Stereophile review- Fisher 500 C

The problem with using an older piece day to day is that it will be far more prone to breakdown. (Would you rely on that Porsche 356 for commuting?)

Of course, having your stereo break down does not keep you from your day job : - )

--a

I owned a renovated Fisher 400 for a long time (sold it recently). It has a very warm, lovely, euphonic sound, very much in the style of older tube amps. Listening to FM classic music through that piece makes it real clear why classic used to be popular on FM, and now generates a small audience (via solid state).

My Fisher 400 was truly a great communicator of music, far outclassing its value. I did find that I needed to have it repaired every couple of years. Fortunately we have a local expert in Palo Alto, and it's fun to have the excuse to meet with him and nose around his antique radio collection.

I did have the "Fisher Doc" totally renovate my 400 in the early '90's. And it has always looked gorgeous with it's beautiful original wood case.

My reasons for selling it last year, I guess you call it "lifestyle". It's large and heavy and I would just as soon have a modern tube unit in it's place. But the price hurdle to get better sound than the 400 is substantial.

Art

Well, one time the volume control on/off switch broke. Apparently this is one of the few weaknesses of the unit. You are supposed to use an external on-off switch. The problem was easy to bypass. The on/off part broke, not the potentiometer.

Another time - recently - a resister (I think it was) blew. Cost $30 total to fix including labor. I also paid to have the unit fully tested to make sure nothing else was clearly going bad.

This last time I had it open, I took tuner spray to all the switches,and that is highly recommended! It cleaned up any noise I was getting from the switches.

If I was keeping it, I'd be tempted to find a way to upgrade the power cord.

I did not feel that the unit was particulary unreliable, just a little more prone to breakdown due to age.

Art