Top 5 recievers of the 70's and 80's ????

What about the Concept 16.5?

Pacific Stereo in Southern California
carried the Concept Line.

My Brother has one, and He said it was
more powerful than many of the Big Marantz
and Pioneer Receivers.

http://sportsbil.com/stereo/concept16_5/

One of Parasounds head guys came from Concept.

Not John Curl but Dick Schram did the circuitry
on the 16.5.

http://www.electricalhobby.com/monsterreceiversite/unit_pages/ConceptReceiver.htm

Dual transformers was a rare thing for Receivers back
then.

The Technics was more wattage and 20 pounds heavier.

Given the same sensitive speaker, using less than 50 watts
maximum, I just wonder which Receiver would sound Superior?

http://www.thevintageknob.org/TECHNICS/SA1000/SA1000.html#

Love to hear these 2 today with a nice CD player, and some
high quality speakers.

Concept 16.5 - not drinking the Kool Aid.

Not to doubt your observations, but looks like a rebadged, private label type product.

I stand by the Yamahas.

Cwlondon:"but looks like a rebadged, private label type product"?

Hmmm...so aside from an obvious "bias" for Yamaha,

What difference is it, what it "Looks" like?

Especially if the product outperforms its peers.

The 16.5 is a step above the rest.

The amplifier section plays more like a separate amp.
than a Receiver. Oh, and the Tuner section, it is superior
to many separate Tuners!

I can say this confidently as my Brother has both a 2020
Yamaha and the 16.5, as well as Pioneer, Marantz, and other Super-Receivers,
none can hold a candle to the "black sheep 16.5" Receiver,
it just is better at everything.

Besides, the Best components of the above Companies, All were made in Japan, we never
saw some of Japans finest,never will.

IMHO after listening to a heap of Receivers, the 16.5 was like a step above at least, in all areas. Too bad Yamaha did not make it. The answers here would be the 16.5 Yamaha hands down.

This is America, where "imitation is the highest form of flattery". In everything!

Anytime someone takes any product, and improves it, do You
stick with the original? Or go for the much improved version?

Of course in Audio, we go for the Latest version MKIII over
MKI, its a fact.

Like Sony and their venerable SCD-1,funny how Reiymo and
other independent companies have "SCD-1 Clones" Same thing!

In audio, notice Denon and Sony players look identical, and
the list of companies with "similar looking" products is too
long to list.Infinity and Genesis etc.

Careful when we judge the outside of something we don't like;
it reminds me of how some people look at "other" people,
and "label" them. Music is "Pure", let us strive to
allow Music to bring Us together not "further" separate Us.

Music, one of life's true pleasures.
By Yourself, or with friends, Music is uplifting!

Love Your Music!

Enjoy the tools.

To me, there is a certain integrity that comes with designing and branding something from the ground up.

Like modified or garage manufactured cars, I am not so moved by the fact that some quirky English car, which starts with a Lotus chassis or whatever, in the end actually outhandles and outaccelerates a Ferrari for 1/4th the price.

I'll take the Ferrari. And a Yamaha receiver.

If you would like to just debate performance, rather than the complete package including functionality and design, we should also discuss the Tandberg receiver and the McIntosh receiver of that era.

Bang & Olufsen Beomaster 2400. The fact that we're talking about receivers means to me that we're talking for more casual use, not for a reference system . . . and the 2400 sounds pretty decent, has an amazing list of technical innovations, and has a balance of aesthetics and ergonomics that makes them an absolute pleasure to use.

Consider the electronic photo-resistor volume control, which is all the rage in several high-end preamps these days. Low output power but with lots of current, and DC offset protection without using a speaker relay. A good-sounding, sensitive (when aligned properly) analog FM tuner with presets. Solid-state source switching using only diodes. Not to mention the capacitive touch-sensitive controls, and possibly the first remote control available on a music system . . . all done without a microprocessor. This was designed in the mid-1970s, when the rest of the world was producing ever larger conglomerations of chrome, light shows, fake vinyl wood, and a seemingly endless number of buttons, toggles, and rotary wafer switches.

And considering how cutting-edge much of the circuitry was, Beomaster 2400s as a group still aged pretty well . . . many are still working great today with only a couple trips to the repair shop over a 30 year lifespan.