Concept16.5 or Pioneer sx 1250
- Thread starter mhinsda
- Start date
-
- Tags
- concept 11.0 pioneer 1250
Register to hide this ad
I dont have a 16.5 and have not heard one but i do have a Concept 11.0 and a SX-1250. I do prefer the 11.0 over the 1250 i couldnt really tell you why as its been a couple months since i had the 11.0 in rotation but think it is similar in sound to the 16.5 but not as much power. Ive been listening to the 1250 the last few days so maybe i will fire up the concept tonight while its still fresh in my ears.
SimplerTimes
Super Member
I have two 1250’s and have never listened to a 16.5 either, but have read that it sounds noticeably better than the 1250. I just can’t warm up to the looks and the lack of an aux input is also a minus. Plus, I would imagine that parts and schematics are more readily available for the Pioneer. If I had to own only one, it would probably be the 1250.
Last edited by a moderator:
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
I have owned both. The 16.5 is clearer sounding and is a faster amp. The SX-1250 was tuned for the notoriously bright HPM-100's so it was given a more laid back sound. Both are statement pieces although the austerity of the 16.5's appearance is at odds. As noted many times before, the lack of meters and the cheap "rosewood" vinyl veneer let the 16.5 down and looked cheesy compared to the SX-1250's real walnut veneer and trim. However, open up a 16.5 and you will see where the development money went. As far as repairs, there are no unobtainium parts. It runs metal die T-03 outputs so replacements can be easily found.
SimplerTimes
Super Member
Good news about components, but what about service info and schematics? I have a (loosely) related Reference receiver and I cannot find any service info for it, so I assume this is the case for Concept?
Jimbo40
Super Member
I know this is old, but had to comment.
It's pretty sad about the concept receivers.
Everybody says there the best.
SoCal Sam is there.
There a great performing receiver but there not great.
A great receiver has serviceability. The company is done and pacific stereo holds all the service info.
I would love service info and specs for my 16.5 and 5.5 and would pay for it but I heard it's only on microphiesh or whatever, not printed.
But the second you talk about does anyone know about bias, test points, etc, it's crickets chirping.
Even when a thread is strong all you have to say is who's got a service doc for it and the thread falls off the cliff.
Top secret for eyes only. They'll all tell you how great it is but mum's the word when it comes to service.
So, not really so great.
It's pretty sad about the concept receivers.
Everybody says there the best.
SoCal Sam is there.
There a great performing receiver but there not great.
A great receiver has serviceability. The company is done and pacific stereo holds all the service info.
I would love service info and specs for my 16.5 and 5.5 and would pay for it but I heard it's only on microphiesh or whatever, not printed.
But the second you talk about does anyone know about bias, test points, etc, it's crickets chirping.
Even when a thread is strong all you have to say is who's got a service doc for it and the thread falls off the cliff.
Top secret for eyes only. They'll all tell you how great it is but mum's the word when it comes to service.
So, not really so great.
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
True that.
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
pacificstereo.net does some nice work. Too bad about the gate keeping of service manuals but I suppose he has to eat (filet mignon).
SoCal Sam
Lunatic Member
I've owned multiple 11.0's and 12.0D's. I like the 11.0 a lot. I can see why some prefer the 11.0 over the 16.5. The 16.5 is so fast and sometimes hard sounding that it really does not fit the expectation of what a mellow 70's receiver should sound like. A three martini Marantz the 16.5 is not.
Jimbo40
Super Member
20 mA?
Should we be talking mV?
Also let me reiterate on my opinion of the 16.5
I was on a pissed off rant before about the top secret keeping of the documents.
But let me get to my opinion of the actual machine.
I don't buy that any other concept model can sound better than the dual mono build of the 16.5.
Mine is original still, so it would be even much better rebuilt bringing all components back to spec.
That being said, this receiver is pretty ugly.
The lack of aux input has not been an issue, use tape in if I remember.
My comparison is with the pioneer sx 1980 which I still have.
McIntosh mc2205.
Soundcraftsmen ma5002.
And than the concept 16.5
The concept 16.5 has it all.
It can easily compete with and exceed the the sound quality of the top gear of it's era.
It's damping factor of 400 seems like just a number, but when it comes to handling the the woofer with those big bass hits, it seems to do it in spades.
I believe that the 16.5 is a legendary receiver.
A true enigma that was designed by an engineer who was looking to put in what the others left out.
I feel that the 16.5 is one of the best receiver ever made period.
For my collection, this receiver will be fully restored and have the #1 or 2 spot, right next to the pioneer sx 1980.
Don't screw them up guy's by guessing your specs on the aggressive side, take your time, ask lots of questions until you get the right answers.
Should we be talking mV?
Also let me reiterate on my opinion of the 16.5
I was on a pissed off rant before about the top secret keeping of the documents.
But let me get to my opinion of the actual machine.
I don't buy that any other concept model can sound better than the dual mono build of the 16.5.
Mine is original still, so it would be even much better rebuilt bringing all components back to spec.
That being said, this receiver is pretty ugly.
The lack of aux input has not been an issue, use tape in if I remember.
My comparison is with the pioneer sx 1980 which I still have.
McIntosh mc2205.
Soundcraftsmen ma5002.
And than the concept 16.5
The concept 16.5 has it all.
It can easily compete with and exceed the the sound quality of the top gear of it's era.
It's damping factor of 400 seems like just a number, but when it comes to handling the the woofer with those big bass hits, it seems to do it in spades.
I believe that the 16.5 is a legendary receiver.
A true enigma that was designed by an engineer who was looking to put in what the others left out.
I feel that the 16.5 is one of the best receiver ever made period.
For my collection, this receiver will be fully restored and have the #1 or 2 spot, right next to the pioneer sx 1980.
Don't screw them up guy's by guessing your specs on the aggressive side, take your time, ask lots of questions until you get the right answers.
Mike Petrik
Member
I agree with you, Jimbo. Concept receivers are aurally phenomenal even if they are visually disappointing. The TOTL 16.5 deserves to be considered among the top several receivers ever produced. Those who rank it #1 can make a perfectly fair case.
FWIW I would also point out that while the SX 1980 is hardly ugly, I would not count it among Pioneer's prettier receivers, even if it was more attractive than most of the era's super receivers. IMO the industry's high point in aesthetic receiver design expired right before the emergence of the super receiver era.
Last edited:
Probably. I was referencing the actual bias current. It would be measured as voltage across an emitter resistor as 20mA * 0.5(0.47 ohm) = 10mV which is what I set it for. The recommended method involves setting the bias pot fully CCW and using a 10kHz signal and about 2V output level into an 8 ohm load, adjust clockwise until the distortion (as measured on a distortion analyzer) is minimized. I found the this was around 4.5mV and at 40kHz it was 13mV. So just settled on the 10mV as a nice round number. The heatsink barely gets warm at this setting.
Jimbo40
Super Member
Great information.
This is really needed info.
Please for the sake of others trying to work on the 16.5
Continue with any other info you come up with.
Haven't gotten to mine yet but when I do I'll be looking for it.
Thanks again
