No "buts" were needed...
but that is a "he-man" system and not a wrinkly beauty queen..What speakers were used with this system and where did your voyages take you after this?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Vintage amplifiers that could challenge or approach current state of the art amplifiers
- Thread starter restorer-john
- Start date
but that is a "he-man" system and not a wrinkly beauty queen..What speakers were used with this system and where did your voyages take you after this?
I built my own with KEF drivers and crossovers with help of Db Audio in Berkeley '79. Then in the mid '90s went to Theil S2.4s but soon after switched amps ~ yr 2000.
Especially if you used the LAB INPUTS (Which Amirm did at almost the end of the test). That was one of my NAD 2200's resto-modded by Peter at QuirkAudio.
Here is that part of the results (HINT: a SINAD of 95 throws it into the BLUE section of the chart):
Lab Input Measurements
I was surprised that the frequency response was not flat but was relieved to see later in the thread that this is due to insertion of low and high pass filters. So here is the frequency response with Lab input that doesn't have such a filter:
Response now (in green) as it should be, ruler flat to below 10 Hz, and well extending past the 40 kHz limit of this measurement.
I figured the filters may be adding some noise/distortion so re-ran the dashboard again:
Distortion doesn't change but if you look at the noise floor at 20 Hz, it is down by some 10 dB. That improves SINAD a couple of dBs, making the amplifier stand out even more!
Zoomed:
And signal to noise ratio:
Conclusions
Nice to see innovation like this from equipment that is over 30 years old! Shame on manufacturers that produce amplifiers for much less power, more distortion and higher prices these days. No, you don't get a fancy case here and sheet metal is strictly budget category. But you are not going to sit on the amp. The guts are where it matters and NAD 2200 delivers.
NOTE: the output relay on stock 2200 gets corroded and fails over time. There are videos and DIY threads on how to upgrade the relay there to fix the problem. The unit tested here has that fix. Other than that, there are not reports of many other reliability issues even though NAD products are often said to be less reliable than other brands.
Overall, I am happy to recommend the NAD 2200. I almost gave it the highest honors but given the upgraded nature of the test unit, and the fact that used amps may have issues, I avoided that. But you could have easily pushed me to give it the golfing panther.
DanielT
Major Contributor
Speaking of vintage NADs. NAD C 320BEE is on the verge of vintage, around 20 years old. 67W and 95 dB SINAD if you only use the power amp part. Incidentally, you can get a used one for around $110-140. About what a cheap little class D amp costs today. I would have chosen the NAD C 320BEE any day of the week in that case. A lot to avoid worrying about load dependency, which many small cheap class D amps have problems with. Plus it's a good class AB design so it manages to keep the distortion low in the higher registers. Disadvantage, compared to small class D, is that it is then, well in comparison, not physically small. Plus as usual with used and older electronics. No guarantees how long it will last.
audiosciencereview.com
I have one but with the tuner section in , that is NAD C 720BEE. I use it sometimes. For those watts a rather physically large and (I think) ugly looking receiver BUT it does what it's supposed to in a good way.
Review and Measurements of NAD C 320BEE PWR Amplifier
This is a review and detailed measurements of the NAD C 320BEE power (speaker) amplifier. It is on kind loan. The C 320BEE is a vintage product, dating back to 2003 I think. The BEE designation is apparently a reference to Bjorn Erik Edvardsen who was one of their designers. Can't tell if he...
audiosciencereview.com
I have one but with the tuner section in , that is NAD C 720BEE. I use it sometimes. For those watts a rather physically large and (I think) ugly looking receiver BUT it does what it's supposed to in a good way.
The Yamaha A-1 integrated from the late 1970s is a fine piece of gear. It's my favorite amplifier for use with a Stax passive transformer box (SRD-7/SB) and in that setup I feel confident saying it is an essentially transparent amplifier. I had my A-1 restored- I want to be sure it is in good repair for many years to come.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2023
- Messages
- 1,654
- Likes
- 2,520
This amp is a beast. . .the only vintage I would buy.
DanielT
Major Contributor
It seems good, according to Amir's measurement. It probably makes sense that you restored it. Especially if there was a review and recap of the power supply part of it. It's still old electronics.
This may make sense to keep in mind:
"FYI, 1 volt is the maximum usable input on this amp. Going beyond that severely clips. Rated input is actually much lower than this and being before the CD era, this is understood."
This was great! :
Yamaha A-1 Vintage Amplifier Review
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Yamaha A-1 vintage integrated amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. He tells me that it has been serviced and restored a couple of years ago. The Yamaha A-1 came out in 1977 during a competition to produce the best spec audio products...
audiosciencereview.com
Yes, Amir's review was one of the reasons I mentioned it in this thread since there are some test results to back up the subjectively good performance.It seems good, according to Amir's measurement. It probably makes sense that you restored it. Especially if there was a review and recap of the power supply part of it. It's still old electronics.
This may make sense to keep in mind:
"FYI, 1 volt is the maximum usable input on this amp. Going beyond that severely clips. Rated input is actually much lower than this and being before the CD era, this is understood."
This was great! :
View attachment 299135
Yamaha A-1 Vintage Amplifier Review
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Yamaha A-1 vintage integrated amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. He tells me that it has been serviced and restored a couple of years ago. The Yamaha A-1 came out in 1977 during a competition to produce the best spec audio products...
Since I've used it in conjunction with a PC which also has two volume controls via Windows and Itunes, maybe that along with the additional analog volume control of the A-1 helps to circumvent what might otherwise be an issue with the usable input level before clipping. I've never driven it to audible clipping anyway.
Finally someone who recognizes quality. The amount of likes to my initial post is pretty low IMHO.
I don't know how I missed it but I went back and liked it. Superb in every respect.
From Peter Aczel's My Legacy, written sometime in the very early 2000's
"Amplifiers have been quite excellent for more than a few decades, offering few opportunities for engineering breakthroughs. There are significant differences in topology, measured specifications, physical design, and cosmetics, not to mention price, but the sound of all properly designed units is basically the same. The biggest diversity is in power supplies, ranging from barely adequate to ridiculously overdesigned. That may or may not affect the sound quality, depending on the impedance characteristics and efficiency of the loudspeaker. The point is that, unless the amplifier has serious design errors or is totally mismatched to a particular speaker, the sound you will hear is the sound of the speaker, not the amplifier. As for the future, I think it belongs to highly refined class D amplifiers, such as Bang & Olufsen’s ICEpower modules and Bruno Putzeys’s modular Hypex designs, compact and efficient enough to be incorporated in powered loudspeakers. The free-standing power amplifier will slowly become history, except perhaps as an audiophile affectation. What about vacuum-tube designs? If you like second-harmonic distortion, output transformers, and low damping factors, be my guest. (Can you imagine a four-way powered loudspeaker driven by vacuum-tube modules?)"
"Amplifiers have been quite excellent for more than a few decades, offering few opportunities for engineering breakthroughs. There are significant differences in topology, measured specifications, physical design, and cosmetics, not to mention price, but the sound of all properly designed units is basically the same. The biggest diversity is in power supplies, ranging from barely adequate to ridiculously overdesigned. That may or may not affect the sound quality, depending on the impedance characteristics and efficiency of the loudspeaker. The point is that, unless the amplifier has serious design errors or is totally mismatched to a particular speaker, the sound you will hear is the sound of the speaker, not the amplifier. As for the future, I think it belongs to highly refined class D amplifiers, such as Bang & Olufsen’s ICEpower modules and Bruno Putzeys’s modular Hypex designs, compact and efficient enough to be incorporated in powered loudspeakers. The free-standing power amplifier will slowly become history, except perhaps as an audiophile affectation. What about vacuum-tube designs? If you like second-harmonic distortion, output transformers, and low damping factors, be my guest. (Can you imagine a four-way powered loudspeaker driven by vacuum-tube modules?)"
Easy to repair (or modify with newer style caps with more, ahhm, capacity [and other items] while keeping the excellent circuit design the same) & making it good for another 50 years is another big advantageSpeaking of vintage NADs. NAD C 320BEE is on the verge of vintage, around 20 years old. 67W and 95 dB SINAD if you only use the power amp part. Incidentally, you can get a used one for around $110-140. About what a cheap little class D amp costs today. I would have chosen the NAD C 320BEE any day of the week in that case. A lot to avoid worrying about load dependency, which many small cheap class D amps have problems with. Plus it's a good class AB design so it manages to keep the distortion low in the higher registers. Disadvantage, compared to small class D, is that it is then, well in comparison, not physically small. Plus as usual with used and older electronics. No guarantees how long it will last.
Review and Measurements of NAD C 320BEE PWR Amplifier
This is a review and detailed measurements of the NAD C 320BEE power (speaker) amplifier. It is on kind loan. The C 320BEE is a vintage product, dating back to 2003 I think. The BEE designation is apparently a reference to Bjorn Erik Edvardsen who was one of their designers. Can't tell if he...
I have one but with the tuner section in , that is NAD C 720BEE. I use it sometimes. For those watts a rather physically large and (I think) ugly looking receiver BUT it does what it's supposed to in a good way.
DanielT
Major Contributor
You mean a recap on the receiver NAD C 720BEE?I do not know. Don't think it's needed, yet.
Pros: 67 fine watts. Can be used as a pure power amp. Then with a SINAD of 95. Good, I think.
Cons: Physically large and ugly.
Speaking of size, as amp guru Bruno Putzeys said about class D:
The big advantage is the class D efficiency and thus the possibility of being built physically small, with a lot of power. Otherwise, there is no direct reason to design class D amps according to Bruno Putzeys.
Edit:
Nothing wrong with the NAD C 720BEE on the contrary BUT it is like no receiver that is or will be a classic. It's more like a good standard car, roughly. No item to "hot up". Ok, if I had some new good electrolytic capacitors at home I could replace them in the power supply but I won't do more than that with it.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 48726
Guest
It's a Toyota Corolla.You mean a recap on the receiver NAD C 720BEE?I do not know. Don't think it's needed, yet.
Pros: 67 fine watts. Can be used as a pure power amp. Then with a SINAD of 95. Good, I think.
Cons: Physically large and ugly.
Speaking of size, as amp guru Bruno Putzeys said about class D:
The big advantage is the class D efficiency and thus the possibility of being built physically small, with a lot of power. Otherwise, there is no direct reason to design class D amps according to Bruno Putzeys.
Edit:
Nothing wrong with the NAD C 720BEE on the contrary BUT it is like no receiver that is or will be a classic. It's more like a good standard car, roughly. No item to "hot up". Ok, if I had some new good electrolytic capacitors at home I could replace them in the power supply but I won't do more than that with it.
killdozzer
Major Contributor
Last edited:
killdozzer
Major Contributor
Marantz SC11/SM11:
killdozzer
Major Contributor
Yamaha MX-10000:
killdozzer
Major Contributor
907 often gets left behind because of omnipresent AU-X1:
Last edited:
killdozzer
Major Contributor
Top tier was quite something. Showing here the SE-A3:
killdozzer
Major Contributor
Luxman M05 and M07:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
