Pioneer SX 1010 VS Pioneer SX 1080 Receiver Shootout Which one did I keep

[Gerald D]

I've collected a few vintage receivers over the years some needed work some didn't. I'll use them and pass them on so someone else can enjoy them. I'm down to just a few pioneer receivers. I had a nice SX 1010 rehabilitated which took more transistors than caps but sounds great now. I also
have an SX1080 in very good condition. I set both up and pretty much did an AB comparison shootout. I own both receivers so no bias here. We all have those pieces of test music we use to check out or systems. So I played the same music on both receiver with the same speakers, same room like for like comparison.
Used two sets of speakers, a set of JBL L100s and a set of ADS L620s, check out my ADS post, whole other story. I could switch things out very fast, so my music memory was fresh in my mind.
Some stereo reviewers must have a PHd in the use of big words. I'm not one of those guys...

Here's what I came up with. Both are excellent and have a place in my home. They both have lots of similar features. Close in power 110 watts vs 120 watts.
The tone control is very different the 1010 has more options and takes less input to get the same result, IE one half throttle on the 1010 treble and base VS three quarter throttle on the 1080. You get the same volume of tone like in cymbals and percussion. The 1010 actually lets you hear the wooden drumstick hit the metal cymbals the 1080 isn't as well defined if that makes any sense. That applies to most of the highs throughout the spectrum.
Midranges, the 1010 edges out the 1080 here to, vocals are clear in both, acoustic guitars on the 1010 seems like you can tell the musician is using a pic where not an apparent on the 1080. The 1010 was just brighter all the way around.
Now to the bass. The 1010 shined here. The 1080 could get that over driving bass sound but could be easily tuned into good sound depending on the quality of the recording.
The 1010 just seemed to keep the bass under control a lot better without changing any settings. Bass was fast and never got soggy with the 1010

After putting everything together and doing some overall listening both do an excellent job of separation, the 1010 was more defined than the 1080
When it came to all out cranking the S--- out of both (Pissing off the Neighbors). The 1010 just kept going. the louder it gets, the better the separation the cleaner the bass all of the factors at low volume are more pronounced at high volume. the sound doesn't fall apart at all, nothing is harsh on your ears just clean, clear music which is easy to listen to.
The 1080 did get less easy to listen to if that makes any sense. Everything was there but not as brilliant as the 1010. It did seem like the instrument ran together at times because the separation wasn't as good at higher volumes
I did do all of this with my SX980 at the same time, which was identical to the 1080, didn't want to make this post too long

In the end the SX1010 did better overall in my opinion, seems more like a tube amp in a solid state body. I wish they carried these sound characteristics to the 50 and 80 series.
They are all great sounding machines just my opinion. I did move on the SX 1080 and JBLs to a new owner
Thanks for reading

 

[Blue Shadow]

Expected outcome based on sound quality. I'm surprised by the overpowering nostalgia that has people going for the -80 series(or other known lesser sounding gear) and certain speakers that were not the best sounding and folks have to have that today because the remember it so fondly from the good old days. Many see past this if they try other gear as you have and many are just happy with the gear of their youthful lust. Whatever makes them happy.

 

[spicer]

I've collected a few vintage receivers over the years some needed work some didn't. I'll use them and pass them on so someone else can enjoy them. I'm down to just a few pioneer receivers. I had a nice SX 1010 rehabilitated which took more transistors than caps but sounds great now. I also
have an SX1080 in very good condition. I set both up and pretty much did an AB comparison shootout. I own both receivers so no bias here. We all have those pieces of test music we use to check out or systems. So I played the same music on both receiver with the same speakers, same room like for like comparison.
Used two sets of speakers, a set of JBL L100s and a set of ADS L620s, check out my ADS post, whole other story. I could switch things out very fast, so my music memory was fresh in my mind.
Some stereo reviewers must have a PHd in the use of big words. I'm not one of those guys...

Here's what I came up with. Both are excellent and have a place in my home. They both have lots of similar features. Close in power 110 watts vs 120 watts.
The tone control is very different the 1010 has more options and takes less input to get the same result, IE one half throttle on the 1010 treble and base VS three quarter throttle on the 1080. You get the same volume of tone like in cymbals and percussion. The 1010 actually lets you hear the wooden drumstick hit the metal cymbals the 1080 isn't as well defined if that makes any sense. That applies to most of the highs throughout the spectrum.
Midranges, the 1010 edges out the 1080 here to, vocals are clear in both, acoustic guitars on the 1010 seems like you can tell the musician is using a pic where not an apparent on the 1080. The 1010 was just brighter all the way around.
Now to the bass. The 1010 shined here. The 1080 could get that over driving bass sound but could be easily tuned into good sound depending on the quality of the recording.
The 1010 just seemed to keep the bass under control a lot better without changing any settings. Bass was fast and never got soggy with the 1010

After putting everything together and doing some overall listening both do an excellent job of separation, the 1010 was more defined than the 1080
When it came to all out cranking the S--- out of both (Pissing off the Neighbors). The 1010 just kept going. the louder it gets, the better the separation the cleaner the bass all of the factors at low volume are more pronounced at high volume. the sound doesn't fall apart at all, nothing is harsh on your ears just clean, clear music which is easy to listen to.
The 1080 did get less easy to listen to if that makes any sense. Everything was there but not as brilliant as the 1010. It did seem like the instrument ran together at times because the separation wasn't as good at higher volumes
I did do all of this with my SX980 at the same time, which was identical to the 1080, didn't want to make this post too long

In the end the SX1010 did better overall in my opinion, seems more like a tube amp in a solid state body. I wish they carried these sound characteristics to the 50 and 80 series.
They are all great sounding machines just my opinion. I did move on the SX 1080 and JBLs to a new owner
Thanks for reading

I've been around both and agree with your findings. Besides that though, I prefer the look of the 1010, completely different styling. The 1010 was last of that era and I believe the best.

 

[drp1003]

I own the SX-939. The next one down at 70wpc. I swear it puts out more power. I did a fairly deep restoration on it and before the restore it sounded horrible, but now it sounds amazing. The only thing I own that sounds better is my WOLP400 power amp/Hafler 101 preamp combo. But nothing can touch that rig.

 

[wmgwizard]

Over the years the "specs" of Pioneer gear did get better but the SQ tended to degrade; IMO the x2x and x3x were better sounding than the x50 and x80 series gear.

 

[Blue Shadow]

I swear it puts out more power.

Well sure. Most ss gear in the 70s would do 10-20% above their rating with a quick power test, 1kHz. Without preconditioning lots of gear was 'healthy' The 939 did 95 watts that way.

But nothing can touch that rig.

Well there is probably a lot of gear you haven't tried that sounds really good. Otherwise, who but the richest would be the new expensive crap instead of some old gear and get the PL amp rebuild into a WOPL? The good thing about this is you are happy with that 100/400 combo and don't need to scrape together funds to try the new stuff or even high-end old stuff where the cost or restoration can be too high.

Over the years the "specs" of Pioneer gear did get better but the SQ tended to degrade;

Yes, the 1st of the monster receivers and the beginning of the spec wars, sound quality be damned.

 

[Bradbrews]

I own a 1010 as a daily driver, an unrestored but fully functional 950, and listened to a 980 that I rebuilt the power supply on for a friend in the same location, same speakers.
I don’t really think it’s a fair comparison as the 950 and 980 were not restored. However, the sound of both the 950 and 980 as they are, is more clinical and edgy, while the 1010 is more smooth and mellow, while still being able to just plain kick ass on some Metallica if asked to.
I have all the bits to restore the 950 , so probably next winter I’ll be able to do a better comparison between the 1010 and it.
So far I think that the 1010 deserves its street cred.

 

[painttoad]

i've got a 1010 and i've done a couple 1080s and a couple 1280s.

the 1010 sounds better than the latter(s) to me.

as i like to say, the xx80s have plenty of balls but no soul.

and the 1010 phono stage > the 1080's.

all subjective tho.

 

[Gerald D]

Over the years the "specs" of Pioneer gear did get better but the SQ tended to degrade; IMO the x2x and x3x were better sounding than the x50 and x80 series gear.

what year did the x2x and x3x come along I'm not failure with those units

I own a 1010 as a daily driver, an unrestored but fully functional 950, and listened to a 980 that I rebuilt the power supply on for a friend in the same location, same speakers.
I don’t really think it’s a fair comparison as the 950 and 980 were not restored. However, the sound of both the 950 and 980 as they are, is more clinical and edgy, while the 1010 is more smooth and mellow, while still being able to just plain kick ass on some Metallica if asked to.
I have all the bits to restore the 950 , so probably next winter I’ll be able to do a better comparison between the 1010 and it.
So far I think that the 1010 deserves its street cred.

I spent all of last weekend doing my comparison, all of my equipment is up to the task. What I found out is what everyone has been saying, the 1010 has a sound that's unique to the 1010. This receiver can stand its ground against just about any other. Just remember the speakers make all of the difference

 

[wmgwizard]

x2x series 1972-74
x3x series 1974-76, the 1010 was TOTL of this series

 

[IXLR8]

You are right the SX-1010 has got a certain sound and a charm that is all it's own. As a young GI over in Germany listening to it new at the Audio Club in Furth Germany as demonstrated by Pioneer reps it was winner. The SX-1010 crossed my path several times since those days. I have a fondness and respect for it. The SX-1250 won my heart since then and it and the SX-980 although perhaps not as rich, with a touch of tonal adjustment can get you in a warm tube like sonic zone.

 

[zenith2134]

I've owned many Pioneers, and my favorites have been the SX-939 and 1280. Two very different units, and for differing reasons.

The '939 was the one. In many ways I just preferred it to all my other gear at the time.

The 1280 had massive power which I didn't need, but I am a sucker for statement pieces and it was just too cool.

 

[xCl0ud]

Dude, hello from Ukraine!
I also have an SX-1010. It’s been restored twice for various reasons, but the unit sounds absolutely out of this world.