Give it some break in time.
At least 100 hrs of operation, maybe a bit more.
Then look at the situation again.
At least 100 hrs of operation, maybe a bit more.
Then look at the situation again.
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.
Showing 6 responses by teo_audio
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. |
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... |
People, in general, are forced to see the audio unit as a single digit black box. The reality is that the simplest audio gear is a black box alright but with 100 ins..and 100 outs. For the average person, those 100 I/O factors....are each nebulous unknowns. Things unseen and unknown. Sum total singular in and sum total singular out...is all that is ever witnessed. A misidentified idealized singular black box. Major disconnect. The entire forum and the endeavor itself is based on attempting to navigate this major disconnect. |
The smallest receivers and integrateds from all the lines tended to be the best sounding. Luxman, Yamaha, pioneer, you name it, the smallest lowest powered are easily the best sounding. Less is more. The big clue (back in the day) was in the Bryston line up, the original one. The circuit was the same across the three amplifiers, but scaled. 2b, 3b, 4b. 60w/120w/200w. the 2b was always the best sounding. Less parts, less circuitry, less damage to the signal. Less is more. Part of the secret of tube circuits - they have a low parts count by their very nature (part of the story only, but definitely important). Then, some companies made maximum versions of simple circuits. Some of the more modern integrateds are similar to that. If you see a big impressive box with what looks like a cool pile of a near thousand parts, tons of circuit boards, with tiny tiny parts by the hundreds per board... then it is probably (almost certainly) going to be ’not so good’. Even if it is $10k. And the AVRs? Almost a 100% chance they are at the bottom of the sound quality pile. 500watt 100 pound 80 transistor monoblock? Sonically? In comparison to the sonic quality of a 20 watt el84 tube amp? Somewhere near a 100% chance the giant monoblock is a sonic dog in comparison. No one wants to hear that, even it if is true. The standard ’pick any two’ scenario(sound quality/wattage/price). The fight to try and get all three, is where we all sit. With the right kind of mind and the right kind of design, we can get pretty darned close to having a functional three. Or at least find a compromise that works for us individually. Individual tastes and individually built up hearing and self wiring of our hearing.... can convince the given individual... that this basic recipe has somehow been violated in their favor... or that the recipe and known parameters of the quandary are not true. But it is true, this given audio quality quandary of all things not being available -at all times in all ways. A personal fit for one self wired (we wire our own hearing as we grow into it) individual is not a perfect fit for others. I’ve torn down and rebuilt/repaired/re-thought somewhat more than 500 and less than a thousand pieces of high quality audio gear, over the years. Many of them, in step by step single cause analysis procedure and mind, while listening. With an ear and mind that grew more and more informed and capable, day by day. Feverish OCD of the highest order. The end result is... I’d call mine a seemingly well informed opinion. |
The hack speaks. The hack... is only interested in following around and attacking -- just a few posters. the same, over and over. In this incarnation and in the prior two incarnations. The attempt is always the same. To twist any and all words to try and shape an attack. No matter how feeble. The hack cares not for the forum. The hack cares not for audio's uptick. The hack cares not for the people on the forum. The hack cares not for the website's health and future. All these things are damaged by the incessant obsession. The hack cares only for the attack. Psychiatric help is advised. |