Pioneer VSX-D1S vs. Luxman R-117? Which one?

I got to thinking about the D1S this morning and went downstairs to look at mine. Does the D1S have a "loudness" function? I don't see one, which could be the reason I'm not crazy about it. I am not a flat controls guy, and I only listen at moderate volume, so any unit that has a loudness function I'm pretty much universally going to use it. It makes me think that's what's missing in the sound for me with regard to the D1S. My 9700 has loudness, and I find it odd if the D1S doesn't.

Good question, I can't quite remember now. Here's the full manual, you can have a look through to see if it does: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1002196/Pioneer-Vsx-D1s.html Hope that helps. Cheers.
 
Thanks...I looked through the manual and don't see anything about a Loudness function. It really seems unusual to me that Loudness was excluded from this model, but it does make me feel like that's why I wasn't getting exactly what I wanted from its sound.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I hear you. I can't deny that it has certain nice qualities, but overall, it just wasn't for me either. Onwards and upwards as they say.
 
If I recall it does have a loudness function, or I was just switching back and forth from direct mode bypass to regular mode. I cant really remember right now. I really enjoy the sound from this receiver. Back when I first got it I A/B'd it to some of my nice vintage receivers and it definitely is much more crisp and tight sounding. Listened to it for a while and the tried the vintage and could immediately see the shortcomings of 70's ss sound compared to the D1S. I am running tubes now, but the D1S is still in duty biamped to the woofers.

What the posters are saying about it sounding great on some stuff and dry on other material, this is what I find a high quality amp will do to music. So much detail is passed to the speakers, great recordings sounds amazing, but poor recordings are going to sound real crappy. Its the catch 22 of high quality audio.
 
If I recall it does have a loudness function, or I was just switching back and forth from direct mode bypass to regular mode. I cant really remember right now. I really enjoy the sound from this receiver. Back when I first got it I A/B'd it to some of my nice vintage receivers and it definitely is much more crisp and tight sounding. Listened to it for a while and the tried the vintage and could immediately see the shortcomings of 70's ss sound compared to the D1S. I am running tubes now, but the D1S is still in duty biamped to the woofers.

What the posters are saying about it sounding great on some stuff and dry on other material, this is what I find a high quality amp will do to music. So much detail is passed to the speakers, great recordings sounds amazing, but poor recordings are going to sound real crappy. Its the catch 22 of high quality audio.

Oh, I definitely agree that's what quality gear can do. Oftentimes it only magnifies any shortcomings with the source material. I've certainly gotten to that point in my own system. However, with some of the gear I own now, at its worst it still sounds better to my ears than the D1S ever did. On just about every level. Both modern and vintage. With that said, that's certainly not a criticism of you at all. Different stroke for different folks. I've just come to the conclusion that the D1S just isn't for me. But like I have said before earlier in the thread, it all comes down to system synergy. Looks like you've found that in your own system, and there's nothing wrong with that. :)
 
I had them both and moved on from each.They each had their strengths and would not say either was a bad receiver.What I moved on to were post 2000s Yamahas.To me they offer a cleaner sound and more refined operation especially in the volume control.
 
I had them both and moved on from each.They each had their strengths and would not say either was a bad receiver.What I moved on to were post 2000s Yamahas.To me they offer a cleaner sound and more refined operation especially in the volume control.

Receivers, integrateds, or what? I have a Yamaha RX-V2400 for home theater, and a RX-V1400 which is supposedly the same thing sitting in the closet. They are heavy and seem relatively well built by modern-standards, but one thing I've learned is that you'd better have the remote.
 
Receivers, integrateds, or what? I have a Yamaha RX-V2400 for home theater, and a RX-V1400 which is supposedly the same thing sitting in the closet. They are heavy and seem relatively well built by modern-standards, but one thing I've learned is that you'd better have the remote.
Receivers.I don't think that Yamaha built any integrateds in the time period of 2000-10.At least not one that was affordable to me.For two channel sound they are a lot more accessable without the remote than some of the other makes without remotes.Of course the remote is one of the reasons they are attractive to me coming off a long love affair with vintage.
 
Receivers, integrateds, or what? I have a Yamaha RX-V2400 for home theater, and a RX-V1400 which is supposedly the same thing sitting in the closet. They are heavy and seem relatively well built by modern-standards, but one thing I've learned is that you'd better have the remote.

I've actually owned both of those, including an RX-V2500, an RX-V2300, and an RX-V1300, and unless you are setting them up for surround listening, you don't need the remote to set them up for stereo. Even the impedance can be set via the front panel. But it certainly is a convenience to have it for selecting inputs and adjusting the volume from a seated position though. :)
 
The very last consideration for me for a piece of audio equipment is a remote. At the bottom of my wants list.
 
The very last consideration for me for a piece of audio equipment is a remote. At the bottom of my wants list.

Same. For me it's sound first. Always. I'll take sound quality over convenience or aesthetics every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. A remote is never a prerequisite for me that determines a purchase, but it doesn't hurt either. :p
 
Same. For me it's sound first. Always. I'll take sound quality over convenience or aesthetics every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. A remote is never a prerequisite for me that determines a purchase, but it doesn't hurt either. :p

Seems great audio minds think alike!
 
The very last consideration for me for a piece of audio equipment is a remote. At the bottom of my wants list.
Remotes have become very important to me.I'd rather have the unit right next to me to control the volume as I feel you have better control but remotes are the next best thing.
 
Remotes have become very important to me.I'd rather have the unit right next to me to control the volume as I feel you have better control but remotes are the next best thing.

I've gotten where I like them too. Aside from the obvious benefits of volume control, I like to switch from source to source, from CD to streaming in particular. It's pretty nice to just be a couch potato and press a couple of buttons!
 
I've actually owned both of those, including an RX-V2500, an RX-V2300, and an RX-V1300, and unless you are setting them up for surround listening, you don't need the remote to set them up for stereo. Even the impedance can be set via the front panel. But it certainly is a convenience to have it for selecting inputs and adjusting the volume from a seated position though. :)

What did you think about them for 2 channel?
 
This is a long-going thread, full of good info. I picked up a D1S several years back after hearing good things. I gave it to my son along with fatherly advice about what a great and under rated receiver it was.
Well, he is off at college and I decided to do a comparison between the D1S and my SX 1050. There is no comparison. The 1050 was far and away the best sounding. Richer, more bottom end depth, and way more volume. I only tested my turntable (Technics sl1700) using Pioneer HPM 200 speakers.

I have been meaning to do this for quite a while. I was surprised at my findings. I am not going to tell him, because he will angle for the 1050.

Thanks for all the great info.
 
You don't have people fawning over the Pioneer like they do the Luxman. The R-117 has reached iconic status
 
This is a long-going thread, full of good info. I picked up a D1S several years back after hearing good things. I gave it to my son along with fatherly advice about what a great and under rated receiver it was.
Well, he is off at college and I decided to do a comparison between the D1S and my SX 1050. There is no comparison. The 1050 was far and away the best sounding. Richer, more bottom end depth, and way more volume. I only tested my turntable (Technics sl1700) using Pioneer HPM 200 speakers.

I have been meaning to do this for quite a while. I was surprised at my findings. I am not going to tell him, because he will angle for the 1050.

Thanks for all the great info.

That's worse case for the D1S as the phono section is likely the weakest part of that unit. Could be closer competition with aux circuit. That being said, I would expect 1050 to win that as well.
 
That's worse case for the D1S as the phono section is likely the weakest part of that unit. Could be closer competition with aux circuit. That being said, I would expect 1050 to win that as well.
I got my D1S back from my brother.He didn't care for it.Not so much sonically but it had some surround control function buttons that were stuck.Basically it is best used in direct mode.I wondered if it had a good phono section as I though about using it for that but the more I read into these the less I believe it does.Another really bad thing about these units are the remotes.Fifty buttons and you may use two.Its too bad because this is a very attractive unit and was trying to find a place for it here but I really don't think I have one.
 
Back
Top Bottom