Pioneer vs Kenwood

[denniswilson]

Generally speaking, how would you compare Pioneer receivers vs Kenwood from the mid 70's. For example; SX-939 vs KR-7600.
Build quality, electrical components, hardware, popularity, reliability etc.
What are your thoughts? :scratch2:

 

[bully]

This is the Pioneer forum, so I would suggest that the overall build quality of the Pioneer edges out the Kenwood. Both are very nice. The Kenwood would probably be the best bargain. Pioneer gear was the biggest seller, so I would say the most popular.
Soundwise a toss-up. The price would be the deal-maker for me.

 

[VintageNut]

Bully is correct, our very own EW said that of all the Japanese manufactured, Pioneer built them the best. I have Marantz, Kenwood, Pioneer, HK, myself, and the Pioneer SX series is the best construction quality of the these, IMHO.

 

[denniswilson]

I did notice that my SX-939 has the pots right up front and the Kenwood pots are on the back with long extended rods that extend from the front knob....

 

[Inspiribomb]

I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on how their separates compare. Such as the SPEC series vs. the 700 series. I'd LOVE to do some A/B testing those setups :yes:

 

[Lefty]

Well I am of the opinion that all the japanese companies were very compeitive and were all pretty close in their offerings. I tend to think that Kenwood had a slight edge in tuner design as they had a large business in Ham and shortwave equipment. They all seemed to have made 'statement' designs in TOTL receivers and of course their seperate systems. I love them all

Lefty

 

[VintageNut]

Well, looking at beefy chassis construction, front panel construction, etc, I don't see anything that compares to something like a Pioneer SX-1050, SX-1250 series between the Japanese receivers that I have. Take my Marantz 2285B for example. Love the looks, but the Pioneer SX-980 has a better chassis, better faceplate, higher quality knobs, pots are stepped. Do I like the Marantz 2285B?, heck yeah, it's a beauty and sounds great. My Marantz 2325 does not compare to a Pioneer SX-1050, SX-1250 in terms of build beefiness. The 2325 faceplate looks like a high school metal shop project compared to the Pioneer, fairly thin. The Pioneer pots in the SX-1050, SX-1250 are high quality, metal encased stepped pots. Is the 2325 any good? You bet, better 4 ohm capability than Pioneer, great sound, big power, it deserves it's rep as one of the greats. Kenwood excels in tuner design, I have a Kenwood KR-6400 receiver, only 45 watts, but a heck of a tuner in it. All of this is my opinion based upon what I own.

 

[denniswilson]

Now I'm opening up my newly aquired Kr-7600.
My SX-939 has a solid chassis, where as the Kr-7600 has metal panels that are screwed together to form a chassis.
The Kenwood has a bigger power transformer. Both receivers have about the same wattage.
My SX-939 has a glass dial panel and the Kr-7600 is plastic.
The tuning capacitor on my SX-939 is shielded, and the Kr-7600 is not. However after A/B comparison, I believe the FM section sounds better on the Kenwood.
I dont know which one uses better boards or electrical components. I think the Pioneer sounds more musical.

 

[SX1080Pioneer]

Why do guys like yourself always feel the need to draw comparison of one brand over the other huh! Chevy versus Ford! 69 SS Camero versus 65 Ford Mustang..which is better! come on! Kenwood and Pioneer are both damn good! Can you say that about the two brands today? There isn't " better " then the two, it's a matter of what you want in the unit along with it's specs.




Originally Posted by denniswilson
Now I'm opening up my newly aquired Kr-7600.

 

[denniswilson]

SX1080Pioneer...Dont get yourself all worked up over some simple conversation.
Thats what makes the world go 'round..
Now, If I was drawing comparisons between those receivers and my McIntosh gear, that would be something compelling for you to complain about.....Peace

 

[VintageNut]

I think it helps to point out the differences, if one can remain objective about it, and not emotional. For example, if one wants a really great phono section, the Kenwood KA-9100 amp is hard to beat, and may be better in that area than the Pioneer SX series. You want massive build quality? Go Pioneer SX-1050, SX-1250, you want superior 4 ohm capability?, maybe Marantz 2325 for that. Actually, I would like to hear about comparisons of these receivers to Mcintosh gear.

 

[SX1080Pioneer]

Hey guys, I'll pass on the Mcintosh gear, I'm not a tube person, no thanks. Yes I have heard tube, still no thanks. :thmbsp:

I think it helps to point out the differences, if one can remain objective about it, and not emotional. For example, if one wants a really great phono section, the Kenwood KA-9100 amp is hard to beat, and may be better in that area than the Pioneer SX series. You want massive build quality? Go Pioneer SX-1050, SX-1250, you want superior 4 ohm capability?, maybe Marantz 2325 for that. Actually, I would like to hear about comparisons of these receivers to Mcintosh gear.

 

[denniswilson]

Actually, I've been listening to my vintage Pioneer SX-939 more often now then my McIntosh system. Both systems have decent speakers. I cant explain why.....
I own a MC-352 power amp and a C42 preamp. I can tell you this however, My Mac system is a much more dramatic improvement in the areas of detail, soundstage, and low end. The Mac is smoother and much more musical. No fatigue whatsoever.
...But something keeps drawing me to the SX-939. Its not that its new to me because I've owned the SX-535 since high school purchased new in 1975. I also had the SA-8500II, but traded that one away. Have not yet compared to my Carver gear. Now Carver would be something interesting to talk about......