Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:27 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:19 pm
Posts: 344
Location: Eastern Passage, NS, CA
Most AV receivers/Amplifiers have the same problems, but some are really better than others, much better, but those will cost you dearly.

Take a look see at the MOON MC-8, the Bryston 875 HT C–SERIES AMPLIFIER, and some of the NAD offering, like the M27 or the T-787, and the T-777.

_________________
A force de contempler la mer, on fini un jour par la prendre.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:14 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Airdrie, AB, CA
moinau wrote:
Most AV receivers/Amplifiers have the same problems, but some are really better than others, much better, but those will cost you dearly.

Take a look see at the MOON MC-8, the Bryston 875 HT C–SERIES AMPLIFIER, and some of the NAD offering, like the M27 or the T-787, and the T-777.


So to be clear you are saying that my receiver is not powerful enough and that is why it runs hot, that the chart is not really correct when it says that the front channels which are rated at 125wpc min. should really read the same as the rear and center channels at 30wpc?
I guess that would also mean that chart must be wrong with the dynamic power rating when it says 2 ohms 280w, 4 ohms 260w and 8 ohms is 185w. I say it must be wrong because If the front channels are really rated at 30wpc that would mean the dynamic rating for 8 ohms should be 90w and not the 185w the chart says. Just trying to figure out the actual specs instead of believing what the chart is saying.

It is really strange too because I only had this receiver for a short time so I don't know of all its capabilities but I do know it is a very powerful 30wpc. I can hardly turn the volume up because it gets very loud very quickly. I have not even had it at quarter volume yet.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Georgina, ON, CA
Whatever you choose, remember the old racing addage "there is no replacement for displacement."

Dynamic headroom and the ability to handle peaks is a good factor to consider, but the higher the REAL RMS rating, the better everything will sound. Especially the bass! Higher powered amps really put a strangle hold on the bass.

The difference between a 60 WPC amp and a 100 WPC amp is night and day.

My first amp over the magic 100 watts RMS was a game changer. It was as if I had new, better speakers.

It was a 130 dollar Hafler DH220. The preamp makes all the difference with these brutes.

The Hafler is still going strong in a friend's basement, with a NAD 1700 preamp buttering it up. The preamp was not a looker and cost only marginally more than the amp.

A 100 dollar Technics SU-V6X was another solid eye opener, and it is an integrated amp. I sold that when I got an SU-V8. Both later needed recapping...

I currently use a pair of NAD C372's daily, sometimes bridged for outrageous power, that I picked up for 400 bucks a pop. I have had these for a decade now.

I always wanted to try a Bryston 4B, but they NEVER go for what I would consider "cheap." Anything around a week's take home pay is not cheap. I had a Bryston 2B briefly but didn't find anything overly redeeming about it so it went to someone who could appreciate it in a vintage set up.

I keep reading about Emotiva amps in other forums...

Vintage stuff will need recapping sooner than later at 300-400 bucks plus time out of house, so maybe newer is the way to go.

Either way, it won't be permanent!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:26 am 
Offline
Premium User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:08 pm
Posts: 18449
Location: Montreal, QC, CA
canuckken wrote:
Oh, OK. I guess I had it wrong then. I was going by this but being an idiot like I am misread the info, however, I was not asking a question, I was showing my simple fix of the heat issue.

One other thing is I only use this as a 2 channel receiver with efficient speakers but I guess that probably does not matter either because the front channels are not really rated at 125wpc as the chart shows but rather only 30wpc.

Pioneer should be ashamed of themselves for saying the front channels are rated at 125wpc when really they are only rated at 30wpc which is what the rear and center channels are rated at also.


Misreading printed specs does not make anyone an idiot, neither does misinterpreting it. What does in claiming that your misinterpretation is a fact and then promoting that misinformation loud and wide as being fact. At least, you are questioning the information that you have received and THAT is a healthy attitude. Not everything you read on internet forums can be trusted as fact. What is important is to actually and carefully READ and UNDERSTAND written specs, not just scan and pick up a random number somewhere out of context and base your assumption of that out of context information is the basis for your facts.

Take things in historical context. In the days that "early" Pioneer HT receiver was made, it was common practice to have different power amps for the front channels and smaller ones for the center and rear channels. That is exactly the case here: a pair of 125W channels for the fronts and a trio of 30W channels for the center and rear channels. Today it is almost universal practice that have 5, 7 or more identical power channels in a HT receiver or amp and in the lower end/priced receivers and amps, it is common practice to test it with only 1 channel running at a time and to use that figure multiplied be the number of channels present for advertising purposes. BUT when you run all 5 or 7 channels at the sane time, that single channel power rating of, lets say, 125W drops dramatically to maybe 30WPC.

On higher end HT receiver, running all 5 or 7 channels at the same time will usually result in identical power output for only 1 channel driven; so testing with 1 channel = 125W and testing all 7 channels running at the same time will result in 875W (125W X 7). One of the clues that this is indeed plausible is to check the total rated 8 ohm power output and compare it to the receivers maximum rated power consumption. A receiver that can truly output 875W total will have to consume enough electricity to supply that much power accounting for a Maximin 85% power supply efficiency, so, in this case, lets say at LEAST 1050W or about 1200VA. If your receiver "claims" a total output of 875W and only consumes a maximum of 400W (fairly common in lower priced HT receivers), then tat total power output claim is completely bogus and not to be trusted.

Getting back to your vintage Pïoneer's case, we have a total "claimed" power output of 340W for a total power consumption of 580W or 700VA, so if we take the best case power supply efficiency of 85% out of 580W we get a total maximum plausible "potential" power output of about 495W. Even is we assume a maximum power supply efficiency of 75% we still get 435W, so 340W total is certainly plausible. As your VSX-9500S is clearly rated for 4 to 16 ohm speakers (as per the picture of the back panel), too low a speaker impedance is clearly not a plausible reason for it overheating.

Attachment:
343164-pioneer_vsx9500s_receiver__flawed_legend.jpg
343164-pioneer_vsx9500s_receiver__flawed_legend.jpg [ 260.73 KiB | Viewed 372 times ]


I would definitely check elsewhere for the problem. It could be incorrect DC offset or blocked heat sink ventilation, incorrect power transistor bias setting or any one of the many possible faults.

Just to confirm that more recent, lower end HT receivers are misleadingly rated, just a quick example of the Pioneer VSX-1020 with is rated and sold as a 500W total power receiver. In real life testing, it routinely test out at a maximum of 25 to 30WPC for an actual maximum power output of 125 to 150 total watts, which is realistically in line with its maximum power consumption of 245W.

Attachment:
VSX-1020.png
VSX-1020.png [ 126.87 KiB | Viewed 372 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:14 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Airdrie, AB, CA
OBI56, thank you kindly for the detailed information. I have done some reading and every person who owns this receiver claims it runs hot, I am not exaggerating about that either. In one forum (I think Audiokarma but would need to check) there was an explanation as to why but apparently that is the way they were made. I am not saying there are not other factors that contribute, it is an old receiver and when I took the top off there was a bit of dust build up from the previous owner. I tried the best I could to blow the dust out but I need to get something better that moves air to do it properly.
The receiver really should be serviced but finding someone local is impossible so I am faced with a lengthy car drive or shipping it off to another province, I am not sure this old receiver is worth it.
I might just try to clean it better, keep it cool with the fan and if it dies so be it. It is times like these that I wish I was capable of repairing electronics myself or at least had a good tech who lived close.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
Premium User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:08 pm
Posts: 18449
Location: Montreal, QC, CA
canuckken wrote:
OBI56, thank you kindly for the detailed information. I have done some reading and every person who owns this receiver claims it runs hot, I am not exaggerating about that either. In one forum (I think Audiokarma but would need to check) there was an explanation as to why but apparently that is the way they were made. I am not saying there are not other factors that contribute, it is an old receiver and when I took the top off there was a bit of dust build up from the previous owner. I tried the best I could to blow the dust out but I need to get something better that moves air to do it properly.
The receiver really should be serviced but finding someone local is impossible so I am faced with a lengthy car drive or shipping it off to another province, I am not sure this old receiver is worth it.
I might just try to clean it better, keep it cool with the fan and if it dies so be it. It is times like these that I wish I was capable of repairing electronics myself or at least had a good tech who lived close.


Well. maybe not EVERYONE who owns one; just those who have overheating problems with one will write to complain about it .... LOL!!! That goes to the point about trusting everything you read on the internet. Yes, some of them run hotter than normal. but not all of them by any means, which is why I suspect that something may be off internally.

Again, taking things into context, the VSX-9500s is what, 27-28+ years old by now and was, at the time, pretty much the first generation, state of the art HT receiver with all of the latest gadgets (IIRC, it was one of the first HT receivers with Dolby Pro-Logic decoding built-in) so if it has never been serviced and shows problems, it might be time for a good service. But the question remains, is getting such an old (and technically obsolete) HT receiver serviced really cost effective? A simple repair might cost you as little as $100, but a full service/testing and recapping will run you into the several hundred dollars.

You are in Airdrie, so fairly close to Calgary where there are several good technicians available. An estimate will cost you in the $60 to $100 range.

So, unless the fix is an easy one, I don't really think that a VSX-9500S (or any other older HT receiver with a known problem) really qualifies as a "Best Bang for the Buck Vintage Receiver" category.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:14 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Airdrie, AB, CA
OBI56 wrote:
canuckken wrote:
OBI56, thank you kindly for the detailed information. I have done some reading and every person who owns this receiver claims it runs hot, I am not exaggerating about that either. In one forum (I think Audiokarma but would need to check) there was an explanation as to why but apparently that is the way they were made. I am not saying there are not other factors that contribute, it is an old receiver and when I took the top off there was a bit of dust build up from the previous owner. I tried the best I could to blow the dust out but I need to get something better that moves air to do it properly.
The receiver really should be serviced but finding someone local is impossible so I am faced with a lengthy car drive or shipping it off to another province, I am not sure this old receiver is worth it.
I might just try to clean it better, keep it cool with the fan and if it dies so be it. It is times like these that I wish I was capable of repairing electronics myself or at least had a good tech who lived close.


Well. maybe not EVERYONE who owns one; just those who have overheating problems with one will write to complain about it .... LOL!!! That goes to the point about trusting everything you read on the internet. Yes, some of them run hotter than normal. but not all of them by any means, which is why I suspect that something may be off internally.

Again, taking things into context, the VSX-9500s is what, 27-28+ years old by now and was, at the time, pretty much the first generation, state of the art HT receiver with all of the latest gadgets (IIRC, it was one of the first HT receivers with Dolby Pro-Logic decoding built-in) so if it has never been serviced and shows problems, it might be time for a good service. But the question remains, is getting such an old (and technically obsolete) HT receiver serviced really cost effective? A simple repair might cost you as little as $100, but a full service/testing and recapping will run you into the several hundred dollars.

You are in Airdrie, so fairly close to Calgary where there are several good technicians available. An estimate will cost you in the $60 to $100 range.

So, unless the fix is an easy one, I don't really think that a VSX-9500S (or any other older HT receiver with a known problem) really qualifies as a "Best Bang for the Buck Vintage Receiver" category.


So you would not buy this audiokarma's members explanation?


Attachments:
Screenshot 2017-06-24 15.21.45.png
Screenshot 2017-06-24 15.21.45.png [ 740.18 KiB | Viewed 334 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:39 pm 
Online
Premium User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:36 pm
Posts: 3535
Location: Vernon, BC, CA
OBI56 wrote:
So, unless the fix is an easy one, I don't really think that a VSX-9500S (or any other older HT receiver with a known problem) really qualifies as a "Best Bang for the Buck Vintage Receiver" category.


It definitely does not qualify. The near entry level NAD I replaced it with back in those days was significantly better. Showing off "surround sound" to my friends was the high point of owning the VSX-9500S.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:37 pm
Posts: 2398
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Albert wrote:
I have found some vintage power amps that are quite cheap now imho that are still decent:

Forte model 3 - 200w/ch - ($500 with a matching Forte model 2 preamp)
Bryston 2b lp - 50w/ch - $400 (bought 2 of them for $800 to bridge for 200w/ch)
Denon POA-2200 - 220w/ch - $500 (with the rare urushi (shiny) wood side panels like a Pioneer Elite)
Bedini 150/150 mkII - 150w/ch - $500

For a little more money I have found the following to be killer amps:

Threshold 400a - 100w/ch - upgraded parts, $1200
Bedini 100/100 1 meg - 100w/ch class A - $1000 (rare)
Bedini BA-803 - 250w/ch - $1000
Beard P100 tube amp - 80w/ch - $800 (also hard to find)

These amps can handle my Acoustat 2+2 with ease and sound great. There are other very nice amps that I have used (and still use) but they cost a little more. Best bang for your buck can be subjective depending on how you define your "bang" and how much "bucks" are in your pocket. :D

If I could keep just one amp it would be my Raymond Lumley M100 tube mono amps. They cost me the most ($3200) but they sound the best of those I have tried. My Beard P100 tube amp is close and cost 1/4 as much so perhaps it is the best bang for the buck for me. For solid state my Bedini 100/100 1 meg is quite good.

Geez, choosing is hard. It is like trying to pick your favourite child. :(


I was lucky and found a Bryston 3B NPB for $525- great amp and one of the best Bryston's I have heard. I would add the Marantz 1152DC as another great deal


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:14 pm
Posts: 37
Location: Airdrie, AB, CA
James_W wrote:
OBI56 wrote:
So, unless the fix is an easy one, I don't really think that a VSX-9500S (or any other older HT receiver with a known problem) really qualifies as a "Best Bang for the Buck Vintage Receiver" category.


It definitely does not qualify. The near entry level NAD I replaced it with back in those days was significantly better. Showing off "surround sound" to my friends was the high point of owning the VSX-9500S.


That would be a matter of opinion which I have not owned it long enough to have one. I do not use it for Home Theater, only 2 channel with the tuner. Other reviews for this old receiver are good but again I realize those reviews are also opinions. http://www.audioreview.com/cat/amplific ... 18crx.aspx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:55 am
Posts: 4
Location: Delaware, OH, US
JVC A-X5


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:26 am
Posts: 15
Location: Louisbourg, NS, CA
From the 1970s: BGW 750x
From the 1980s: Crown PL-3/PS-200 or PL-4/PS-400, especially for full-range
From around 2000: Crown K1 or K2 for subwoofers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group