Rotel RX-200A - little receiver with phonostages for MM and ceramic cartridges

[projektori]

I stumbled upon this small amp and though of posting something of it here... it's not audiophile by any means, but looks nice, can be had half-free, has surprisingly nice sound, and a phonostage for ceramic cartridges as well as for MM.

I suppose this was the lowest of its line with its 10W (8 ohm) per channel power output. The output level is a bit of a minus, this is the only amp I've had that required turning volume past 50% for my normal listening. But when that was done it didn't sound worse than most in my ears. I compared it to my H/K A402 which is completely out of its level and to be honest I've heard much worse comparisons. I feel that the sound lacks some grandeur in certain areas, but that's about it. Okay I'm not really an analytical listener but it DID sound good.

The amp also has a nice-sounding tuner that also seems to be exellent signal catcher even with a short piece of wire as an antenna.

Build quality is pretty nice too, the usual 70's amp stuff with completely metal fascia and nicely veneered plywood cabinet. The knobs are metal-capped plastic, though.

Seems like I'm gonna be impressed every time I get a cheap 70's amp... a low-ish Pioneer swept the floor with newer, much larger and more expensive amp and this one is really nice as well. The H/K A402 and its sister the 730 continue to be the best amps I've listened to, but they are also the originally most expensive amp I've listened to... so much for that evaluation.

Back to the Rotel... worth checking out in my opinion, if not as a main amp then maybe for radio use or to be paired with a shellac-dedicated turntable with ceramic cart. Or even for streaming music from one's phone.

Some info at radiomuseum.org:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/rotel_solid_state_amfm_stereo_receiver_rx_200a.html

[vanakaru]

Nice find!
I like electronics from 70's. Probably because I started pay attention what and how I listen at that time. So I have never got used to contemporary - or even 90's - gear. All this linear sound is too sterile for me and I prefer one with character at any time. Even if some of the frequencies have been butchered.
However vintage gear is really popular in my country right now. Local auctions generate ridiculous prices for this stuff. Probably because we have no old stock filled attics and basements.

[projektori]

I don't know if its that the amps colour the music and that way give something "more" to it (like tube amps), or if they are just good. Probably both, depending on model and price level. I haven't really done that much comparison, especially when most amps I've had (owned or otherwise), have been from the 70's.

Oh, now I'm losing a channel... more deoxit!

[floppybootstomp]

My first 'proper' amp was a Rotel Receiver 10watts x 2 circa 1976 probably the range of models after that one as it had a black fascia.

I can't honestly remember what it sounded like but I was happy with it at the time. Wouldn't mind getting one for the right price purely for nostalgia and curiosity's sake.

In '76 it was paired with  a pair of Wharfedale Denton loudspeakers and a Pioneer PL12D turntable with Shure 75EJ cartridge.

And later an ADC cartridge and a Pioneer 2020 cassette deck was added (actually, the cassette deck may have been a 4040 thinking about it...).

[bluetomgold]

they are just good.

IMO this, although truth is that not all 70s amps/receivers are brilliant, even Rotel made some so-so sounding examples, and some 70s Sony amps are awful IMO... Pioneer and Sansui were the most consistently good sounding for me when it comes to the Japanese firms.

The days of "cheap" 70s kit are numbered though - values are rising steadily as the fashion for "vintage" audio spreads and although these old units were built to phenomenally high standards they are less reliable today than they were 20 years ago.

As for the "newer, much larger and more expensive amp" well the truth is that modern kit really varies and some of it is awful, even the expensive stuff, like they never even bothered to listen to it before putting it to market. Or sometimes you can hear a manufacturer's cynical attempt to give something a certain tonal signature (i.e. "warm") without bothering to make it actually sound good...

But then some new kit is really good! And when you hear a cheap class D amp you realise just how much BS there is in the modern hi-fi industry - in this day and age there's no excuse for making a poor sounding amplifier! And in truth a really good new amp will do things that a 70s Rotel receiver won't... It's just unfortunate that the market's not in the same place it was when e.g the NAD 3020 or the Cyrus 1 were introduced - there just isn't the same level of demand and as such competition is less fierce. Also the hi-fi press have become increasingly PR driven over the years, so they don't have the same standards of rigour when reviewing kit. More like the bigger the ad, the better the review...

[projektori]

That newer and larger amp was actually Pioneer as well, namely A-656 mark II. I wonder if something was wrong with it because compared to the earlier Pioneer (sx-525), it just sounded lame. Not in analytical way cold or anything like that, but kinda boomy and unrefined compared to the other. Alone, without direct comparison it did sound ok so nothing obviously wrong, at least.

I have heard similar opinion of that amp from one second-hand hifi shop owner as well.

Anyways, if the better ones are near the end of their lifetime, I'd rather get them rebuild or recapped at least than get a new one. A bit difficult to find reliable service around here at least, though..

[bluetomgold]

That newer and larger amp was actually Pioneer as well, namely A-656 mark II.

It's not unusual for the higher priced Jap amps to sound worse than their cheaper counterparts. They sold them on features and spec. Have you ever heard an A300/A400? Good amps from the same era.

[projektori]

I haven't... weird that the cheaper ones might actually be better even from the same line.

I wonder if this is true with Yamaha as well. They have some pretty impressive stuff, by looks out and inside at least... like A1 and R2000. But those are supposed to be top notch aren't they?

[GP49]

... weird that the cheaper ones might actually be better even from the same line.

In the hi-fi power race, more expensive was mandated, with few exceptions, to be more powerful.

The large, high-current power transistors of the era, required for higher power, were slower and less linear than smaller, lower-power ones, often requiring more feedback to get distortion levels down to where the tail-wags-the-dog advertising departments wanted them.  This feedback could slow down an amp even more, and cause instability, while bettering steady-state linearity which was how amplifiers were tested for advertised specifications.  Some manufacturers also paralleled two or more pairs of output transistors to get ever-higher power, and mismatches in transistors on the production line could cause problems, although Japanese transistors made from the same silicon die were natively better-matched than European or American.  Of course, the engineering prototypes tested for the advertising department used devices hand-selected with a curve tracer and meticulously matched!

Some manufacturers, as an example Dynaco in the USA, used cheap 2N3055 output transistors in their early transistorized amplifiers but selected them for linearity and high breakdown voltage and stamped their part numbers on those that passed.  Order replacements from Dynaco and you'd get selected parts (the 2N3055 for their regulated power supplies had screening criteria different from those intended as output transistors, and a different part number).  Too many bogus technicians saw "2N3055" on the transistors and ignored the overprinted part numbers; when one of these amps came in for repair after blowing up during a typical Berkeley, CA acid-rock/LSD party, they'd high-tail it to the surplus store and for one US 1967 dollar apiece, get reject 2N3055 floor sweepings, some with their connection pins actually bent by quality control testers at some factory!  Those hacks sure didn't have a curve tracer!  They'd put those one-dollar transistors into anything that took TO-3 output transistors, even if they were Japanese-made and had transistors with Japanese 2SD--- markings.  Sound quality and reliability would suffer.  In the secondhand market, those "repaired" amps could look good and sound awful, with poor reliability.  I got a lot of them in their second blow-up failure, sometimes in only the second or third power-up, had the repair declined by the customer when told the estimate for a proper repair, and was told to keep the unit.  I'd fix them the right way when business was slow (when the backlog of record changers jammed with dried-up grease was dwindling) and sell them.  They comprised a meaningful contribution to the bottom line, especially since my repairs, which included augmented protection circuitry, didn't come back during the one-year warranty I offered.

[bluetomgold]

I haven't... weird that the cheaper ones might actually be better even from the same line.

I wonder if this is true with Yamaha as well. They have some pretty impressive stuff, by looks out and inside at least... like A1 and R2000. But those are supposed to be top notch aren't they?

IME high-end Yamaha is well over rated. I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard a CR1000. Sounded crap to me. Was similarly unimpressed by a C4 / M4 combo I tried years ago. I like the styling, but the ears say no. Oddly though their chunky studio power amps sounded good... But then they had to. Professionals won't use bad sounding kit.

Actually, I've never heard a Yamaha hi-fi amp that impressed me. They always seem to sound a bit gutless to me. I do have fond memories of an A500 that I used at work for a while, which wasn't bad actually, and was certainly very reliable (in spite of daily abuse). It's probably unfair to generalise though...and their cassette decks were great. But again the cheap ones often sounded better than the higher-specced and more expensive models!

What Gene said too, by the way. Would love to own a solid state Dynaco that he'd repaired... I miss the ST120/PAT4 I had years ago, they're rare in the UK, and I thought mine sounded pretty good. Would like to own a tube Dynaco some time too...

[timelog]

Amplifiers sound different for many reasons and two equal amp of manufacturer can sound different. Some amps are also over "stabilized" to fulfill all known electrical requirements across the world. Some repair manuals have information about additional components in circuit of certain markets and there is also discussion in web about mods done by users. Also speakers used should be selected so that amplifier has power to drive speakers safely without clipping. After publishing CD format more powerfull amplifiers was needed to get advantage improved dymamics of CD. 

[projektori]

This is very interesting, thanks for all the replies!

If you google for best vintage amps, most of the listings contain a bunch of those late 70's giant amps with way more than 100 wats power output. Many of the accounts also seem to concentrate around power. But it's much the same with cars I guess. Speed seems to be the main point often when people talk about them even though there's usually no way one could actually drive the top speed.

[wer]

Excellent analogy 

[henkes]

Nicely stumbled Tuomas  I love these vintage amp's.

Henkes

[timelog]

There is also analogy with cars and amps that have no speed limiting electronics...Faster DC amps reach easily near 200 kHz speed...of course this can be dangerous to driven loudspeaker as clipping/feedback runs easier out of control