| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780
receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and digital sources. But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition. I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one. But my question is: Which one should I keep? I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical or otherwise, that I might not know. I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference matter, either in sound quality or longevity? I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head" comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic. Which one would you keep and why? Many thanks in advance...................... |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"EADGBE" wrote in message ... For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780 receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and digital sources. But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition. I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one. But my question is: Which one should I keep? **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical or otherwise, that I might not know. I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference matter, either in sound quality or longevity? **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head" comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic. Which one would you keep and why? **Neither. Trevor Wilson |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780 receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and digital sources. But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition. I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one. But my question is: Which one should I keep? **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical or otherwise, that I might not know. I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference matter, either in sound quality or longevity? **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head" comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic. Which one would you keep and why? **Neither. Trevor Wilson We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most vintage solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost indefinitely, provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to resolder regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner sections were better than most modern models, and the audio performance is generally fine. They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but that's an apples vs. oranges comparison. In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able to get one should you need it. Mark Z. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff" and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might be very surprised at what you hear. NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an iPod. UGH. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 5, 8:00*am, "Mark D. Zacharias"
wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780 receiver in pristine condition. *I have really enjoyed using this receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and digital sources. But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition. I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one. But my question is: Which one should I keep? **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical or otherwise, that I might not know. I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different between the two models. *What is the difference? *Does the difference matter, either in sound quality or longevity? **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head" comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic. Which one would you keep and why? **Neither. Trevor Wilson We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most vintage solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost indefinitely, provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to resolder regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner sections were better than most modern models, and the audio performance is generally fine. They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but that's an apples vs. oranges comparison. In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able to get one should you need it. Mark Z.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, the stk's are still around in all sorts of wattages. I still have a technics amp with a couple of them and it sounds decent. I had to replace one of it's regulator transistors last year. Nothing memorable about any of the vintage amps with the stk's though. Other than optional protection circuitry the output stages are pretty much identical. Now a 1250 or 1280 and you're talking serious vintage. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I would respectfully disagree with this opinion. People buy choose to keep electronic equipment for various reasons. Personally I choose vintage for: 1. Price - the system in my livingroom new would have cost perhaps $3,500. I paid about 15% of that. 2. Repairability - "vintage" stuff mainly uses discrete components, so often my repairs (self repaired, zero labor) run in the $30 range. I'd rather be able to replace a $0.20 resistor than a multilayer SMT $240 "preamp board". 3. Sound - with the exception of home theatre and mutli-channel, multi-speaker sound effects, the reproduction of sound in the 20-20KHz range with flat response and low distortion has not changed since the mid to late 70's. There are plenty of solid state transistor-based amplifiers built in the late 70's and early 80's which great sound, by ANYONE's measure. Amp designs, feedback levels, etc. etc. have been understood and properly implemented since that time, although I'll grant you there were some unstable, crappy-sounding equipment put out at the dawn of the solid state age but... that was the learning curve period for the industry. 4. Build quality - many amplifiers by such names as Kenwood, Sansui, Harmon Kardon, Marantz, Luxman, Pioneer and others were very very well built using quality overspec'ed components. Whereas nowadays manufacturers will slap a 10,000uF cap in the power supply for an instantaneous power delivery of 200W and put "200W amp" on the box, the older stuff is/was consistently UNDERrated for power delivery. I worked on an HK receiver a few weeks ago rated at 40wpc with 70w continuous rated output devices. Power transformers were bigger and better. Tuners were more sensitive and more selective. It's a testament to the build quality that so many of these units are still being enjoyed today. 5. Where is the money spent - personally I am not into home theatre. I don't care if I have a remote control. I don't care if my tuner doesn't have 200 preset stations. I don't care if my amp has 60 different "effects" as I'll likely never want to listen to my music *******ized to sound like it's being played in a cathedral. So... why would I want to pay for these useless (to me) features? I'd rather that money spent to build the amp went into a good design, proper layout of components, quality components and proper assembly techniques. 6. The Nostalgia Factor - okay, I'm old. Old enough to remember building an HH Scott tube amp and tuner from kits with my Dad. Old enough to fondly remember my old Kenwood receiver and Dual turntable from college. I'd say there was a value to that which may contribute to the prices you see for vintage stuff on eBay. But... it's a peripheral cost, not a major factor. You won't see an SX-730 in the stratosphere of pricing because it wasn't the best of it's time. But an SX-1250 or a DB-9090, the TRUE 200W RMS beasts of the day, will often sell for a few hundred more than they cost new becuase they are quality units. Perhaps I'm missing something, I'd certainly be open to any discussion as to how "modern" designs/topologies/components have improved sound quality vs. "vintage", but for now you can have your modern stuff... Just my 2 cents. Dave Dave |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 5, 11:02*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I would respectfully disagree with this opinion. *People buy choose to keep electronic equipment for various reasons. *Personally I choose vintage for: 1. *Price - the system in my livingroom new would have cost perhaps $3,500. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"EADGBE" wrote in message
... Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that would make them any better than newer recievers. Those both were models for the masses. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"James" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that would make them any better than newer recievers. Those both were models for the masses. Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the commonly held myth that newer is better. And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound? What kind of features do you really need in an amplifier? I could spend $24,000+ on a pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. You know what "feature" sells them? The sound. No knobs, no effects, no digital signal processor, surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. No. Analog input. Speaker output. Good sound. Hardly for everyone, but I just want to illustrate that there is a portion of the population whose #1 requirement isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video functions into a single connected system with a single remote control. I believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may be wrong. I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the Pioneer we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre setup. But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good build quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill perfectly. Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental impact, but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something which is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the modern paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. Go to your local landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic equipment awaiting destruction. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 8, 10:49*am, "Dave" wrote:
"James" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that would make them any better than newer recievers. *Those both were models for the masses. Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the commonly held myth that newer is better. And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound? *What kind of features do you really need in an amplifier? *I could spend $24,000+ on a pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. *You know what "feature" sells them? *The sound. *No knobs, no effects, no digital signal processor, surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. *No. *Analog input. Speaker output. *Good sound. *Hardly for everyone, but I just want to illustrate that there is a portion of the population whose #1 requirement isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video functions into a single connected system with a single remote control. *I believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may be wrong. I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the Pioneer we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre setup. But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good build quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill perfectly. Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental impact, but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something which is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the modern paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. *Go to your local landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic equipment awaiting destruction.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 8, 11:24*am, wrote:
On May 8, 10:49*am, "Dave" wrote: "James" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message .... Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that would make them any better than newer recievers. *Those both were models for the masses. Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the commonly held myth that newer is better. And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound? *What kind of features do you really need in an amplifier? *I could spend $24,000+ on a pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. *You know what "feature" sells them? *The sound. *No knobs, no effects, no digital signal processor, surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. *No. *Analog input.. Speaker output. *Good sound. *Hardly for everyone, but I just want to illustrate that there is a portion of the population whose #1 requirement isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video functions into a single connected system with a single remote control. *I believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may be wrong. I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the Pioneer we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre setup. But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good build quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill perfectly.. Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental impact, but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something which is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the modern paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. *Go to your local landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic equipment awaiting destruction.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. *Just basics. *Nothing wrong with those receivers. *If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. *But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. *Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. *But it's not the 750/780s. *And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. Just reproduce the signal. I think most would agree that the speakers are the biggest factor in sound anyway. Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or "color" to the music. If they do then something is wrong with them. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
wrote in message ... I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. Just reproduce the signal. I think most would agree that the speakers are the biggest factor in sound anyway. Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or "color" to the music. If they do then something is wrong with them. Absolutely agree on all counts as far as sound quality goes. Any solid state amp over about $80 will sound decent, low distortion, no sound "coloration". Lots of people post asking about which amp they should buy to improve the sound of their system and my advice is always speakers speakers speakers. I never said that older is better in terms of sound... I simply sought to take issue with the poster who implied that modern "topologies" produced sound differing in any way from sound out of a 1978 Pioneer. They don't. As far as "warmth" goes, people with tube amps seem to like that particular type of distortion and often complain about amps which sound "sterile". Me, I don't have speakers (or perhaps ears?) good enough to notice the difference for the most part. I am not a fan of STK-based amps either, they went into low-fi stuff. Dave |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
wrote in message ... On May 8, 11:24 am, wrote: On May 8, 10:49 am, "Dave" wrote: "James" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Dave: BRAVO. I could not possibly have said it any better. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so to speak. Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that would make them any better than newer recievers. Those both were models for the masses. Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the commonly held myth that newer is better. And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound? What kind of features do you really need in an amplifier? I could spend $24,000+ on a pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. You know what "feature" sells them? The sound. No knobs, no effects, no digital signal processor, surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. No. Analog input. Speaker output. Good sound. Hardly for everyone, but I just want to illustrate that there is a portion of the population whose #1 requirement isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video functions into a single connected system with a single remote control. I believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may be wrong. I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the Pioneer we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre setup. But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good build quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill perfectly. Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental impact, but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something which is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the modern paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. Go to your local landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic equipment awaiting destruction.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. Just reproduce the signal. I think most would agree that the speakers are the biggest factor in sound anyway. Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or "color" to the music. If they do then something is wrong with them. Indeed, and any amplifier that performs to modern standards will sound indistinguishable from any other provided that the load is within design parameters. Which brings me to the question as to why a Mark Levinson pair at $24K would be any better than, say, a Behringer at a few hundred $. I can accept that the ML looks more impressive, it could well be "better made" which means it will last longer, and has the cache of being expensive and therefore exclusive. However, will it sound any better? I would expect not. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
In article GnFUj.1119$Yp.752@edtnps92, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message ... I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. Just reproduce the signal. I think most would agree that the speakers are the biggest factor in sound anyway. Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or "color" to the music. If they do then something is wrong with them. Absolutely agree on all counts as far as sound quality goes. Any solid state amp over about $80 will sound decent, low distortion, no sound "coloration". Lots of people post asking about which amp they should buy to improve the sound of their system and my advice is always speakers speakers speakers. I never said that older is better in terms of sound... I simply sought to take issue with the poster who implied that modern "topologies" produced sound differing in any way from sound out of a 1978 Pioneer. They don't. As far as "warmth" goes, people with tube amps seem to like that particular type of distortion and often complain about amps which sound "sterile". Me, I don't have speakers (or perhaps ears?) good enough to notice the difference for the most part. I am not a fan of STK-based amps either, they went into low-fi stuff. There was plenty of equipment that used them. greg |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 8, 12:35*pm, (GregS) wrote:
In article GnFUj.1119$Yp.752@edtnps92, "Dave" wrote: wrote in message ... I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either. Just basics. Nothing wrong with those receivers. If you have one and it still does what you need that's fine. But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today. Pioneer, marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs. But it's not the 750/780s. And it's not anything with the stks in it. Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound. *Just reproduce the signal. *I think most would agree that the speakers are the biggest factor in sound anyway. *Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or "color" to the music. *If they do then something is wrong with them. Absolutely agree on all counts as far as sound quality goes. *Any solid state amp over about $80 will sound decent, low distortion, no sound "coloration". *Lots of people post asking about which amp they should buy to improve the sound of their system and my advice is always speakers speakers speakers. I never said that older is better in terms of sound... I simply sought to take issue with the poster who implied that modern "topologies" produced sound differing in any way from sound out of a 1978 Pioneer. *They don't. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
|
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
wrote in message ... wrote: : But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, : under $200 stereo receiver made today. But wouldn't it sound better than something he could likely get for free today?  Hmmm... hadn't considered that one... or... what if he got it free but it was broken, and he had his friend fix it for a case of beer? |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message . .. "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "EADGBE" wrote in message ... For a few months now, I have been using a vintage Pioneer SX-780 receiver in pristine condition. I have really enjoyed using this receiver and really like its excellent, warm sound for both analog and digital sources. But now fate has smiled upon me and I have just discovered a vintage Pioneer SX-750, also in pristine condition. I will keep one of these receivers and sell the other one. But my question is: Which one should I keep? **Neither. A a lot of people are paying ridiculous prices for these old clunkers. Sell them both and buy a modern amp. I thought I would ask some of you kind people, since it is very possible that you know some details about these receivers, technical or otherwise, that I might not know. I understand that the power amplifier section is slightly different between the two models. What is the difference? Does the difference matter, either in sound quality or longevity? **Nothing of consequence. Both will require replacement of most (all) electrolytica caps. Any OP amps used will be extremely primitive and topology will not be anything great. I must admit that I haven't listened extensively to either one of these receivers, and I certainly haven't made a "head-to-head" comparison, but I will say that they both look and sound fantastic. Which one would you keep and why? **Neither. Trevor Wilson We've had this discussion before - but there is no reason that most vintage solid-state equipment cannot run and sound fine almost indefinitely, **Nonsense. Electros wear out. Switches and pots, ditto. provided mechanical controls and switches etc are clean and functioning properly, and there could be maintenance issues such as needing to resolder regulators (these Pioneer models were famous for this). The tuner sections were better than most modern models, **Nonsense. I recently acquired a 5 year old Denon tuner. The sound quality is nothing short of astonishing. FAR better than my beloved Yamaha T7. It is even better than the highly regarded Yamaha T2. Even better, the tuner does not drift. Old Pioneers will often do so. and the audio performance is generally fine. **ASUMING the switches, pots and electros have been replaced - yes. Also, assuming you are only using 8 Ohm speakers. Those old Pioneers were hopeless at driving anything other than a resistive 8 Ohm load. They wouldn't beat a top-of-the-line modern separate power amp, but that's an apples vs. oranges comparison. **Agreed. In the specific case of the SX-750 or SX-780, there is little to choose between them. The 780 was simply the next model year that's all. They both use STK0050 output devices, and personally I favor discrete output transistors. The 0050's were so common however, one should still be able to get one should you need it. **Yep. They're both over-rated and over-priced. Sell them and buy something decent. Trevor Wilson |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff" and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might be very surprised at what you hear. **In my business, I get to listen to old equipment very regularly. Make no mistake: A great deal of new equipment is crap. No doubt about it. However, there are a raft of old models which were and still are crap. NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an iPod. UGH. **And old is not always better. Trevor Wilson |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message
... a écrit : wrote: : But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, : under $200 stereo receiver made today. But wouldn't it sound better than something he could likely get for free today? I cannot agree with JamesGangNC. Those 2 receiver WILL be better than any basic under $200 stereo receiver made today. Why? 1- Power Supply. Today receiver use very low current PS compare with pre-1985 stéreo equipment. Can you explain how can a receiver like the Pioneer VSX-518-K that give you "120w X 5 channel" but consume only 280watts while the SX-780 give you 45W X 2 and consume 150Watts. 2- Power Rating. Today receiver are almost always rated at 100w/channel with no indication about from what HZ to what KHz at at what % of THD. Pre-1985 receivers always tell the TRUE wattage. 3- THD- Today basic receivers are rated at between 0.2% and 0.9% THD with no indication about at what power while pre-1985 receivers where almost all below 0.07% AT FULL POWER. 4- IM Distortion. On today receivers Specs, you will find no mention of the IM Distortion. 5- DURABILITY- In 10 years you will still listen to the SX-750 or SX-790 while your brand new receiver would have died after 4-5 years of regular use. I have compare a Pioneer a Pioneer SX-A6-J that sell at 800$ with my Luxman L-550. A neigbour have bought this "high-end" receiver after he saw praise in a Hi-Fi magazine. He knew that I have a good system so after a few days of listening to his Pioneer he askes if he could bring it at my place to listen with it in my audio room. I connected my speaer to it. He then listen to it and wanted to compare with the Luxman. I adjust the loudness of the Luxman to the same level with test tone and a Sound Level Meter.The result? He sent back his Pioneer and he bought a Luxman L-430. You know why? The quality of the sound. With the Luxman you get Depth, Purity, precise Imaging amd Dynamics everithing that was missing with the Pioneer. Oh by the way he got the Luxman L-430 for less than 120$ with shipping. So he save around 680% and he end up with a much better amp. By the way try to find spec about the Pioneer SX-A6-J. The only thing the mentionned is 60WX2 that's all. Where is the % of THD ? This power is between 20hz and 20Khz or is it at 1000hz? Is it at 0.005% THD like the Luxman or at 0.9% THD? Is the rated power at 8 Ohms or 4 Ohms? The Luxman L-550 give 50W X2 at 8 Ohms and 110W X2 at 4 Ohms. The Luxman net weight is 40lbs, while the Pioneer SX-A6-J "Shipping" weight is 27Lbs. The Luxman consume 310 watts and If I remember correctly the SX-A6-J only 160 watts. How come? this is 2008 stuff it is supposed to be "Better". So EADGBE Keep any of the 2 they will outlast any today's basic crap that retail for 500$ (and less) and it will be Better WAY Better. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major You need to learn more about the stk based amps. And I was not comparing it to low end surround sound systems. Many of which use switching power supplies and class d amps. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Trevor Wilson a écrit :
"EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. I suggest you try to see past your obvious bias against "old stuff" and listen--REALLY listen--to a wide variety of "old" gear. You might be very surprised at what you hear. Totally Agree! **In my business, I get to listen to old equipment very regularly. Make no mistake: A great deal of new equipment is crap. No doubt about it. However, there are a raft of old models which were and still are crap. NEWER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER. For proof of that, just listen to an iPod. UGH. **And old is not always better. Trevor Wilson |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
James a écrit :
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... a écrit : wrote: : But I did mean to say that they are not any better than a basic, : under $200 stereo receiver made today. But wouldn't it sound better than something he could likely get for free today? I cannot agree with JamesGangNC. Those 2 receiver WILL be better than any basic under $200 stereo receiver made today. Why? 1- Power Supply. Today receiver use very low current PS compare with pre-1985 stéreo equipment. Can you explain how can a receiver like the Pioneer VSX-518-K that give you "120w X 5 channel" but consume only 280watts while the SX-780 give you 45W X 2 and consume 150Watts. 2- Power Rating. Today receiver are almost always rated at 100w/channel with no indication about from what HZ to what KHz at at what % of THD. Pre-1985 receivers always tell the TRUE wattage. 3- THD- Today basic receivers are rated at between 0.2% and 0.9% THD with no indication about at what power while pre-1985 receivers where almost all below 0.07% AT FULL POWER. 4- IM Distortion. On today receivers Specs, you will find no mention of the IM Distortion. 5- DURABILITY- In 10 years you will still listen to the SX-750 or SX-790 while your brand new receiver would have died after 4-5 years of regular use. I have compare a Pioneer a Pioneer SX-A6-J that sell at 800$ with my Luxman L-550. A neigbour have bought this "high-end" receiver after he saw praise in a Hi-Fi magazine. He knew that I have a good system so after a few days of listening to his Pioneer he askes if he could bring it at my place to listen with it in my audio room. I connected my speaer to it. He then listen to it and wanted to compare with the Luxman. I adjust the loudness of the Luxman to the same level with test tone and a Sound Level Meter.The result? He sent back his Pioneer and he bought a Luxman L-430. You know why? The quality of the sound. With the Luxman you get Depth, Purity, precise Imaging amd Dynamics everithing that was missing with the Pioneer. Oh by the way he got the Luxman L-430 for less than 120$ with shipping. So he save around 680% and he end up with a much better amp. By the way try to find spec about the Pioneer SX-A6-J. The only thing the mentionned is 60WX2 that's all. Where is the % of THD ? This power is between 20hz and 20Khz or is it at 1000hz? Is it at 0.005% THD like the Luxman or at 0.9% THD? Is the rated power at 8 Ohms or 4 Ohms? The Luxman L-550 give 50W X2 at 8 Ohms and 110W X2 at 4 Ohms. The Luxman net weight is 40lbs, while the Pioneer SX-A6-J "Shipping" weight is 27Lbs. The Luxman consume 310 watts and If I remember correctly the SX-A6-J only 160 watts. How come? this is 2008 stuff it is supposed to be "Better". So EADGBE Keep any of the 2 they will outlast any today's basic crap that retail for 500$ (and less) and it will be Better WAY Better. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major You need to learn more about the stk based amps. And I was not comparing it to low end surround sound systems. Many of which use switching power supplies and class d amps. Yes but for the price of one of those low end surround receiver you can get a great pre-1985 amp that will have a real power supply with real spec. Would you say that the Pioneer SX-A6-J is a "low" end at a retail of 800$? At that price I can get an incredible piece of Vintage Amp/Preamp/(Cd Player or Turntable). Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Trevor Wilson a écrit :
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100 then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. I gave the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do. And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message
news  James a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... a écrit : You need to learn more about the stk based amps. And I was not comparing it to low end surround sound systems. Many of which use switching power supplies and class d amps. Yes but for the price of one of those low end surround receiver you can get a great pre-1985 amp that will have a real power supply with real spec. Would you say that the Pioneer SX-A6-J is a "low" end at a retail of 800$? At that price I can get an incredible piece of Vintage Amp/Preamp/(Cd Player or Turntable). Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major You're right, you can get some of the high end vintage gear for $800. But that pioneer sx-a6-j is available all day new for under $500. It is a class ab amp and the specifications are in the users manual. Would I buy one? Not likely. It seems a bit over priced. But it is xm radio capable and has an ir remote. Two things that some people might consider a requirement. And it is going to be covered by a warranty. Buying older gear is not without drawbacks. Often the power supply caps need replacing. I'd go so far as to suggest that if you took 10 random vintage items off ebay you would find that none of them were performing to the original specifications in a bench test. A lot of people want to take it out of the box and not worry about those sorts of things. And some people want surround sound. As to the power supplies, switching power supplies are not technically inferior to the old style power supplies. Both can be built to deliver the appropriate level of power as needed by the equipment. Any piece of modern equipment with a switching power supply is going to be a whole lot lighter that the traditional power supply because it does not need that big transformer. Your computer has one. It's probably rated at 500 watts. It really can deliver that much power even though it weighs next to nothing. To get 500 watts via a a 60hz transformer would take a huge transformer that weighed a ton. None of which is my original point. What I said was those pioneers and other old gear using the stk amps were not particularly memorable. The specs you want to quote have nothing to do with pioneer. Pioneer didn't make the amps, they took them off the shelf and soldered them in. And those units are worth about $100 apiece at best on flea-bay. And that is mostly because they are pioneer, not because their specifications are particularly better than comparable gear for the same era. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100 then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 years, no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced every electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned, I have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco and the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things. I gave the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do. **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well as crap. And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment. **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Trevor Wilson |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I'd agree completely about the over priced comment. The prices of a lot of used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. A lot of it is nostolgia, not technical superiority. But I'd disagree some on the comparison of design. Class ab amps have not changed designs all that much. State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have excellent specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. Power supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them more economical to manufacture and ship rather than technically superior. Much of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps. No one can afford to ship a 50lb unit in volume any more. Making more efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again that doesn't result in better sound. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
James a écrit :
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message news James a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... a écrit : You need to learn more about the stk based amps. And I was not comparing it to low end surround sound systems. Many of which use switching power supplies and class d amps. Yes but for the price of one of those low end surround receiver you can get a great pre-1985 amp that will have a real power supply with real spec. Would you say that the Pioneer SX-A6-J is a "low" end at a retail of 800$? At that price I can get an incredible piece of Vintage Amp/Preamp/(Cd Player or Turntable). Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major You're right, you can get some of the high end vintage gear for $800. But that pioneer sx-a6-j is available all day new for under $500. It is a class ab amp and the specifications are in the users manual. Would I buy one? Not likely. It seems a bit over priced. But it is xm radio capable and has an ir remote. Two things that some people might consider a requirement. And it is going to be covered by a warranty. Buying older gear is not without drawbacks. Often the power supply caps need replacing. I'd go so far as to suggest that if you took 10 random vintage items off ebay you would find that none of them were performing to the original specifications in a bench test. A lot of people want to take it out of the box and not worry about those sorts of things. And some people want surround sound. As to the power supplies, switching power supplies are not technically inferior to the old style power supplies. Both can be built to deliver the appropriate level of power as needed by the equipment. Any piece of modern equipment with a switching power supply is going to be a whole lot lighter that the traditional power supply because it does not need that big transformer. Your computer has one. It's probably rated at 500 watts. It really can deliver that much power even though it weighs next to nothing. To get 500 watts via a a 60hz transformer would take a huge transformer that weighed a ton. None of which is my original point. What I said was those pioneers and other old gear using the stk amps were not particularly memorable. The specs you want to quote have nothing to do with pioneer. Pioneer didn't make the amps, they took them off the shelf and soldered them in. And those units are worth about $100 apiece at best on flea-bay. And that is mostly because they are pioneer, not because their specifications are particularly better than comparable gear for the same era. You're also right about the Pioneer SX-A6-J, my neighbour pay full price for this receiver and I found out that now you could even get it for 400$. As for the Power Supply cap need replacing I faced this my Dynaco St-400 and my Quad 405. It was an easy job replacing the caps on each amp. I know that for lot of people this is to much trouble. But for me and several other at the french Vintage Forum http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/VideoSo...et_67751_1.htm I also know that some (mainly the High Power gears) Pioneer are overpriced on Ebay and Audiogone except that you can find other brands that are simply excellent for a very reasonable price. Also several piece of vintage equipment that are being sold have been serviced by technician prior to the sale. Also one reason to buy vintage is Reliability. Lot of today's stuff come with a 90 days warranty. Why? As I wrote in a post before, I work as a Senior Salesman in a Hi-Fi Chain and lot of the receivers stop working properly after less that 2 years of use. I have seen Pioneer, Sony, JVC receivers that where dead after 6 month. Concerning the Power Supply could you explain why the High End Amps and Reveivers sold today are still Using High Current Power Supply instead of switching one? The answer is simple Power reserve.Try listening to Mussorsky Night on Bald Montain CD with one of today high-end Reveiver then listen to it again with a receiver that use a switching PS. Just do the test: Go to any serious HI-FI store with this CD and ask the salesman if you can listen to it with say an Onkyo, Denon, Harman/Kardon,Rotel or even a High-End Pioneer and next try it with a regular Pioneer, JVC, or Sony and you will understand that these basic receivers will never reproduce this CD without puting tremendous amount of distortion because to go into clipping or even going in protect mode. Several of these basic receiver that have a switching PS are rated at say 100w per channel but with only ONE channle driven. Take for example the JVC RX-5060X 5 channel surround receiver. It is rated at 100w per channel at 10% (Yes 10%) THD. But the real RMS power is 20w/channel all channel driven and still at 10% distortion. If we reduce that THD to say 1% the RMS power drop to around 10W/Channel. The Sony STR-DG520 does a bit better job giving you 20w/channel at 1% THD. The Pioneer VSX-518-K give us a huge 24W/channel at 1% THD. Sorry but for the price of one of these basic Receivers I will instead go to a vintage one that will give me REAL RMS Power like 80W/Channel Both channel driven at 0.05% THD. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"James" wrote in message m... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I'd agree completely about the over priced comment. The prices of a lot of used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. A lot of it is nostolgia, not technical superiority. But I'd disagree some on the comparison of design. Class ab amps have not changed designs all that much. **Actually, they've changed quite a bit. Well, perhaps not the power amps. Tuners, in particular, have improved in leaps and bounds. A bane of my life, has been servicing old analogue tuners that drift. Digital tuners don't drift. Some old 1970s stuff used LM741 class OP amps in preamp stages. Shocking performance. Modern OP amps are far superior. More importantly, howeer, has been the superior current ability of quality modern products, compared to 1970s receivers. State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have excellent specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. **Assuming, of course, that every electrolytic cap has been changed. Power supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them more economical to manufacture and ship rather than technically superior. Much of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps. No one can afford to ship a 50lb unit in volume any more. Making more efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again that doesn't result in better sound. **Not with linear power supplies. The laws of physics hasn't altered since the 1970s. Trevor Wilson |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Trevor Wilson" writes:
[...] **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Hi Trevor, I get excited when someone like you comes available to educate me. I hope you won't mind sharing your knowledge and experience. Whether old or new, please tell me which amps would be your picks in the ~50 to ~200 watt range, whether old or new. The amplifier itself, and to a lesser extent, the premp, are what's important to me (rather than tuner performance, video switching, etc.). Also, what class A amp (new or old) would you recommend? -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Trevor Wilson a écrit :
"Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100 then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 years, no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced every electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned, I have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco and the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things. I gave the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do. **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well as crap. And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment. **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Trevor Wilson If a good vintage amp of receiver have been well taken care it can (and probably will give you years of pleasure. On the other hand if it was not then it will have to be serviced and sometime it is not worth the money (and the time involved). I have seen people that have bought H/K, Rotel and Nad that where totally scrapped by the previous owner. I have also see Luxman, Quad, Radford, and H/K stuff that where in pristine condition. As for my Radford I have it check by one guy at our service dept that is a Radford Nuts and all the spec where still on the spot. One thing that I did'nt care before that we see on new stuff is a Remote control. I did'nt care before but when I broke my ankle this winter you bet I was craving for one (and I still do today after 3 month);-). As for the Quality of today receivers, yes you can get decent and even great quality modern equipment but not below 400$. I never get any return on High-End Receivers It is always with the one that cost less than 400$. This is not Utter nonsense as you said. Do you remember that some people recommend this poster to buy a 200$ basic receiver. What I wanted to said is that you're better to spend that 200$ on a good vintage amp or receiver than on a 200$ crappy basic receiver. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 9, 10:32*am, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "James" wrote in message m... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message . .. Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message .... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. *I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. *You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. * If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. *If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. *YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about.. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I'd agree completely about the over priced comment. *The prices of a lot of used "vintage" equipment is more than they are actually worth. *A lot of it is nostolgia, not technical superiority. *But I'd disagree some on the comparison of design. *Class ab amps have not changed designs all that much. **Actually, they've changed quite a bit. Well, perhaps not the power amps. Tuners, in particular, have improved in leaps and bounds. A bane of my life, has been servicing old analogue tuners that drift. Digital tuners don't drift. Some old 1970s stuff used LM741 class OP amps in preamp stages. Shocking performance. Modern OP amps are far superior. More importantly, howeer, has been the superior current ability of quality modern products, compared to 1970s receivers. State of the art class ab amps from the 70s in good condition have excellent specifications and that really has not been improved on much. And those specifications are well better than any human detectable levels. **Assuming, of course, that every electrolytic cap has been changed. * Power supply designs have changed but more of that is related to making them more economical to manufacture and ship rather than technically superior.. Much of the weight in old high end gear is the power transformer and big caps. No one can afford to ship a 50lb unit in volume any more. *Making more efficient use of power has improved a great deal over the 70s but again that doesn't result in better sound. **Not with linear power supplies. The laws of physics hasn't altered since the 1970s. Trevor Wilson- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Agreed on the tuners. But fm is not exactly the preferred signal source any more so the quality of the fm tuner is not on my list of critical elements. I'll bet it's been 6 months since I had an fm station on at home. Not sure what your point is with the power supply comment? I'm not trying to argue with the laws of physics. Either can be designed to provide adequate power for the requirement. A good linear one will be pretty heavy. A switched one can provide a lot of power with way less space and weight. If the point you are making is that new equipment will have a whole lot less power overhead then you'll get no argument out of me. But again, that's not on my list of priorities. Yes, my amps are disipating enough power to light up a bunch of 75 watt bulbs while operating, I know it, I don't care. |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
On May 9, 10:35*am, Major Jocelyn wrote:
Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message . .. Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message .. . Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message .... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. *I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. *You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. * If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. *If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. *YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
a écrit :
On May 9, 10:35 am, Major Jocelyn wrote: Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "Major Jocelyn" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson a écrit : "EADGBE" wrote in message ... Thanks for taking the time to reply, but I have to say that you seem to be too biased against "old stuff" to really be able to give me a thoughtful answer. **Incorrect. I am merely providing a thoughtful, concise answer. I am intimately familiar with old equipment. I'm not trying to insult you, but it does seem to me that you are one of those who thinks that "old = bad" and "new = good". **Nonsense. I am one of those who thinks that old, crappy = bad. Old, good = good.. New, crappy = bad. New, good = good. You said it yourself - people are paying big bucks for vintage gear like this. You have to ask yourself: WHY are they doing it? **They're deluded. Totally Wrong! You can get awesome piece of vintage equipment for the price you will pay for new crappy stuff. **Wrong. You MIGHT get a piece of adequately functioning equipment. Or not. You might end up with a piece of junk wich requires vast sums to be spent, in order to bring it up to a reasonable level of performance. If there is one area where people are very picky about getting what they paid for, it is in the area of home audio. If there wasn't such a demand for certain pieces of vintage gear, the prices wouldn't be as high as they are. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR more often than not! **Nope. More often that not, you get crap, at high prices. I see that you really but really don't know what you are talking about. **Really? Let me outline _my_ experience for you: * 1974-1979 - Service manager for Marantz Australia. * 1979 - Now - Service tech for my own business. I've serviced thousands of different products, including many Pioneers. Unlike you, I KNOW exactly what is wrong with 1970s vinage equipment. The old Pioneers are better than some and worse than others, in both design and construction. In all cases, they cannot come close to modern, PROPERLY designed equipment, in performance on a Dollar for Dollar basis. Second hand prices are, of course, difficult to assess. I can tell you, however, that 1970s equipment tends to be over-priced. Now: Tell me about YOUR experience. How many old Pioneers have you serviced? Trevor Wilson I have own several Pioneer receivers and amp (starting with the SX-626,going to the SX-939 then the SA-9900) followed by Kenwood KA-9100 then Sansui CA-3000 Preamp with Dynaco ST-400 power Amp followed by Radford SC-242 Preamp and Quad 405 Power Amp and Finally since 1990 the Luxman L-550. All these component are still working perfectly. **You don't know that. You're guessing. I promise you this: After 30 years, no amplifier will meet it's published specs, unless you've replaced every electrolytic cap in the product. Of the specific products you mentioned, I have a great deal of experience with the Luxman, the Quad, the Dynaco and the Pioneers. ALL suffer from dried out electros. Amongst other things. I gave the CA-3000/Dynaco ST-400 to a kid (22 years old is a kid for me) a couple weeks ago. I admit that I had to replace some capacitor on the Quad and the Dynaco + cleaning of the other one but as I said they all work perfectly. As for my Experience, I work as a senior salesmen in a Hi-Fi chain so I know by the quatity of receivers that stop working after being in use for less than 2 years that today's stuff do not have the quality of construction and design that the vintage stuff do. **Utter nonsense. You can buy decent quality modern equipment, as well as crap. And unlike you I do not make a living servicing NEw equipment. **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Trevor Wilson If a good vintage amp of receiver have been well taken care it can (and probably will give you years of pleasure. On the other hand if it was not then it will have to be serviced and sometime it is not worth the money (and the time involved). I have seen people that have bought H/K, Rotel and Nad that where totally scrapped by the previous owner. I have also see Luxman, Quad, Radford, and H/K stuff that where in pristine condition. As for my Radford I have it check by one guy at our service dept that is a Radford Nuts and all the spec where still on the spot. One thing that I did'nt care before that we see on new stuff is a Remote control. I did'nt care before but when I broke my ankle this winter you bet I was craving for one (and I still do today after 3 month);-). As for the Quality of today receivers, yes you can get decent and even great quality modern equipment but not below 400$. I never get any return on High-End Receivers It is always with the one that cost less than 400$. This is not Utter nonsense as you said. Do you remember that some people recommend this poster to buy a 200$ basic receiver. What I wanted to said is that you're better to spend that 200$ on a good vintage amp or receiver than on a 200$ crappy basic receiver. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What I said was that those particular pioneers were not any better than a new $200 stereo. Not that you could not get a better deal by buying used equipment. Those particular pioneers can be had for under $100. Could you get a better used amp for $200 than you could a new one? Sure, as long as used is ok with you. That's not true for everyone though. I agree with you! Vintage is not for everyone. Some people just want new stuff because there is a warranty. Other honestly believe that new is better than old, other believe the other way. I have find few new equipment that where as good as my Luxman L-550 except they all cost over 1800$. Jocelyn Proud Son of Leo Major, DCM & Bar To know why I am proud go thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
Trevor, no recommendations?
--Randy Randy Yates writes: "Trevor Wilson" writes: [...] **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Hi Trevor, I get excited when someone like you comes available to educate me. I hope you won't mind sharing your knowledge and experience. Whether old or new, please tell me which amps would be your picks in the ~50 to ~200 watt range, whether old or new. The amplifier itself, and to a lesser extent, the premp, are what's important to me (rather than tuner performance, video switching, etc.). Also, what class A amp (new or old) would you recommend? -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com -- % Randy Yates % "Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % you still wander the fields of your %%% 919-577-9882 % sorrow." %%%% % '21st Century Man', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
|
PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" writes: [...] **I make a living servicing new and old equipment. The old stuff is nothing special. A lot of the new stuff is nothing special. Hi Trevor, I get excited when someone like you comes available to educate me. I hope you won't mind sharing your knowledge and experience. Whether old or new, please tell me which amps would be your picks in the ~50 to ~200 watt range, whether old or new. The amplifier itself, and to a lesser extent, the premp, are what's important to me (rather than tuner performance, video switching, etc.). Also, what class A amp (new or old) would you recommend? **First off: I would not recommend any Class A amps. For several reasons: * According to Doug Self, Class A is not the right approach for high fidelity. * Very few amplifiers which are purported to be Class A, are, in fact, Class A. More usually, they're highly biased Class A/B designs. Nothing wrong with that, but manufacturers who mislead should be shunned. Musical Fidelity is a regular offender in this area. * A modestly biased Class A/B amplifier seems to work best, both in terms of longevity, reliability, efficiency and sound quality. As for amplifiers I'd suggest, that would depend on your location, your budget and intended load. Sorry I did not respond earlier. My PC crashed and I lost whatever posts I had ready to send. Trevor Wilson |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep? | General | |||
| FA: Pioneer SX-780 Toggle Switch Knobs Fit Some Pioneer SX- Receivers - LAST DAY | Marketplace | |||
| Do all receivers hum? Pioneer VSX405 | General | |||
| FS: RECEIVERS (Sansui, Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics etc.) | Marketplace | |||
| FS: RECEIVERS (Sansui, Pioneer, Kenwood, Technics etc.) | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
