SX-1980 versus SX-5590 (SX-1250)

crooner

Tube Marantzed
Well, finally I had the chance to compare both monsters using my Vandersteen 2C speakers and 2W subwoofer.

I was hearing some upper midrange spikes on the sound last night while playing the Tony Bennett/Bill Evans album recently ripped to my Squeezebox music server. These anomalities were apparent with sharp piano attacks. This is a great recording for testing equipment BTW. Solo piano is one of the most difficult instruments to reproduce correctly, in my experience.

I was wondering if the problem was related to the speakers or the receiver. I was betting it was the Vandy 2Cs (I bought them used, they are 20 years old). But anywho, I decided to connect the speakers and sub to the SX-5590 (black SX-1250) which has been powering my stack of HPM-100s.

Well I have to say that both receivers sound very different. The SX-5590 has a more forward midrange character. It is not agressive but you can tell right away with vocals. Bass was also less deep, even with the help of the 300 watt Vandersteen sub. Imaging was comparable to the SX-1980.

To my ears, the SX-1980 has wider dynamic range (remember this is 110 watts more powerful), with better upper bass "punch" and warmer midrange.

The slightly distorted Bill Evans piano at the start of Waltz for Debby is still there which will mean a future upgrade to the $1700 Vandy 2CE signatures (I wish I was rich $$$!).

Both receivers have been properly adjusted for DC offset and bias.

I don't want to knock off the SX-5590/1250. It's a great receiver. But the SX-1980 is clearly a notch above in resolution and overall sound quality.
 
Last edited:
I would hope so given the difference in price, specs, etc. I doubt that I will ever be able to do my own comparison. The 1980 is just too rich for me unless I get real lucky. I am glad to hear that the 5590 did so well. Thanks for the review.
 
Steve, I forgot to mention this is all subjective and I guess it only proves that the SX-1980 interfaces better with the Vandies. The importance of the speaker-amp interface (I know it has been said zillions of times :D ).

OTOH, the SX-5590 driving the HPM-100s is just incredible. It gives you everything you could hope for. Musical and powerful.

I briefly tried the HPMs with the SX-1980 and I don't remember giving me those goosebumps... :D
 
crooner said:
Steve, I forgot to mention this is all subjective and I guess it only proves that the SX-1980 interfaces better with the Vandies. The importance of the speaker-amp interface (I know it has been said zillions of times :D ).

OTOH, the SX-5590 driving the HPM-100s is just incredible. It gives you everything you could hope for. Musical and powerful.

I briefly tried the HPMs with the SX-1980 and I don't remember giving me those goosebumps... :D


Sounds like you have two nice systems, all be it different, still two nice systems. :thmbsp: Glad you shared with AK :yes:

Rebel
 
Very interesting. I have a SX-5590 along with a SX-1250 and two SX-1280s.
I find basically the same conclusions that you have put forth that the SX-1980 has a richer sound than the SX-5590/1250, when I compare the SX-1280 to the SX-5590/1250.
I also have my original SX-1080 and have owned a few SX-1050s and I always found the SX-1080 to have a nicer sound than the SX1050s.
 
I remember reading somewhere that Vandersteen was some sort of a "blue collar" worker with an interest in speakers. He didn't have any training or education in acoustics and just built a pair of speakers in his garage according to his own tastes.

I've got to admit, the guy's done well indeed! :banana:
 
Well, do a complete restoration on both, like a full recap, spec out all of the components inside, should take you about a year, then do the comparison again......
 
VintageNut said:
Well, do a complete restoration on both, like a full recap, spec out all of the components inside, should take you about a year, then do the comparison again......


I think he has already done that.
 
vintagestereo said:
Although I have great respect for Crooner and his opinions,

Me too, Crooner has helped me and I appreciate it. I can count him as a internet friend. His abilities as a tech exceed mine, so if you guys need anything, just ask him ( I'm sure he will appreciate that comment)
That being said, there are several threads here at AK addressing total recap jobs on receivers. I think I can boil the threads down and say that 30 year old receivers need to be recapped to get an idea how they sounded when new. Setting bias and DC offset is important, but it's not everything.
 
Forgot to mention (and no, I am not being a post-whore :D ) this is like deja vu all over again for me.

10 years ago I engaged in endeless debates with folks about the relative sonic merits of my (then newly acquired) McIntosh MC275 tube amplifier. Today the new "underdog" is the Pioneer SX-1980. Neither is anything but perfect, but they do stir some controversy!

And hey VintageNut, FYI, I have replaced several caps and even a FET transistor in my SX-1980s' power supply board. I also replaced the input capacitors to the power amp with film types! :D

I must admit I am not a believer in complete "recap" jobs on audio gear unless something is obviously amiss. I remember replacing capacitors wholesale on that MC275 and ending up with something with a totally different sonic signature...
 
Last edited:
Echowars may bring my fully updated and upgraded SX-1980 to AK Fest. If someone brings an SX-1250, everyone there will be able to hear and compare for themselves!
 
vintagestereo said:
The SX-1980 came AFTER the SX-1280 and was victim to even more cost-cutting. In fact, the SX-1280 was supposed to be the Top of the Line, but Pioneer was under considerable pressure to remain Top Dog, what with relentless competitors like the Marantz 2500

mmmmm I don't think that's correct. My service manual for the SX-1980 is dated November 1977 and it was introduced in early '78. The SX-1280 was introduced at the CES much later that year as documented in the trade mags. I got to dig them up to find out the exact month this happened...
 
If I can get Punker to answer my email, I want to send to him, and pick it up when we go to MI...in which case it will be there for comparison.

If Pioneer cut corners with the 1280 and 1980, these 'cuts' are cleverly disguised. The 1250, 1280, and 1980 are world-beaters, and to suggest that intentional steps were taken to reduce costs at the expense of sound quality or even construction is mistaken as far as I can see. It might be possible that Pioneer scaled back some things that they would have liked to do on the 1280 and 1980...and it is possible that the 'no holds barred' approach that went into the 1250 was unrealistic with the exchange rate quickly deteriorating, but the result with the 1280 and 1980 was two very very well-built no-BS receivers with power to spare and looks that might have even made the wife happy.

If the 1250 gets an 'A' for build quality, the other two get an 'A-'. Splittin' hairs here.
 
Well, I think the discussions in the past about recapping focused on replacing electrolytic caps throughout the receiver, since they dry up over time. I would think replacing caps on the tone board would be important as well. EW is one of the most qualified to speak on the subject. So how about it EW. If you wanted to compare two vintage receivers in a side by side test, what would you do to them to ensure a fair test?
 
Well, they both need to be in top shape. Comparing David's SX-1980 to someone's SX-1250 isn't going to be a fair fight till both are restored. As it is now, this rebuilt 1980 lacks nothing and has a lot to offer a listener.
 
Back
Top Bottom