AVRs in 2 channel mode that sound as good as vintage amps

lico

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
I got a few. Early Pioneer VSX, late Pioneer VSX. Denon. Have heard some of the early 90's Yamaha AVRs are hard to beat. Who else uses them for 2 channel stereo?
 
Denons of various vintages, lines, and models. Best used as pre-pro for room correction, bass management, no-fuss handling and switching of many and various source inputs (analog and digital), competent DACs, various decodes (SACD, DTS, Dolby, HDCD), and convenience (remote operation/setup). Amp distortion specs are NOT good as speaker impedance falls below 8 ohms nominal. Outboard ATI amp deals with that particular shortcoming immediately and permanently.
 
Last edited:
Good point on the room correction, no vintage amp has that. Can help in certain situations.
 
The current Onkyo av's I've found to be excellent in overall performance. Good power delivery in all channels; It does seem that they are based on the 2 channel configuration.
 
Been using my Pioneer VSX-D457 in stereo mode for many moons...

I am a fan of VSX. Not all VSX - Pioneer made some duds along the way.. But something like a VSX-1015 from mid 2000's can run with any of the "greats" from the 80's, I can assure you.
 
How about an AVR that could be considered "vintage"? My NEC AVR-1000 (1987) does regular stereo extremely well - better than the Pioneer & Kenwood AVRs I was using in the 90s. The front channel amp can handle anything I throw at it - even has a separate transformer just for the front channel main amp.
 
My Sony experience.... Is no way can the Surround Sound Receivers ... Not even worthy No...my high end Sony craps out when I want to try to achieve the same level of volume of my Pioneer Elite...Sony would be great for average person...but it's a joke to me...way down on power

My Pioneer Elite .... Close...very good but the SA600 Technics Receiver is more powerful even though it is Rated at 70w per ch 8 ohm
And my Elite 150w per ch...

The 901 pioneer from 1993 I have is another close and good one for 2 ch listening.. .

But my experience with 40 year old Receivers is that they have far more Headroom and Peak Dynamic power....
And I believe that the Seperate Amplifiers from 40 year's ago will be best
 
The sweet spot for sound and build is middle 2000's, IMO.

zTqY1PT.jpg


fKHxeUU.jpg


QVQKuSm.jpg


pMIM5YP.jpg
 
How about an AVR that could be considered "vintage"? My NEC AVR-1000 (1987) does regular stereo extremely well - better than the Pioneer & Kenwood AVRs I was using in the 90s. The front channel amp can handle anything I throw at it - even has a separate transformer just for the front channel main amp.

I believe you, AVR-1000 looks nice. Not sure it would best a VSX-9xxx from same time frame, but I like anything NEC.
 
Last edited:
My Sony experience.... Is no way can the Surround Sound Receivers ... Not even worthy No...my high end Sony craps out when I want to try to achieve the same level of volume of my Pioneer Elite...Sony would be great for average person...but it's a joke to me...way down on power

My Pioneer Elite .... Close...very good but the SA600 Technics Receiver is more powerful even though it is Rated at 70w per ch 8 ohm
And my Elite 150w per ch...

The 901 pioneer from 1993 I have is another close and good one for 2 ch listening.. .

But my experience with 40 year old Receivers is that they have far more Headroom and Peak Dynamic power....
And I believe that the Seperate Amplifiers from 40 year's ago will be best

Like the Technics SA-600, want to fix mine up.
 
I’ve had 100s of AVRs.
BOTL to TOTL.
There are some that stood out.

None,

Repeat,

None touched the sound of a 70s vintage rig.

And, I’m not even talking high end 70s vintage.
I’ve had 100s of vintage rigs.
BOTL to TOTL

None.


But, I will concede that what someone listens to, the speakers they use and what their ears can do and what their brain enjoys may be totally different from mine.

My ears are vintage and so is my taste in gear.

FWIW, the earliest AVRs are mostly 2 channel rigs, mostly analog, with spare channels added in. If it has wood sides, think Pioneer Elite and Sony ES and others, it has some decent 2 channel sound. I also think Marantz with SRS seems pretty decent.

After 100s of speakers, I know THAT is THE most variable part of a rig. I have narrowed down to a handful of speakers that sound better than the others I’ve had and they sound great with everything. They also sound best with 70s vintage gear.
 
I’ve had 100s of AVRs.
BOTL to TOTL.
There are some that stood out.

None,

Repeat,

None touched the sound of a 70s vintage rig.

And, I’m not even talking high end 70s vintage.
I’ve had 100s of vintage rigs.
BOTL to TOTL

None.


But, I will concede that what someone listens to, the speakers they use and what their ears can do and what their brain enjoys may be totally different from mine.

My ears are vintage and so is my taste in gear.

FWIW, the earliest AVRs are mostly 2 channel rigs, mostly analog, with spare channels added in. If it has wood sides, think Pioneer Elite and Sony ES and others, it has some decent 2 channel sound. I also think Marantz with SRS seems pretty decent.

After 100s of speakers, I know THAT is THE most variable part of a rig. I have narrowed down to a handful of speakers that sound better than the others I’ve had and they sound great with everything. They also sound best with 70s vintage gear.

Now that is a testimonial for 70's gear if I ever read one. 100 AVRs and none of them are any good? I agree that speakers make the most difference of all. Which is why in many cases a good AVR is good enough if you got the right speaks.
 
Now that is a testimonial for 70's gear if I ever read one. 100 AVRs and none of them are any good? I agree that speakers make the most difference of all. Which is why in many cases a good AVR is good enough if you got the right speaks.

I am not saying "None of them are any good".

Many are excellent and far better than 70s stereos for audio/video, home theater use.
As 5.1 playing DVD, great!
If you never watched DVD with some sort of 5.1 setup, you never really got a decent home movie
I used my vintage stereo for movies for a long time.
Without the center channel in use, most movies sucked. Anything made for 5.1, sucked.
Without a sub, they were less fun. We like SciFi.

As 2 channel stereos, I have not found any that sound as good as 70s vintage gear, on my speakers with my music in my room.
 
Yeah - was waiting for you :) Mid 2000's gear is great (before HDMI set in). Best part is it is cheap. Nice pics.

These are mostly what I see.
The pre-HDMI, and early HDMI.

So cheap that flipping them is difficult .

With HDMI and 4K upgrades, I see a lot of these being retired by high end AV installers.
I end up with so many that I now have to scrap working units.

I didn't even bother to test many of the last two pallets full. I just scraped them.

I get mostly Denon and Yamaha.

FWIW, the Yamaha with phono would be excellent for that.
Yamaha natural sound works very well for me for phono.

I've never tried phono much on the AVR stuff but would expect great results.

My issue with the AVR sound performance is that the sound is too clean, clear, clinical.
Too crisp, sharp, edgy. It seems like something is missing. The old cap coupled vintage gear sounds better to me and cap coupling should be less accurate and crisp and clean by nature. So it may be completely a personal preference.

I can tell immediately when I switch from the newer stuff to the 70s vintage.
The warm, soft, fuzzy sound that has some soul to it is instantly obvious.

But, if this thread is about vintage AVR, then, yes, mid 2000, pre HDMI was still mostly analog and discrete component and built well. The remote standby system and digital interface and display and menu systems I don't care for, but the main power supply and amp systems are quite nice.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom