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.
A pair of fixed value cement resistors, in series with the input terminals to your tweeters (assuming your speakers have separate terminals just for their tweeters), is likely to be the best solution, primarily because they're almost certainly considerably more transparent than the tone controls fitted to a unit built 20+ years ago. Some experimentation will be required to find the correct value, but cement resistors are so cheap that it'll hardly matter.
Changing your speaker cables might do the trick, but two wrongs won't make a right.
Hello, Some great advice on this thread! I would like to share an experience I had with an old Theta DAC (Pro Basic III). The Theta was very aggressive, bright and in your face hyperactive, at least in my system and in my perception. I was using Kimber Silver Streak IC's that I feel were not a good match with the Theta. To remedy the problem I purchased an entry level Cardas IC, it completely remedied the problems I was perceiving, it completely calmed the Theta down with a much more relaxed presentation without giving up on resolution. I am one who appreciates symmetry, in other words, using the same IC's throughout as I do today. However in this instance, switching out an interconnect with another led to a very positive experience.
Good luck and take into consideration all of the suggestions. I am pretty new to this Hobby/Passion and most likely not as knowledgeable as others, but at least I can share this experience with you.
teo_audio1,306 posts12-29-2019 6:08amThe 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.
I haven't posted a lot on any of the Forums, but did offer an opinion or two (quite lengthy) about a "Bright cable issue". I certainly enjoyed your commentary. I found it informative and rather eloquently presented.
I've enjoyed music, most of my life. The camaraderie, in search of the "right sound for ME", is a never ending process, It's a little sad to see some of the things posted here with such a brazen disregard for others.
Lots of loose innuendos, bordering almost on insult. I'm glad YOU rose above most of it. Maybe, I learned more than I thought, and not just about the "STEREO". Jealousy always seeks unkind words. Thank YOU! for reminding me of that, and NOT taking the rather NASTY bait.
I've always tried to be a lite spirited, jovial fella, this can be a tough crowd sometimes.
As for the "It's bright" issue, you can't turn the HIGHS UP if there is no signal to turn up. If the unit was restored properly, you can always use the tone control to turn it DOWN. I think most of what your hearing is sonic restoration, and a need to let the new parts settle in a bit. 100+ hours not uncommon AT ALL for some caps (teflons ect) to really start sounding better and 300+ to sound GOOD.
AS long as it's not a LACK of mid or bass, making the high's brighter. So if the signal caps were replaced and the Power supply caps (passed inspection) but not replaced. Can cause what seems to be a BRIGHT system.
I'm a Mac guy old or new, I just love the gear', I've really learned to like the new Class D amps and the ability to roll op-amps. That coupled with a fresh C20 and great speakers. ZERO floor noise. Quietest I've EVER HAD it. They run cooler than my SS Mac, Pass, Krell, Mark Ls, ALL of them. Just amazing tonality. I couple them with VTL, and Mac tube gear, all the time, just wonderful.
I am not "average", I am Superhuman!! My words have far more value than anyone else's!
This post is a blatant attack on so many people on this forum if not most people.
It may come as a surprise that there are many of us that have been designing audio products, testing, listening, for decades. We just don't fool ourselves into thinking we are infallible hence we also use the best technology at our personal disposal to correlate repeatable measurements to listening experiences, and we ask others to listen and give us their feedback and again we try to correlate to more repeatable methods. We understand that everyone has personal preferences too. What some may call warm, others may call colored. But the most universally respected in this "hobby" don't claim "superiority". They are the most likely to admit their own limitations.
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.
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.
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.
I had a similar problem which drove me nearly to selling my amps (Bryston) & speakers (PMC) and starting over with a completely different combination. Expensive interconnects and power cords wrought no worthwhile improvements, though I didn't go as far as what would have been the biggest outlay of all, namely a complete new set of (non-returnable) speaker cables. Eventually, though, I did find a remedy.
Assuming your speakers have separate terminals just for their tweeters, the cheapest solution by far is to insert a pair of 10w fixed value cement resistors in series. Finding the correct impedance value is a matter of trial and error. I started with something like 0.2 ohms (way too low) and, pair by pair, worked my way up from there until I found just the right value. Too high a value robs the sound of top end air, openness and sparkle but, after a few months, I finally settled on 1.5 ohms (which took a bit of finding) and haven't looked back.
I did try a pair of variable resistors that I had knocking about but they were very cheap ones, of commensurately low quality and definitely had a negative effect on transparency. Not being in the trade, I just couldn't seem to find a pair of high quality variable resistors, so I abandoned that path and stuck with fixed value ones.
The right impedance value for your system and your tastes will, of course, be personal to you but, given that a pair of 10w cement resistors costs just a couple of pounds (or dollars), the expense is minimal and the experimentation process, with each new pair getting you a step closer to the result you want, is quite enjoyable.
I had a little 20 watt Pioneer receiver back in the day.It was never bright at all, even straight out of the box.Maybe those " new fangled" parts do need to run in some:-)
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.
I had some experience with Pioneer receivers back in the early 1970s and found them to be rather hard and bright, not even in comparison to other highly regarded SS receivers. The Marantz receivers never sounded bright to me but rather warm and musical. By the late 1970s, Yamaha and Sherwood produced low wattage (16 to 35 watt) receivers that can still top those all in one receivers sound today. Yet, the higher the wattage, the worst/less musical those receivers sounded (and I tried dozens of them). My favorites are the Sherwood 7100 and Yamaha CR620. I still use the CR620 for my video setups and they can easily musically power big Legacy Focus speakers. 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
@cakyol Putting a capacitor in parallel with the speaker is a really bad idea. I can only hope it was offered in jest. The OP will likely destroy his amp. If you want to use a passive component, use an inductor in series with the speaker.
Put a capacitor in PARALLEL with the speaker to short out some high frequencies. Make sure it is NON POLAR and can handle about 150 Volts AC. You have to play around with the value to experiment. Typically anywhere between 1 uF to about 10uF would do.
“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.
“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 😊.
is original vintage gear < = or > than modern gear
- is refurbished 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 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.
echolane ...I seem to be playing out a nostalgic attachment to the Pioneer which was my first serious audio purchase.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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).
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!
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.
Lowrider57 12-23-2019
Once again, use the tone controls and put more hours on the Pioneer.... I wouldn't get caught up in buying cables and new components. Give it some more time.
Echolane 12-23-2019
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.
+1. There's no reason to do anything else at this point.
@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.
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.)
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.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
