Re: PIONEER RECEIVERS: Which One Do I Keep?

On May 8, 12:35=A0pm, zekfr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (GregS) wrote:
> In article <GnFUj.1119$Yp.752@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "Dave" <dspear9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wro=
te:
>
> ><JamesGan...@[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. =A0Just
> >>reproduce the signal. =A0I think most would agree that the speakers
are
> >>the biggest factor in sound anyway. =A0Amplifiers don't add "warmth"
or
> >>"color" to the music. =A0If they do then something is wrong with them.
>
> >Absolutely agree on all counts as far as sound quality goes. =A0Any
solid=

> >state amp over about $80 will sound decent, low distortion, no sound
> >"coloration". =A0Lots of people post asking about which amp they should
b=
uy to
> >improve the sound of their system and my advice is always speakers
speake=
rs
> >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. =A0They
don'=
t.
>
> >As far as "warmth" goes, people with tube amps seem to like that
particul=
ar
> >type of distortion and often complain about amps which sound "sterile".
=
=A0Me,
> >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.
>
> There was plenty of equipment that used them.
>
> greg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed, I've still got an old technics amp with a couple in it.  I let
my teenage daughter use it in between her pc and the voight pipes we
built.  It's amazing how little power that speaker design takes.  My
wife questioned the sanity of that the first day they got cranked up a
little.  For me the project went wrong a bit earlier when the teenager
insisted they had to be painted pink, yukyuk.

Nothing fundamentally wrong with the stks but they don't have a lot of
headroom and protection circuitry has to be added if desired.  It was
the beginning of the ****ft for low/mid range equipment where the
manufacturer started having more to do with the cabinet design than
the circuitry inside.