Christmas blunder SX- 1050 VS. SX 1100TW
- Thread starter Moth R. Superior
- Start date
Blue Shadow
Waiting for Vintage Gear from this century
And if the SX-1000 sounds better it is a very good thing it is not a 1050.
Bruno Primas
Super Member
I had the Allied 395 version of the Pioneer. I replaced all of the caps, the 2SC458 transistors, lamps, any out of spec resistors, cleaned the tuning capacitor, and gave it an all-over cleaning. It had a wood case, which shined up nicely. I too, thought that it was surprisingly good-sounding, and the tuner was fantastic. It had the 4 band FM and 3 band AM tuning capacitor gangs. And.....the gangs were separate as well.
Sharpstik
Stuck in the 70's
That is a nice one .
Ya know, Pioneer didn’t scrimp on looks either. They always came in a nice wood case .
Can we say that about Marantz? No we can’t .
I’ll second Blue Shadow’s comments about early transistor gear snuggling up to tube sound . My Pioneer SX 990 from 1969/ 70 does just that . The 2 series, even more than the three series exhibited this feature too . The SX 828 was a brilliant piece for the times , at 50 watts .
kydog
Super Member
I agree! Speaking of the SX990. The SA-900 fills the bill too. Had mine recapped recently & it sounds amazingly good. My three early Pioneers ( SX 1000TW, SA-900 and SX-770) All capture that “ Sound”
Attachments
-
C7F0A32B-19AB-4370-9997-27245DDE97F2.jpeg -
A8DDAC8F-71A5-4969-8A53-E9E4DCE1A092.jpeg -
EA914AC1-9CD1-4165-9C6A-FFE42B4AFE1D.jpeg -
A7658F0F-F865-4AE4-9863-3AFCB5D3C09D.jpeg -
16E22032-B9D9-48B0-99FA-ED9ED2DA8944.jpeg -
223D7C04-E426-4F3B-8E33-EDFF5A4CCDEB.jpeg -
61DED2DE-3369-4593-BCCD-D2E481A241B3.jpeg -
3B16FDCC-C666-4DF9-A280-323661507AF2.jpeg
kydog
Super Member
It’s another capacity coupled solid receiver by Pioneer, Great looking too !! There’s a smaller SX 440 just below it in that lineup.
Attachments
cpt_paranoia
Addicted Member
Check you're comparing with the same output power into the speakers...
Chris Brown
Super Member
I tried a SX-1000TW back when I was running a SX-1050, and I was not particularly impressed. I also regularly pushed my receivers to their limits, and the SX-1000TW was definitely hitting it's limit much sooner than the SX-1050. It was not a minuscule difference in that regard as some have suggested.
Although later on I got a Sanyo-era Fisher RS-1060 (125wpc, same as SX-1050) and ended up liking it even more than my SX-1050, despite it not being anywhere near as popular. So maybe my tastes are simply different.
One nice thing about the SX-1050 is that it has pre-out/main-in jacks. The SX-1000TW does not. That means you can use the SX-1050 as a preamp with a dedicated amplifier, or even as a dedicated amp while using something else as a preamp. It's a shame that the SX-1000TW does not have these jacks or you could mix/match the preamp/power-amp sections of each receiver to see which side is contributing more to the sound that you perceive as an improvement.
Although later on I got a Sanyo-era Fisher RS-1060 (125wpc, same as SX-1050) and ended up liking it even more than my SX-1050, despite it not being anywhere near as popular. So maybe my tastes are simply different.
One nice thing about the SX-1050 is that it has pre-out/main-in jacks. The SX-1000TW does not. That means you can use the SX-1050 as a preamp with a dedicated amplifier, or even as a dedicated amp while using something else as a preamp. It's a shame that the SX-1000TW does not have these jacks or you could mix/match the preamp/power-amp sections of each receiver to see which side is contributing more to the sound that you perceive as an improvement.
Blue Shadow
Waiting for Vintage Gear from this century
I don't think your tastes are different. Folks have Stereo Store Lust causing them to seek out and buy the gear they wanted back then and it was Pio/Mar/Sui/Mac. So I would think that many here would agree with your sonic preference if they were ever to hear it. Sure some will like the other stuff but that is part of it. Listening to different gear to find what you like. So much of this gear makes good music that folks could be happy with whatever but they want what they couldn't buy back then and bought the little brother and now can have the big one. Then there is the group dynamic of others agreeing with your choice, by folks that probably haven't heard the RS-1060. No big deal, so much good stuff most of it was pretty nice.
Last edited:
I have it's slightly newer re-branded cousin. Mine is an Allied 495, the guts are SX-1500td from 1970. Similar cap-coupled output stage and overall design. Its the piece of hifi gear I have owned the longest, and it gets the most regular use. Its on my desk at work and runs 8+ hours per day. Its not the most accurate sounding piece of gear but I find it to be quite pleasing to listen to. My only real beef is the phono stage. Its noisy, and always has been. I replaced the transistors and the caps on it, and it still has noticeable hiss. I don't use it so I didn't spend more time on the problem when I had it on the bench for a refresh last year but one of these days I might be inclined to try better quality resistors to see if it improves.
Artie
Super Member
Well . . . not exactly. The "W" in the model number was for "Walnut", as in case. I have the SX-1000TD. No wooden case.
(Internet pic.) Mine is buried in the garage somewhere.
Moth R. Superior
Active Member
I'm just gonna go all out and refoam them all...
I had a set of CS-77's with the horn tweets. Both were dead when I got them, but I was able to repair the broken leads. On those, its a diaphragm and the leads come up through what looks like a piece of heavy card stock with a slot in it. Where the leads made the bend around the card stock, it broke on both units. I was able to un-wind a little bit of coil and solder the break back together. Probably the most intricate solder work I've ever done. It was like soldering human hair, but I did get both working again. Didn't love them but didn't hate them. Gave the pair to a friend where they now reside in his garage.
peteCWA
Active Member
[QUOTE="quiet, post: 13341453, member: 260952"
It was worlds better than the just so so and supposed to be 50 watt (1970?) Lafayette LR-1500TA that is really 35 watts and will fry your speakers if it fails.
[/QUOTE]
Not to take away from the tone of the original thread but:
When working at Lafayette doing customer service work, I repaired a number of LR-1500TA's. I do recall checking RMS power output several times on various receivers. The measurement depends to some degree where you draw your "total harmonic distortion" line. From what I remember at a 8 ohm load, the typical power output per channel was around 45 watts. Some receivers that appeared to have been driven hard, had somewhat lower RMS power outout.
And, you said, "and will fry your speakers if it fails" Both amplifier output stages have an overload protection circuit wired into them and the output capacitor to each channel is 2000 mfd at 50 volts. I can't recall ever having to change the output capacitor when doing a service but then again the capacitor wasn't that old. Is this what you are referring to?
It was worlds better than the just so so and supposed to be 50 watt (1970?) Lafayette LR-1500TA that is really 35 watts and will fry your speakers if it fails.
[/QUOTE]
Not to take away from the tone of the original thread but:
When working at Lafayette doing customer service work, I repaired a number of LR-1500TA's. I do recall checking RMS power output several times on various receivers. The measurement depends to some degree where you draw your "total harmonic distortion" line. From what I remember at a 8 ohm load, the typical power output per channel was around 45 watts. Some receivers that appeared to have been driven hard, had somewhat lower RMS power outout.
And, you said, "and will fry your speakers if it fails" Both amplifier output stages have an overload protection circuit wired into them and the output capacitor to each channel is 2000 mfd at 50 volts. I can't recall ever having to change the output capacitor when doing a service but then again the capacitor wasn't that old. Is this what you are referring to?
quiet
Addicted Member
From what I can remember the LR-1500TA has a very good protection system, to protect the unit itself. It had no trouble when I shorted the speaker outputs. Rookies can do that.
But mine managed to cook two speakers with no effort at all when it failed for other unknown reasons when in reasonable use with 8 ohm speakers. There was a few seconds of sizzle, then the speakers were cooked. Both of them. It was sending D.C. to them. Don't know why. So I replaced it with another good used LR-1500TA. And I fuss all the speakers know.
But mine managed to cook two speakers with no effort at all when it failed for other unknown reasons when in reasonable use with 8 ohm speakers. There was a few seconds of sizzle, then the speakers were cooked. Both of them. It was sending D.C. to them. Don't know why. So I replaced it with another good used LR-1500TA. And I fuss all the speakers know.
I've heard (read) that the 1050 is very similar to the 1010 (which I own). I haven't done an A/B test with my Sansui AU-919 yet, but I'm guessing that the 1010 would be very close. I say that because I did swap them out once when the Sansui needed some work done. I didn't hear anything missing from the 1010 that was there with the 919. The sound was of course presented a little differently, but nothing missing.
Has the 1050 been rebuilt/recapped? If not, it could certainly benefit from at least a recap.
Why not keep both? You may, someday, get speakers that require a little more than the 1000TX is able to deliver. Besides, ya gotta have a backup, right?
Also, thanks for the tip. I'll keep an eye out for a SX 1000TX now.
The SX-1010 is much closer to the SX-950 sonically, topographically, and construction-wise.
I've not heard the SX-950. I do have a SX-850 (recapped) that pales, sonically, compared to the SX-1010.