or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Pioneer SC-75/77/79 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Pioneer SC-75/77/79 Thread - Page 24

post #691 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke View Post

I've owned a SC-75, RX-A3020, and CX-A5000. I like the Yamaha sound over the Pioneer. They sound different from each other. If you have the option purchase both, test each for a week or two, and then return the one you do not like. It's not that one is better than the other. They just sound different so you need to pick what sounds good to you.

 

Can you "explain" the sound differences...?

 

As in one sounds "warmer" than the other.... 

 

One sounds "harsher" than the other...

 

Etc.

 

:confused: 

post #692 of 713
It's hard to explain. My words may mean something different than how you would interpret them.

The Yamaha seems like it has a more "natural", "smooth", and "fuller" sound to it. The Pioneer sounded a bit thin with my current speakers. I had some cheaper BIC formula speakers before my current DIY Tempest speakers and it sounded good with them (well as good as those speakers can sound).

When comparing Yamaha vs Pioneer with my Tempest speakers the Yamaha is my clear preference. With the Pioneer I always found myself fiddling with the room correction and EQ settings. I don't do that with the Yamaha. The Pioneer EQ and the YPAO PEQ results are a bit different as well (I don't have any graphs saved though). I found myself turning off the EQ on the Pioneer more frequently. MCACC boosted the 8khz range quite a bit. YPAO boosts a small amount at 2khz, and a small amount at 16khz. This stands out to me because I'm always curious what happens outside of the range you'd typically want to correct. Above 500hz or so you are really correcting the speaker and not so much the rooms influence on the audio.

The pioneer settings could sometimes make my speakers sound harsh with its EQ setting which is pretty hard to do with the Tempest speakers. They are tame up top and very smooth.

All that being said about the different EQ results when turning both EQs off I still prefer Yamaha.

Pioneer's Full Band Phase Control made a quite noticeable change to the audio. I liked this setting on the Pioneer.

Hope that helps.
post #693 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke View Post

It's hard to explain. My words may mean something different than how you would interpret them.

The Yamaha seems like it has a more "natural", "smooth", and "fuller" sound to it. The Pioneer sounded a bit thin with my current speakers. I had some cheaper BIC formula speakers before my current DIY Tempest speakers and it sounded good with them (well as good as those speakers can sound).

When comparing Yamaha vs Pioneer with my Tempest speakers the Yamaha is my clear preference. With the Pioneer I always found myself fiddling with the room correction and EQ settings. I don't do that with the Yamaha. The Pioneer EQ and the YPAO PEQ results are a bit different as well (I don't have any graphs saved though). I found myself turning off the EQ on the Pioneer more frequently. MCACC boosted the 8khz range quite a bit. YPAO boosts a small amount at 2khz, and a small amount at 16khz. This stands out to me because I'm always curious what happens outside of the range you'd typically want to correct. Above 500hz or so you are really correcting the speaker and not so much the rooms influence on the audio.

The pioneer settings could sometimes make my speakers sound harsh with its EQ setting which is pretty hard to do with the Tempest speakers. They are tame up top and very smooth.

All that being said about the different EQ results when turning both EQs off I still prefer Yamaha.

Pioneer's Full Band Phase Control made a quite noticeable change to the audio. I liked this setting on the Pioneer.

Hope that helps.

 

Thank you very much!

 

And yes, it was very helpful...

 

I am still trying to decide between the flagship Yamaha, Pioneer, and Sony AVRs...

post #694 of 713
dwaleke, have you tried D.Filter on the Pioneer set to "SLOW"? It reduces a lot of the harshness.
post #695 of 713
Yes I did and it helped, but it took away some crispness.

What work best for me was to copy my EQ settings to another memory preset and lower the high end boost MCACC was calculating. That worked better for me.

The high end boost actually measured flatter with REW so MCACC was not necessarily wrong with what it was trying to do. It just didn't produce the sound that I liked.

Different speakers and/or different room and you'd have different results.
post #696 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptinCrunch View Post

That would be the transformer and most likely it's weak or starting to go bad. I would have it looked at if it's under warranty.

Thanks man, and to David Sussilo too. I finally took the time to try to isolate the problem by unhooking one by one every cable attached to the receiver, all to no avail. Even with only the power cord and no cables hooked, the humming persisted; which defenitely means it's an internal problem with transformers. I also switched to another power outlet and still the humming was there. Very disappointed.

Will update after the device is fixed as to what exactly caused the problem.
post #697 of 713
Ok I am at a loss. I just purchased a sc-77 and I am trying to set up the Macro's on my URC R50. I cannot get this receiver to turn off. The commands will turn off the TV and the cable box but the receiver just stays on. It looks like it is receiving a command but it just stays on. If I push the power button after that it will turn off but not if I do it with the Macro. Any ideas? The Macro's worked great with the Onkyo receiver I had before but I cannot figure this one out.
post #698 of 713
Another inquiry for you kind people.

Was planning to get an Emotiva 7 channel amp, but my dealer has a great deal ($750) on the Marantz MM7055 amp. Do you guys think it will pair well enough with the SC-75, being an AB class amp vs D class on Pioneer?

Any prompt help will be greatly appeciated since I don't have much time to decide.

Thanks.
post #699 of 713
The Marantz will improve the sound of the sC-75 for sure.
post #700 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by xhattan View Post

Another inquiry for you kind people.

Was planning to get an Emotiva 7 channel amp, but my dealer has a great deal ($750) on the Marantz MM7055 amp. Do you guys think it will pair well enough with the SC-75, being an AB class amp vs D class on Pioneer?

Any prompt help will be greatly appeciated since I don't have much time to decide.

Thanks.
Lateral move don't see it hurting or helping .
post #701 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by xhattan View Post

Was planning to get an Emotiva 7 channel amp, but my dealer has a great deal ($750) on the Marantz MM7055 amp. Do you guys think it will pair well enough with the SC-75, being an AB class amp vs D class on Pioneer?

I agree with oztech.

if you want to get an ext amp, get one with a substantial increase in power capability not one with about the same power. the only advantage the Marantz will give is IF all channels were to be driven to the same power output driven at same time, which is rare in real world - it's a theoretical test measurement.

why do you think you need one? what speakers are you using & how big is room? unless you are using hard-to-drive inefficient 4 ohm speakers, you won't accomplish much over what Pioneer class D amps can do.

btw - Emotiva only has one 7 ch amp, the UPA700 only rated at 80 watts/ch....a step backwards from what you have in the Pioneer. if you want really big power, say 300-450+ watts X 7, you're going to need to spend in the range of $3.5-5K or more - XPR-5 + XPR2, Outlaw 7900, ATI 3007 type amps.
Edited by ss9001 - Yesterday at 3:06 pm
post #702 of 713
You're referring to lateral move from Emotiva to Marantz, right? I still would choose the Marantz as I have yet to have one good experience from Emotiva.
post #703 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

You're referring to lateral move from Emotiva to Marantz, right? I still would choose the Marantz as I have yet to have one good experience from Emotiva.
Nope both as he would not even pick up more than a db level difference comparing the output of all and as for sound it would also be the same unless one is defective adding something to the signal path that was not in the original source.
post #704 of 713
Oh, not one of the "everything sounds the same" group rolleyes.gif It's not about loudness.

Class D and class A/B don't sound the same. Regardless how good class-D amps are, they tend to sound harsher than class A/B amplifiers.
post #705 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Oh, not one of the "everything sounds the same" group rolleyes.gif It's not about loudness.

Class D and class A/B don't sound the same. Regardless how good class-D amps are, they tend to sound harsher than class A/B amplifiers.
I have installed various systems for many years and what ever the client wants outside of our recommendations is fine we still get the job and make money but I learned to get rid of bias based on beliefs I hung onto for decades sometimes I am surprised sometimes I am disappointed.
I would agree with you based on brand versus brand on the sound of class D but not the entire tech ,40 years ago I was so anal only class A would do until I heard different.
post #706 of 713
Based on what you're last post, I tend to agree. Regardless, the Pioneer ClassD receivers do sound harsher than Marantz ClassAB. That's not only from my personal opinion but from many of my clients as well (most didn't even know that they were using ClassD when they mentioned about the harshness of the sound).
post #707 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I agree with oztech.

if you want to get an ext amp, get one with a substantial increase in power capability not one with about the same power. the only advantage the Marantz will give is IF all channels were to be driven to the same power output driven at same time, which is rare in real world - it's a theoretical test measurement.

why do you think you need one? what speakers are you using & how big is room? unless you are using hard-to-drive inefficient 4 ohm speakers, you won't accomplish much over what Pioneer class D amps can do.

btw - Emotiva only has one 7 ch amp, the UPA700 only rated at 80 watts/ch....a step backwards from what you have in the Pioneer. if you want really big power, say 300-450+ watts X 7, you're going to need to spend in the range of $3.5-5K or more - XPR-5 + XPR2, Outlaw 7900, ATI 3007 type amps.

Good debate folks.

My set up is:

9.2 (front wides and highs plus Zone 2, no surround backs) Kef 3005 SE speakers and subwoofers (bought two, so one spare center speaker)
Oppo 103
Pro-Ject Debut turntable
Beyerdynamic 990 600 ohm premium version headphones

All this in my bedroom that is fairly large and odd-shaped, 15 x 25 feet large. The Kefs I think are one of the best home theater speakers around, and truly deliver beautiful sound, but they are very power hungry, not very efficient, and require high volumes to shine their best. My wife just didn't allow me to install towers so I was forced in this direction.

That said, my research showed that AVR's (no exception that I know of) power specs are only for 2 channels running at the same time. This means that a 150 W rated receiver will only put 60 or 70 W power with 7 channels running. So any amp, even a cheap Emotiva UPA-500 or 700 rated at 80 W with all channels driven, will actually put more power than a 2 channel driven very powerful AVR. The Marantz MM7055 is rated at 140 W for each channel which would actually double the power of the SC-75.

However, this amp would only power fronts, center and Zone 2, leaving front highs, wides and surrounds to the SC-75. So you guys are telling me that I wouldn't get any power difference and better SQ with this set up? For instance, the 140 W the Pioneer throws would be divided into only 3 channels and not 9 as it is today, resulting in better sound, soundstage and separation, i would think. Or am I missing something?

This forum is grrrreat! Thank you guys.
post #708 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by xhattan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I agree with oztech.

if you want to get an ext amp, get one with a substantial increase in power capability not one with about the same power. the only advantage the Marantz will give is IF all channels were to be driven to the same power output driven at same time, which is rare in real world - it's a theoretical test measurement.

why do you think you need one? what speakers are you using & how big is room? unless you are using hard-to-drive inefficient 4 ohm speakers, you won't accomplish much over what Pioneer class D amps can do.

btw - Emotiva only has one 7 ch amp, the UPA700 only rated at 80 watts/ch....a step backwards from what you have in the Pioneer. if you want really big power, say 300-450+ watts X 7, you're going to need to spend in the range of $3.5-5K or more - XPR-5 + XPR2, Outlaw 7900, ATI 3007 type amps.

Good debate folks.

My set up is:

9.2 (front wides and highs plus Zone 2, no surround backs) Kef 3005 SE speakers and subwoofers (bought two, so one spare center speaker)
Oppo 103
Pro-Ject Debut turntable
Beyerdynamic 990 600 ohm premium version headphones

All this in my bedroom that is fairly large and odd-shaped, 15 x 25 feet large. The Kefs I think are one of the best home theater speakers around, and truly deliver beautiful sound, but they are very power hungry, not very efficient, and require high volumes to shine their best. My wife just didn't allow me to install towers so I was forced in this direction.

That said, my research showed that AVR's (no exception that I know of) power specs are only for 2 channels running at the same time. This means that a 150 W rated receiver will only put 60 or 70 W power with 7 channels running. So any amp, even a cheap Emotiva UPA-500 or 700 rated at 80 W with all channels driven, will actually put more power than a 2 channel driven very powerful AVR. The Marantz MM7055 is rated at 140 W for each channel which would actually double the power of the SC-75.

However, this amp would only power fronts, center and Zone 2, leaving front highs, wides and surrounds to the SC-75. So you guys are telling me that I wouldn't get any power difference and better SQ with this set up? For instance, the 140 W the Pioneer throws would be divided into only 3 channels and not 9 as it is today, resulting in better sound, soundstage and separation, i would think. Or am I missing something?

This forum is grrrreat! Thank you guys.
Hi smile.gif
Those KEF 'eggs' are not thát power hungry...
They are easy to drive too, with a impedance of 8 Ohm with a sensitivity of 88dB for the satellites and 90dB for the center.

These great little British speakers will sound just fine with your Pioneer Elite SC-75 wink.gif
Look at the results from: http://www.soundandvision.com/content/pioneer-elite-sc-71-av-receiver-test-bench

These are from the smaller SC-71 sibling wink.gif
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 120.6 watts @ 0.1% THD
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 146.0 watts @ 1.0% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 106.7 watts @ 0.1% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 127.9 watts @ 1.0% THD
7 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 95.1 watts @ 0.1% THD
7 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 106.8 watts @ 1.0% THD


Nothing to be ashamed of wink.gif
post #709 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prietz0r View Post

Hi smile.gif
Those KEF 'eggs' are not thát power hungry...
They are easy to drive too, with a impedance of 8 Ohm with a sensitivity of 88dB for the satellites and 90dB for the center.

These great little British speakers will sound just fine with your Pioneer Elite SC-75 wink.gif

Nothing to be ashamed of wink.gif

Thanks for the input pal. Actually I am very proud of my egg Kefs, they get much praise by anyone who listens to them, even CDs and vinyls sound fantastic and the SC-75 puts up great sound too. However, I must stick with my previous comment and confirm that they do need some extra power to completely shine. I do not usually watch movies or concerts at reference levels, but when I do I must pull volume to almost +10Db to really get inmersed. And the eggs or SC-75 both handle that power with ease and no distortion, with the HTB2 subs handling the low notes with astonishing punch, real incredible sound. But at -15Db they still do sound good but I still feel I can get much more at that volume with the proper amplification.

Hence my need for separates, maybe an exquisity on my part but we all know how subjective sound is. And this Marantz seems to be a perfect fit at a perfect price, not to mention aesthetics and a reputable name.

As to the test shown for the SC-71, the Marantz should throw 140 W at 5 channels driven and 0.08 THD.

Thanks!
post #710 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by xhattan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prietz0r View Post

Hi smile.gif
Those KEF 'eggs' are not thát power hungry...
They are easy to drive too, with a impedance of 8 Ohm with a sensitivity of 88dB for the satellites and 90dB for the center.

These great little British speakers will sound just fine with your Pioneer Elite SC-75 wink.gif

Nothing to be ashamed of wink.gif

Thanks for the input pal. Actually I am very proud of my egg Kefs, they get much praise by anyone who listens to them, even CDs and vinyls sound fantastic and the SC-75 puts up great sound too. However, I must stick with my previous comment and confirm that they do need some extra power to completely shine. I do not usually watch movies or concerts at reference levels, but when I do I must pull volume to almost +10Db to really get inmersed. And the eggs or SC-75 both handle that power with ease and no distortion, with the HTB2 subs handling the low notes with astonishing punch, real incredible sound. But at -15Db they still do sound good but I still feel I can get much more at that volume with the proper amplification.

Hence my need for separates, maybe an exquisity on my part but we all know how subjective sound is. And this Marantz seems to be a perfect fit at a perfect price, not to mention aesthetics and a reputable name.

As to the test shown for the SC-71, the Marantz should throw 140 W at 5 channels driven and 0.08 THD.

Thanks!
Hi wink.gif
You're welcome of course! I am running myself also some nice KEF speakers, although a tad bigger than those nice eggs.
The Volume to +10dB is quite high yes wink.gif A little bit on the 'too high for comfort' side I think so I do understand your needs for external amplification I think.
But before that, do you know what the MCACC calibration has done to your volume levels ? MCACC could be have lowered your channels by several dB's per channel, that would be due to room acoustics and other factors I can't really comment on because I do not have the real knowledge about but I am sure some others like the likes of 'oztech, David Susilo and ss9001' they are much more experienced with these stuff.
But I would not be surprised if there is something wrong with your calibration, maybe the microphone placement for example which can have really a big impact I have found out for myself too.

Personally I would first look in these variables before looking to spend several thousands of Dollars/Euros/Pounds or any other currency your country has wink.gif

By the way the Marantz amplifier you mentioned has been tested too smile.gif

It's more like the same isn't it ? wink.gif There difference is not big enough to make a real difference is SPL in my view. And also the KEF Eggs are spec'd with a max power handling of 100watt by the way, not that, that will matter very much but just to mention it wink.gif
Here below are the results:

Marantz MM7055 Amplifier
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 130.7 watts @ 0.1% THD
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 152.8 watts @ 1.0% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 107.8 watts @ 0.1% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 117.8 watts @ 1.0% THD

Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 215.8 watts and 1 percent distortion at 236.4 watts.
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 4 ohm loads: 215.8 watts @ 0.1% THD
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 4 ohm loads: 236.4 watts @ 1.0% THD

Compare that with the SC-71 wink.gif
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 120.6 watts @ 0.1% THD
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 146.0 watts @ 1.0% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 106.7 watts @ 0.1% THD
5 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 127.9 watts @ 1.0% THD
7 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 95.1 watts @ 0.1% THD
7 Channels Continuously Driven, 8 ohm loads: 106.8 watts @ 1.0% THD

2 Channels Continuously Driven, 4 ohm loads: 204.3 watts @ 0.1% THD
2 Channels Continuously Driven, 4 ohm loads: 247.3 watts @ 1.0% THD
post #711 of 713
PrietzOr's has got it 100% right wink.gif

the difference between the SC-71 and that Marantz amp is absolutely miniscule! if you want the math - 10 watts more power will give you a "whopping" 0.3 dB more volume at full power wink.gif that's less than the knob volume adjustment - 0.5 dB.

I'll give you the why later in this post.

xhattan, it's your money and your choice. but I stand by my original comment to you that if you want an ext amp, get one that has substantially more power than the receiver's amps, otherwise IMO, you are wasting your money.

the tests show that both amps show similar power 5 & 7 ch driven at once.

and you are not completely correct than a 150 w AVR will dip to half it's power all ch driven. it all depends on 2 things:

1. the size of the power supply
2. the type of amp

class D amps are close to 90% efficient while class A/B amps are about 50% efficient.

so all things being equal, Pioneer is one of the few AVR's that actually can hold much of its rated power all ch driven as opposed to the typical AVR with class A/B amps.

and I'd have to agree with PrietzOr again that your KEF's are not that hard to drive or inefficient. if you want to talk hard to drive, inefficient speakers, try Magnepans - only 85 dB efficient and 4 ohms. they do need power/current to "come alive".

and guess what - there are quite a few here who successfully use Pioneer AVR's on Magnepan setups, myself and DonH50 included wink.gif

the only thing I have done is use an ext amp for the most demanding Maggies, the 2 fronts which are very large 2' wide, 6' tall panels. and the amp I use is rated at 300 w @ 8 ohms / 600 w @ 4 ohms. so there's no question it's more powerful than what's in the receiver wink.gif I use the Pioneer for the Maggies used as surrounds & center.

your KEF's should pose NO problems for the Pioneer.

as far as volume...what you think you experience is probably not what's really happening wink.gif you think you need to turn the volume that far up because of limitation in amp power. actually, my experience with the monster super-flagship SC-09TX and SC-68 is that it's the preamp levels MCACC sets that cause the volume to be needed turned up as much as it does.

proof - I've owned 2 former Pioneer Elite flagships based on class A/B amps - the highly rated VSX-49txi & 59txi. the MCACC calibration in both set the channel levels exactly 6 dB higher than what the ultra high powered (1400 watt total power) SC-09 did. the result - when I used to listen at -15 with the 59txi, I now have to turn the volume up to -8 with both the SC-09 & SC-68. the MCACC in the class D receivers is tuned differently.

in this case, the volume setting has little to do with the amp power; it has a lot to do with the channel levels set by MCACC during calibration. you can raise the overall volume just by bumping up every ch level manually in the MCACC speaker settings. why Pioneer has tuned the newer class D amps this way I don't know but my guess is that it's to keep the preamps from going into clipping.

my own results taken from the same mic measuring position are consistent that both class D AVR's I own are tuned about 5-6 dB lower in volume than the older class A/B AVR's from the earlier 2000's.

my guess is that if you buy that Marantz amp, it will make negligible difference to the volume level & then you'll come here asking why you still have to turn the volume to the same setting wink.gif

even if you did notice a difference, here's the mathematical truth behind amp power:

it takes 10X the power to produce 2X the volume level. here's the formula so you can do the math yourself.

dB difference = 10 x LOG(power1 / power2)

here's an example which will be what a lot of people adding an Emotiva XPA amp to a decent receiver are going to get:

going from 140 watts to 200 watts = only a 1.54 dB increase!

and that meager 1.5 dB is only at MAX power output wink.gif not when the amp is normally cruising along at few watts tops. so buying a 200 watt amp will be the same as turning up the volume a mere 1.5 dB, pretty big difference, isn't it? wink.gif and 1 dB is the point where a volume change just becomes perceptible to most people.



IF you have future plans to get better speakers which are much more power demanding, less efficient or 4 ohm rated, then getting an ext amp can make sense. but when that time comes, look at something substantially more than your receiver, something in the 200-400 w range to make it worth your time & money wink.gif

that Marantz was really made to go with their prepro's for people who want separates, not so much augmenting receivers. to augment receivers, most people would probably look at least getting 200 w to do some good wink.gif
Edited by ss9001 - Today at 5:46 am
post #712 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Based on what you're last post, I tend to agree. Regardless, the Pioneer ClassD receivers do sound harsher than Marantz ClassAB. That's not only from my personal opinion but from many of my clients as well (most didn't even know that they were using ClassD when they mentioned about the harshness of the sound).

We each hear things differently I myself have not noticed any harshness but then again I don't know what speakers were used or the source being played and if the room was part of the reason.
What i have noticed is the D3 amps ability to handle all but the worst case scenario for low impedance speakers and quick transients without breaking a sweat.
I still use a DTR-10.5 Integra and will till it dies but from what I have installed for clients my replacement will be an upper end SC because of what I heard so far as well as the upper end offerings from Denon and Marantz.
post #713 of 713
Hi, sorry to interrupt the technical discussions here. smile.gif

I got a SC-1523 about 2 months back and just now getting it set up. I am waaayy over my head with this thing. Anyway just got a 65 inch Visio M651D flatscreen TV and have had it working connected direct to cable box. When I hook the TV to the receiver's HDMI Out 1 and turn it on I can't get the GUI onscreen. I was using the Wiring Navi and it recognised the receiver on the network, was then able to start and run the MCACC calibration from my laptop -- just no onscreen GUI. I made sure the TV was looking at correct input. I have tried a different HDMI cable including the one that worked fine previously when I had the TV hooked direct to cable box. I'm lost folks... thanks for any help.

I have also discovered that the 1523 is playing the audio from the cable box and BR Player - but no video. Is there a setup option somewhere I am not seeing to get video thru the AVR? I have tried both Out 1 and Out 2 with no success. tongue.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Official Pioneer SC-75/77/79 Thread