Put the MF preamp back in to see if that takes care of the brightness problem.
My stereo receiver is a little too bright. Can a cable help me out?
I just had my vintage Pioneer SX-1050 refurbished. I had a severe case of sticker shock when presented with the bill - oops!! Which unfortunately pretty much forces me to use it.
I will say It is sounding very powerful which is no big surprise because there is a lot of horsepower under the hood. But the audio impression is that it’s also a little too bright. The only way I know to tame brightness is with the right interconnects. But I’m not experienced in that area. Recommendations would be most welcome.
It’s probably important to know how I am using the Pioneer SX-1050. It is responsible for all audio in my TV system. My choice of music is almost exclusively opera and classical.
I send the HDMI signal from my four sources ( TV-DVR, OPPO DVD, ROKU streamer and Pioneer Elite Laser Disc Player ) to my AVR, an ARCAM SR-250, and I send the respective analog audio signals to the Pioneer. I am into opera and classical music and I didn’t think my ARCAM AVR sounded as good as I wanted it to, even though it’s ideally suited to my needs, a two-channel product touted for its exceptional audio. The audio is good but definitely not great. Prior to deciding to refurbish it I had paired the Pioneer with a Musical Fidelity A3cr Preamp, using the Pioneer just as an amplifier, and I was getting very good audio that way. But one of the goals of the refurbishment project was to feature the Pioneer and eliminate the musical influence of the Musical Fidelity preamp. And now, after spending so much, I wanted to hear how my now very expensive Pioneer sounded, so I pulled the Musical Fidelity Pre and attached my sources directly to the Pioneer. Currently all the interconnects are Blue Jeans Cable. Obviously I can’t spend huge amounts replacing cables for all four sources, so the DVD is priority.
I will say It is sounding very powerful which is no big surprise because there is a lot of horsepower under the hood. But the audio impression is that it’s also a little too bright. The only way I know to tame brightness is with the right interconnects. But I’m not experienced in that area. Recommendations would be most welcome.
It’s probably important to know how I am using the Pioneer SX-1050. It is responsible for all audio in my TV system. My choice of music is almost exclusively opera and classical.
I send the HDMI signal from my four sources ( TV-DVR, OPPO DVD, ROKU streamer and Pioneer Elite Laser Disc Player ) to my AVR, an ARCAM SR-250, and I send the respective analog audio signals to the Pioneer. I am into opera and classical music and I didn’t think my ARCAM AVR sounded as good as I wanted it to, even though it’s ideally suited to my needs, a two-channel product touted for its exceptional audio. The audio is good but definitely not great. Prior to deciding to refurbish it I had paired the Pioneer with a Musical Fidelity A3cr Preamp, using the Pioneer just as an amplifier, and I was getting very good audio that way. But one of the goals of the refurbishment project was to feature the Pioneer and eliminate the musical influence of the Musical Fidelity preamp. And now, after spending so much, I wanted to hear how my now very expensive Pioneer sounded, so I pulled the Musical Fidelity Pre and attached my sources directly to the Pioneer. Currently all the interconnects are Blue Jeans Cable. Obviously I can’t spend huge amounts replacing cables for all four sources, so the DVD is priority.
75 responses Add your response
Sometimes 'brightness' in equipment will magically disappear when you use it with loudspeakers that have a fuller sound. It's also worth experimenting with speaker placement if that can help to restore the correct balance. Any system with a weak /capped bass output can have a tendency to sound bright. Using cables as a form of tone controls adds unnecessary complexity in my experience, and never worked for me. Much sooner use tone controls to dial in the exact adjustment needed. |
I just had my vintage Pioneer SX-1050 refurbished. I had a severe case of sticker shock when presented with the bill - oops!! Which unfortunately pretty much forces me to use it. A common mistake. No not the refurbishment. Not the bill. The conclusion. So common there's a name for it: The Fallacy of the Sunken Cost. Or The Sunken Cost Fallacy. Whichever way you prefer. The relevant word in any case being: fallacy. Its just wrong. So look. You made one stupid mistake. So what? Who doesn't? I sure have! Everyone has! The trick is to first of all realize it was indeed a mistake, look it in the face and until you understand as well as you can what led to that mistake, in order to not repeat it hopefully ever again (but mistakes happen, so good luck with that) and then correct it. You clearly know this was a mistake. Good. Not sure if you know why, but whatever. My job now is try and help you understand you don't have to spend the rest of your life suffering over that one mistake. Which you seem to want to do. Why? Ditch the receiver. Water under the bridge. As a newly refurbished bit of good looking classic kit there's plenty of schlubs be happy and proud to have something so cool to look at (the real appeal of this stuff anyway, as you now know it just don't sound that good) and pay handsomely for. So maybe you lose a few bucks. So what? Clean start. Or, what you seem to want to do instead: buy a bunch of absolute crap, which you know has to be absolute crap, since by definition it can't be what you want, really good sound, since really good sound is only gonna make more and more clear how you screwed up with the receiver! So instead you want to buy one band-aid after another. First this then than, all trying to hide the fault of the receiver. Which one day you finally realize has got to go, and then what? You're left with all this crap! The fallacy of the sunken cost. Fallacy, indeed. |
I’ve taken such receivers and re-done them in nichicon muse capacitors, and all non magnetic resistors lie PRP brand and what not. the switches are high quality, and so on.. what one can end up with, when they do it right, is a old 1978 +50lb stereo receiver... that sounds better than some $3-5-7k modern integrated.... as the parts quality is higher and the circuit is also tweaked - in the old unit. Easy-peasy I do it as a form of a ’message’ in the general sense, to all.. that old is not worse than new, and that ’best’....is tied quite tightly to parts quality. |
Most audio receivers from that era, ie Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui, Sony, Marantz(made by Superscope), Onkyo, Toshiba, etc all sounded like that. I sold that stuff for many years. That stuff was made during the distortion wars in the 70’s. Sell it here, lick your wounds and buy smart this time. Don’t waste your money on 70’s junk. If you want a old receiver, look for a NAD. They were the best sounding of them all. |
My experience with having older amps refurbished, reconditioned is that new electrolytic capacitors are installed in all stages. The designer originally used different types of caps to help voice the amp. So it won't sound the same as vintage, OTOH, there are new components in your amp which bring it up to date and will outperform modern receivers and AVRs. I agree to let it break in for 100 to 200 hours. I also agree with others who said to use the tone controls. Your Pioneer has a good range of EQ to experiment with. I like teoaudio's comments, if properly restored you'll have a well built component that competes with today's gear. And will last for 20 more years. |
Millercarbon is spot on. I know because I owned 2 SX1280 receivers back in the day. My first upgrade was to purchase an Onyko preamp in maybe 1982. I used the amp in the Pioneer with the new preamp. I was astonished at the difference. The preamp section in your unit can't be better than the 1280. I see these old receivers selling for top dollar on eBay. Bite the bullet and sell it. Consider buying a receiver like the Anthem MRX710. It's several generations old now so the price slips a bit with each new release. Sonically, it will blow you away! It's built like a tank and could anchor your main system. Good luck! Joe |
I think it's silly to sell your Pioneer and pick up a used AVR. You're looking to improve your 2 channel listening experience. As you know, an AVR is a multipurpose device and you've been there, done that. Once again, use the tone controls and put more hours on the Pioneer. You could try the preamp into the receiver again as a test to see what sounds best. I wouldn't get caught up in buying cables and new components. Give it some more time. |
@jnovak I had a Pioneer SA-8100 integrated. I found that the amp alone was very, very good. The phono preamp, when taken from the tape outs was also very good. The rest of the preamp was noisy and aggressive and just not up to the same level as the amp. Actually, its power supply quit on me eventually, so I removed the phono preamp section, built a 24V low-power supply for it and put it in its own cabinet. Worked very well until I replaced it with a Schiit. |
Wow, lots of advice to wade through for which I am most appreciative! I think the most sensible thing to do is to have some patience and decide whether to move on or not after a couple hundred hours of break in. Believe it or not, now, only 24 hours later, I think it sounds quite a bit better. The rawness is gone, or if not gone, considerably tamed. Using the Pioneer’s tone controls is another easy fix. It’s been so long since I had tone controls on any equipment, I’d forgotten they existed! I first bought this Pioneer in 1976 or 1977 and even then I didn’t have a habit of using them. There is certainly something to be said for not sinking any more dollars into the situation. If the foundation isn’t right, nothing that follows will be right! In hindsight, probably the wisest choice would have been to trade in the ARCAM for something that would better satisfy my audio criteria. Though that would have left my old Pioneer still hanging around with no job to do. I have a history of letting good things go and regretting it later; perhaps that’s why I decided to fix it rather than sell it. I can’t resist repeating what the shop owner told me after listening to the rebuilt Pioneer: “You can’t equal the Pioneer with anything built today for less than $5000”. Of course I recognize that could be flattery, trying to make me feel better after spending such an unexpected amount. I prefer to think it is plausible. |
Well it has happened. I have to completely agree with Millercarbon on this one, and jnorris, and jnovak, stereo5, etc. It's a sunk cost. Sell it to someone who doesn't care about audio quality, get as much money as you can, then move on. 10lbs of awful and 50lbs of awful are still "awful". I am not sure why people are suddenly enamoured with 70's / early 80's era receivers. They were not that good then, and no matter how many parts you upgrade, you are not going to fix fundamental flaws. New cables would just be painting the proverbial pig, and throwing good money after bad. Agree with jnovak, the MRX710 will sound better, heck the MRX300 probably will. |
@jnovak, Thanks for the suggestion on the Anthem MRX 710 receiver. I am looking at older Anthem gear and was considering the Anthem Integrated 2 that uses (2) 6922 tubes and had not thought of the Anthem MRX 710 receiver especially now with it's low price point, lots of tech to use if needed, connectivity and I already have a tube phono preamp that uses (2) 6922 tubes. I guess it's time to give my old HH SCOTT 385R receiver that's been in my 'audio closet' for years to my audio tech guy. |
@audiozenology...………..Well, whattya know, you agree with some of us. Who would have thunk? In all seriousness, all these so called golden wonder receivers and amps were made during the distortion wars of the 70’s. Transistors were still maturing back then and although one may have fond memories of the equipment, most sounded God aweful. The manufacturers tried to make up for the poor quality sound by putting every gadget they could fit on the face plate. The more switches and buttons, the better |
stereo’s-Stereo 5 says the true. All that kind of amps.gives the same kind of sound. For me the Music Fidelity is not so a good match. Not so detailfull,and that’s important . When he cann’t good detected the sound (signal) of the source, it gives you a little bit a mess in high tones. But like stereo5 said: all those amps,he mentioned, are not so deep in mid-low and low, Thereby accentuating the clarity of the treble. Now this time, a lot of Japanese product, have still the same problem: Esoteric,Accuphase Teac,.... but they sounds very detailfull: it’s a choice what you want. For going better in low,use a tube-amplifier: usually go deeper into the layer. And use wires of cupper, 99,9% , instead of silver. |
Changing cables WILL affect the sound. Why do people STILL naysay this ....? Some are on the bright side and some are duller than typical. I have an Oppo 105D and do not use it to stream music as it can be a bit harsh, so that would not help, and your Roku is a pretty low level device too, so you are not helping your system much |
If you love vintage gear, trade your Pioneer for a Sansui AU --17. I would consider an AU-717 or AU-917 integrated amp. They sell for about what your SX-1050 is worth. I used to sell both lines, in the day. The Pioneers always sounded too bright, to me. The Sansui AU---17 were as good as vintage aficionados say the are. Later series AU---19 and such sounded good, but started using cheaper internals, especially the power supplies. |
I have made the mistake of spending a lot of money re-building much better preamps (Conrad Johnson PV 5, PV 10) from the 80s and 90s because I felt I couldn't afford new. My wife got fed up, I saved some money and now I'm very happy listening to music daily. Nothing from thirty or forty or fifty years ago sounds nearly as good as the better stuff made now. The best engineers actually have learned a few things in that time. I did hear a pretty nice Spectral amp that was thirty years old, but the new stuff is MUCH better. On a budget, get a new Arcam. As far as cables go, many are bright or forward to give the short term illusion of detail (I'm looking at you, Nordost). The only manufacturer who references live classical music in cable design is Transparent. They are the most natural sounding at every price point. Don't be dismayed by the prices of their top stuff, they have the same design criteria all the way to their most affordable. Cut your losses and move on - you will be happier. |
re older transistors. re old 70’s gear. ~~~~~ transistor heyday regarding actual sonic quality, was in the 70’s. the mid to late 70’s. scratch the opinion of any seasoned designer of audio gear and they will tell you the decade was the 70’s to the 80’s for design and publishing of high grade audio oriented transistors. since then, we’ve had to make do with transistors that are ’accidentally’ good for audio, as opposed to transistors being designed from the ground up, specifically for audio. Which was the case back then. so, in essence, transistors good back then? yes, 100% ...design was mature, it’s gone backward for audio since then. ~~~~~~~~~~ parts quality. Switches. Back then? superior to most modern equivalents that are twice the price of back then, if not 10x the price of back then. (materials costs, environment, economies [inflation, etc], etc...all of it increasing dramatically in modern times compared to back then) they need to be stripped apart and have contacts mechanically cleaned. Which can be done with the older switch, but not with the new inferior one, in many cases. Some switch companies still make the older higher quality switches, like Alps does, but they cost and they really aren’t the same build quality as back then. ~~~~~~~~~ circuit design? this is a bit trickier, but in most cases, most modern and currently used circuit design tricks of today, existed back then, so the deficiencies in design and build in that area are not really there or really a problem. Some of the more modern cutting edge or even ’long term audio design thinking’ tweak tricks can be mechanistically added on to the older circuits in the older gear. The idea of the new circuit and so on being better, exists as companies have to sell you the new in order to be alive and exist, so expect them to convince you that all is new all the time --- when in fact it is not. Not at all. ~~~~~~~~~ again, parts quality? Resistors and capacitors? these can be modernized and upgraded, and then the gear can exceed most or almost anything you can buy new today, that is transistorized. Like a old Camaro or corvette, etc... being refitted to take on a modern carbon fiber bodied racing F1 Ferrari, on the track.... and be dead even and..in some minds... even win. Imagine that. Granted, this is a tall order and the labour levels are insane. This is classic car complete tear down and rebuild ’insanity’ territory, but as done on audio gear. (link is for the image of a ’properly’ modded out NAD3120, which, when finalized [finally finished], might [and generally will] exceed the sonic qualities that most seek to experience from a modern $5k integrated.) https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=45215&p=708943&hilit=nad+3120... |
@teo_audio is right. You need to give it time to break in. It will take around 50 to 100 hours of operation to fully break in. Secondly, a receiver with 40 year old caps typically sounds pretty dark. So there is an added contrast. Our shop has a lot of experience restoring these old gems. We however, tell the customer the cost before even starting work and let them make the decision before spending any money. If you are still unhappy with the performance after break in, the good news is that a restored SX-1050 is worth around $1000. In contrast, a used AVR will drop in value faster than anything. |
Lowrider57 12-23-2019 +1. There's no reason to do anything else at this point. Good luck. Regards, -- Al |
KISS! As others have said, try your tone controls. Start with a little bit up on the base and listen for a few minutes, then add a little bit down on the treble. Listen for ten minutes and walk away. Come back and make an adjustment. Make small adjustments in this fashion for a week, then either live with it or plan a replacement. Have some confidence in your own judgement -- you can do this. Good luck. |
Agree, let it run in. If that's not enough, try moving the speakers so they point more away from your ears to the outside. Toe them out, if you know what I mean. Tweeters can be very bright on axis but fall off more than other drivers as you move off axis. Much more can be done cheaply by moving your speakers than any other tweak. Trust your ears! |
Perhaps in a drag-race or simple oval, with drag-race being watts into 8 ohms, and simple oval, being THD on a sine wave, then I would agree with you. Put them on a road course (real music), and that "old" Camaro or Corvette is hopelessly outclassed no matter the engine upgrade or what tires you put on it. Only way it competes is with effectively a new chassis under the old body (and even then it needs aerodynamics upgrades), so really it is not an "old" Camaro or Corvette any more is it? Like a old Camaro or corvette, etc... being refitted to take on a modern carbon fiber bodied racing F1 Ferrari, on the track.... and be dead even and..in some minds... even win. Imagine that. The idea of the new circuit and so on being better, exists as companies have to sell you the new in order to be alive and exist, so expect them to convince you that all is new all the time --- when in fact it is not. Not at all. While there is truth to this, these receivers are from a period where IM distortion was poorly understood, hence why later products like the NAD3020 or even the Sansui integrated mentioned above are better. (link is for the image of a ’properly’ modded out NAD3120, which, when finalized [finally finished], might [and generally will] exceed the sonic qualities that most seek to experience from a modern $5k integrated.) A single set out 3055/2955 output transistor places some inherent limitations w.r.t. what loading this will work best on. Those same parts are still available, likely better quality or at least more consistent due to modern process controls. Those over-priced "audio" electrolytic power supply capacitors are certainly great marketing by the likes of Nichicon and others. Literally sell themselves, as some people are convinced they are "better", and it becomes a self sustaining market, no actual specifications needed, just some words on a marketing sheet. But better than what is the question? Better than a 10,000 hour, 105C, modern capacitor with high ripple current and low ESR (and lower cost)? .... Weird that some of these high end audio capacitors have audio specs similar to a few generation back power supply caps (but with poorer rated life). |
Regarding comparisons of vintage vs. recent equipment, a seemingly obvious point but one which often seems to not be taken into account in discussions of this subject is that comparisons should be based on similar present day prices. For example AustinStereo pointed out above that a restored SX-1050 is worth around $1000. So a fair comparison between that component and modern ones should be to a modern component (or a combination of components) providing preamp, power amp, and tuner functionality, with comparable maximum power capability, for a total of around $1000. Regarding some of the other points that have been made, it is certainly true that "distortion wars" occurred during the 1970s, in which feedback was applied in a heavy-handed manner to produce the lowest possible Total Harmonic Distortion numbers. With the consequent adverse effects on Transient Intermodulation Distortion and increased emphasis of distortion components that are the most objectionable not yet being generally recognized. In fact as far as I am aware even today TIM is not normally measured or specified, and does not even have a standardized basis for measurement. That despite the fact that in the 1970s Dr. Matti Otala famously authored several papers on the subject, this being one example: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3c0/a892a982ebde91f83f228905dac30186f827.pdf My own preference among vintage components is for well restored tube equipment from the 1950s and 1960s, a lot of which can provide very good sonics and great value relative to present day price points. But I know that there are many happy users of solid state products of the "distortion wars" era, and that’s fine too. Regards, -- Al |
Lots of opinions here! If I were to look at the big picture: - is original vintage gear < = or > than modern gear - is refurbished vintage gear < = or > than modern gear It is obvious that to answer those questions produces very different opinions here and they are not at all easy to resolve. But then one has to decide WHICH of the many possibilities to consider comparing, and it gets even worse: Is the Pioneer SX-1050 worse than, equal to or better than hundreds of modern possibilities. I am sure I could find something better. But what....? And at what price? OTOH, If I were to start completely over, I would look for an AVR that would give me the audio quality I wanted. But I did that two or three years ago when I bought the Arcam! it was an especially promising purchase for me because it was only a two channel product and promised great sound. Unfortunately, I knew right away it wasn’t a replacement for the tube amp I was using. But returning it would have meant I’d have to spend way more than I could afford and I might have the same result. Then I decided to try the Musical Fidelity preamp with the Pioneer and I the Arcam does just fine as a video switcher. Though a very over priced one. So It still seems the most cost effective way forward is an excellent audio product. And I am back to the original problem - how to get the audio quality I wanted? Should that be the Pioneer? Or something else. I am going to continue with one of the sensible recommendations given here, which is to let more time elapse and just listen. But meanwhile I am going to strongly consider buying an integrated amp that will give me superior audio to the Arcam and the Pioneer. i will add that I am not into vintage gear per se but I do seem to be playing out a nostalgic attachment to the Pioneer which was my first serious audio purchase. I bought it new in 1976 or 1977 and it has been sitting in my closet taking up space since 1985 when I bought my Quad ESL-63 speakers and replaced the Pioneer with the Quad amp and Quad preamp. The Musical Fidelity A3cr preamp was no longer in use either so I decided to pair them up and put them to work. |
echolaneMy first proper amp was a Plinius pre/power combination in 1986. I still have it, had it upgraded last year, and will never part with it. It's going to be my work system. (Not including the Luxman tape deck and Dual turntable I got in 1982, and not considering the piece of crap my brother sold me in 1979, or the Rotel amp I borrowed off my other brother while he was overseas). |
My renewed interest in 2 channel started with a vintage Marantz receiver and Klipsch Heresy IIs. I stopped using the Marantz because I didn’t think it was all that. I wanted to stay with a receiver and bought a new Onkyo. It was returned immediately. I bought an Outlaw. Better than the previous ones. I’ve now moved into a tube integrated. I’d consider cutting your losses and move on. Incidentally with the new amp I’m over the Klipsch speakers. Just my .02 from an audiophile noob. |
is original vintage gear < = or > than modern gear Depends. Can't make blanket statements like that. Some vintage gear is better than some modern gear. And vice versa. With refurbished its even harder. Some originally mediocre tube gear refurbished with newer higher quality caps, resistors, and diodes - not to mention wire, tube sockets, RCAs, switches- you get the idea, it can easily be as good or better than even really good modern gear. No, I think the only thing we can say for sure is these things need to be judged on a case by case basis. |
“My first proper amp was a Plinius pre/power combination in 1986. I still have it, had it upgraded last year, and will never part with it. It's going to be my work system. (Not including the Luxman tape deck and Dual turntable I got in 1982, and not considering the piece of crap my brother sold me in 1979, or the Rotel amp I borrowed off my other brother while he was overseas).“ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Old gear is useful!! Assuming it was good to begin with. I have populated four stereo systems in my small house, often with left overs. And I am happy with most of my gear even though some of it is aging. My primary system is in the living room and is centered around my Quad ESL-63 speakers, purchased in 1985 (Is that old enough to be vintage?) and redone in 2016. I’ll never part with them. But the amps that drive them have changed over the years. The Pioneer SX-1050, now in use in my TV system, was replaced by Quad amp and Quad preamp, they were replaced with the Audiomat Arpege, a wonderful integrated tube amp which now powers my computer system and dates to the mid 90s. The Audiomat Arpege was replaced by its bigger successor the Audiomat Prelude Reference Mark II, never to be replaced either, and already over 20 years old. There’s a lot to be said for older gear. But I have lots of gear I should sell, including the most beautiful Bang & Olufsen Beogram turntable which I reluctantly replaced with a Rega turntable, and a Meridian CD player was replaced by a Triode, an Adcom amp and now the Musical Fidelity Preamp can go too. This latter pair used to power my computer audio system but I no longer have systems to donate them too 😊. |
“No, I think the only thing we can say for sure is these things need to be judged on a case by case basis.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I certainly agree, and I think this is the take home message of this topic. I intend to keep listening and will make any change only after considerable listening. One thing I will add after listening more hours now, is that the Pioneer excels at reproducing speech very clearly. Considering that the majority of TV programming consists of dialog, clear speech reproduction is a welcome asset, especially when you get up there in age, as my husband and I are now. Of course music is background to almost everything and for that sort of the usual TV programming, the Pioneer suits. My issue is when I want to play music DVDs or listen to Live From The Met or Great Performances, or rent movies with great soundtracks, I will want something that reproduced music exceptionally. That’ll take considerably more listening time. i have to also admit that doing without remote control Capability in the Pioneer is a big disadvantage and that may influence any change too. |
Third on capping your line. Not a good plan. One problem you are running into, like others have said, is running modern equipment through very old tech. If you were simply running a turntable and wanted the old school thing, you would be golden. But you are trying to take all of the goodies of the modern, digital age and mate it to something never designed for that. I'm with the others, sell and move on. Or, play with the tone controls for now and see what you can get out of it. It's simply not worth the effort and money to try to "fix" the sound with cables etc. You'll run circles around yourself. |
That is one of the best receivers of that era. It should sound full, fast and sweet. Not bright. What speakers? Oh, and you did not make a mistake. Pioneer 50 series have given a lot of great trouble free service to many a happy music lover for over 40 years. I have top of the line Pass Labs, EAR, Monitor Audio, and many others, but my Pioneer 950 is something I will never sell. |
It's about component matching. I have an SX-980 which I love in my all vintage Pioneer set up. The Pioneer can be brighter sounding, so with digital content and some modern bright speakers it could be too much. Sounds like you're not satisfied with the match..question is what change will give you that sound. I usually start with speakers that will give me the sound I like and then find components that drive them best. Cables upgrades can add some clarity but I doubt they would change the tone the way you want. PL530 turntable > SX-980 > CS99A speakers Full sound, not at all bright. |
I have made the mistake of spending a lot of money re-building much better preamps (Conrad Johnson PV 5, PV 10) from the 80s and 90s because I felt I couldn’t afford new. Those are classic designs. If you do this, there’s about 3 things you should do: 1 - Add heat sinks to the voltage regulators. They’ll last longer. 2 - Change the output caps. 3 - Replace power supply electrolytics if old. Leave everything else alone, it’s not worth it, though I often wonder if reducing the gain on them would make them sound more modern. They had way too much, and too much noise IMHO. |
