To steal from a cynical cartoon (South Park I think), who do you think you are, Sarah Palin?

Well there ya go. I did NOT know that dog sleds were one-way only. You mean every year they have to recruit a whole nother bunch of guys for that Idiotroad thing?

Arvin! Simon! Theodore! There's a fire in the barn!

That Arvin radio is definitely the pinnacle of all that is hi fi; you sir have exquisite taste!

I just bought an Adele CD today while getting other things at Fry's, and it reminded me that the Magnepans, as much as I like them, just can not go way down low. I have long wanted to get an electronic crossover, bass amp, and a decent bass speaker. I wonder if I could build a tube amp to drive the bass speaker, using 300b tubes, or would I need too many of them to get the output? Any suggestions?I guess if depends greatly on the efficiency of the speakers now available. It seems that many are designed for big power (e.g. the ones made by my friend: http://radianaudio.com//index.php?page= ... &Itemid=40)

How many watts do you think you'll need?

For a bass amp, I would think that 6L6's would work just fine. If you can find a parallel push-pull output trans, you can make quite a beast.

Your best bet is to get a two way pro audio crossover then a Yamaha P2500S amp or whatever Yamaha P series amp provides the required power output you need along with a pair of good 12" car audio subs each in one 1 cuft sealed box. Then place one sub by each speaker with the subs run in stereo. You could always use bigger subs if you have the space. I always like to run the subs in stereo directly next to or under the speakers as there are songs that have different low frequency notes on each channel and the effect of that would be lost with a single sub. For me I find that the subs when placed next to or under the speakers sound best crossed over at 150 Hz. That way they seem to integrate better with the main speakers.

WOW! I am surprised at all the Marantz bashing! Yes they started going downhill after Saul left. But in IMHO, their SS stuff up thru about 78 was pretty darn good. They started noticeably cheapening up toward the end of the blue face line and by the time the SR crap came around they were as crappy as all the rest. Some contend the Esoteric line was good but I personally think it wasn't all that great. The older Marantz's (SS) were built like tanks and very smooth sounding. Not quite as pleasing as a good tube amp, but pretty darn good. Up till about 85, Yamaha was still pretty darn good as well.

They all had their strong and weak points. Sure Akai made receivers and amps but they where they shined was their tape deck equipment. Teac/Tascam is another fine manufacturer, but primarily recording equipment. Their amps and receivers sucked! Pioneer IMHO made total crap! They sold a product to a price point but they skimped on components. The power transformers in those things ran way too hot and I never cared for the sound of them! Plus the PAs in them were always going out on protect mode. In the 80's, Yamaha made some of the finest cassette decks made! Many studios were still using them last I knew and I will never part with the ones I have! Plus great support, still can get parts for every Yamaha piece of equipment I have owned. Personally I think they are far better then Nak's. Nak's did sound good but with the heads they used, tapes made on them only sounded good on them. And the transports on Nak's were the weakest link! Nak's seemed to be in the shop as much as they were out of it! I don't know how many I have repaired and they are a major pita!

I will agree nothing beats a well designed hollow state amp with good iron. But there was some very good SS gear made for a time too. Just with the recession then consumer tastes and budgets started to change. Plus by then the Darlington PA's were prolific and to my ears sound horrible compared to discrete transistors. And unfortunately for Saul that killed whatever chances his post Marantz endeavors brought. (But that is another story) The manufacturers followed this trend as people were not willing to pay the $ for good equipment. Nor for the proper upkeep and repair that ALL of this stuff requires. We entered the throw-away society about this same time too. And I don't care if you are talking audio gear, radio gear, etc it is all now pretty much throw-away garbage! Now if we want a good piece of equipment, we have to go old and restore unless you happen to be independently wealthy. Not much out there unless you have mega-bucks to throw around!

Bill

P.S. Bose (BLOWS) was ALWAYS a joke IHMO. That and Cerwin Vega and a few others. Boomy-nasty sounding crap!

The current TEAC offerings concerning receivers are pretty nice IMHO. I had one that was relatively small, but had a cd player external iPod dock AM/FM tuner (FM tuner not that great at picking up distant signals) and it has three aux inputs and IIRC two or maybe one tape output. Also has output for powered sub.

Oh dear, I was hoping nobody brought up Akai in a favorable light. So I wouldn't have to say:

I worked on Akai, Sony and TEAC tape in the 70s. Akai was utter junk. Many couldn't be read on a flutter meter because they wouldn't reproduce 3K. The transports were simple, best can be said of them. Rough copy of Ampex 600 portable, well the idea anyway. Gizmo laden, like say the combo RR/cassette/8track. Could be made to work, but sounded better when they were broken. (Go ahead arbi, tell us how you really feel.)

Sonys worked pretty well. About all they ever needed was oil and idlers. The upscale ones sounded good.

TEAC also copied Ampex, the 350 studio/radiostation workhorse. Elegant transports, all 3-motor. The only one of the bunch worth bothering with bias adjustments, they could be made flat within 2dB, could record at +3 undistorted, which put another -3dB on the already low noise floor, even in the germanium ones. However, TEAC Akaied themselves at some point and it got harder to find a good one.

I also spent a year working for Ampex primarily on their consumer line. The (dual capstan) transports were a little klugey, and I had some replacement belts stretch and melt after repair sitting on the shelf waiting for pickup. Good sound.

Tandberg also sounded good, but it was built only for putting a tape on and playing it. The transport was a clunker in terms of usability. They were priced above all the others.

Let's not get into Wollensak. Or as we called them, Swollensack. The ones school AV departments had. Worked OK for that. Don't drop one on your foot.

arbilab wrote:

Interesting perspective on Akai and Teac. I NEVER ran into that and thought they were pretty solid machines. But then you talk of that combo POS with the R2R, cassette, and 8 track in one. That was a lower-end consumer deck IMHO and it showed! I was referring to the very high end consumer and pro decks. Down the the consumer level, most of it was trash and I won't disagree. But the pro-level 3 motor/3 head decks from these two were quite well made. Only thing I have ever had to mess with on the Akai's were the idlers and the belt for the counters. Only other problems I have had is with the relays on the transports. They are unobtainium but I have managed to keep mine going and in good repair. (fingers crossed) I did have some of the driver transistors and diodes blow on the one but managed to repair that as well. Now long in the tooth, the dried up grease in these also caused a problem. All three of mine have been going well for the last 30+ years I have owned them. Still have them and still use them. Maybe I have just been unusually luck? Only thing I have added is an outboard dbx 224 to these old beasts but I did that from the start. (Never cared for dolby and thought it was crap!)

And to be fair, Akai did go down the toilet and cheapen up badly as time went on. Same can be said for the rest of them as well per my prior post. That was the end of the "golden age" of hifi and it got very hard to find anything decent from any of them. Akai also had some early association with Roberts and were the same machine or copies or perhaps built them for Roberts?

Bill

My first Roberts was an Akai. Not that bad, specially considering I got it on discontinued/closeout. Single head, you won't believe what I used to do with it. Take the head off, turn it over to record track 2, then load my own 4-track cartridges. I had dozens but only a couple prerecordeds.

I replaced the pots with pull switches. Left was channel mix, which allowed bouncing and a/b fades in mono. Right was power amp off when I was only using it as a line deck. But I can't count the number of times I rebuilt the clutches trying to get the flutter down and the tension right.

They also sold under the label Rheem Califone, largely to the educational/institutional market.

I might have missed it, but I think that nobody has even mentioned SAE. Why? In the 70s and 80's it was great stuff, before everything went to heII when it got sold to a Korean outfit.
My opinion is a mixture of very very good and ho-hum, depending on the particular model. I was told by one who should know that the early amps blew a lot of output transistors. I never had one of those. so I can't say from experience. I can say that the SAE 2900 preamp is mucho grande, and that the MK-1B preamp is up there, but not my favorite. T-102 tuner is great if you don't need good selectivity. A-102 and A202 amps are stellar.
I'd like to know where most of the others in this forum would place it as a brand.

I can't think of the guys name off hand, I used to know it... the guy who started the company and was responsible for much of the product R&D... is still around with another brand of "if you have to ask the price you can't afford it" category. Possibly also in the "You can buy better, but you can't pay more" category.
Can't think of that name either, though I have a link to it somewhere in my bookmarks.

Mark D.

My experience with AKAI has been nothing but good. The GX-255 I have is the best sounding reel to reel I have ever owned. I've owned a Sony TC-630 (pain in the arse), AKAI M7, Roberts 770X (AKAI M8), AKAI 4000DS MKII and several small old mono consumer models.

I worked on hundreds. Could never get what I'd call 'performance' out of Akais. Whereas TEACs could be set flat within 2dB one after another.

That may be true, but out of the others I have had the AKAIs always sounded best.

Yes,let's....Arbilab,say hello to my heavy little friend .

I wear nothing but steel-toed boots in its presence-just to be safe.I too call it a "Swollensak".

Had one just like or similar to that one. Had a decent amplifier in it.

Can't fault them for being sturdy. Simple enough for teachers to use. Yes, decent audio. Bit hard to work on but they didn't need it much. Zany tone control, implied it was doing more than just 'bass and treble'. Perhaps it was.

The educational model Wollensak came out with after 3M bought them wasn't as admirable.

For many years I had a Roberts 330 with the Akai-design transport, then got into broadcast radio where I came face-to-face with the real Ampex 600. The resemblence between the Akai and Ampex is only appearance, internally they are entirely different.

-David

Why I said "well the idea anyway". Besides taking my Akai apart I worked on A600s too.

Unfortunately, there was, and still is, not a good way to learn the kind of information service technicians have on any product, unless you know one, or a few. If you are a stranger, and they work for a place which sells certain brands, they may not provide accurate information. Consumer Reports is a good idea in some ways, but they base their ratings on surveys subject to loads of bias from two sources: 1) People afraid to admit they bought less than they paid for, and 2) People who lump a minor problem in with major ones. I'd always hoped that somebody would step up to provide reviews which involve disassembly and comparison of parts. The magazines which accept advertising are always suspect.

However, things have slightly improved, as the Internet is now widespread, so people can share information. I say slightly, because disinformation is as easy to share as information.