Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

<JamesGangNC@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:76c6eca6-4b0d-4466-aaf6-3ea84907d4d2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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.- Hide 
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>And I don't need any amplifier to "contribute" to the sound.  Just
>reproduce the signal.  I think most would agree that the speakers are
>the biggest factor in sound anyway.  Amplifiers don't add "warmth" or
>"color" to the music.  If they do then something is wrong with them.

Absolutely agree on all counts as far as sound quality goes.  Any solid 
state amp over about $80 will sound decent, low distortion, no sound 
"coloration".  Lots of people post asking about which amp they should buy
to 
improve the sound of their system and my advice is always speakers
speakers 
speakers.

I never said that older is better in terms of sound... I simply sought to 
take issue with the poster who implied that modern "topologies" produced 
sound differing in any way from sound out of a 1978 Pioneer.  They don't.

As far as "warmth" goes, people with tube amps seem to like that
particular 
type of distortion and often complain about amps which sound "sterile". 
Me, 
I don't have speakers (or perhaps ears?) good enough to notice the 
difference for the most part.

I am not a fan of STK-based amps either, they went into low-fi stuff.

Dave