z-adamson
Addicted Member
I could be wrong, but I don't buy that separates spelled the end of the monster receiver. I see the advantage to them. I have a Toshiba sc660 system and hk7 separate system. I have receivers too.
Why did the receiver war of the 70s end?
- Thread starter z-adamson
- Start date
Early home video was very cool, remember those heavy "Made in Japan" video tapes, and the format war between Beta and VHS?.. it's easy to underestimate how culturally significant it was to be able to actually choose what you want to watch at home instead of be at the mercy of what's on TV or what's playing at the theatre. It's also obvious why consumer electronics shifted focus from audio to AV.
MONEY
The yen got weak against the dollar. It became not profitable and production stopped.
Other factors in play but at the root it was profits (or lack thereof)
The yen got weak against the dollar. It became not profitable and production stopped.
Other factors in play but at the root it was profits (or lack thereof)
The thing is, powerful receivers never actually went away. There have always been receivers that had good power per channel, 20hz-20khz, at <0.1% THD. Perhaps the question that should be asked is, what exactly is your specific threshold for something to be considered a monster receiver?
I just picked up a used Pioneer Elite VSX-74TXVi receiver last year. Stereo power is 140W x 2 (20HZ - 20kHZ @ 8 ohm, 0.09% THD). I'd put that up against something like a SX-1080 any day.
The Sony walkman, boom boxes, compact stereos. Consumers began replacing big stereos with big tv's, and early sound integration between the two was sketchy.
Demand went elsewhere, and Japan's economy raced to keep up.
Demand went elsewhere, and Japan's economy raced to keep up.
Maybe it happened that by the 80s most people who wanted one of those things had one. The big Baby Boomer bulge was passing and those who just wanted a cool stereo but weren't audiophiles were set. Those who wanted to progress in the hobby went from receivers to seperates.
Last edited:
Among audio manufacturers who made both - receivers and separates, have always put the best they had to offer into separates. Receivers simply do not appeal to the high end crowd who many of whom no longer listen to FM anyway, limiting the market all the more.
Some high end systems need 500+ watt amplifiers into 2 ohm loads. No receiver ever made can do that and for all practical purposes, nobody would ever buy one even if one were made that could.
As mentioned previously, the market for high fidelity equipment is very different than what had existed 40 years ago when a large stereo system had been commonplace; today the market for dedicated two channel equipment has become specialized with a much smaller following resulting in less equipment choices than what had once been, but there's still plenty of good two channel equipment being made today.
FM radio not being nearly as popular a medium as it one had been means the traditional receiver's days are probably numbered - of the few that are still being manufactured.
Last edited:
Moby Dick
Active Member
The fact there was a shift in the market towards newer emerging technology definitely explains a lot.
However,
It is amazing how literally overnight, (e.g. 1980) the luxury top dollar receivers went the way of the dinosaurs.
Now we're getting into personal tastes. I have owned lots of Pioneer amps over the years, from their TOTL to their more modest offerings, and liked very few. To me they were very "hard" sounding, great for certain kinds of music, unpleasant for others. I always sold or gave them away. Apparently you like that sound — it's absurd to argue about personal taste — forgive my pedantry but they knew this in ancient Rome: De gustibus non disputandum.
I've had receivers from many other brands which I preferred — and a receiver is my ideal component: everything in one neat package with minimum cabling, minimum fuss, taking up minimum space. But I've never heard any receiver I could be happy with long term, not after hearing some integrateds, and some separates which are far superior — and not more expensive if shopping wisely.
I admit I misunderstood your initial question; I thought you were talking about "monster" receivers from that decade. The receiver "wars" are still going on, in the sense that the vast majority of people use receivers — not separates, not integrateds. And since most of today's receivers are for Home Theater, I totally agree with you: the ones I've heard suck when it comes to Music.
Killer Fox
Super Member
Disco. Disco killed it.
jblnut
Don't Overthink It
I don't think the war ended in the 80's - it was just a temporary truce that ended (with a bang) when HT took off in the early 90's. Some of those monster Prologic receivers are truly amazing beasts. I know because I have a few of my own. What they lack in the tuner section or phono, they make up in the amp section(s). Some have decent surround sound programs and real-hall emulation modes. And they have remotes.
jblnut
jblnut
I've heard (and owned) modern affordable 10 to 45wpc integrated amps that I think sound better than any of that 1970s Japanese stuff. And I owned several Japanese surround receivers of which a Sony and Denon had pretty good sound. A Yamaha I had was kind'a harsh though.
Last edited:
I agree (except for the 1080 selling like hotcakes). I have a SX 680, a Sony STR 5800 a Sansui 881 a Kenwood KR 4600 and even a Realistic STA 85. The tonnage model in any product line is never the top of the line, never. The item that sells the most units is usually the item with the most features for a reasonable price point. In the late 70s $750 was a lot of money (about $2900 today) for a receiver and they simply did not sell in large numbers. The 780 sold for around $350-399 and so sold a lot better. It had more than enough power for most people and was a lot more affordable than the 1080.
ferninando
Lunatic Member
nearly everything went to black plastic with sq flat button/switches, digital, micro proseesor controled, no knobs/dials,
lcd displays and tiny white lettering just barely
readable if at all. Not repairable/ throw away/but a new one a terrible state of affairss IMO.
All the big guns of the 60s thru 70s were gone, sold off , remained in name only but not in quality.
A conglomeration of companys owned by 1 making lookalikes of everything just with different
names.
glad much of the early yrs survvied scrap so we can have it today.
I bought all my stuff in the early 70s so could the sit back and enjoy for many yrs.
I bought zero audio products after 80.
that changed 10 or so yrs ago and started getting ''vintage'' stuff i didnt buy when new.
Its been alotsa fun.
lcd displays and tiny white lettering just barely
readable if at all. Not repairable/ throw away/but a new one a terrible state of affairss IMO.
All the big guns of the 60s thru 70s were gone, sold off , remained in name only but not in quality.
A conglomeration of companys owned by 1 making lookalikes of everything just with different
names.
glad much of the early yrs survvied scrap so we can have it today.
I bought all my stuff in the early 70s so could the sit back and enjoy for many yrs.
I bought zero audio products after 80.
that changed 10 or so yrs ago and started getting ''vintage'' stuff i didnt buy when new.
Its been alotsa fun.
Last edited:
The 80s were not all bad! Also a time when "high end" audio really picked up.
I suspect a lot of the "bigger is better" people became "better is better" people, and the same money as a japanese monster could buy better sounding and more flexible affordable separates by the likes of carver, adcom, hafler, rotel, luxman, etc.
I also remember a certain amount of prejudice against receivers developed, like that nobody serious about audio would own one (I know I sure never have since I had any money at all)
A receiver is like a hamburger, it's only worth buying if it's affordable... cross a certain line and a steak starts making a lot more sense.
I suspect a lot of the "bigger is better" people became "better is better" people, and the same money as a japanese monster could buy better sounding and more flexible affordable separates by the likes of carver, adcom, hafler, rotel, luxman, etc.
I also remember a certain amount of prejudice against receivers developed, like that nobody serious about audio would own one (I know I sure never have since I had any money at all)
A receiver is like a hamburger, it's only worth buying if it's affordable... cross a certain line and a steak starts making a lot more sense.
Uncle Paul
Super Member
Also there were other things that competed for our entertainment dollars:
Color TV and cable as you mentioned
Then came video games
Then came 35mm SLR's
Then came VCR's
Then came the first consumer computers
Then came cell phones
Etc.
Audio manufacturers responded at first by competing BIG, then scaled down to BPC to cut costs, then further to the one piece "rack" systems.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Fashion changes. To keep up with the Joneses, it was no longer the height of fashion to have the latest silverface receiver in the den or livingroom. Instead, you now had to own a VCR and a home computer. Later, the requisite status item would be a home theatre setup. Now it's a 4K TV and accessories.
Similar threads
