Curious about reputations of various 70s brands
- Thread starter Laggard
- Start date
fill35u
Super Member
NASA has some very impressive facilities, and a budget probably a thousand times as large, but has still managed to make some really spectacular dumb mistakes.
the skipper
Professional Curmudgeon
One thing to keep in mind that with electronics of this age, their condition can vary greatly so their performance might not be what it was when they were manufactured. So, their reputation ratings should be a secondary consideration to their condition.
If it had the wood case it would look a lot better for sure.
KarlK
Well-Known Member
That STR-7065 is a really nice piece, with a classy finish. Is it likely that the ES series is based on a 70's series like Pioneer Elites are direct descendants of '50 series so-called "Silverface"? Or I should say direct descendants of the SX-650 the most experimental of the Silverface family with its split-power, OCL and some other oddities that are now common. The 2-channel stereo Elite receivers are few (2 or 3 models) but very affordable, I believe the most expensive costs around $500 for something like 80wpc iirc. The AVR/Network receivers are a different story though, some of those bearing the Elite badge go for over $5,000 making them mid-level high-end. Judging from photos of their guts they appear to be rather well designed and orderly. Heavy, too. One weighs 90 lbs or close. Many have on-board computers, this is way past my experience, I could never tackle let alone troubleshoot machines that have more in common with spaceships than home audio.
RE Pioneer and Marantz sales. these had likely a lot to do with styling but also performance. In the aesthetics department Marantz's very unique looks were attractive to many, at least until 1980 when Marantz was purchased by Philips with full control of the company except for the US and Canada where Marantz was taken over by a consortium -oddly including Phillips, Philco and 3 other companies whose names I don't remember. This was good for the world outside US and Canada. While elsewhere models were still being made that looked like 70's Marantz here the 5 owners opted to design more "modern" units where veneered cabinets were replaced by faux wood metal covers that looked godawful horrible, and they didn't sound much better either. The owners's leitmotiv was cost-only-object, a trend that also plagued other brands on the North American market, including but not limited to pre-Elite Pioneer. Marantz-branded CD players made by Phillips were allowed to be sold in North America where the name Marantz almost became synonymous with good quality CD players and nothing else, receivers of dubious lineage were frowned upon. Americans and Canadians took to buying Marantz audio equipment abroad and bringing it back here, which probably was very profitable to 220v-to-110v converter manufacturers. Engineers and techs were quitting in droves as if their ass was on fire, some emigrating to the UK or Ireland where Phillips was manufacturing "real" Marantz units. This lasted until circa 1990 when Phillips quit the consumer market to become an OEM outfit, but not before founding Marantz Japan who took control, this time including the US and Canada thank God. Marantz finally regained its mid-to-high end status in North America (having never really lost it elsewhere) and nice Japanese-made Marantz equipment came back... along with a prodigious price hike which was to be expected considering the crappy units that were sold here sold here for a decade (excluding CD players). Denon merged with Marantz when both were purchased by a US equity company whose name I don't recall, with Denon becoming to Marantz what Pioneer is to Pioneer Elite, in other words the more affordable alternative. In authorized brick-and-mortar audio shops both brands usually share displays. Good ending after all.
I suspect that Pioneer took notice of Marantz' success with their unique look. This would explain the brand's sudden facelift from classic half-black front end to that metallic "silverface" look that made them look different from anything ever seen before, that blend-in seamless tone that became Pioneer's trademark. At war the vanguard is the first to fall but on the fierce receiver "war" of the mid to late 70's Pioneer's "silverface" receivers were err..., well received if I may say so. Clean styling, good quality sound, experimental features (SX-650 internals, most owners never knew their receiver was part alien) and clever advertising boosted sales to unprecedented levels, the silverface ultimately becoming the best-selling series of the decade, all brands included. This was Pioneer's finest hour, never again would they -or any other brand- sell so many units as they did silverfaces and they can't hope for a return of things since Pioneer is now split into two distinct entities: the vanilla Pioneer and the high-end Pioneer Elite. The series that followed silverface, the '80 series did not do as well, some blaming it on something as trivial as changing the VU-meters color from grayish white to black (just for the sake of change because otherwise the '80 and the '50 are very similar on the outside) and they could be right I suppose, black doesn't blend in well with silver, it's not seamless and creates an unwelcome contrast or so marketing experts said. Truth probably is that consumers had bought so many 50's that few customers were left in need of new gear whose looks weren't novelty anymore. The main item the '80 series is remembered for is its monster receiver the SX-1980, at 270wpc (minimum, techs frequently quote 300wpc) the most powerful receiver on the market at launch and the most powerful receiver ever made by Pioneer. Of the period that covers the end of the '80 series until the launch of Pioneer Elite there is not much to say other that the brand fell into the same fog of audio mediocrity that were the 1980's until Pioneer Elite made its rather timid entrance, as if Pioneer was weary of being likened to boring times. Well it was! As were most other former stars of audiodom. But regardless, Pioneer Elite now enjoys an enviable reputation as a purveyor of high quality Stereo/AVR/Network receivers. Its offering on the 2-channel market is very limited however, the TOTL consisting of a relatively powerful 85wpc 2-channel/network receiver retailing for about $500 which is very low for an Elite branded item. Elite AVR receivers go up to $5,000 if not more.
KarlK
Well-Known Member
Right you are, sir. But it's part of the hobby to try and make them sound like they were designed to
KarlK
Well-Known Member
Sim has authorized service locations in several large cities so they surely provide a service manual for each item. Only I wouldn't expect it to be on paper but rather PDF.
spicer
Lunatic Member
The tuners... yes, my experience the same...it's the Trio.
spicer
Lunatic Member
I always thought, still do, that the STR-7065 was very elegant looking, kind of understated beauty. They were also expensive compared to other units on the sales shelf watts to watts. Sony receivers tended to cost more and, I believe if for no other reason than that, were not big sellers. The 7065 though in my opinion was absolutely gorgeous, handsome, had the look of quality.
DaveVoorhis
Addicted Member
Possible, but as many companies now do, it may be provided only under an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) so if the company goes bust nobody gets to see their manuals.
To me, some indicators of quality (aside from just sounding good) are:
- Readily repairable and maintainable construction techniques;
- Freely-available technical documentation such as service manuals, including schematics;
- Advertising that is technically accurate and without pseudoscience (puffery is inevitable, but shouldn't be dishonest);
- Robust;
- Consistently good solder joints, whether automated or manual;
- Field-upgradable firmware, where appropriate;
- Circuitry designed to fail safely without burning out large swathes of internal parts or external components like speakers;
- Excellent RFI/EMI shielding, both internally and externally;
- Mechanically well-braced and robust manual controls and/or well-designed electronic user-interfaces;
- Mechanically well-braced sockets that are unlikely to stress or break solder connections when used repeatedly;
- Rigid chassis, but not arbitrarily heavy;
- Reasonable warranty terms, where appropriate;
- Timeless aesthetics not shaped by fashion or overdone branding;
- Forced-air or convection cooling that works well whilst attempting to avoid dust ingress;
- Evidence of care and attention to aesthetics and detail, even in normally non- user-visible areas like internal wiring or component layout;
- Use of non-proprietary, commonly-available, mainstream, brand-name quality electronic components whilst avoiding boutique, fashion, or fad curios;
- Appropriate IEC 60320 plugs/sockets to permit power cord replacement.
I don't know of anything off-hand that is simultaneously "excellent" in all of the above.
How does the Simaudio gear rate on these?
Last edited:
KarlK
Well-Known Member
I have all the '50 series except for the 450 and 750. You're right right that sound quality doesn't improve withe number of watts, IMHO of the bunch the 650 is the best sounding one. It has 7 knobs (including two smooth-operating click-stop ones) and 6 toggles. No push-buttons, all-metal front end.So not only does it sound good but it looks clean and stylish as well, with classic veneered finish. It's pretty heavy at 30 lbs for a 35wpc unit though. That's only 1 lb less than the 50wpc 750.
KarlK
Well-Known Member
They do now, but let's say it's not their trademark. They also now have non-audiophile headphones aimed at people on the go.
KarlK
Well-Known Member
Every high-end outfit has NDA's, it's up to the customer to ascertain -ideally with the help of educated advice- that he company won't go belly-up on him/her within a predictable future. In this regard Sim is no different than Levinson (they belong to a class of very few so not many firms to compare with) If I had $250,000 to throw at an audio system I would likely be wise enough to inquire about the background of the purveyor as I would for the $3,000,000 home I would require to house all that stuff. There is a lot in common between the two actually: wiring, structural soundness, documentation, etc I'm quite sure that a firm that sells audio systems of such magnitude expects their would-be customers will want a thorough talk with "company people" prior to the handing out of platinum and one can assume that Sim hasn't survived for 38 years without obliging. But for the common man it's not that simple, we have to rely on industry profiles, professional reviews of Moon products, and the like. Like I said, I will never own a Moon product, nor Levinson, nor Wislon Audio speakers to complement these two, so my interest is that of the average dude for a Lamborghini: the stuff of dreams that will never come true, but that doesn't bother us
As best I can tell, Sansui, Kenwood, and Pioneer all made some epic quality gear that was so good, they were easily above the capability of speakers of the day. If the speakers of the day were as we have now, it may have made sense to be more discerning but I am proud to own equipment from all three of these manufacturers right now. My brother had an A-60, back in the day, that sounded well adequate and it's from a line known to be well inferior sounding to the AU line. He connected it to some department store speakers and good to go.
I don't know anything about Fisher so I wont comment but some people I respect tell me Sherwood made some high end amps that would compete with anyone.
If you want to talk about tape, that changes things considerably. I'd say you should add Akai into the mix and you should remove the companies listed, except for Pioneer. Specifically, the Akai GX line with their glass heads were among the best.
There are a few Harmon Kardon cassette decks that were world beaters. They were as good as anything from Nakamichi, Pioneer, or Akai.
I will just say this about cassette decks... I've done endless A/B comparison of an HK CD391 vs a Sony TC-K630 and it took a long time A/B comparing with a pair of MDR-CD999 headphones (amazing headphones for the day and still hold up well) to decide there was an infinitesimal difference in favor of the CD391 using TDK SA cassettes. With Sony Metal Master cassettes, the two decks were either identical or an even smaller edge going to the Sony.
The Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck was a disappointment. Not because it was not great; it was. It was a disappointment because it didn't "blow away" everything else, as was the legend of the day in 1984.
I worked at an audio store in the 1980s and had a chance to audition a lot of gear, even taking some of it home. It was always a disappointment, with the exception of a few speakers that brought delight.
As best I can tell from my audio journey, brand allegiance is mostly a religion. Get yourself a good pair of speakers and some high end components from almost any manufacturer and you will be good to go. If you want to achieve that last 1% that comes from selecting the absolute best of everything, you will spend a ton of money and probably ruin your enjoyment of music, but specific brands and models will rise above the rest, albeit just barely.
A local audio dealer frequently uses the phrase, "it was like someone popped a cork and the music came out!" to describe components, cables, just about anything, actually. What a bunch of BS. He was a B&W/Arcam dealer and yes, that stuff sounded amazing but you could connect a high end Pioneer amp from 1980 to those B&W and they would have sounded a tiny bit different but just as good. I will point out there were some amazing speakers from other companies, also, even back then. Snell comes to mind. I'm going to throw in Heco, although I doubt many in North America have heard of them.
By the way, one of the speakers that most surprised me was the Bose 301. Yeah, I know they are ultra-low end but they sounded OK, provided a bit of thump, and retailed at something like 250 bucks. The value was a revelation, back then. We weren't spoiled with excellent, cheap, speakers like we are now. Most of the low end stuff, sold with systems, around here in the late 1970s were "house brands". Invariably, the crossovers were a single capacitor. They were pretty crap.
Classic speakers take more of an effort to love but they can be brought to a pretty nice place for those who take the time to re-design the crossover networks and perhaps swap in a modern tweeter.
As best I can tell, you can select the brand you lusted over, but couldn't afford the TOTL gear of, as a teen, and build a system with that gear today, have a ton of fun building it, and end up with a really great system.
I would respectfully, but totally disagree with your cassette deck ratings ... especially when listening with high end separate gear.
You are misleading people who weren't there ..
The Nakamichi's were far and away the best sounding cassette decks available and the Dragon was the only cassette deck which could approach the sound quality available from a good reel to reel machine ..
It's like infrared humor, but on a different wavelength.
As best I can tell, Sansui, Kenwood, and Pioneer all made some epic quality gear that was so good, they were easily above the capability of speakers of the day. If the speakers of the day were as we have now, it may have made sense to be more discerning but I am proud to own equipment from all three of these manufacturers right now. My brother had an A-60, back in the day, that sounded well adequate and it's from a line known to be well inferior sounding to the AU line. He connected it to some department store speakers and good to go.
I don't know anything about Fisher so I wont comment but some people I respect tell me Sherwood made some high end amps that would compete with anyone.
If you want to talk about tape, that changes things considerably. I'd say you should add Akai into the mix and you should remove the companies listed, except for Pioneer. Specifically, the Akai GX line with their glass heads were among the best.
There are a few Harmon Kardon cassette decks that were world beaters. They were as good as anything from Nakamichi, Pioneer, or Akai.
I will just say this about cassette decks... I've done endless A/B comparison of an HK CD391 vs a Sony TC-K630 and it took a long time A/B comparing with a pair of MDR-CD999 headphones (amazing headphones for the day and still hold up well) to decide there was an infinitesimal difference in favor of the CD391 using TDK SA cassettes. With Sony Metal Master cassettes, the two decks were either identical or an even smaller edge going to the Sony.
The Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck was a disappointment. Not because it was not great; it was. It was a disappointment because it didn't "blow away" everything else, as was the legend of the day in 1984.
I worked at an audio store in the 1980s and had a chance to audition a lot of gear, even taking some of it home. It was always a disappointment, with the exception of a few speakers that brought delight.
As best I can tell from my audio journey, brand allegiance is mostly a religion. Get yourself a good pair of speakers and some high end components from almost any manufacturer and you will be good to go. If you want to achieve that last 1% that comes from selecting the absolute best of everything, you will spend a ton of money and probably ruin your enjoyment of music, but specific brands and models will rise above the rest, albeit just barely.
A local audio dealer frequently uses the phrase, "it was like someone popped a cork and the music came out!" to describe components, cables, just about anything, actually. What a bunch of BS. He was a B&W/Arcam dealer and yes, that stuff sounded amazing but you could connect a high end Pioneer amp from 1980 to those B&W and they would have sounded a tiny bit different but just as good. I will point out there were some amazing speakers from other companies, also, even back then. Snell comes to mind. I'm going to throw in Heco, although I doubt many in North America have heard of them.
By the way, one of the speakers that most surprised me was the Bose 301. Yeah, I know they are ultra-low end but they sounded OK, provided a bit of thump, and retailed at something like 250 bucks. The value was a revelation, back then. We weren't spoiled with excellent, cheap, speakers like we are now. Most of the low end stuff, sold with systems, around here in the late 1970s were "house brands". Invariably, the crossovers were a single capacitor. They were pretty crap.
Classic speakers take more of an effort to love but they can be brought to a pretty nice place for those who take the time to re-design the crossover networks and perhaps swap in a modern tweeter.
As best I can tell, you can select the brand you lusted over, but couldn't afford the TOTL gear of, as a teen, and build a system with that gear today, have a ton of fun building it, and end up with a really great system.
You were more than generous with affection towards 301's....I personally thought they were garbage....at any price.
TomB19
Active Member
So... I don't disagree with your point of view but I maintain that a better speaker could not be had at that price point at that time.
These days, we are spoiled for choice. Back then, the bottom end of speaker lines were house branded speakers which, as best I can tell, were pretty much garbage.
I only have the vinyl clad SX-450 which to me is a pretty nice sounding low powered receiver. I was under the impression that the wood veneer in the x50 series began with the SX-850. Do the 650 and 750 also have real wood veneer cabinets?
Similar threads
