SX-3900 vs SX-1980

[jozeppy26]

Everyone is familiar with the Pioneer SX-1980 beastly stereo receiver. I get what’s special about it to a very limited extend: the insane 270 wpc, the 3 speaker channels, the heft and size, and the beauty of all analog. However, why doesn’t it’s successor, the SX-3900 get nearly as much love (I mean there’s a thread on here where others recommend a 1050 over the 3900)? Okay so it’s just a measly 120 wpc, it only has 2 speaker channels, it weighs a very light 44 pounds instead of 78, and it has a digital power meter instead of an all analog meter. Well it also has a much lower THD of 0.005% instead of 0.03%, higher damping factor of 60 instead of 40, identical input sensitivities, a close signal to noise ratio for phono inputs (86 for the 3900 vs 87 for the 1980) and higher ratio for line inputs (105 for the 3900 vs 100 for the 1980). They even have very similar frequency response ranges, 7Hz-80kHz on the 3900 vs 5Hz-80kHz on the 1980.

So in your opinion, why are people spending thousands (currently $4,700 on the bay) on an SX-1980 and only a few hundred on the SX-3900 when the 3900 can arguably be called a better receiver in terms of sound quality? I think if given a choice between the two, I’d choose the 1980 but only so I could sell it to buy a 3900 and have left over cash.

 

[quaddriver]

I have a 3900 in the closet and had another I sold off, one day, when all my other work is done, I will restore it properly and its a damn sight easier to do such on....they 1980 has a mystique - sort of like the aluminum 427 vette - nice to have but more trouble than its worth Im beginning to think...

 

[SaturationPt]

The 3900 is better compared to the 980 in power, makes no sense to compare a big-block C3 Corvette to a '95 Z-28 V-6.

I will however compare the 270wpc SX-1980 to the 160wpc SX-1250, ... because the SX-1250 is like the big-block with the extra torque and staying power, where the 1980 is more like a later turbo with more hp and no torque to back it up (and harder to find parts).

Many people just like the build quality, serviceability, and look of the earlier units.

 

[kvining]

I've seen a lot of broken down, under the bench, in the closet SX-3700/3800/3900s over the years, it may be because they lack the build quality of the older units.

 

[jozeppy26]

The 3900 is better compared to the 980 in power, makes no sense to compare a big-block C3 Corvette to a '95 Z-28 V-6.

I will however compare the 270wpc SX-1980 to the 160wpc SX-1250, ... because the SX-1250 is like the big-block with the extra torque and staying power, where the 1980 is more like a later turbo with more hp and no torque to back it up (and harder to find parts).

Many people just like the build quality, serviceability, and look of the earlier units.

I chose that comparison because the SX-1980 and SX-3900 we’re both the TOTL stereo receiver, with the 3900 directly replacing the 1980.

 

[jozeppy26]

I've seen a lot of broken down, under the bench, in the closet SX-3700/3800/3900s over the years, it may be because they lack the build quality of the older units.

I wonder if it’s the build quality or that they sold more of the 3900 units so they’re more common out in the wild. That would also help explain the value difference I suppose.

 

[SaturationPt]

The SX-xx80 series in many people's opinion was the first step down from the SX-xx50 series "high-water mark", but the 1980 remains very collectable due to its highest-power at 8ohm rating by a significant margin, ... the same reason a hemi-'cuda is worth significantly more than a 340 'Cuda. Also higher price, less people could afford them but everyone wanted them. If the xx50 and xx80 series didn't exist then the 3900 would be the one to own.

There was no replacement for the SX-1980, just like there was no replacement for the hemi-'cuda. The economy changed and killed the TOTL sales and Pioneer adjusted their product mix & price. Pioneer replaced the SX-980 IMO and didn't go higher in the market at that time (other than the Elite series).

Personally I'd rather have a trio of SX-1250, SX-1050, SX-1010, and maybe add an SX-950 for the price of a 1980, ... and if the SX1250 & 1980 cost the same I'd take the 1250.

 

[KingBubba]

I too would choose the 1250, but the 3900 has flouroscan, ooooooooOOOOO. I had a 3800 for years until I killed it and sent it off for zebulon to fix and use. It was one hell of a great sounding and looking receiver. I would take a 3900 anytime and be proud and happy to own it and I probably would try real had to not screw that one up. The 1980 is just in another league than the 3900 and I see no way to form a comparison.

 

[jozeppy26]

Hmmm, well I guess maybe I am focusing way too much on the harmonic distortion and damping factor. If you ignore build quality for a moment (now I realize that it is incredibly important and not something to ignore), what specification would you consider most important?

***I'd like to quickly thank everyone for tolerating my ignorance and helping me learn; it's greatly appreciated.***

 

[SaturationPt]

Vintage audio is about how you like the sound, the look, the feel. If you're concerned about specs, vintage audio is probably not for you.

Vinyl adds to the music, tubes add to the music, and many people will tell you that both sound better than a new modern system. However, a modern pair of speakers, modern amp, modern preamp, laptop and DAC, ... much better specs. MUCH. This tells me that most of us are listening to the result of the system, not the specs.

** (This comparison assumes TOTL to TOTL or equivalent updated equipment)

If I can only have one system, I'm selling everything and buying a new reference system. However if a vintage system I want an amp (or receiver) with enough power to run any hungry speakers I might stumble across, which means not only 4ohm capable but high-current (should have at least 150% of its 8ohm capacity at 4ohms, preferably 200%, which rules out all of the xx80 series).

Ultimately I want: a direct-coupled output, 2 pre-out and main-in, THD <.002%, minimum range 10Hz-40kHz, Damping factor >400, Slew rate >20V/microsecond, Phase linearity <+/- 5degrees, ...

Problem is that this could still sound like crap. Looking at THD alone, some higher THD amplifiers actually sound better than lower THD depending on whether it is even harmonics or odd (pleasant sounding vs harsh). The frequency response might be good, but how good is the waveform? The hardest part about this hobby (and why so many of us have bought many pieces) is that you can no longer walk into a store and compare, decide which pieces (and more importantly which pairings) sound the best to you with your music.

What I'm trying to say is that this forum has a lot of loyalty to specific makes and "house sound", look through the Marantz forum for example, or Pioneer. Even though both of them produced many pieces from "warm" to technical and even shrill, there are those who will claim that Marantz (anything Marantz) makes the best sounding gear, period. If that's good enough then go for it.

If it's for your listening, decide what's important to you. The flouroscan Pioneers have a great and unique look, if you like it then this is for you. I like the look of my SX-1250 (all silver face) much more than my SX-1010 (blackout glass, blue light). My son likes the 1010 and doesn't like the 1250 at all (or any of the xx80/xx50 series). I like the 1010 on my more revealing speakers, the 1250 on more laid-back speakers. My Crown sounds very technical as do the ADCOMs, and sound best on a laid-back speaker also. I love my McIntosh for the sound, but frankly I think that the big-meter Onkyo Integra series looks more powerful and purposeful. in a rack. Your 3900 is a good mid-power receiver, should be fine with reasonably efficient speakers, but I'd never pair it with hard-to-drive speakers or 4ohm speakers. It might have a lovely sound, but the wrong speakers will suck the dynamics out of it.

Look at what you want to accomplish and make your own priority list, tell us what you plan to do regarding speakers, what your listening style is, what music you listen to, and what your listening room looks like and we can make some suggestions here. Your list at the top is a great start.

 

[jozeppy26]

Vintage audio is about how you like the sound, the look, the feel. If you're concerned about specs, vintage audio is probably not for you.

Vinyl adds to the music, tubes add to the music, and many people will tell you that both sound better than a new modern system. However, a modern pair of speakers, modern amp, modern preamp, laptop and DAC, ... much better specs. MUCH. This tells me that most of us are listening to the result of the system, not the specs.

** (This comparison assumes TOTL to TOTL or equivalent updated equipment)

If I can only have one system, I'm selling everything and buying a new reference system. However if a vintage system I want an amp (or receiver) with enough power to run any hungry speakers I might stumble across, which means not only 4ohm capable but high-current (should have at least 150% of its 8ohm capacity at 4ohms, preferably 200%, which rules out all of the xx80 series).

Ultimately I want: a direct-coupled output, 2 pre-out and main-in, THD <.002%, minimum range 10Hz-40kHz, Damping factor >400, Slew rate >20V/microsecond, Phase linearity <+/- 5degrees, ...

Problem is that this could still sound like crap. Looking at THD alone, some higher THD amplifiers actually sound better than lower THD depending on whether it is even harmonics or odd (pleasant sounding vs harsh). The frequency response might be good, but how good is the waveform? The hardest part about this hobby (and why so many of us have bought many pieces) is that you can no longer walk into a store and compare, decide which pieces (and more importantly which pairings) sound the best to you with your music.

What I'm trying to say is that this forum has a lot of loyalty to specific makes and "house sound", look through the Marantz forum for example, or Pioneer. Even though both of them produced many pieces from "warm" to technical and even shrill, there are those who will claim that Marantz (anything Marantz) makes the best sounding gear, period. If that's good enough then go for it.

If it's for your listening, decide what's important to you. The flouroscan Pioneers have a great and unique look, if you like it then this is for you. I like the look of my SX-1250 (all silver face) much more than my SX-1010 (blackout glass, blue light). My son likes the 1010 and doesn't like the 1250 at all (or any of the xx80/xx50 series). I like the 1010 on my more revealing speakers, the 1250 on more laid-back speakers. My Crown sounds very technical as do the ADCOMs, and sound best on a laid-back speaker also. I love my McIntosh for the sound, but frankly I think that the big-meter Onkyo Integra series looks more powerful and purposeful. in a rack. Your 3900 is a good mid-power receiver, should be fine with reasonably efficient speakers, but I'd never pair it with hard-to-drive speakers or 4ohm speakers. It might have a lovely sound, but the wrong speakers will suck the dynamics out of it.

Look at what you want to accomplish and make your own priority list, tell us what you plan to do regarding speakers, what your listening style is, what music you listen to, and what your listening room looks like and we can make some suggestions here. Your list at the top is a great start.

Specs plus build quality are both going to play a role, though, when comparing vintage equipment. Specs, build quality, and aesthetics all are important. Your info regarding THD is interesting as I’m just now learning the different types, even and odd.

All in all I’ll always keep and cherish my 3900 should I ever move on in the future; it’s what got me into vintage audio.

 

[SaturationPt]

<<snip>>All in all I’ll always keep and cherish my 3900 should I ever move on in the future; it’s what got me into vintage audio.

I like your plan.

 

[kvining]

Most of the critical articles I've r

The SX-xx80 series in many people's opinion was the first step down from the SX-xx50 series "high-water mark", but the 1980 remains very collectable due to its highest-power at 8ohm rating by a significant margin, ... the same reason a hemi-'cuda is worth significantly more than a 340 'Cuda. Also higher price, less people could afford them but everyone wanted them. If the xx50 and xx80 series didn't exist then the 3900 would be the one to own.

There was no replacement for the SX-1980, just like there was no replacement for the hemi-'cuda. The economy changed and killed the TOTL sales and Pioneer adjusted their product mix & price. Pioneer replaced the SX-980 IMO and didn't go higher in the market at that time (other than the Elite series).

Personally I'd rather have a trio of SX-1250, SX-1050, SX-1010, and maybe add an SX-950 for the price of a 1980, ... and if the SX1250 & 1980 cost the same I'd take the 1250.

The one that I've always been surprised at that doesn't get much respect is the QX-9900, it's a TOTL machine that sounds every bit as good if not better that the SX big ticket machines, and you can pick them up on ebay for about $400, and it doesn't even get included in the discussion. If I was given a choice between those three, I'd pick the QX myself, I love their sound and they are beautiful machines and in the same class as these.

 

[jozeppy26]

Most of the critical articles I've r


The one that I've always been surprised at that doesn't get much respect is the QX-9900, it's a TOTL machine that sounds every bit as good if not better that the SX big ticket machines, and you can pick them up on ebay for about $400, and it doesn't even get included in the discussion. If I was given a choice between those three, I'd pick the QX myself, I love their sound and they are beautiful machines.

It definitely looks like it belongs on a space ship. I’d say it’s probably the low power of the unit, only 33W per channel, 28 for quad.

 

[kvining]

It definitely looks like it belongs on a space ship. I’d say it’s probably the low power of the unit, only 33W per channel, 28 for quad.

That has got to be one heck of a conservative rating. I own the separates of that era, a QM-800 amp and QC-800A pre-amp, rated about the same (38 watts IIRC) and I can push the same set of speakers I drive with my modern Rotel RB-985 5 channel rated at 100 W RMS per channel, and heck if I can tell the difference.

 

[jozeppy26]

I think that’s probably because at max power for nearly any speaker, your ears bleed and you never hear above 5,000kHz again (it actually takes 150dB to rupture those eardrums). All jokes aside, more power barely increases volume output as I think for twice the power you get just 3dB louder. This is why I always thought the SX-1980’s power rating was hardly impressive.

 

[tater415]

I have the sx-1980 and the 3900, they both sound great,however the 3900 can't drive the bass home like the 1980

 

[kvining]

I think that’s probably because at max power for nearly any speaker, your ears bleed and you never hear above 5,000kHz again (it actually takes 150dB to rupture those eardrums). All jokes aside, more power barely increases volume output as I think for twice the power you get just 3dB louder. This is why I always thought the SX-1980’s power rating was hardly impressive.

I have the sx-1980 and the 3900, they both sound great,however the 3900 can't drive the bass home like the 1980

Its like with cars, I've owned both Corvettes and Mercedes SL sport cars, the Corvette will smoke tires down to the rims for three city blocks, but the Mercedes 280SL is like driving a fine watch, it may not be as fast but it sure was more enjoyable to drive. The other day I was comparing the Sade album Promise on my monster 7.2 home entertainment system to my Pioneer Quad set up, and it was the same experience, I didn't get the floor shaking subwoofers and the centralized lead vocals on the Pioneer, but at a quarter volume I could actually hear Sade breathing in and out as she belted out the blues and a level of detail in backup band's presentation that is just lost on the newer equipment, it was as if I was sitting in the same room.

 

[jozeppy26]

I have the sx-1980 and the 3900, they both sound great,however the 3900 can't drive the bass home like the 1980

Interesting. I was trying to figure out damping factor’s effect on this and based on my calculations this shouldn’t have any audible effect on bass whatssoever unless the speaker wire is really long. With my speakers and wire gauge and length, it’s like a DF of 78 (SX-3900) vs 59 (SX-1980).

 

[Ricktptman]

Pioneer was easing back the build quality after the turn of the decade. The xx00 was the "last" (and least) of the famed Silver era pieces. The distortion figure wars were underway. It's hard not to speak about this first "fall from grace" that mass market electronics suffered without speaking of the times in which it happened. You have to factor in the creation (and periodic de-fanging) of the FTC. They tightened up on Stereo amplifier specifications in the mid '70's and the industry responded. (Also, Pioneer lost money on shipping those classic amps across the pond, especially as the recession took flight and 1980's were being cleared out for $600.00.) In the early '80's, the distortion figures could be manipulated more inexpensively (and less honestly) and that led to Pioneer's mass market fall from grace. (Elite saved the day, but prices went nuts as well and that wasn't until the LATTER '80's.) The xx00 series runs hot, and are built less well. To me they sound more like the things that the "high end" narrative (snobs, if you will) like to vilify mass market for in the first place. The classic xx50 and xx80 series do not. The real charm of the 3900 is that Fluoroscan display. The tuner section was still "Pioneer great" as well. My friends (and I) at the time were waiting for an SX-2080 that had THAT display with the old style amplification behind it. Alas, it never arrived. I have a 3900 restored and in storage. It's just not overbuilt (in any way) to the degree the xx50's and xx80's were. By the '80's, Home Video and Computers were starting to damage the profitability of high quality Home Audio. It was a perfect storm of bad ideas, if you ask me. But it also gave the "high end" marketing strategies an opening. I had my first system stolen (SX-680, PL-512, CT-F1250) Christmas Eve of 1984. I had no insurance and hadn't kept up with the changes in gear. I was flat out HORRIFIED by how much less a Dollar could buy. I was shoved into having to start from scratch and it took MUCH longer to save up for gear that could stand toe to toe with even that lowly 680. It was a small fry receiver, but it sounded much bigger than it measured. The receiver I received as a wedding present (name withheld, but it wasn't a Pioneer) had all sorts of games played with it to make it LOOK more powerful on paper, but much WORSE with respect to actual performance. Low end FR was stop lossed at around 40Hz in the power ratings. The outputs were also wired in series instead of the more challenging (to the amp) parallel. To the 3900's credit, I think it was still wired parallel, but if it was, it was the LAST year it happened. It forecast worse things to come. I mourn those times to this day.