• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is it me ..... regarding Vintage Pioneer gear..

camgilbert

camgilbert

Member
So I've done a couple vintages restores in the last few months;
  1. Pioneer SA-7800
  2. Pioneer SX-750
Prior to that I had done;
  1. Kenwood KA-7100
  2. Yamaha A-760
  3. Technics SU-V6
Basically what I do is clean and restore, repair whats required then use the piece as my main system for a few weeks.

What I have found is that the Pioneer's sound is so much better than the other three listed.

Generally, my source is through a current DAC using 24bit flac, DSD or SACD rips.

What I hear is:
  • warmer sound
  • more detail
  • less long term listening fatigue
Would be interesting in hearing what others thought on this subject. (likely been discussed many times!)

Cheers
 
Register to hide this ad
I am a Pioneer fan also although l don't really have a favourite brand. It is hard to compare the Yamaha and the Technics to the Pioneer's as they later units and will naturally have a less warm/crisper sound to them. If you think those Pioneer's sound warm you should give an earlier one a listen, ie an SA-X100 or SX-X3X.
 
I've owned Pioneer but none of the others. Get your hands on a Sansui 771 and then I'd be interested in what you think.
 
I have a fully restored sx-1250.... i love how it sounds... also have a full restored g8000, and pristine examples of marantz 3300& 250m, 1060... also a fully restored sansui au-505....

I LOVE the pioneer.... has an incredible “presence” with the music.... soooo effortless.... I also find it a bit warmer (while detailed) than the g8000.... the pioneer’s bass is great.... guess each one sounds different and I like them all... but if I could only keep one... the pioneer is at the top sitting next to the 3300 and 250m, (they also sound terrific with a more balanced sound -to my ears-, but the pioneer just “fill” the room in such a nice way you can listen for hours and hours....

On a side note, the little and shy au505 sings beautifully with the right speakers.... lush and very very easy listening!
 
Two problems with you comparison:

Very small sampling (to characterize an entire manufacturer's product)

Nothing that you're comparing is restored and most likely has changed significantly from its original sound.
 
I've worked on and listened to a wide variety of brands (and eras) and have been surprised by many of them; Pioneer is pretty consistent and stays at the top of the list. Plenty of power, nice tonal presence, signal doesn't get lost in the mud once the amplifiers/receivers have been serviced/restored, and cosmetically very pleasing. My favorite era is the x3x series, including the SA 7100/8100/9100. I like Marantz (2270 is my favorite) and Sansui (5000X favorite) as well, but that's pretty much where my list drops off to the second tier. Kenwood has some good products, but nothing that really jumped into my lap, and I find Yamaha to be sterile in general. Sterile isn't bad, it just may take good tone controls or an EQ to make for a more pleasing listening experience.
 
So many opinions.

I would characterize Pioneer as, ... a manufacturer. The sound varies by model and era (and of course condition). From properly restored units that I own or have recently owned I would call the SA-9900 fatiguing the SX-1010 warm, the SX-680, SX-1080, SX-950, SX-1050, SX-1250, SA-7100, SA-9500 all in between these two extremes. There are significant differences in sound between eras, and some differences between models of the same year and nomenclature (as circuitry changes significantly from BOTL to TOTL).

Similarly I would characterize the Marantz 2285 as much more detailed and clean than the 2325 Marantz which I consider overly warm and muddy, ... I could go on about Yamaha, Sansui, McIntosh, Adcom, Carver, Crown, Kenwood and much of my recent collection but there is no brand that has kept the same sound signature through all of the evolution of SS (and throw tubes in there to make it more obvious, Pioneer produced some tube gear). Technology changes and market changes made all of the sounds change from the '60s through the '70s and up to today.

I stand by my earlier comment that comparing two low-mid range pieces from a manufacturer gives insufficient data for a wild extrapolation.
 
Last edited:
It's all subjective. Find a sound you like and enjoy it.
I do think that the trend over time in the 1970s-90s was toward clarity and balance in tone, but there are bound to be many exceptions.
SaturationPt is right to note that it's impossible to judge between brands and models unless everything is brought back to as-new condition first.
If you are not driving the same speakers, again, how can you compare?

I will offer my observations, based on my experience, just for the fun of it: (dates from various sites on the net and may not be strictly accurate)
I have a fully restored SX-1000TW (1969-71), which is way on the 'warm' side of the spectrum. That one's character definitely became more balanced in tone after replacement of caps and transistors.
I will second the x3x series as sounding 'warm', at least my SX-636 (1974-76) does with its present un-restored components. As it is, the restored 1000TW is a bit cleaner in the low frequencies. The 636 will get a full rebuild one day.

I have an SX-950 (1977-79), 95% restored, and I would call that one both punchy and clear. Even more so than the 1000TW, this one's tonality was totally transformed during restoration in that the low and low-mid frequencies were greatly strengthened. I cannot say whether it differs markedly from the x3x series without a restored example for an apples-apples comparison.

I don't get hung up on brands. There is lots of great equipment out there.

In response to Zekeman, I also have Sansui 771 (1974-76), fully restored, and it has a very similar character to that of the 950.

I have a restored Realistic STA-90 from the mid-late 70s, and it is very comparable sound to both the 771 and 950. It sounds a bit more 'powerful' than the 771 to my ears. I cannot explain that well, but that was my conclusion from a swapping back and forth between them once (driving the same speakers at modest volume levels). My (unrestored) Realistic STA-430 from the late 70s-early80s sounded similarly powerful with its 10W/ch.

I have a Sherwood S7100-A (1971), unrestored, age-wise comparable to the 1000TW, and it is a thing of beauty as it is. Beautifully warm and clear/clean at the same time. It does not have the 1000TW's maximum power, but like the Realistics it sounds way stronger than its 14 W/ch would lead one to expect.

I presently run an unrestored Onkyo TX-3000 (1980-81?) in my living room system. It is quite comparable to the the 950, 771, and the STA-90. It uses an integrated amplifier [STK-050 II] similar to the x80 series of Pioneer from that time period, which are reported by many to be cool-sounding. There is nothing cool about the sound that that unit makes. I rattles the dishes in the kitchen cupboard with strong, clean bass.

Before getting back into the 1970-ish gear, I ran an early 90s Sony AV receiver for nearly 2 decades (cannot recall the model, but it was 50 W/ch). It was very neutral sounding, clean and clear, nice in its own way. I used an equalizer with it to give it the full smiley-faced tone adjustment that sounded right to my ears.

With all of my older equipment, I rarely feel the need to move tone controls off the flat position.
 
The 1250, CR-3020, R-115, 1980, VSX-D1S and the Yamaha 1990’s “Natural Sound” EQ’s that contributes to that effect. The Denon DL-103 leans in that direction also...

How about warm sounding speakers ????
 
Another couple of thoughts on the subject.

It's funny, because I'm a bit obsessive, that I can't walk away from a TOTL or near TOTL Vintage Marantz or Pioneer. I know that I can get a more accurate sound from even (IMO of course) an ADCOM 545, and unlike some of the later (SX-xx80 and newer) Pioneer and most Marantz it can pull 4ohm loads with ease.

I think it's partly nostalgia, partly build quality of the '70s gear, and quite a bit the styling and the way that a nice '70s "Monster receiver" like the SX-1250 just makes you want to walk over and touch it.

I also know that my money is "safe" in these, provided I buy one in complete and cosmetically excellent condition, it will always be easy to sell for what I have in it. This is significant to me because I can buy a 950, 1250, 1010 et al and audition it in my home on my system to see how I like it, and if not it goes away with a minimum of effort.

Even low-dollar units like SX-650s and 680s are cool looking, a friend had me fix a pair of SX-680s for him (original owner) as a favor, but where else can you get a decent sounding silver-face Pioneer with meters for a Benjamin or so? I suspect easy to sell.

I will always love the big Pioneers, even if they aren't my favorites to have in rotation. There's just something about them.

BTW if you want warm, try some of the early '90s Carver gear. The TFM series was "voiced" to sound like the Silver 7 IIRC.
 
The 1280 is a good sounding unit, and you get those really cool meters that the 1250 doesn't have!

Between the two however, the 1250 has more headroom, much more 4ohm power, and a considerably better power supply which makes it more flexible in speaker choices and more powerful at high SPLs.

When I was choosing between the two I could have gone either way on the slightly different sound (took a while to hear the difference), so it was meters vs power. Nice that you have both!
 
I was a huge Pioneer fanboy until I rebuilt my 1st Sansui., an AU-317II. Then a 771, then an AU-717, and now a 881. I still love the Pioneer sound, enjoy working them, and I love the Pioneer silver face aesthetic. But Sansui sounds a bit better, to me. That being said, I'll never give up my SX-780!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom