AVS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,395 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDBetaGuy /forum/post/20791201


I really enjoyed this blog post by Steve Guttenberg about the differences between vintage and modern receivers: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20...?tag=mncol;txt

Me too! Nonetheless, my 27 year old Marantz stereo receiver has been boxed since 1989, when I replaced it with a Pioneer 5.0 Dolby Pro Logic AVR . . . which has remained in [almost] continuous use throughout the last 22 years [albeit often running in a reduced|repurposed mode] primarily because it has a more extensive list of features. So while there might|might not be some basis for arguing about sound quality differences between the two, there is no doubt that the Pioneer AVR proved to be a much better value-for-money purchase to me than did my Marantz stereo receiver. [Your own results may differ...]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
I agree with the article. I picked up an old 2ch pre-amp from the late 80's that runs rings around my new AVR (both utilizing the same poweramp) in 2ch playback.


The AVR sounds flat and dull in comparison in straight stereo mode. Using its '7ch stereo' mode gets a wider and more forward soundstage with 2ch material though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
why I still have my 59TXi as don't have 5k to replace it


did dabble with up-to date receivers sub 2k but didn't cut it for me
was bitterly disappointed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2
I agree with the article. I picked up an old 2ch pre-amp from the late 80's that runs rings around my new AVR (both utilizing the same poweramp) in 2ch playback.

The AVR sounds flat and dull in comparison in straight stereo mode. Using its '7ch stereo' mode gets a wider and more forward soundstage with 2ch material though.
Ditto. Also even a "3-channel" stereo mode on an AVR also sounds much better than its standard 2-channel mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
You guys should check out some of the Chinese manufacturers who seem to subscribe to the old-school way of doing things. Shanling is a great example of old-school design using modern components and know-how.


I just bought the Shanling 1.1 amplifier (at a quarter of what an equivalent western model would cost) and love it! Premium components and overengineering, just like the hi-fi in my youth.

Shanling A3000 integrated shown below. Weighs in at 70 pounds!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
Not saying it's not true, but saying one Pioneer, in one test sounds better than one newer receiver, is not the same as saying all modern receivers are deficient in sound quality.


What would be MORE interesting, is some analysis of what's different? If they are not overdriven, it shouldn't be power, at least in theory.


Amp circuitry has not changed much since then. Maybe they are skimping somewhere but where?


The preamp stage could be where the difference is occurring. That would be my guess.


Finally, I have one more question. Are we sure the old receiver has more fidelity? We know of examples where an amp with less fidelity is preferred. Is it possible that is happening here?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,914 Posts
I'll lay out some form of "realness" to this story. Granted it is flawed(which the price of the Pioneer back then was really around $700-$900, not the $1295...)


Even if you consider $700 then...that is easily $2000 now. Adding in the Denon 5308 is a bit of a misnomer, cause it falls outside the "made with value" zone.


I routinely use the Kenwood M2A, it has enough following that if some of you know nothing of it...you can find out all you want.


Compare it to a modern Emotiva or Parasound Halo. The Kenwood is a benchmark against the best Emotiva and Parasound offer today.


We'll compare the A21 vs XPA3(cause the UPA2 is outgunned here) and the M2A.


Even if you "dusted off" Kenwood and the M2A was fresh as the other two, it would cost about the same as the A21. But, in terms of pure sound, the M2A would reign supreme. Take the cover off. The transformer in the M2A could probably feed the other two amps, while feeding itself.


It seems(compared to gear back then) that they are designed to meter out a certain spec. Back then they were designed to overcome anything.


That article would have made more sense if they had just stuck to amps. Comparing a "pure two channel" powerhouse to a modern 7.1 is like comparing the original Porche 911 turbo to a new GT3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,377 Posts
Interesting read, thanks! I to would like to see receivers go with less features and inputs. I just bought an Integra DTR 40.2 which does have less inputs than my 7 year old Integra 8.2, but still, why do I need all those analog inputs? Give me the option to request what I want. I know, it would cost more because it couldn't be mass produced, but still, I remember Integra having a build your own receiver years ago. Of course it was the higher end receivers but you could request what and how many inputs/features you wanted. I would rather have the beefier amp/power supply than a ton of analog inputs I won't be using.


Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,807 Posts
Someone recently posted an article on the typically higher gain structure of older amps and AVRs. Does anyone have that link?


Gain structure is relevant because older equipment may have been designed for the much lower output levels of analog sources (e.g. cassette decks, turntables, etc.). Connect a CD player with a standard 2 V output level to an older AVR, and that AVR may seem like it has tremendous power output because 2 V drives the high gain AVR to high levels at relatively low volume control settings. That is why level matching, as always, is paramount. Otherwise, an older but louder AVR will likely be judged superior to a more recent and lower gain AVR.


AJ
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top