advertisement


Pioneer A400 VS Audiolab 8000A

rockadelic said:
Did anyone compare these 2 amps with the same source & speakers? Is there any difference between early 8000A models & later ones? I have seen one on ebay with a grey casing & nikel plated inputs, while others have black casings with copper or brass plated inputs! :)
Click to expand...

Late phono input versions are best - 'E' onwards in the serial number.
Enough circuit reworking to be worth it over the early version.

About as good as the Pioneer unless you intend using the inbuilt phono stage, in which case the Audiolab is better and has a great MC section.
 
LoBo said:
I've owned an audiolab 8000a and its a very good amp, if a little lean / clinical sounding. Partner carefully with speakers, very good with epos ES11 / QUAD speakers etc. The later black case models with 'F' in the serial (MK 5) are the one to go for as they have Elna stargets and evox film caps inside. They sound better. Lovely build quality.

A friend had a Pioneer A400 with B&W speakers and it sounded superb, giant killer of an amp for the price to be honest. I've read of several mods that improve it further. Probably the better amp out of the two sound wise and more forgiving with speaker choices. Again superb build quality. I would definitely consider one of these myself now you mention it! Maybe in the new year...

Both amps are second hand bargains these days.
Click to expand...
Yes Pioneer A-400 amps love B& W speakers. In one system I have, I run a A400 (the original model- the one without the added 'X') with what is now 'considered old' B&W DM2A speakers. I would not part with that combination, whatsoever. It produces effortless easy-driven performance , and possesses glorious transmission - line pin-point 'sound-staging' presentation for classical music.Perfect synergy!

I once had one of the X model Pioneer amps, and yes, the original 'non -X' model, is noticeably superior.
 
bottleneck said:
today I wouldnt buy either.

I had an 8000a on loan from a dealer when it was released, and it was easily bettered by a harmon kardon hk1400 - itself a £400 ish amp. A better second hand buy for the peanuts it would go for now.

But then, there have been better amps since, and better on the second hand market. . as I said, today I wouldnt buy either, even second hand.
Click to expand...
I have heard some current amps (Yes even some British ones!) that sound shit compared to the original Pioneer A-400. Thin? Hard? I must have got one, from a group set -especially made, for the more appreciative and discerning non- British market!:D
 
I found the 'grey' Audiolab 8000A bland compared with an Incatech claymore and Cyrus II with PSX. Speakers were DM2.
 
I had an Audiolab 8000A for many years in the 90s partnered beautifully with the fantastic Epos ES11. It was a pretty good combo with an LP12 as source. Currently using a Pioneer A400 with Dynavector Contours. I did try a Cambridge 740A but kept going back to the Pioneer for its sweeter and more fluid sound. As a value for money design with reasonable power the A400 has no vices and I find it easy to live with. I could do with downsizing my speakers for a smaller room. Any sugestions ? I am curious about LS3/5As mentioned earlier ...
 
RustyB said:
The Pioneer A400 was popular for a short while spurred on almost entirely by publicity in one magazine. Although it was often asked for by the public, we only sold a handful as the sound was thin and hard and uninvolving. It didn't live up to it's reputation. IMO
Click to expand...


You'd have to create a spectacular system mismatch to get that result! I had an A400 driving my Gales recently, and it was none of those things.[/QUOTE]

I have an Pioneer A 400 coupled to a pair of B&W DM2A's Together: deep bass, massive sound- staging, pin point positioning and stunning involvement across the full frequency range. The claim that the Pioneer A 400 is hard and shrill.... ' THAT is one thing I cannot and will not tolerate in any sound equipment I own, whatsoever'. Though I own 4 different full systems, some much more mod, complex, advanced and elaborate, - if pushed - I could be content owning just this Pioneer/ B&W set up, for the rest of my life!
Only that it would set off a bun fight, I could name one particular 'beloved of so many' expensive brand system: using its fancy cables, plugs and separate one color boxes ....which I have heard so often in 'dedicated' showrooms playing every form of music. Verdict: ....with all its 'stable signature' upper bass humps and jangling glassy metalized sound..... I felt the same every time: I wanted to destroy it with an axe. I realize that it is probably so popular, only because its buyers are tone deaf or already suffer from hearing damage. The total price of this collection....is the biggest joke of all. L.O.L!
No wonder a lot of so called 'high end ' is heading down the sales crapper. I have heard better balanced] performance out of some very modest priced set ups.
 
I never liked the A 400 although I have heard it sound quite good with artificially warm sounding speakers like the Kevlar coned B&Ws and Heybrooks.

The Rotel 840BX4 is a much better amp from the same period.A bit mechanical sounding but it sounds very open and vibrant and can handle 4 ohm loads better than most.
 
I had an A400X and it was OK but rather mediocre. I tried an 8000 and came away thinking it was no better and that I'd be wasting my money.

I listened to a few others at that price point in the hope that there would be a revelation - not really, but an Exposure integrated was rather nice. Then a mate came round with a scruffy looking Quad 33/303 which was in a different league and put them all to shame.
 
bottleneck said:
Cyrus = much better.
Click to expand...

Definitely if you can find a Cyrus with a PSX ... however the combination will probably cost significantly more than an 8000A or Pioneer.

The 8000A is a decent amp but a Cyrus2+PSX is much better IMO due to the extra power on tap.
 
I have to say that my experiences with the A400 are not favourable. A friend bought one after audition and raved about it.

He had an LP12/lingo/a400/cyrus 780's , I was never a fan, he even commented a few times that his Lp12 didnt sound as good and never put it down to the amp, but on reflection this was the problem.

My rega p3/marantz pm40se/b&w dm600' was better IMO.
 
The A-400 was clearly just too good for its time which is why some may have found it to sound bland when partnered with similarly priced sources/speakers.
Rivals that came out later such as the PM40SE may have 'beat' the A-400 as they had a characterful sound, something which the A-400 just couldn't do! I think I remember reading a WhatHiFi review where the Marantz or some other rival (with few knobs like the Pioneer!) came out better.

I went on an upgrade path from A-400 to Technics SU-A700Mk2 to NAD C320to NADC370 and then back to the A-400 which I did not sell. It is now modified and sounding good powering my MA RX6 speakers.

I've not compared my A-400 to recent amplifiers but it is one amazing amplifier.
 
Currently using A400 with tiny Cambridge Audios S30 (£130 !) on wooden stands. With a venerable Arcam CD192 at the front and some considerable assistance from a REL Stampede the results are astounding. I think people forget how rubbish some of the other Jap amps were in their time. I hear nothing artificial in the Pioneers sound, just what my CDP is doing, and thats why I keep returning to it.
 
8000A (and 8000P) were taken during a burglary.
Other bits left were Rotel RCD965 (modded) and Tannoy 613. These were passed on to elder daughter together with a 2nd-hand A400 and are still in use today.

No A:B comparisons due to lack of overlap, but A400 was not quite as musical as the 8000A although A400 seemed to have the edge in "punch".

Daughter's tastes in music are very different to mine so haven't listened too critically....

:)
 
mudan said:
The A-400 was clearly just too good for its time which is why some may have found it to sound bland when partnered with similarly priced sources/speakers.
Click to expand...

Was it? To be honest, I didn't rate it at all, irrespective of what source or speakers were used and I felt that both the Creek and Arcam alternatives left it for dead. Mind you, I wasn't a fan of the other amplification you mention either, so perhaps the Pioneer did compare favourably to them (in fact, I'm sure it did).

The Audiolab was a much more powerful and dynamic sounding option and altogether better than the Pioneer (I felt); mind you, I thought that was a bit 'grey' sounding too. If I had to pick between the two I would have the Audiolab, but if I wasn't limited to just choosing between those two, I wouldn't have either.
 
Again it depends what you partner it with. My Arcam 192CD is a bit lush and my S30 speakers could spit fire if not careful. Currently using the A400 in system, synergy results and I can play many types of music with thorough enjoyment. The details in funky jazz are beautifully presented, bass lines are deep and fast with wallop, voices clear and uncoloured, instruments seperated, images tangible. Whether playing lush pop or old Bluenote or heavy rock this ones a winner.
 
Back in 1991 I demo'd an 8000A, a Linn Intek, and ex-demo Exposure X at a dealer in Reading (Reading Hi-Fi?). The X was by the far the most revealing and engaging amp so I bought it, but couldn't live with the noise level and the almighty switch-on thump - scared the bejesus out of me seeing my little Royd A7 drivers being blown out so far. So I took it back to the shop for a refund, which they refused. I was young and foolish and and said, ok I'll take the Audiolab then. I was never that impressed - very average phono stage. Replaced it with a Nait3 a few years later, which blew it away.
 
YNWOAN said:
Was it? To be honest, I didn't rate it at all, irrespective of what source or speakers were used and I felt that both the Creek and Arcam alternatives left it for dead. Mind you, I wasn't a fan of the other amplification you mention either, so perhaps the Pioneer did compare favourably to them (in fact, I'm sure it did).

The Audiolab was a much more powerful and dynamic sounding option and altogether better than the Pioneer (I felt); mind you, I thought that was a bit 'grey' sounding too. If I had to pick between the two I would have the Audiolab, but if I wasn't limited to just choosing between those two, I wouldn't have either.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We only sold a couple of A400's despite the very favourable press.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top