5196105896

Six perts

♦

Choose Stereo Systems

Articles such as TH!S-in which six authors asiute in ihe ways of audiophilia reveal iheir melhods for assembling stereo systems to specific budgets-have consistently been among our most popular features lt’s fascinating to see how vasi the difference in melhod can be— and how far the experts can “stray” from the truisms of component selection, which demonstrates how unreliable those rules of thumb can be. Even morę fascinating. each time we have commis-sioned an article of this sort, is the profound influence the interests of our authors have on their modes of selection, and hence on the equipment they choose. Here lies the truth that overrides truisms: In the end. the ways of choosing components are as diverse as the uses to which they will be pul.

The first time we printed a “six ex-perts” article. we had misgivings about how our readers would take the piece. We were preparing it for the December 1976 issue, and the budgets we had given our six authors were $1.000. $3,000, and $5,000—with two authors assigned to each price point, as we did for this issue. It’s interesting that, despite inflation, we have lowered the budgets in the inter-

600

"The thought of owning a system without FM was too awful to contemplate."

Faced with having to select a budget system that (after due aIIowancc for dealer discounts) could cost no morę than $600. I had to reassign sonie prior-ities in making my choices. I have always advised concentration on speakers first. followcd by the electronics and a rccord player, sińce variations in speaker sensi-tivity and power requirements govern the choice of an amplifier or receiver. This time. however. I reversed that selection process.

My reasoning ran somcthing like this: With a budget of only $600. top-quality loudspeakers obviouslv will be out of rcach. Eilher I will have to pick a pair of speakers that sound passably good and can be mo\ed to a secondory location once I can afTord a morę e\pen-sive pair. or else I might begin with no loudspeakers at all. choosing a superior pair of headphones with which to get started. That being the case, I decidcd to spend a bit morę on the electronics than I might have done had I followcd my own advice. Instead of assigning 40% of my budget to electronics, I have allotted closer to 50%.

My first inclination was to settle for an integrated amplifier, omitting the FM-radio option altogether. After all. a $300 integrated amp should represent much belterquality than an all-in-one re-ceiver at that price. Again. logie did not win out. and I chose a receiver after all. You see. the thought of owning a system on which I could not tune to my favorite stereo FM program sources was too awful to contemplate. So it had to be a re-ceiver. and I chose the NAD 7020 a liltle gem that morę than makes up in performance lor what u lacks in visual appeal.

At this budget level. one can*t worr\ too much about pretty front panels: lis-lenability and performance spees are what count. Though rated at only 20 walts (13 dBW| per channel. my ow n lab had previously measured the power out-put capability of this receiver as closer to 40 watts (16 dBVV| per channel at mid-band and almost as much even at the bass end of the spectrum. And consid-ering its Iow suggested retail price ($348). this receiver has one of the best FM tuner sections we ha\e ever measured. with a 50-dB quieting sensitivit\ of

onlv 12Vą dBf in mono and 36 dBf in

¥

Stereo. Signal-to-noise ratios are out-standing: 7816 dB in mono. and 7116 dB in stereo.

I he preamp/control section of this receiver performs as impressivel) as the amp and tuner. The relatively steep slope (12 dB per octave) of the infrasonic and high-cut filters mcans that even mated to a less-than-superb turntable system (which this limiled budget will req u i re). rumbie and warp energy created by the player w ill not induce au-dible IM distortion products past the preamp section. And with one of the highest dynamic-headroom tigures of anv receiver l\e ever measured (3V* dB). the NAD 7020 should, in eflect. give morę than 40 watts (16 dRW| of clean output.

Technics is best known for its direct-

38

MIGU FIDELITY