• Please note that Audiokarma will be offline briefly for updates early on Monday morning, September 28th.

KR 9400 or SX 1050 ??? Copmare and contrast... What's your choice?....

Moth R. Superior

Moth R. Superior

Active Member
COMPARE not Copmare....
What's your opinion, Would you choose a KR 9400 or an SX 1050?
Both have 120 WPC
However the SX has 10Hz to 50KHz frequncy response
the KR 5Hz to 40 KHz
the SX THD 0.1%
the KR THD 0.02%
the SX Signal to noise ratio: 75dB (MM), 90dB (line)
the kKR Signal to noise ratio: 65dB (mic), 70dB (MM), 93dB (DIN), 93dB (line)
An the SX Output: 150mV (line), 30mV (DIN), 1V (Pre out)
the KR Output: 150mV (line), 30mV (DIN)

Sound experience, opinions on looks, maybe you've owned both,
Whatever you can give me would be greatly appreciated !!!
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
That's a tough one. I have owned an SX-1050, and my parents have owned a KR-9400 since new.

I would have to have them both here at one time to decide, but I like the looks of the KR-9400 better and it has great tuner.

Rob
 
Damn, I wanted to copmare!

A long time ago, I was a Kenwood fan, and I like their tuners, so I go with that in my mind, but comparison may show one or the other has an issue, and that could well sway me to the SX, if I wanted a vintage receiver.
 
My experience with Kenwood re: inherent problems would be to recommend avoiding the KR-9400. They look very cool, especially when lit up, but I was recently gifted a U.S.domestic version which wont even light up, all fuses good. My first one, I bought in Turkey thru the base BX in '76 had nothing but problems from day one. Did the service bulletin amp board mods, replaced output transistors, it ran for a bit, then crapped out again. Still have both, may attempt a resurrection some day. I'd go with the pioneer, but as always, others have had different experiences with these models, so ymmv, of course.
 
The SX-1050 has a better power rating into 4 ohms. It also has 4 tone controls instead of three, and I think those high treble and low bass controls are far more likely to be useful than the midrange control, but you may feel differently. I think the Pioneer has the controls more logically grouped, and I think it looks better (though obviously others may feel differently).

For me, the choice is easy; I would go with the Pioneer.
 
Last edited:
I had a 1050, a KR9400 and a Carver something or other (it wasn't 'The Receiver, it was the smaller one).
One day I compared them all side by side... same source, same speakers and same media.

I liked the Kenwood the best. I found it to be warmer and more 'natural' sounding. The Carver was crystal clear and very loud, but to my ears lacked the warmth of the Kenny, my lease favorite of the three. The Pioneer to me sounded "fine." It was just OK, hard to explain, but I wasn't impressed. I sold the Pioneer and the Carver.
 
Moth R. Superior said:
COMPARE not Copmare....
What's your opinion, Would you choose a KR 9400 or an SX 1050?
Both have 120 WPC
However the SX has 10Hz to 50KHz frequncy response
the KR 5Hz to 40 KHz
the SX THD 0.1%
the KR THD 0.02%
the SX Signal to noise ratio: 75dB (MM), 90dB (line)
the kKR Signal to noise ratio: 65dB (mic), 70dB (MM), 93dB (DIN), 93dB (line)
An the SX Output: 150mV (line), 30mV (DIN), 1V (Pre out)
the KR Output: 150mV (line), 30mV (DIN)

Sound experience, opinions on looks, maybe you've owned both,
Whatever you can give me would be greatly appreciated !!!
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you got your numbers, but according to the manual at:

https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/kenwood/kr-9400.shtml

The THD of the Kenwood at rated power is 0.1%. I see the 0.02% comes from half power at 1kHz, according to the manual.
 
You will want to download the manual, because the number they put there on their site is wrong. It isn't too surprising that someone occasionally copies the wrong number on sites like that, or makes a typographical error. The 0.02% is not for full rated power, and is not for the full frequency range, as one can see from the specification page of the manual.

I did not bother to read what they copied out first, and simply downloaded the manual. Although there can be errors in manuals, those are more likely to be right than what someone copies out onto a web site. And the manual is likely to give you more information than what is generally copied out onto a web site.

You might want to download the manuals to both receivers, and compare the specifications, as well as the controls and connections, to see if there is some other aspect that matters to you. I happen to think that the Pioneer receivers of that era have the controls laid out better than most; ironically, I think they did a better job of that with their receivers than with their integrated amplifiers of the same era. For example, finding the switch that drops the volume 20dB is much easier on the Pioneer receiver than it is on the Kenwood receiver or the Pioneer integrated amplifiers of the era, and it is the sort of switch that is good to be able to easily and quickly locate, if one is going to actually use it.

But you should look at them both carefully and decide for yourself.
 
Moth R. Superior said:
Thanks everybody. I have the SX1050 , and had the option of trading it for the 9400, clean trade.
Guess I just needed some shoving in the right direction ....
I think i'll stay with the 1050.
Thanks. :music::rockon:
Click to expand...


It is almost always a bad idea to do a clean trade when the two are so similar. Living with the one, you should have a pretty good idea that it is working properly, a greater certainty than you will have when auditioning another piece of gear (because, for example, some problems only show up when a thing becomes quite warm, so you could get it home and then after listening for a couple of hours, find out that there is a problem after all).

There is one advantage I can think of with the Kenwood, and that is bragging rights, as you could honestly say it was top of the line when it was made, whereas the Pioneer is one step down from the top Pioneer receiver of that line.

Anyway, I think you made the right choice (not that it really matters what any of us think).
 
Pyrrho said:
It is almost always a bad idea to do a clean trade when the two are so similar. Living with the one, you should have a pretty good idea that it is working properly, a greater certainty than you will have when auditioning another piece of gear (because, for example, some problems only show up when a thing becomes quite warm, so you could get it home and then after listening for a couple of hours, find out that there is a problem after all).

There is one advantage I can think of with the Kenwood, and that is bragging rights, as you could honestly say it was top of the line when it was made, whereas the Pioneer is one step down from the top Pioneer receiver of that line.

Anyway, I think you made the right choice (not that it really matters what any of us think).
Click to expand...
ThanksPyrrho but i kind of think your guys' opinions kind of mater to us novices,without the guidance of this page, i'd have been screwed many times over,and probably loused up a few repairs to boot!!
So again Thanks Everybody!!
CHEERS!
-M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom