Receivers vs Integrated

[DVjorge]

Hello Pioneer Lovers,

I am looking for some opinions about Vintage Pioneer units. What do you think sound better receivers or integrated ? Some people say Pioneer receivers sound different than their integrated amplifiers, so I would like to know what do you like more.

Thanks.!

 

[rxonmymind]

Here ya go - a Pioneer M-22 amp - 30 Watts class A of beautiful sound!

How is that relevant to the op question?

 

[Oldsansui441]

I think either can sound great, from my experience with different 70's Pioneer's it's more about the period they were built. The earlier 70's gear definitely has a warmer sound to it with the later being more neutral. If you let us know what sort of sound you like and what speakers you are wanting to drive then maybe we can suggest some different models.

 

[SaturationPt]

There is no receiver vs integrated consistency.

I have or have owned: SX-650, SX-950, SX-1250, SX-1010, SA-7100, SA-9800, SA-9900.

First to compare the integrated: The 7100 was warm and lovely, but I wanted more power. The 9900 was harsh and had something very quickly fatiguing and non-musical about it, never liked its sound. The 9800 had power and musical quality that the 9900 never had, but never quite as nice as the 7100.

The receivers: SX-650 (2) were actually very good sounding. Were only repair projects for a friend, and I expected them to sound like crap, but they surprised me.
SX-1010 is IMO the best sounding of the group, followed by the 950 which is a little more detailed and less tube-like, but still very good musically. The 1250 is the 4-ohm powerhouse from Pioneer, has the power to punch hard with any speakers, but doesn't quite have the warmth of the 1010 or 950, ... but the differences are very slight and only evident on certain pieces of music.

So to say that one type of equipment or even one year-range is all the same is IMO not even close to correct. One only needs to look at at schematic to see that there are very few of the same component in (for example) an SX-950 vs an SX-1050. It does seem however that the general trend from SX-1010 (and the other 1975 receivers) to the SX-xx50 and then the SX-xx80 was less "warm" and trended toward a more technical sound, ... at least in my experience.

What was mentioned above regarding speakers is a huge consideration however. It is my opinion that my SA-9900 sounded like crap to me because my speakers that I ran with it (JBL 4312A, PSB Stratus Gold, Infinity IL-40, Yamaha NS-500M, Digifine SX-911) are my taste and have very accurate HF, where running it on perhaps a JBL L100 with the cone tweeter and less HF accuracy might not reveal a shrillness or higher harmonics. Just a theory.

So IMO they are all different, I have felt the same about the several Marantz 22xx/23xx receivers that I have owned, and it's pretty much impossible to decide what you'll like unless you take your music and your speakers to audition on the receiver/amp (which was much easier when they were all lined up new in the store).

 

[CKDC]

Well, that is the Penultimate Pioneer. Nothing in the other Pioneer lines really sounds the same....

Just got mine back from my friend the tech. and it is just WOW - as far as sound.

What then, is the ultimate Pioneer?

Why settle for second from the best?

 

[SaturationPt]

Depends on how much power you want, ... if 30WPC then the M-22 will work for you, but then why not go tube? My Infinities were sucking >300watt peaks yesterday on mostly voice, ... I could never run even my efficient speakers on 30wpc without clipping and wouldn't even hook my hungry ones up if I only had 30wpc. You're in tube territory that I abandoned 45years ago as did Pioneer.

I like more power, the ability to drive most any speaker I choose, so I eliminate anything that can't drive 4ohms, and pretty much anything under 100wpc at 8ohms.

Also depends on your listening style, your music choices, your room, and your speakers. For flexibility and vintage aesthetics I side with the SX-1010 (properly restored) minimum, but how can you expect an accurate answer without providing any details on your needs? Pretty much just a list of each of our favorites at this point.

 

[rcs16]

It is very subjective to say one vs the other. Everyone has their own tastes. My tastes and your tastes maybe different, so do you want my opinion when our tastes do not agree to begin with?
Having separates does allow you to pick and chose more options. Like for example, I just bought a Yamaha T-85 tuner, it is one of the best ones made imo. So knowing this I would not want to buy another receiver, I'd go for an integrated or sep pre and PAmp instead.
Many times people put looks in front of performance, these are all choices that people have to make.
One problem I find even if you do not need big power, the bigger powered stuff usually has more features, better performance over all.

 

[kvining]

The real difference between the two is one has a built in tuner and the other doesn't, with an integrated you can run a much more advanced FM tuner than the compromised ones installed in a receiver. Otherwise sound quality is subjective. Myself I like front and rear speakers, and I don't like stressing my equipment out with 4 ohm loads and it's really hard to tune in an A B channel single receiver system for a big living room, so I use an SA-9500ii to run the front pair and an SX-828 receiver to run the rears and to act as the tuner and input controller. Run seperately, the SX-828 is sweet and deeply detailed but it doesn't have much power. The SA-9500ii hits really hard, it's a very aggressive amp that has enough power to have the neighbors calling the cops, great for rock but a little harsh for classical. The combination of both results in the best system for playing classical I've ever had. So buy one of each if you're conflicted...