![hitachi hta-3000 receiver hitachi hta-3000 receiver](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qeIAAOSwefZcsuFF/s-l640.jpg)
- #HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER MOVIE#
- #HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER FULL#
- #HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER SERIES#
- #HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER MAC#
Many more people get Mac and Fisher tube amps restored, of course. The investment is simply not feasible for the typical 70's Japanese, solid state receiver. 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. many of the power amps of that day were very nice, the preamps are pretty much dogs with only a few notable exceptions. I am quite the fan of vintage Fisher components, but even there I prefer the separates and integrated examples over the receivers. 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.
![hitachi hta-3000 receiver hitachi hta-3000 receiver](https://www.picclickimg.com/d/l400/pict/172736561938_/Hitachi-HTA-3000-AM-FM-Tuner-Stereo-Receiver-80s-Vintage.jpg)
The Fisher was built point to point and is a true antique, pure tube unit. Nice size power supply as another mentioned though. The Pioneer doesn't have anywhere near the quality of components in it. It is truly an "integrated" preamp and power amp. 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.
#HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER SERIES#
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.Ĭlick to expand.My first "real" hi-fi had a Pioneer SX series receiver in it. Bass is about as good as one would expect from 30 watts a side and I'm not planning on losing my lease. It's a dual-powered wide band design and has exemplary mids and very refined upper octaves. As for my HK 630 after my minor mods, it certainly rivals modern low-power transistor gear. It really depends on the individual unit and one's taste in ancillary equipment. 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. 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. Rotel and NAD made good sounding receivers at the time. 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. I know these are generalizations, but there's still a lot of truth in them.Ĭlick to expand.Not all of it. Some of them still sound quite good today. No market for it.Īnd yes, some of the old ones were of audiophile quality, at the very least in relation to other equipment back then.
![hitachi hta-3000 receiver hitachi hta-3000 receiver](https://www.springair.de/media/image/43/8f/bd/44587-1-44587a.jpg)
But there basically is no "audiophile" receiver anymore. Does it sound better than today's receivers -yes. And guess what? It's relatively featureless, and there is competition in the area of SQ between makers. Today, only audiophile equipment tends to be auditioned.
#HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER MOVIE#
Movie watching for most people isn't about the best sound, it's about features and the "most impressive" sound. you have more budget left over to tick off all the features you have to have on your design checklist.
#HITACHI HTA 3000 RECEIVER FULL#
Designers/engineers have to bring in the receiver chock full of features at a give price point. Marketing is about the most features for the price, not SQ. In more recent times, receivers are mainly used in HT, and are mostly bought in box stores or online. the makers actually competed to out SQ each other at a given price point. A fair number of buyers actually bought them based on which one they perceived as having better SQ. In the 70's many receivers were bought at audio stores and auditioned. With these older receivers, even the 200 gram LP's put out by Classic Records almost sound as good as the original LP's. The older units do sound better and they obviously were built better as they are still going strong.īoth 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. And yes, I have a full quadraphonic set-up. All 3 of these are quadraphonic and over 30 years old. Currently my music system uses a Pioneer QX-949. For listening to music, I have used a Sansui QRX-6001 and a Sansui QRX-7500. My current Sony is used for my home theater system. A friend of mine has gone through several Yamahas and a Denon receiver, al late model equipment. One thing I noticed was that with each progressively newer model the features increased and the sound quality got worse. Over the last 10 or so years, I have fried at least 3 Sony AV receivers.
![hitachi hta-3000 receiver hitachi hta-3000 receiver](https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/s--QJjr7gwQ--/f_auto,t_large/v1597939298/rqb8y3yuii1bnbo7shgq.jpg)
Yes, the older receivers were of much higher quality and better sounding.