.

 

[sergeauckland]

They have not gotten cheaper.

£ 279 for a Behringer A800? The Quad 405 was £289 in 1986

S.

 

[tmtomh]

£ 279 for a Behringer A800? The Quad 405 was £289 in 1986

S.

Indeed: £289 in 1986 is equivalent to just under £1100 today.

 

[dlaloum]

Indeed: £289 in 1986 is equivalent to just under £1100 today.

The Quad 405 does have its limitations, but it is a great sounding amp still today, and is easily and simply repaired, something that cannot be said for many other amps, and even more so for current class D amps.

The Quad 606 is less limited (more power, more current, better ability to handle low impedance speakers etc...) - same ease of repair / maintenance

 

[Willem]

I am more than pleased with all my Quad amplifiers: a 303 from 1970, now in storage, a professionally refurbished late model 405-2 bought used for just 175 euros and used in my desktop system with Harbeth P3ESRs, and a similarly refurbished 2x140 watt 606-2 bought for 350 euros used in the main system with Quad 2805s. The 606-2 recently had to be repaired by the Dutch importer for 250 euros (included home collection and delivery). I would love to see Amir measure a 606-2 (the 606 is to be avoided) or a 909 or later similar model, but I gues there are not that many of those in the US.

 

[dlaloum]

I am more than pleased with all my Quad amplifiers: a 303 from 1970, now in storage, a professionally refurbished late model 405-2 bought used for just 175 euros and used in my desktop system with Harbeth P3ESRs, and a similarly refurbished 2x140 watt 606-2 bought for 350 euros used in the main system with Quad 2805s. The 606-2 recently had to be repaired by the Dutch importer for 250 euros (included home collection and delivery). I would love to see Amir measure a 606-2 (the 606 is to be avoided) or a 909 or later similar model, but I gues there are not that many of those in the US.

I replaced my 405-2 with a 606-2 which used to drive my 989's... also had a pair of 63's for an all ESL surround setup...

Sadly they were too overwhelming for the mrs... had to switch to something less "monolithic"

 

[Willem]

had to switch to something less "monolithic"

Therefore, I have avoided a multichanel setup. My 2805s are in front of a wall with a panoramic window above about 1m, so I opted for the smaller 2805 rather than the 2905, supported by first one and now three subs, plus dsp room eq. The traditional view that the Quad electrostats are hard to combine with subwoofers is misguided. The problem is that unlike the dipole speakers, the subs suffer a lot from room modes. Deal with those, and integration is suddenly perfect: the bass seems to come from the main speakers.

 

[Els]

With the reputation "Flame Linear" amps have not sure how good that makes him

I am more than pleased with all my Quad amplifiers: a 303 from 1970, now in storage, a professionally refurbished late model 405-2 bought used for just 175 euros and used in my desktop system with Harbeth P3ESRs, and a similarly refurbished 2x140 watt 606-2 bought for 350 euros used in the main system with Quad 2805s. The 606-2 recently had to be repaired by the Dutch importer for 250 euros (included home collection and delivery). I would love to see Amir measure a 606-2 (the 606 is to be avoided) or a 909 or later similar model, but I gues there are not that many of those in the US.

Why ,please is the 606 to be avoided?

 

[Willem]

The first installment of the 606 still had a traditional transformer rather than a toroidal as in the 606-2 and later models. With age it sometimes started to resonate.

 

[Els]

The first installment of the 606 still had a traditional transformer rather than a toroidal as in the 606-2 and later models. With age it sometimes started to resonate.

Thanks for the info, however if they don't resonate leaf transformer are by choice more often used in very high end amplifier.