Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 73237	2006-10-12 09:40:00	Stereo amp - old name brand or new tech generic?	Hokonui (8280)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
490932	2006-10-12 09:40:00	I plan to buy a 2nd hand stereo amp to link pc & speakers. I have a low bgt <$150 say. Am I better off looking at older tech name brands (high qual, multi-option but not Dolby) or new tech generic (perhaps lower qual, fewer options but Dolby). I have several options for similar price in either category. What's the general feeling, is pretty vague admittedly but any opinions gratefully received.	Hokonui (8280)
490933	2006-10-12 09:55:00	Well, way back when, my father used to favour Akai equipment. I'm sure it had dolby, but then I might be wrong (I was just a kid but I think dolby was around in the 80's) How old are we talking here?	Myth (110)
490934	2006-10-12 10:10:00	old - say mid '90s give or take new - last few yrs	Hokonui (8280)
490935	2006-10-12 16:18:00	virtually EVERY amp made for the last 25 years has had dolby built in.....	drcspy (146)
490936	2006-10-12 16:43:00	I know this is gonna get hate mail . . . but I actually liked the older tube-type amps that are pre-Dolby . The one I currently have was about $10 US in a yardsale a few months back . They were infinitely adjustable and the range of sound was warm to a human ear . There is currently an upsurge of tube amps in guitar music for all it's human range color and modulation . I found a very old HeathKit 100 watt stereo amplifier to which I added a subwoof for the middle channel to fill in the thumps that were never a strongpoint in the older amps . The sound is not blistering-sharp as is digital . . but I love the warmth and fullness of the sound . Glass tubes (vacuum tubes) are now coming available from Russia as they found a niche and filled it for audiophiles and great guitarists . There must be a real reason . I feel that Dolby was a kinda flop anyway . . . . . the compression and uncompression left a lot to be desired during playback . It was just a futile attempt to clarify and add to the lost bass and frequencies that could not be stored on slow moving cassette tapes . The sound would be lost in the mud at those low frequencies and tape head speeds with the huge airgap of the head; something had to be done to make up for that inability . . . it was poor at best in my opinion .	SurferJoe46 (51)
490937	2006-10-12 18:50:00	know what you mean SJ. My main stereo amp is a rejuvenated Radford ST25. 25 watts per channel and quite loud enough (with a subwoofer)	Neil McC (178)
490938	2006-10-12 21:15:00	depends what he means by dolby. most youngs ones mistake home theater (dolby surround sound) as dolby NR (which is tapes only?) exspecially as amps don't have dolby NR afik its built into the tapedeck. at that price your not going to get a stereo amp new. that wouldn't even buy a set of non-pc speakers.	tweak'e (69)
490939	2006-10-12 21:58:00	depends what he means by dolby. most youngs ones mistake home theater (dolby surround sound) as dolby NR (which is tapes only?) exspecially as amps don't have dolby NR afik its built into the tapedeck.I did wonder about that (Dolby NR as opposed to Dolby pro-logic). Kinda got them both mixed up myself You're right, dolby NR was for tapes	Myth (110)
490940	2006-10-13 00:06:00	Well, way back when, my father used to favour Akai equipment. I'm sure it had dolby, but then I might be wrong (I was just a kid but I think dolby was around in the 80's) I'm sorry to say that Akai was a recognised and respected name in the 1970s- early 80s. Not sure what happened but it then went budget. Having said that, budget stereo gear today is high quality compared with years ago - just not as well put together and unfixable.	Winston001 (3612)
490941	2006-10-13 00:48:00	FWIW: I find Philips stuff pretty well made and rugged. Their "unfixability" quotient is high, but the original prices are low...so there.	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2