Hitachi Hta-3000 Manual
Click to expand.I got my Pioneer receiver in 1975. It was like 500 bucks, the most I could afford. It had the most watts and it looked pretty.There was this writer who wrote for a real audio magazine. His name was Julian Hirsch and he wrote that all receivers and amps sounded alike if they measured alike.Well, I was just a dork living with my parents and he was a real writer and so I believed him.Last time THAT ever happened, lemme tell you.The Pioneer 1010 served me well for many years but listening to it recently I was shocked at how average it made everything sound. Dry and sort of boring. Kind of like the 1970's (har har). Still, for the time it was a good receiver and a good friend and powered my AR3a's nicely.However, ya can't go back again.
Yes, the older receivers were of much higher quality and better sounding. Over the last 10 or so years, I have fried at least 3 Sony AV receivers. One thing I noticed was that with each progressively newer model the features increased and the sound quality got worse.
I purchased all of them new. A friend of mine has gone through several Yamahas and a Denon receiver, al late model equipment. My current Sony is used for my home theater system. For listening to music, I have used a Sansui QRX-6001 and a Sansui QRX-7500. Currently my music system uses a Pioneer QX-949. All 3 of these are quadraphonic and over 30 years old. And yes, I have a full quadraphonic set-up.
The older units do sound better and they obviously were built better as they are still going strong.Both of the Sansui receivers sound much better than the Pioneer, but the Pioneer has a better CD-4 demodulator and that's why I upped to it. With these older receivers, even the 200 gram LP's put out by Classic Records almost sound as good as the original LP's. I had a Sansui 8080, which I got a two years ago for $110, and I loved it. Download 3d sexvilla 2 cracked. It had a very nice tuner and it sounded great. Its sound was definitely much more worth than what I paid for it.There is some great value in these old equipment and, If one has only $100 to 300 to spend, vintage is the way to go IMO.But, like Steve said, as I see it now, in reality it sounded average. There is absolutely no comparison to my Mac or any other high end amps that I 've auditioned.So, how can 30-year-old receivers sound better than the new ones?
To what new ones? These that you can find in the HT section in Best Buy? Yeah they can sound better.Anything else, like Bryston, AR, Marantz, Macintosh, Pass Labs, etc?I am sorry but I don't think so. 70's vs nowIn the 70's many receivers were bought at audio stores and auditioned.
A fair number of buyers actually bought them based on which one they perceived as having better SQ. The makers actually competed to out SQ each other at a given price point. Features were mostly basic.In more recent times, receivers are mainly used in HT, and are mostly bought in box stores or online. Not auditioned. Marketing is about the most features for the price, not SQ.
Designers/engineers have to bring in the receiver chock full of features at a give price point. So if something has to give, it's SQ. You buy some cheaper parts, etc.
You have more budget left over to tick off all the features you have to have on your design checklist. Movie watching for most people isn't about the best sound, it's about features and the 'most impressive' sound.Today, only audiophile equipment tends to be auditioned. And guess what? It's relatively featureless, and there is competition in the area of SQ between makers.
Does it sound better than today's receivers -yes. But there basically is no 'audiophile' receiver anymore. No market for it.And yes, some of the old ones were of audiophile quality, at the very least in relation to other equipment back then. Some of them still sound quite good today.I know these are generalizations, but there's still a lot of truth in them. Just a couple of detracting comments.1) although the article linked suggests the Yamaha is a '2009' model, it looks like 'Sound & Vision' actually reviewed it in 2007.
Only a minor point, to be sure.2) a 130 wpc home theater receiver selling for $1300 list price is clearly NOT a flagship product, as the Pioneer receiver clearly IS.3) as has already been mentioned, no mass market audio manufacturer is likely to put much effort into the sound of a mid-range HT receiver; features are much more important to the prospective buyer. Compare a top-of-the-line '70's or '80's receiver with a top-of-the-line receiver from a mass market company today (or even better with something from Arcam or Anthem). They can and do sound very good.
It is probably the best sound for a little money. Someone I used to know got out of high end and didnt use anything at all for awhile (he was a gear addict), then called up and said, 'dude just gave me a Reciever I cleaned it up, you gotta come over and hear this thing! Previuosly he had Krell seperates circa 1993. Both of us were impressed with the sound quality of the Onkyo reciever- the midrange was sweet and tube like, the bass strong maybe lacking a little in definition, I felt the treble sounded a little 'dirty', he did'nt. A few years later Someone gave me a few Receivers of variuos makes and vintage, I hooked 'em up to my rig and came to about the same conclusion- the midrange was easily the strong point, the bass ok and the treble just fair with a slight distorted/dirty sound. I got my Pioneer receiver in 1975. It was like 500 bucks, the most I could afford.
It had the most watts and it looked pretty.There was this writer who wrote for a real audio magazine. His name was Julian Hirsch and he wrote that all receivers and amps sounded alike if they measured alike.Well, I was just a dork living with my parents and he was a real writer and so I believed him.Last time THAT ever happened, lemme tell you.The Pioneer 1010 served me well for many years but listening to it recently I was shocked at how average it made everything sound. Dry and sort of boring. Kind of like the 1970's (har har).
Still, for the time it was a good receiver and a good friend and powered my AR3a's nicely.However, ya can't go back again. Click to expand.Not all of it. It's true that a lot of late 70's/early 80's receivers are junk, that's when sound in general turned the corner, at least as regards standard audio gear, not the ever expanding high end. Rotel and NAD made good sounding receivers at the time. But the best early receivers, such as earlier Marantz and Harmon Kardon offerings, still offered a lot of the quality of the separates from those companies. Remember that the Marantz 8b is still highly regarded, even outside of vintage audio buffs and the HK Citation series is also considered high quality vintage gear. It really depends on the individual unit and one's taste in ancillary equipment.
As for my HK 630 after my minor mods, it certainly rivals modern low-power transistor gear. It's a dual-powered wide band design and has exemplary mids and very refined upper octaves. Bass is about as good as one would expect from 30 watts a side and I'm not planning on losing my lease.
Hitachi Hta-3000 Manual Free
But on a very wide range of musical styles and styles of recording, this 1973 receiver manages to sound more musical than most amplifiers I've owned, new or old. Click to expand.My first 'real' hi-fi had a Pioneer SX series receiver in it. As a Rogue Audio dealer, I can tell you that the excellent Cronus integrated amp is actually the Atlas power amp with a nice preamp section installed on its chassis.
It is truly an 'integrated' preamp and power amp. The Pioneer doesn't have anywhere near the quality of components in it. Nice size power supply as another mentioned though. The Fisher was built point to point and is a true antique, pure tube unit. It has some components of the quality as the Rogue but can't be quite as clean and dynamic due to its more complex function set and age. I am quite the fan of vintage Fisher components, but even there I prefer the separates and integrated examples over the receivers.
Many of the power amps of that day were very nice, the preamps are pretty much dogs with only a few notable exceptions. No matter the quality, age takes its toll on electronics and a lot of work needs to be done to bring most examples back up to spec.
The investment is simply not feasible for the typical 70's Japanese, solid state receiver. Many more people get Mac and Fisher tube amps restored, of course. I do a bit of that here myself.-Bill.
AFAIK the FCC's rating system for a receiver's amp section - or ANY power amplifier - intended for consumer use is still in effect. So for a particular power output a manufacturer is still required to state the the THD in% being produced at the time of the test, the load (in ohms) the amp is connected to and the frequency range it is was reproducing.That being said, using those same restrictions a manufacturer can still state his flyweight home theater-in-a-box can generate a 1000 total watts of power.when in reality it can barely generate 5 watts of clean/usable power per channel. So make sure to read the fine print!As far as the sound of newer receivers, I have a strong feeling that's because many receivers back then were designed so they could power the acoustic-suspension loudspeakers which were so popular at the time, many of which used 10 and 12 inch woofers.and anyone that owned such speakers is well aware of how power hungry they could be! Real-world (i.e. I got my Pioneer receiver in 1975.
Hitachi Hta-3000 Manual
It was like 500 bucks, the most I could afford. It had the most watts and it looked pretty.There was this writer who wrote for a real audio magazine. His name was Julian Hirsch and he wrote that all receivers and amps sounded alike if they measured alike.Well, I was just a dork living with my parents and he was a real writer and so I believed him.Last time THAT ever happened, lemme tell you.The Pioneer 1010 served me well for many years but listening to it recently I was shocked at how average it made everything sound. Dry and sort of boring. Kind of like the 1970's (har har). Still, for the time it was a good receiver and a good friend and powered my AR3a's nicely.However, ya can't go back again.
Ok folks, I've got two different receivers I can pick from to repair. One is a Hitachi HTA-3000, the other is a Marantz TA-60. Of the two, the Marantz is in better shape, it just needs minor servicing to get it back in working order. The Hitachi though, has some sort of power supply problems, and I can't seem to find a service manual for it.
Hitachi Hta-3000 Manual Online
Of these two receivers, which one is worth putting the effort into to make it nice? If you have access to the Hitachi's service manual, let me know.