• 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

vintage gear redux

When we sold the SX series Pioneers I really enjoyed them. They were the closest sounding pieces when compared to Mcintosh at the time. They didn't have that edge like some other products had making the highs sound forced or over accented. They were easy to listen to whether driving KEF speakers with the sizzling highs or Altec horn stuff or Bozak with the line array of tweeters. AR sounded great, too. I recommended them to friends all the time and really enjoyed listening to their different systems. They had good dynamics, great bass and mids. The highs were well balanced and didn't give me hearing fatigue. Friends mostly had the 550 or the 750. A couple had the 1050 and it was a real performer. Gave separates a real challenge.
 
@twiiii thats certainly the impression i get from this 750. i bet the 1050 was/is a real performer. i sure would like to hear some old sansuis though, and even some more old marantz units.

ill have to a/b my dads mcs 3275 and the sx750 to get a better idea where it stacks up to other vintage gear ive had
 
Too many on AK judge vintage units after listening to worn out receivers and speakers that need fresh capa.

I have a Marantz 16 amplifier that has been totally recapped and re built. I also have the matching model 33 preamp. In the same system I have a set of Marantz Imperial 6s with fresh caps. When I started recapping all my vintage speakers it was eye opening. Getting to hear vintage items like they sounded when they we new is really amazing.

I have had over 45 vintage receivers and all of the ones in good condition sounded really nice. The ones in poor condition did not. How much use a unit has had and where it was stored has a huge influence on how it sounds now.

Dont be surprised at how good the 70s stuff can sound when in good condition. Just because something is new does not mean it sound better than something old.....there are a lot more factors in play.


20210128_200402.jpg 20210128_200442.jpg
 
I use a Sansui AU-919 (fully restored) in one of my main systems. Over the years, I have tried a variety of fairly well-respected integrated and power amps against it....Musical Fidelity A3.5, Parasound Halo (the first version), Bedini (cannot recall model number), Adcom 545II, Yamaha M60, and several others. I always end up preferring the sound of the Sansui. I assume it would be bested by upper tier amps, but that's not in my future.
 
Pioneer was a top-shelf brand that also offered entry level and mid-range gear.
I just rebuilt my SX-1250 here a couple of weeks ago. Listening through JBL L-300s, nice DIY cables, and a freshly aligned Yamaha CDX-930 CD player, I was getting shivers from what I was hearing and experiencing.
 
@Bodyblue i feel the same way about not only vintage gear, but speakers as well now. ive had pretty good speakers before so i have a frame of reference for how my music can sound sound.

whenever i mention my bose 201’s people come out of the wood work to tell me i need to upgrade my speakers (as if im not constantly trying to do so). the thing is though, these bose 201’s can and have sounded pretty damn good being driven by the right amp.

being driven by an a/v receiver they sound like ass. no bass extension and no highs.

being driven by my parasound hca-1500a + p/ld-1100 they dig deep bass (not huge bass but deep and defined)

and being driven by a pioneer a-717 integrated amplifier they performed about the same. no other unit i tried on them could open them up like the 717 and hca-1500a.. i dont recall trying the r-117 on them but oh well.

point is, i think this site has a lot of information that should be taken with a grain of salt. while bose 201’s arent a speaker you should be seeking out, if you find a pair for a deal they will perform about as well or better than many “garage level” speakers including large monkey coffins. the 201’s might have deeper bass than my mcs 8295’s, but with more definition and tangibility to dynamic transients.

a lot of people are either listening to an old tired amp, an underpowered amp for the speaker in question, or a combination of it all.. then sharing their findings as concrete evidence to any contrary.

i know my bose 201’s dont sound “great” but they most absolutely certainly dont sound BAD, ya know? ice heard BAD speakers and they just arent. maybe at a brand new price point vs what you could spend that money on but still, i have a hard time disliking them.

considering most peoples stereo’s arent an hca-1500a or pioneer a-717, i lean more toward that being a big reason why bose has the reputation they do.

from now on, i wont be listening much to people who havent a real frame of reference for whats been established as quality.

while all my listening led me to the parasound, any thought i had about any gear before owning the parasound really doesnt even matter anymore when i really think about it.

who was i to say what was good when i hadnt yet heard something good
 
yotems said:
i enjoy the optomism but i sincerely doubt this pioneer could ever surpass the parasound.

i think it could likely sound better than it currently does and very well may try giving it some love but i dont think that could even get it to sound better than the parasound let alone as good. the parasound has a lot more current capability in just one channel than the pioneer has in both.

the p/ld-1100 is its own dual mono class a preamp with a lot of capacitance in it

i think this would be the unit to do a restore on though as long as i have the parasound as well, there would be no way i wouldnt hear a difference in the sound if there was one after a restore
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I am not at all familiar with that Parasound model. I buy/sell and refurbish/upgrade a lot of audio equipment. My only experience with Parasound was a cd player that passed through my hands at one point that was entirely forgettable. I tried looking it up, but I don't remember the model number.

If the Parasound is dual mono, class-A then it's going to be hard for the Pioneer to beat no matter what and it sounds like a very high-end product.

With regards to current, switching the Pioneer over to the UF diodes and increasing the voltage rating on the power filter caps- say 3 ratings over stock, will greatly increase current and enhance that "liveliness" factor. Still, they are different circuits and never going to sound exactly the same in the end. If the Pioneer gets the attention it needs, look at it as choosing between two different "flavors". It doesn't always have to be which one is better. It's always going tobe a subjective comparison anyway, where one person may choose the Parasound in the end, while another may opt for the refurbed Pioneer- depending what they like. That is part of the fun with this hobby. We all get to decide what we like. Good luck with the Pioneer restoration if you plan to go that route. It sounds like you have two very nice options to play around with.
 
onanysunday said:
Thanks for pointing that out. I am not at all familiar with that Parasound model. I buy/sell and refurbish/upgrade a lot of audio equipment. My only experience with Parasound was a cd player that passed through my hands at one point that was entirely forgettable. I tried looking it up, but I don't remember the model number.

If the Parasound is dual mono, class-A then it's going to be hard for the Pioneer to beat no matter what and it sounds like a very high-end product.

With regards to current, switching the Pioneer over to the UF diodes and increasing the voltage rating on the power filter caps- say 3 ratings over stock, will greatly increase current and enhance that "liveliness" factor. Still, they are different circuits and never going to sound exactly the same in the end. If the Pioneer gets the attention it needs, look at it as choosing between two different "flavors". It doesn't always have to be which one is better. It's always going tobe a subjective comparison anyway, where one person may choose the Parasound in the end, while another may opt for the refurbed Pioneer- depending what they like. That is part of the fun with this hobby. We all get to decide what we like. Good luck with the Pioneer restoration if you plan to go that route. It sounds like you have two very nice options to play around with.
Click to expand...


How does a higher voltage rating increase current? I would think voltage into the capacitors is defined by the power supply, regardless of the voltage they are rated for.
 
yotems said:
@Bodyblue i feel the same way about not only vintage gear, but speakers as well now. ive had pretty good speakers before so i have a frame of reference for how my music can sound sound.

whenever i mention my bose 201’s people come out of the wood work to tell me i need to upgrade my speakers (as if im not constantly trying to do so). the thing is though, these bose 201’s can and have sounded pretty damn good being driven by the right amp.

being driven by an a/v receiver they sound like ass. no bass extension and no highs.

being driven by my parasound hca-1500a + p/ld-1100 they dig deep bass (not huge bass but deep and defined)

and being driven by a pioneer a-717 integrated amplifier they performed about the same. no other unit i tried on them could open them up like the 717 and hca-1500a.. i dont recall trying the r-117 on them but oh well.

point is, i think this site has a lot of information that should be taken with a grain of salt. while bose 201’s arent a speaker you should be seeking out, if you find a pair for a deal they will perform about as well or better than many “garage level” speakers including large monkey coffins. the 201’s might have deeper bass than my mcs 8295’s, but with more definition and tangibility to dynamic transients.

a lot of people are either listening to an old tired amp, an underpowered amp for the speaker in question, or a combination of it all.. then sharing their findings as concrete evidence to any contrary.

i know my bose 201’s dont sound “great” but they most absolutely certainly dont sound BAD, ya know? ice heard BAD speakers and they just arent. maybe at a brand new price point vs what you could spend that money on but still, i have a hard time disliking them.

considering most peoples stereo’s arent an hca-1500a or pioneer a-717, i lean more toward that being a big reason why bose has the reputation they do.

from now on, i wont be listening much to people who havent a real frame of reference for whats been established as quality.

while all my listening led me to the parasound, any thought i had about any gear before owning the parasound really doesnt even matter anymore when i really think about it.

who was i to say what was good when i hadnt yet heard something good
Click to expand...

When I was out of the audio hobby and just needed a basic system Bose 201 Series ll were my main speakers.....for about 17 years. They fill a room nicely with sound. I am not a Bose basher at all. They have their place for sure.
 
spark1 said:
How does a higher voltage rating increase current? I would think voltage into the capacitors is defined by the power supply, regardless of the voltage they are rated for.
Click to expand...

I just posted this on another thread, but feel like it applies here as well.

The way I found this out was that I was using the best power filter caps I could find on my recaps that had the highest possible LF/HF ripple current with the lowest ESR. At the time, I believe it was mainly UCC KMH or SMH (if I recall correctly). Also, I was sometimes increasing voltage ratings 1-2 times while keeping the capacitance the same as the originals.

What I found was that while the best spec'd caps provided the cleanest, most modern sound which suprisingly made many old vintage pieces sound quite lively, the sound became overly-excited and emphasized to the point it really hurt my ears in the upper frequencies causing sibilance and listener fatigue. Because of this, I could no longer tolerate listening to the music at a higher volume and could only enjoy it at lower volumes.

I went back in and replaced those caps with others that didn't have a competitvely listed ripple current at HF and went back to the original, lower voltage rating.

The result of this was that I was once again able to enjoy the music at a higher volume without hurting my ears. Throughout this experiment, I had been using caps with the same exact capacitance, but the ones with the higher rated (maximum) voltage hurt my ears. The only attributable difference I could find for this was their drastic difference in (maximum) ripple current, which was different by a factor of several amps.

While I'd never recommend decreasing voltage on caps for de-emphasis, I can recommend increasing it in certain instances to tailor the sound as it relates to enhancing output at either LF or HF by paying special attention to the ripple of caps that were originally supplied at these frequencies, and making adjustments to that based off increasing voltage ratings and subsequent ripple current.

After some extensive trial and error testing with before and after listening impressions with many different series of audio/ non-audio electrolytics, I have made a few findings as it relates to current ratio @ LF/HF that sounds best for audio.

1.) Competitively listed LF current jives well with non-competitive HF current (as according to comparisons made with the Digikey parametric search function).

1.) Normally, current at HF is usually greater than current at LF within an electrolytic. So, in order to get equal ouput at both frequency extremes for a balanced sound throughout the listening range, you're looking for competitive ripple current at LF, but not HF (unless you want a "bright" sound).

3.) For whatever reason, this trend does not apply to "audio-rated" caps all the time, in all instances, which while (generally) reflecting this ratio, does not always, but STILL manages to sound good for audio regardless. This might have to do with engineering- possibly dielectric or electrolyte, I am not sure.
 
I have trouble understanding your logic; it is very hard for me to imagine how increasing a capacitor's rated voltage changes anything (all other things being equal).

In my understanding. rated voltage has no effect on the stored charge; it only defines the voltage that the capacitor can handle before damage/failure.

Similarly, ripple current rating defines the ripple/AC current - or more precisely, the heat resulting from dissipation of that current - that the capacitor can withstand before damage/failure.

But of course, carry on with whatever works best for you.
 
Last edited:
The only things you can really tell about how a cap might sound (besides its marketing) that I can tell are that low-ESR and low-leakage can sound "clean", and that its ripple current at LF and HF gives you an idea of where the emphasis is within the frequency response. This is especially useful for choosing non-audio caps that can sound good for audio.
 
spark1 said:
I have trouble understanding your logic, but it is very hard for me to imagine how increasing a capacitor's rated voltage changes anything (all other things being equal).

In my understanding. rated voltage has no effect on the stored charge; it only defines the voltage that the capacitor can handle before damage/failure.
Click to expand...

The logic is that high current @ HF hurts my ears. All other observations were made by recognizing this and applying the information not only to HF, but LF as well.

If you are skeptical, on your next recap try using caps with an outrageously high HF current that is several amps more than what you have in there currently (if you can find them) with no competitively listed current at LF; or vice versa.

Whenever that current is listed at either LF or HF, it is emphasized and not strictly just a theoretical maximum. I guarantee you that an electrolytic with competitive LF ripple (and not HF) won't be overly bright or sibilant. If any effect is audible (depending where in the circuit it is and what its function is) it will have stronger bass.
 
Last edited:
It's just about taking more control with the sound and not just leaving everything up to chance as to how it turns out. I've never regretted approaching it this way, but have gone back in to old projects where caps were chosen purely off things like high ripple ratings (in general) with no regards to "balanced" ripple, low ESR and higher lifetime ratings. In themselves, following these parameters does not guarantee the best sounding electrolytic. The best sounding ones generally have seemingly terrible 1,000 hour ratings and a measly 85 degree rating.
 
@onanysunday in my experience on multiple amps changing the main filtering capacitors out with same capacitance of higher voltage spec caps the only difference ive come to find is the new higher spec caps give me more peace of mind.

i think there were multiple times in which i convinced myself i was hearing things i was not hearing, or that i wasnt hearing things that i was hearing because i “wanted” an amp or piece pf gear to perform in a specific manner that maybe it just couldnt do no matter how much restoration i did.

after climbing the audio ladder a bit, getting a chance to audition many high regarded units for myself, and test them against other highly regarded units i was able to achieve higher quality results in the gear i chose to pursue and therefor acquire.

it was a weird perspective to have and a wonderful one to let go of. i dont know where i would be today if i was still giving a lot of the gear ive had the benefit of the doubt as a reason to hold onto them further.

i dont think i would be listening to as quality audio as i do now, and im still contemplating even better than where im at because i know this parasound stuff is good but its certainly not the pinnacle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom