I hate how modern car horns sound compared to the old "ah-oo-gah" horns.










Sorry, could not resist

Nobody seems to want to talk vintage receviers, sadly.

When I was a little kid my father replaced our Buick's car horn with one pulled from a big truck sitting in a junkyard. In the rare times he used that horn it scared the s**t out of the other driver. My late dad was quite a character.

I would get an integrtaed amp over a receiver because FM around Ottawa sucks not because of power or one sounds better than other..none of that foolishness. Something like ths...

I still say get a good power amp and get disposable preamp with all the fashionable stuffs. Like I said, the power amp portion doesn't evolve much, a 30 years old power amp is every bit as good as the brand new amp. It's worth while to buy a good power amp and keep it for decades and waste money only on the disposable portion. You buy a complete receiver with all the bells and whistles today, you likely have to dump it in a few years as new things come out. Then you dump the good power amp along with it.

You stated that in post 4 ....

Nothing has changed . "ah-oo-gah"

I picked up an old Sony STR-AV880, not going to lie, mostly because it looked cool and '80s styled, plus the guy had the manual and remote and it was mint. I took out an old Sansui B-2101 amp and C-2101 preamp and put this Sony in its place. Can't tell the difference, acoustically. I'm not sure how much that helps since I just did vintage to vintage, but more meant to get at they used to care more about the features. That old Sony has MM/MC, all sorts of nice FM adjustments, tone controls, lots of things the new stuff doesn't care about. FWIW, the worst sounding "preamp" I ever heard was an old '90s HK receiver that the amp section was blown on, and I was using it as a preamp since it still worked. I hooked up an NAD monitor series preamp, and heard a stark difference between the two just from switching preamps alone with all tone control defeated. So it could be an HK thing.



Far be it from me to say vintage is better than modern, because I tend to heartily disagree. But the good old stuff is often still surprisingly good. The new Yamaha 2 channel receiver/integrated amps look quite nice, but those seem to hardly have much advantage over their older siblings other than just newer innards. The price differential can often make the older ones a better value, even factoring in some servicing. Then again, I never had good luck with vintage Yamaha stuff...it looks so nice, yet most the ones I have come across had issues.

The problem with all AVR's is the DSP. Even if you put the receiver in Analog mode, or Direct mode, those DSP's are in the way. They destroy the incoming analogue signal and "purify" it. DSP's are great for simulating surround sound from 2 channel input or trying to emulate a Jazz Club or Rock Hall, but they are death to sweet, sweet, analogue sources.

Yeah, I think this depends a ton on the era of the AVR. I have some '80s and early '90s ones where the stereo modes still seem very quality. The upscale mainstream brands seemed to preserve the stereo quality, I use an old Denon AVR-4802 for 2.1 duty and never feel in the slightest I'm getting lesser quality for it. But my newer Integra DTC-9.8, I played my Totem Dreamcatchers on a T amp and they blew me away (and easily blew away the B&W speakers I had been using for years). They still sound better on the Integra setup after Audyssey, but if I defeat Audyssey...they do kind of sound not as good as I swear they did on the T amp. One of these days I'm going to take the other pair of Dreamcatchers I have and hook those up and see how they compare both with Audyssey and with it defeated compared to the T amp.


But yeah, your garden variety Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, Yamaha AVR made in the last 10-15 years...I don't trust their stereo modes. Some of the upper series of theirs I might (Elite, ES, for ex), but the regular ones are made for the 90% of people who won't ever use them for anything but HT IMO. It's funny, my dad who was around to see the implementation of DSP is impressed with how it can pull it off. I am impressed with the technical capability, but don't find most of those modes to improve anything. Mostly just parlor tricks, and never anything I use for more than a few seconds to laugh at the different sound it makes.

This is pretty wild because the "AV" in the Sony STR-AV880 is just purely for stereo with only composite video switching. As long as the receiver is pre-Dolby Digital, analog music should be ok (pure direct can work also on newer, but sometimes "direct" isn't direct). Normally "pre-DD" is Dolby Pro (still 5.1, not digital) -- in this case it is stereo. I don't recall ever seeing a stereo "AV" receiver before. It's pretty cool (though I think I'd prefer the Sansui pre/amp).

Oh there's no doubt the Sansui are higher end pieces, I just like the aesthetic of the Sony and for the bedroom system I have it in the Sony is a way better fit. Definitely plenty of these old stereo things that had early video switching. I found at a thrift store some time back a Pioneer receiver that had the ability to even adjust the video from one input to another via an analog knob (I think made for checking how the VCR recording looks while it's actually doing it off another input or something). And there was a similar thing for some of the H/K integrated amps where they did very basic switching, I think like PM655vxi. NEC also had a lot of things like that back in the day.


Funny now though, I would hesitate to use them for video switching as I'd be afraid of quality degradation. Then again, I guess it is composite so not the highest quality to start with. On the Sony I have, the "Surround" button is funny as it just ads some reverb. Does make me wonder, what was the very first surround receiver (5 channel, not quad)? Oh whoops noticed where I'm posting, nevermind

If you don't have any adjustment on the video, I don't think there should be any degradation. First like you said, it's composite video only, the frequency is quite low. I built my amps as old style AV integrated amp with composite video switching. I just use relay to switch the selected video input and route the signal to the tv. No degradation I can notice. It's a very easy signal to handle and the resolution is very poor to start with. Don't worry about it.


Now, if the receiver has video adjustment, that's a different story. I can only speak for straight pass through ones.

Yeah, I guess when I was getting in into theater (from being an lifelong audio guy), Dolby Pro was already out so, that's the earliest I recall. My Dolby Pro Marantz integrated amp was my first AVR and the only one that sounded great with music. I agree, the surround modes (e.g. "jazz club" ...) are awful, but at least the old Dolby Pro AVR's didn't screw up 2-channel. The Dolby Digital processors that followed the Marantz Dolby Pro did not sound good with music (though, for movies, Dolby Digital is much better than Dolby Pro).

I'm sure composite would be almost unwatchable today, S-video only marginally better (did 480p instead of 480i IIRC). Component HD still looks good though.

Ha ha!!! That's the only way I watch. My tv are all HD, I never got into HD at all. I am very picky on sound, but video doesn't bother me and I can live with just composite video. Hell, my main tv is still a 72" Mitsubishi rear projection from 14 years back(HD ready for whatever that means). It last and last and still has the best color compare to my LCD Samsung 65" in the family room........and that's the second one already. The Mitsubishi out last two new Samsung LCD tv. The new one already starting to behave a little funky, it loses color once a while and has to be turn off to reset. There is a lot of truth they don't make stuffs that last as long as the old stuffs. It's getting to the point I feel like dumping the big projection tv out as it's just refuses to die.

Samsung, in general, in my experience at least, has pretty poor reliability dating back to the old rear projection TV's through LCD's not too long ago. Samsung makes great TV's (image quality-wise), but reliability has been pretty bad in my experience, but its possible that it has improved in the last few years. Most other stuff, Sony in particular, is very reliable in my experience. Composite on a TV made for composite isn't horribly bad, but IIRC composite on an HD TV looks even worse. If you have an "HD ready", I assume that has component in, I would use that if your cable box has component outputs.

The first outboard electronics to introduce analog 5.1 surround for consumers were produced c. 1987 by SSI and Yamaha. I sold them.

There were many units even a decade or more before that with varying degrees of "surround sound" but none had an intelligent center channel processor, these two units had, and they didn't rely on an encoded signal scheme, Dolby Pro Logic, instead they were meant to "enhanced" stereo only.

Very cool to know. Coincides with about the time I suspected, though I was ready to be surprised by someone doing that in the early '80s. But that had to be such a game changer that undoubtedly all the other manufacturers jumped on board shortly after. Out of pure curiosity, do you remember the model number of one that was in that range, or of the unit? I know for the DSP stuff, Yamaha had the DSP-1 as their flagship DSP processor. That was the only thing I had someone offer me, like new in box for a decent price that I declined since I had no use for it and I knew no one else would want it either. I always feel bad for those early Pro-Logic receivers, the upper lines were still built well and can be used today just don't use the surround functionality.

I have to check into other brands. I thought Samsung is the best. My direct tv is still old school, only has composite out. Never upgrade it. My problem is I am still recording all the tv shows on DVD recorders. I am still 2 years behind ( that is I am still watching 2016-2017 tv shows), I don't trust those TiVo to hold a year or two worth of program. If the hard drive craps out, I'd lose a year worth of programs. DVD disk are cheap and I have like 10 DVD recorders from the past. So I am still recording the tv shows.......in composite video!!!.........YES, you can laugh more now.....Hey, it works......I am happy as long as it sounds great.

Not sure what you are asking for exactly but I think the Yamaha DSP-1 processor (no amps) is the first unit [came out a month or two after the SSI] which I could recommend. Paramount also had a early unit but I don't know anything about it.

I had the Yamaha AVX-100 [c.1987-1990] which served me well for many years and had tons of video processing/routing features and switching but it had the simpler "Dolby Surround" circuit. It lacked the intelligent center channel out of Dolby Pro-Logic and advanced steering. All it had was a "dumb" [passively derived L+R mono] center channel out.

If you're happy with it, that's all that matters. Sound-wise, as much as I dislike digital for music, it is pretty awesome for movies/TV. Dolby Digital 5.1/7/1 blows the crap out of stereo in my opinion for TV and movie content. You can probably hook up multi-terabyte drives to Tivo and back them up every once in while. HD content has much, much larger file sizes compared to standard definition. I haven't done any math on how much storage is required.

No, it's worse (almost all of the time) because you are not crossing them over properly.

Valid point within an AVR. I really meant it within the context of 2-channel, between pure line level sub output (no crossover) versus high-level speaker wire connection (no crossover either).

For full-size mains, I don't know if I universally agree with the benefit off cutting low frequencies to the mains, but certainly there is for smaller speakers.

Some subs do some filtering to the mains (at a fixed frequency) when the sub speaker-level inputs/outputs are used, but that's hit and miss.

Also, without an AVR.



I really meant it within the context of 2-channel, between pure line level sub output (no crossover) versus high-level speaker wire connection (no crossover either).[/QUOTE]As did I.


For full-size mains, I don't know if I universally agree with the benefit off cutting low frequencies to the mains[/QUOTE]I'm not, and my opinion is based upon a lot of experience, both in setting up other people's systems as well as designing and building my own. It's also backed up by physics.

Some subs do some filtering to the mains (at a fixed frequency) when the sub speaker-level inputs/outputs are used, but that's hit and miss.[/QUOTE]None can do it correctly, as the sub designer cannot possibly know the Z curve of your particular speakers. I also know of very, very few subs that do either line level or speaker level xovers to the mains within the subs. I asked about this some time ago here, and got one response with proof; a simple single series cap (1st order HPF) on the line level through pass; useless.

If one is of the mind that their main speakers reproduce ~40-60Hz

- at a higher output level
- with less distortion
- with a flatter response curve

than their sub, they should consider using "blend" instead of the THX/Dolby/Audyssey Labs sanctioned line level crossover method (usually around 80Hz), used also by pros and all commercial cinemas.

For the rest of the world, the people who know this scenario of their mains "outperforming their sub(s) at ~40-60Hz" is exceedingly unlikely [unless one has a pathetic sub], they should stick to the active crossover method.

Whats the different in DSP from DACs found in dedicated CD players or transports? No different on AVR. Thats a myth propagated by the misinformed. AVRs don't do A/D add some DSP sound effects and remove them just because stereo or pure direct was selected.

Nothing wrong with current top tier Yamaha models doing pure direct stereo. They even offer a very good built in phono stage.

That is so hysterically wrong, either analog snobbery and/or an understanding of how PCM works.


Nobody has ever, ever picked the LP playing in my system, vs the 24/96 PCM recording of it played from my server.

No one has ever asked me or cared whether the source is LP, CD or streamed.

Maybe you're playing the wrong LP's? Because there are a few that the same remastered digital files cannot touch, regardless of whatever digital format they are in.


But hey, we already have half the threads in here arguing about this, so why not just leave those discussions for those?

Nope. I have an extensive collection of excellent vinyl, almost all of which I bought new in the 70's and later. My TT, pres etc are similarly excellent, and I know how to use a DAW correctly to record.

I don't think there is any snobbery involved. There's nothing wrong with analog. There is nothing wrong with digital. There's nothing inherently less good about an AVR for music. The only critical thing is preserving the analog signal for analog inputs. If an AVR takes in analog and keeps it in analog, it is fine. If an AVR takes in an analog signal, converts it to digital, then reconverts it back to analog, that's not good (unless of course you want that to happen for room correction or other EQ).

In theory, and hopefully usually in practice, "direct" or "pure direct" mode should prevent needless reconversion to digital and then reconversion again back to analog, but there are no standards for what "direct" and "pure direct" modes mean to ensure analog stays analog. There are examples where "direct" doesn't keep it analog depending on what other options you have set in the AVR. I prefer 2-channel amps for music to avoid all of that, but an AVR can be just as good as long as you can guarantee the analog input signals are preserved all the way through.