Differences in QX-949 vs 949A

gbroot

Super Member
I'll start by saying that I own both units and I actually prefer the 949 (slightly). I have read that the only differences between the 2 are in the the A's ability to decode 4 channel better. Since I do not own a Quad turntable/cartridge and/or quad lp's decoding ability is a mote point to me. I am able to input 4 ch through front and rear outputs from my denon dvd player to front and rear tape inputs. Works like a charm. In looking at the "innards" of the two units there is a marked difference. The 949A makes use of more "modern" technology in use of integrated circuits and a difference in the associated boards, whereas the 949 is "transistor" challenged. (lots of them). Since I am technically challenged that's about as much as I can speak to the differences. As to the sound, the 949 is very close to my SX-950, whereas the 949A is a little brighter..more like my SX-980 and 1080. I have never found either unit to be power starved at all in 4 channel mode..even driving my KLH's which do take some power. Would welcome any of your observations of the QX-949's. I prefer the 949 over all of my other Vintage Pioneer units plus I like its flexibility to adjust volume and balance between front & rear.
 
I own a QX-949A and I do agree that it has no problem driving speakers even at only 85watts per channel in 2 channel mode. I used it for a while now I only use it to drive my 12" party speakers which I rarely use so it spends most of it's time in storage. I think the coolest thing about it are the four meters that bump with the music.
 
I own a QX-949A and I do agree that it has no problem driving speakers even at only 85watts per channel in 2 channel mode. I used it for a while now I only use it to drive my 12" party speakers which I rarely use so it spends most of it's time in storage. I think the coolest thing about it are the four meters that bump with the music.

I enjoy home theater, especially concerts recorded in 5.1. I bought a high end Denon AV receiver (120 Watts/channel * 7) because I wanted to use a remote for the adjustments, sub control etc. The Denon AV is currently in hybernation as I have decided to continue with further exercise of legs and back. There is absolutely no comparison between the two. The 949 hands down.
 
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I am interested in further thoughts on this topic. Specifically a comparison of how the 949 and 949a perform at producing "simulated" quad sound from a 2 channel stereo source? I've currently got a 949 that I really like, but wonder if there would be an improvement in with a 949a using 2 channel sources (which is most of the music I have).

Thanks for any thoughts!
 
I doubt it. Even with quad, to get the effect, you have to be in the middle centered between the 4 speakers, a unusual arrangement for a room.
 
I doubt it. Even with quad, to get the effect, you have to be in the middle centered between the 4 speakers, a unusual arrangement for a room.
Not really a problem, since that is how my "listening" room is set up. I do have a Pioneer DVD/SACD player that can output 4.0 or 5.1 channel that I use with the 949. The channel separation and "surround sound" effect is quite impressive with a good 5.1 channel SACD. You just can't get that with 2 channel stereo using front and rear (A and B) speakers on a non-quadraphonic receiver.

If you use A and B speakers as front and rear sources, then the QX-949/949a is more versatile than a standard stereo receiver (even for 2 channel sources). The 949/949a has connections for A and B front and A and B rear speakers that can be turned on/off individually. They also have individual volume controls for each speaker as well as a master volume control. So, you can easily adjust each speaker to your listening environment.

Both the 949 and 949a are supposed to produce "simulated" 4 channel sound with a 2 channel source according to the owner's manuals. So, given my setup for quad sound, my question is does the 949a produce better "simulated" quad sound from a 2 channel source than the 949?
 
I really do not know if the simulated 4 ch sound is any better or different on a sx-949,sx-949a or a qx-9900. I have a qx-9900, I bought it for the reasons that you state. but I mainly use it in stereo mode since I do not have a setup like yours.
 
The QX949A added Full-Logic to the SQ decoder circuitry. This dramatically improves separation from front to rear, providing greatly enhanced decoding of SQ-encoded sources (records).
 
Since I am technically challenged that's about as much as I can speak to the differences. As to the sound, the 949 is very close to my SX-950, whereas the 949A is a little brighter..more like my SX-980 and 1080.
Both these designs use the same power amp and control amp assemblies, AWG-023, AWH-027. You would think that they should sound the same.
 
The QX949A added Full-Logic to the SQ decoder circuitry. This dramatically improves separation from front to rear, providing greatly enhanced decoding of SQ-encoded sources (records).
Thanks for the info on the improved SQ board. I have one SQ record - and that is the sum total of my quad records. I now have about a dozen multichannel SACDs.

So, I'm still wondering about the simulated quad sound the 949/949A are supposed to produce from a two channel source. Has anyone done a direct comparison? Can you tell if one is better than the other?
 
I would think multi-channel SACDs would be way better than any old quad sources. I have one SACD, what else Pink Floyd dark side of the moon, 40th anniversary edition, it does sound good in stereo. I compared it to the older CD. Now that I have a QX-9900 I should try it out in 5.1 mode.
I do not think there are to many of us to be able to make these comparisons you are asking about = good luck.
 
I would think multi-channel SACDs would be way better than any old quad sources. I have one SACD, what else Pink Floyd dark side of the moon, 40th anniversary edition, it does sound good in stereo. I compared it to the older CD. Now that I have a QX-9900 I should try it out in 5.1 mode.
I do not think there are to many of us to be able to make these comparisons you are asking about = good luck.
Yes, the degree of channel separation will depend on how good the decoder circuit is. From all I have read Sansui had the best decoders (especially the QRX-xx01 series), and much better than Pioneer. The 9900 has an early, general decoder, which is not format specific like the 949/949A has.

Get yourself an SACD player (or DVD-A or Blueray if you have that media) that can output 5.1 channel through RCA jacks and connect the two fronts and two rear to your 9900. It's worth it as the players are not that expensive used. Everyone looks at this differently, but I was really amazed and impressed with the multi-channel sound. I had been using an SX-8100 for my main system with A speakers in front and B speakers in back attenuated with a Pyle volume box. It gives a nice effect, but once I heard a multichannel recording through the QX-949, I'll never go back. The two channel stereo music sounds just as good through the 949 as it did through the 8100, but the multichannel music must be EXPERIENCED! I've got Dark Side of the Moon in multichannel also. It's good, but I think there are other albums with better multichannel mixing, IMHO. There are lists and rankings of multichannel recordings over on QuadraphonicQuad.com - worth checking out. If you register to be a member you can see user's comments on each album for pros/cons.

I'm keeping my eyes open for a 949A so that I can do my own comparisons, but was hoping someone here had both. The OP (gbroot) did, but maybe he does not anymore since he has not commented here.
 
I actually bought a Pioneer DV-578A last night on eBay for US $19.99. I already have 2 DV-563A's :) These are little gems imo. I think I have enough now :)
I will have to listen to that 5.1 CD one day, up in the loft when it warms up, so I can sit in the middle of 4 speakers. Invite some friends over to get there impressions.
Tell me what 5.1 SACD's you think is done better than the one I have, maybe I'll buy it to try out, that is if I can stand to listen to the music/band in the first place :) I am pretty tolerant, except RAP, I refuse.

Yes I read too that the Sansui design was the best. I see that they used Sony chips in the Pioneer units. I have not compared the Sansui design to Pioneer designs.
QX949's go for cheap these days, good luck.
 
You are speaking of the quad stuff? I do not know, I would have to evaluate the designs. There is a lot of differences in the ckt iirc
I do wonder why you would want to go through all of this unless you have a multitude of quad SQ/QS/CD4 formatted recordings.
I would think that if you want multi-channel you would want new material done in SACD or other format and run true 4 or 5.1/7.1 channel, not some simulated version of it.
Since all my material is 16/44.1K, I just run the QX-9900 in 2 channel mode that maps the front to the back and play with the balance L/R, F/B to get the levels correct.
 
ive got a qx949 awaiting maintenance. can the 949a boards with the improved circuitry be added to the 949 to upgrade it?
The Matrix boards are not the same. The 949 divides decoding RM and SQ into two boards ("Matrix" and "Decoder"), whereas this is done on one board in the 949a. You'd have to figure out all the input/output connections from the 949 boards and translate that to the single 949a board. I believe the CD-4 decoder board is the same in both models, and not much difference in the rest of the receiver as well. So, what you would gain is (theoretically) improved decoding from the 949 Matrix board.

I'd have to say though, that if this is really important to you, I'd just buy a 949a. And, if it is really, really important to you, get a much better decoder than what is in the 949 or 949a. They are not known for great decoding. Sansui QRX-xx01 series by all accounts were much better.
 
thanks. last night i compared the two and its apples and oranges it would seem. it was just a thought anyway. periodically 949 boards come up on ebay for a song and as long as this is due for a ton of caps and transistors in a few months i thought it was worth the question. the irony of it all is about 15 yrs ago i had a 949a and a top of the line sansui 4ch (what number i cant recall but it some 9's in it) that was given to me in hawaii by another ex serviceman ...IN THE ORIGINAL BOX. both were soundless and both the tuners worked as the signal meters would deflect the 949 would come out of protection in 5 sec. the previous owner said he couldnt understand why the sansui was dead as it was hardly ever used and did work before it was boxed up. this was long before i knew anything about fixing these things. i boxed the pioneer up and shipped it off to honolulu for repair. i got a call from the shop saying that it needed a bunch of switches blah blah. he asked if i wanted it back and by the way it was NO CHARGE. i said no that he could have it as the switches were no longer produced there was not much chance id ever find someone to repair it. I LATER FOUND OUT ABOUT DEOXIT and HE WAS THE SOLE SOURCE of DEOXIT IN HONOLULU AT THE TIME, SIGH!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom