Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

On May 8, 10:49=A0am, "Dave" <dspear9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "James" <ja...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:T-ydnXj3AMjzcL_VnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > "EADGBE" <hwbossh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>news:fc4ee70d-78c2-4b73-888e-40ca25ab15dc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> Dave:
>
> >> BRAVO.
>
> >> I could not possibly have said it any better.
>
> >> It's nice to know that I'm not the only one to "hear the light", so
to
> >> speak.
>
> > Be that as it may those pioneers really do not have any features that
> > would make them any better than newer recievers. =A0Those both were
mode=
ls
> > for the masses.
>
> Never indicated that older was better, simply sought to dispel the
commonl=
y
> held myth that newer is better.
>
> And maybe, just maybe, it's not about "features" but about sound?
=A0What =
kind
> of features do you really need in an amplifier? =A0I could spend
$24,000+ =
on a
> pair of Mark Levinson monoblock amplifiers. =A0You know what "feature"
sel=
ls
> them? =A0The sound. =A0No knobs, no effects, no digital signal
processor,
> surround sound, subwoofer output, HDMI interface. =A0No. =A0Analog
input.
> Speaker output. =A0Good sound. =A0Hardly for everyone, but I just want
to
> illustrate that there is a ****tion of the population whose #1
requirement
> isn't a system which necessarily fully integrates all audio and video
> functions into a single connected system with a single remote control.
=A0=
I
> believe this is what you mean when you talk about "features"... I may be
> wrong.
>
> I don't think anybody would buy a 70's or 80's receiver like the Pioneer
> we've been talking about as the cornerstone of their home theatre setup.
> But if your requirements are good clean two-channel sound and good build
> quality (and REALLY cheap price) then these units fit the bill
perfectly.
>
> Again, not that the masses are ready to be sold on the environmental
impac=
t,
> but I feel good about spending a (very) few bucks repairing something
whic=
h
> is perfectly good and does what I want as opposed to buying into the
moder=
n
> paradigm which says it's cheaper to replace than repair. =A0Go to your
loc=
al
> landfill and have a look at the gargantuan pile of electronic equipment
> awaiting destruction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was not meaning 'wiz-bang' features either.  Just basics.  Nothing
wrong with those receivers.  If you have one and it still does what
you need that's fine.  But I did mean to say that they are not any
better than a basic, under $200 stereo receiver made today.  Pioneer,
marantz, and others did make some top of the line discrete gear that
is more sought after as well as having some pretty good specs.  But
it's not the 750/780s.  And it's not anything with the stks in it.
Those were the beginning of conformity in low/mid range stereos.