My stereo receiver is a little too bright. Can a cable help me out?

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.

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.

“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.

 I would definitely give the Pioneer 100 hours or more to break in the news parts, especially the caps. There could be a myriad of other reasons why it sounds bright and not related to the receiver.  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was a little dismayed that you heard the Pioneer receivers as “hard” and “bright” and maybe that’s what I am hearing too.  But I will definitely be taking time at breaking them in and hoping for the best.  Whatever they sounded like when I bought them are decades gone out of my memory, so here’s hoping the new parts will make some difference on the positive side, so I will hope for the best.  

That is one of the best receivers of that era. It should sound full, fast and sweet. Not bright. What speakers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have floor standing Spendor FL-6 speakers.
i recently had the big woofers refoamed and also repaired the binding posts, so they are good to go for another 20 years I hope.

Here’s a quote from one review on these Spendors:
The Spendors are beautiful, furniture quality speakers that are just very pleasing to listen to. Vocals sound fantastic, detail is good, soundstage is better than the B&W. I wish they had more bass, but overall I am pleased. I'll give them a 4 out of 5 for sound, 5/5 for WAF.

What’s a tube buffer?