PDA

View Full Version : The Legendary PIONEER SX-1980

MacGyver
06-30-2008, 03:05 PM
and, of course there's this beautiful beast, which speaks quite well for itself...


(NOT IN MY POSSESSION, BUT I SURE WISH ONE WAS)



http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll310/shaorin-chan/PIONEER/SX-19806.jpg

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll310/shaorin-chan/PIONEER/SX-198022.jpg

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll310/shaorin-chan/PIONEER/SX-198017.jpg
MacGyver
08-24-2008, 12:15 PM
(NO LONGER VALID)
hakka26
08-24-2008, 11:43 PM
Bought a dead SX-1250 from a person that had a couple more SX-1250's he used for music transfer (side biz). He had just bought an SX-1980 and relative to the 1250's he wasn't all that impressed.
Marc Hugo
08-25-2008, 07:04 AM
The receiver wars were really quite something!!

I have a small TEAC receiver from 1983 - even that I love and after all these years it's sill immaculate.

Marc
MacGyver
08-25-2008, 08:53 AM
Bought a dead SX-1250 from a person that had a couple more SX-1250's he used for music transfer (side biz). He had just bought an SX-1980 and relative to the 1250's he wasn't all that impressed.


wow, you're far from the only one to tell me that this receiver is undeserving of it's exalted reputation. i guess something's not right in kansas...
stuwee
08-26-2008, 11:56 AM
wow, you're far from the only one to tell me that this receiver is undeserving of it's exalted reputation. i guess something's not right in kansas...

It's all right, I wasn't impressed either, and for the record, I didn't like the Marantz 2385 either...the power wars kinda sucked the life out of the great sound the Giants were capable of, the lower power receivers had the magic,YMMV of course, and we have to remember these beasties are OLD many need going over, recaped, updated, though many of the big Pioneer's have the dreaded unobtanium's in the curcuity. I agree the Pioneer looks might fine, and me bein' a huge Marantz fan, I must say I Hate the big Marantz 2385 looks wise.

stu
Socal Sam
09-09-2008, 02:27 PM
The Pioneer SX-1980 is an awesome LOOKING receiver but it is not much to listen to. Agreed, the SX-1250 sounds muxh better but IMO, neither are all that dynamic sounding. I kept the SX-1980 for my display shelf but the SX-1250 was not worth keeping.
MacGyver
09-09-2008, 07:12 PM
The Pioneer SX-1980 is an awesome LOOKING receiver but it is not much to listen to. Agreed, the SX-1250 sounds muxh better but IMO, neither are all that dynamic sounding. I kept the SX-1980 for my display shelf but the SX-1250 was not worth keeping.


huh. it seems to be a general agreement among many that the "legendary" 1980 sounds like, well, shit...
Scorpion8
09-09-2008, 07:14 PM
...the power wars kinda sucked the life out of the great sound the Giants were capable of, the lower power receivers had the magic,....

I'm actually a big fan of the mid-range powered receivers. 40-65 wpc or so. And some of the lower range ones can sound superb, like a vintage HK 330c. Besides, they had that nice night time "analog glow" dial and simple controls. Sometimes flash and buttons was just, well, flash and buttons.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p141/Scorpion008/HK330cReceiver01.jpg

I used this one at work with headphones for about a year. Sweet lil' thing....
BroonsBane
09-09-2008, 07:37 PM
I was never much of a receiver head until a few years ago when I happened upon a Sansui G-8000. After that, a G-22000 followed then a G-9000. All of those, of course, high-powered monsters and they sounded great. I then happened upon a humble Yamaha CR-600 sporting a whopping 35wpc. Talk about dynamics! Ok, yeah, I'm a Yamaha nut but still, that little receiver absolutely kicked ass. In some ways it can compete with my CR-3020.
Rex Everything
09-09-2008, 09:23 PM
My little ol' MAC1700 sure sounds sweet for a mid power receiver. Got it powering a pair of Dynaco A25's and find myself smiling everyday when listening to this system.
BroonsBane
09-10-2008, 05:50 AM
I've never seen let alone hear a Mc receiver but from all accounts your 1700 along with the rest of the lineup are superb sounding.
Rat44
09-10-2008, 08:09 AM
I have a SX-650 , 980 and 1250 I listen to on a regular basis.
The 650 sounds as good as it's bigger brothers , it just does'nt have the umph.
I use it for background music on a daily basis.
I would like to pick up a Mc but they are rare around here at an affordable price.
Socal Sam
09-10-2008, 08:41 AM
huh. it seems to be a general agreement among many that the "legendary" 1980 sounds like, well, shit...

It doesn't sound bad but compared to the other monster receivers I own or have owned, the SX-1980 can't compete. It has dull and lifeless treble and mids with dominating bass. The RX-1603 and Marantz 2500 have much better balance. The Sansui G-9000 and even the poorly made G-9700 are also much better then the 1980.
Socal Sam
09-10-2008, 08:44 AM
I was never much of a receiver head until a few years ago when I happened upon a Sansui G-8000. After that, a G-22000 followed then a G-9000. All of those, of course, high-powered monsters and they sounded great. I then happened upon a humble Yamaha CR-600 sporting a whopping 35wpc. Talk about dynamics! Ok, yeah, I'm a Yamaha nut but still, that little receiver absolutely kicked ass. In some ways it can compete with my CR-3020.

Agreed on the Sansui's. IMO, the CR receivers are not so good. All run hot and many need power supply mods to ensure long life. And, the sound is bass thin. I also have a CR-3020 and while impressive looking, my Marantz 2500 is much better.
Acoustic
09-10-2008, 08:49 AM
Would this be fair to say?*hope* In the height of mid-fi days at the end of the 1970's before the black plague, brands like Pioneer were considered as 'mass market'. As were a few other companies. And because of that the quantities of them out there still reflect that. Everyone lusted over the SX-1980 because of it's power rating but because of the price most had to settle for another in the SX line. It's sound reflected a lot that was desired in the day.... more 'boom'.
Socal Sam
09-10-2008, 08:59 AM
Would this be fair to say?*hope* In the height of mid-fi days at the end of the 1970's before the black plague, brands like Pioneer were considered as 'mass market'. As were a few other companies. And because of that the quantities of them out there still reflect that. Everyone lusted over the SX-1980 because of it's power rating but because of the price most had to settle for another in the SX line. It's sound reflected a lot that was desired in the day.... more 'boom'.

Well said. The SX line was often the best selling line with neatly stacked NIB SX-780's featured prominently on the floor.
MacGyver
09-10-2008, 09:37 AM
gee, maybe i should find a way to change the name of this thread to "The Legendarily Crappy PIONEER SX-1980" i know from experience that my VSX-D1S is possessed of a very balanced, musical character, not at all "boomy" or weak in the treb/mids. that at least assuages the pain of the realization the the "MIGHTY" SX-1980 isn't at all what it has always been renouned to be. more a status symbol than a High-Fidelity audio component. i never have cared much for non-remote controllable audio amplifiers anyways...
Socal Sam
09-10-2008, 03:58 PM
Lady Ayeka: The SX-1980 is mighty but in a different way. It is well built and does not show any cost cutting. However, it just doesn't sound that good. I was comparing it to my recently sold SPEC 2 power amp and they sound the same. Not surprising as a lot of the SPEC 2 is found in the SX-1980 amp section.
MacGyver
09-10-2008, 04:43 PM
Lady Ayeka: The SX-1980 is mighty but in a different way. It is well built and does not show any cost cutting. However, it just doesn't sound that good. I was comparing it to my recently sold SPEC 2 power amp and they sound the same. Not surprising as a lot of the SPEC 2 is found in the SX-1980 amp section.



huh. when you say that it does not sound very good, what reference are you holding it up to? it is possible, i suppose, that it's alleged poor sound quality just might be due to very old caps, perhaps. i might imagine that even in it's elderly, untouched original state, it would likely walk all over any of today's sub-$1K receivers...
Socal Sam
09-10-2008, 05:09 PM
huh. when you say that it does not sound very good, what reference are you holding it up to? it is possible, i suppose, that it's alleged poor sound quality just might be due to very old caps, perhaps. i might imagine that even in it's elderly, untouched original state, it would likely walk all over any of today's sub-$1K receivers...

All my stuff I mention is original, unrestored. I inspect for bulging and leaky caps and replace as necessary but that is as far as I go. There is no question re-capped gear is superior to the original. However, when re-capping I believe in starting with the "right piece of clay", which the SX-1980 is clearly not.
hakka26
09-10-2008, 08:11 PM
Dollar for dollar, none if any of today's sub $1K units would come near the build quality of vintage mid-fi units and sound is too much of an individual taste (MHO).
Acoustic
09-10-2008, 08:27 PM
Dollar for dollar, none if any of today's sub $1K units would come near the build quality of vintage mid-fi units and sound is too much of an individual taste (MHO).

The first part of your statement I agree 100% with. Amazing what cr@p is made nowadays.

With the second part of your statement... yes.. sound is an individual taste. My experience is folks grow up with a no-fi unit and then they heard mid-fi and knew the difference. It's just like with food... you might like the supermarket packaged cakes and eat them gladly for years. But when you try a cake made in a bakery, you'll smile... knowing immediately the difference. Then, you'll try different cakes at the bakery ending up with your favorite... because of your personal taste. Just like I and most of us did with there amps. I ended up with Yamaha because I liked the clean accuracy and tight bass... others hear my system I brag about (of course, humbly:)) and say... "That doesn't sound great. Where's the boom??"*headache*
BroonsBane
09-10-2008, 08:36 PM
I ended up with Yamaha because I liked the clean accuracy and tight bass... others hear my system I brag about (of course, humbly:)) and say... "That doesn't sound great. Where's the boom??"*headache*

No kidding man. "Boom" is the opiate of the masses. If it vibrates the fillings out of your face is must sound good *bang*
Acoustic
09-10-2008, 10:06 PM
No kidding man. "Boom" is the opiate of the masses. If it vibrates the fillings out of your face is must sound good *bang*
Seems like the first thing I get asked when younger co-workers (I'm 52 they're 20-30) see pics of my gear at my desk is..."Does it hit hard?"
MacGyver
09-11-2008, 08:24 AM
indeed, it really is strange how the majority of people these days couldn't seem to care less about quality sound. verily, weither movie or music, as long as there's plenty of WHUMP! THUMP! and BOOOMM!, then the majority couldn't seem to care less about any other aspect of the soundtrack. as such, everybody, from audio companies to mastering houses, seem to have fairly leaped at the resultant opportunity to slack off, creating products profecient in only one thing; WHUMP! THUMP! and BOOOMM!. it boggles the mind...*headache*