# Can a 30 year old receiver sound better than something from today? Interesting blind test.



## tonyvdb

I stumbled across this interesting blind test. The thoughts are that many receivers made back 30 years or so ago were better built and sounded better than most receivers of today.
They used a Pioneer a 1980 Pioneer SX-1980 in a blind test against several newer receivers and most chose the Pioneer over the modern units.


----------



## TypeA

Isnt the older gear known to produce a warmer sound, kinda like the difference between vinyl and a cd, and thus sounds more pleasing based on that?


----------



## tonyvdb

Some say yes but I do also think it has to do with the fact that the Pioneer they used had a huge power supply and amplifier section. Little to no distortion would be produced by that beast. It was rated to output 200 watts per channel and bench tests proved that it actually could do more than that. Most receivers today (under $600) cant output half of what they are rated to do under full load.


----------



## tesseract

I enjoyed eyeballing the Pioneer power supply very much. While not quite as beefy, it still reminded me of the good 'ole Hafler XL-600 I used to have.


----------



## soup3184

I remember reading a review of a Harman Kardon 45 watt per channel receiver in Stereo Review back in the mid 80s, and it put out a 270 watt undistorted peak for 20ms at 1 khz. That's some serious headroom.


----------



## tesseract

I just sold a 17 yo 40 wpc h/k 620 integrated, NO WAY that thing was only putting out 40 watts a side. I had it on several pairs of speakers, some efficient, some not. No problem hitting high levels if need be.

I think I recall an audio rag rating it at around 240 watts into a 2 ohm load, peak.


----------



## jacky99

I think the older"component systems"of the 70's & 80's are much better than todays "bookcase systems"


----------



## wynshadwm

tonyvdb said:


> I stumbled across this interesting blind test. The thoughts are that many receivers made back 30 years or so ago were better built and sounded better than most receivers of today.
> They used a Pioneer a 1980 Pioneer SX-1980 in a blind test against several newer receivers and most chose the Pioneer over the modern units.


Tony, the SX-1980 is a monster! (apart from the bell & whistles in today's HT receiver) none comes to the Pioneer SX-1980, that's a well respected unit, as old as it is, (two grand) is still considered a quick sale for that receiver, so maybe its not surprising that the blind test chose it as a winner. that's a Pioneer star


----------



## MikeBiker

I've got a pioneer SX-6 from that time period. It is a low-end product that still had decent sound when I replaced it with a 5.1 Onkyo. I do prefer the sound of the newer unit, although that could be that the sources have improved.


----------



## flyng_fool

tesseract said:


> I just sold a 17 yo 40 wpc h/k 620 integrated, NO WAY that thing was only putting out 40 watts a side. I had it on several pairs of speakers, some efficient, some not. No problem hitting high levels if need be.
> 
> I think I recall an audio rag rating it at around 240 watts into a 2 ohm load, peak.


It probably was rated @ 40 watts per channel at 8 Ohms which isn't too far off the mark with 240 per at 2 ohms. What is incredible is that it was stable at 2 ohms! There aren't many amps out there today that are stable that low.


----------



## koyaan

For 2-channel listening from an analog source, there haven't been a lot of technical advances that would make a newer reciever or pre-amp sound better than a vintage model. I'v still got an old Sherwood reciever circa 1972 that I use in the excercise room and it still sounds great.


----------



## JoeESP9

I don't think the comparison was of apples to apples. When you adjust for inflation the only modern products that compete are all separates. If modern comparably priced separates were compared I think the results would be very different.

The $1295 retail price equals $4570 today. I'm fairly certain that much spent on a tuner, preamp and power amp would easily eclipse that Pioneer.


----------



## MikeBiker

JoeESP9 said:


> I don't think the comparison was of apples to apples. When you adjust for inflation the only modern products that compete are all separates. If modern comparably priced separates were compared I think the results would be very different.
> 
> The $1295 retail price equals $4570 today. I'm fairly certain that much spent on a tuner, preamp and power amp would easily eclipse that Pioneer.


The old Pioneer was a receiver, so a valid comparison would have to be for a modern receiver for $4570. I haven't been interested in getting a stereo receiver, so I am now at all knowledgeable about what is available around that price.


----------



## JoeESP9

AFAIK there are no current stereo receivers in that price range. That's why I mentioned separates.

How about:
Benchmark - DAC1 PRE - Preamplifier / DAC / Headphone Amp
Parasound - Halo A21 Two-Channel Amplifier
NAD - C 446 - Digital Media Tuner

The three devices above offer more performance, more power, more features are highly rated, well reviewed and they are new. They also cost less when the Pioneer receivers cost is inflation adjusted.


----------



## tonyvdb

JoeESP9 said:


> I don't think the comparison was of apples to apples. When you adjust for inflation the only modern products that compete are all separates. If modern comparably priced separates were compared I think the results would be very different.
> 
> The $1295 retail price equals $4570 today. I'm fairly certain that much spent on a tuner, preamp and power amp would easily eclipse that Pioneer.


Very valid point! looking at it that way I do agree that there are options that would cost less and sound better.


----------



## PT800

The Outlaw RR2150 might be better and only $699. I say, "might be" as I have not heard it myself.
From what I've read about it I might try it. And then there are the HK 3390 and 3490 stereo receivers. I have not read about any other current receiver being better than those two.

As for amps, my 33 year old HK Citation 19 is hard to beat with its dual, huge transformers. And its rated 100w is at least 150w of any other brand. One thing about the 19 you rarely see these days, is its power truly doubles as the speaker load drops by 1/2. 16u/50w, 8u/100w, 4u/200w. And bridged, 16u/200w, 8u/400w.

I can't say in all honesty, that my much newer Parasound HCA2205A, 8u/220wpc amp is any better than the Citation 19. And the HCA2205A only goes to 300w for 4u so it does not even increase by 50% over 8u rated.


----------



## 240V

I once owned a 1980 Pioneer stereo. Can't remember the model # but supposedly it was the 1st Pioneer "computer controlled" or "digital something". Took it to the old Macintosh annual clinic and they tested it as 140WPC - 0.001% Distortion. It would drive 4 speakers to "neighbor knocking" sound levels and sound clean.


----------



## JoeESP9

No matter how you look at it you have to adjust for inflation. Without doing that there is no fair comparison.


----------



## DougMac

JoeESP9 said:


> I don't think the comparison was of apples to apples. When you adjust for inflation the only modern products that compete are all separates. If modern comparably priced separates were compared I think the results would be very different.
> 
> The $1295 retail price equals $4570 today. I'm fairly certain that much spent on a tuner, preamp and power amp would easily eclipse that Pioneer.


I totally agree. There's some great vintage equipment out there. They are highly sought after and therefore command high prices. You have to "sneak up" on one to get a bargain, find one at a garage sale sold by someone who isn't aware of the value. That's very hard to do. 

If you buy vintage, especially something 30+ years, budget for a complete service, including recapping. 

I think smart shopping can create a wonderful modern system that will keep up with or outperform the high end vintage gear at reasonable prices, certainly prices lower than what the vintage gear cost once adjusted.

I think my Onkyo TX NR-808 sounds just fine. It replaced a much more expensive NAD T 765 and I think it actually sounds better straight. Add Audyssey and there is no question it's better.


----------



## PT800

DougMac said:


> I totally agree. There's some great vintage equipment out there. They are highly sought after and therefore command high prices. You have to "sneak up" on one to get a bargain, find one at a garage sale sold by someone who isn't aware of the value. That's very hard to do.
> 
> If you buy vintage, especially something 30+ years, budget for a complete service, including recapping.
> 
> I think smart shopping can create a wonderful modern system that will keep up with or outperform the high end vintage gear at reasonable prices, certainly prices lower than what the vintage gear cost once adjusted.
> 
> I think my Onkyo TX NR-808 sounds just fine. It replaced a much more expensive NAD T 765 and I think it actually sounds better straight. Add Audyssey and there is no question it's better.


I don't know that you can take the inflation factor of the last 30 years, lets say, and automatically be equal on the cost. It seems to me today you can buy amps, receivers for less than 30 years ago. With the internet in play most products sell for well under their MSRP. And you generally, did not see that in the '70s. 

Yes there are separates and top end receivers selling in the $5k range and more. But count how many models of AVRs selling for $1000 or less. I bought a Yamaha stereo integrated amp/ Tuner/ Turntable for $1200 in '79. And the only discount was the % = to the sales tax. Those 3 items were about equal in price, so about $840 for amp/tuner.
You can buy an AVR with 7 channels for that and less, today. 

The vintage amp I'm using now is a Citation 19, which had a MSRP of $500 in the late seventies.


----------



## tonyvdb

PT800 said:


> The vintage amp I'm using now is a Citation 19, which had a MSRP of $500 in the late seventies.


Yes but in today's money that would be at least $2000 and if you take the advancements of electronics into account a $2000 receiver would blow away most if not all receivers of the 70s and 80s. Even my Onkyo sr805 is a serious powerhouse and I payed only $750 three years ago.


----------



## PT800

tonyvdb said:


> Yes but in today's money that would be at least $2000 and if you take the advancements of electronics into account a $2000 receiver would blow away most if not all receivers of the 70s and 80s. Even my Onkyo sr805 is a serious powerhouse and I payed only $750 three years ago.


As I mentioned, you got a big discount, the list of the 805 is $1099, so that is more than double the Citation 19 amp. But I would not call the 805 a powerhouse @ 130w/2 channels driven. No telling how low it drops with 5 or 7 channels driven, its most certainly not 130w.

I know with my old Yamaha CA2010 120w amp, I could send it into shut down mode playing the 1812 Overture. I can't do that with the Citation 19, and its only rated 100 wpc. But HK is always underrated; HK 100w more like 150w of any other brand.

To compare the Citation 19 to something newer @ $2000, Parasound 2205A (as in 220w)amp. But I would not say that 2205A is better than the 32 yo Citation. Might be the other way around, though.


----------



## hgoed

I'm feeling a bit philosophical after a terrible day at work, so I wanted to throw out a few points (please note, I have no real qualifications to back up my opinions, they're just thoughts):

Price comparisons based on inflation have little relevance when it comes to technology. My $500 computer today would have cost millions back then.

Physics doesn't change. We basically move air with a cone (I'm not going to consider flat panels or things like NXT etc...), and the amp just supplies that power. The detail of the signal is what has progressed over the past years.

Some people like tube sound, some like detail, some like headphones for their intimacy…one thing I can tell you is that Stereophile has never published an article correlating their electrical measurements with those of a PET scan showing that anything about a “better” signal causes increased stimulation of the brain.

For me, the biggest difference is that I can get clean sound today while burning a fraction of the fossil fuels that the amps from my youth did, and I don't have to dedicate an entire wall of my listening room to house the equipment.


----------



## tonyvdb

PT800 said:


> But I would not call the 805 a powerhouse @ 130w/2 channels driven. No telling how low it drops with 5 or 7 channels driven, its most certainly not 130w.


Bench tested the 805 did 105watts into all 7 channels driven have you seen whats under the hood in the 805? It weighs 55lbs. very few if any receivers these days weigh as much as it does.


----------



## mrm14

I have an old SAE R9B intergrated amp that I bought new in 1981. I bought a pair of Inifinty Reference Studio Monitors' at the same time. I still have the reciever / amp and speakers that have been boxed up and put away for the last 15 years. That system rocked, however, the speakers would overheat the amp if I was not careful with the volume. 

I dont know if it was the speakers or the amp or the combination of speakers and amp but it did have a pleasant sound quality that I miss and can't re create to this day. Probably why I've kept them.


----------



## PT800

Its always the combo of amp and speakers. Some amp/speaker combos can give a bright/harsh highs, change the amp to one less aggressive on the highs, and it tames the speaker's upper end.

I've also heard combos that did the opposite, completely dull sound.
But if I had and vintage system that I liked, and I do, I'd have setup, and I listen to it everyday.


----------



## GranteedEV

JoeESP9 said:


> The $1295 retail price equals $4570 today. I'm fairly certain that much spent on a tuner, preamp and power amp would easily eclipse that Pioneer.


Here's a $2200 stereo receiver that I really want:

http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-CA/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?PID=HK 990


----------



## PT800

GranteedEV said:


> Here's a $2200 stereo receiver that I really want:
> 
> http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-CA/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?PID=HK 990


The 990 is an integrated amp, not a receiver, with 150wpc. So no tuner.
But for $2K you can also get vintage separates, with money left over.

Another receiver I'd like to check out is the Outlaw RR2150.


----------



## tesseract

I own and have owned a lot of harman/kardon gear, I really like their stuff. I even have an HK turntable and HiFi Stereo VCR. lddude:

The HK 990 looks like a fantastic amp. The only problem is it's price.


----------



## PT800

tesseract said:


> I own and have owned a lot of harman/kardon gear, I really like their stuff. I even have an HK turntable and HiFi Stereo VCR. lddude:
> 
> The HK 990 looks like a fantastic amp. The only problem is it's price.


Yep, HK gear is quite good, especially their old Citation series. $2k is certainly a piece of change for a stereo amp. That's why I mentioned the Outlaw RR2150 @ 1/2 the price. Although it has 1/3 less power @ 100w, but has full bass management with XOs 60,80,100, bypass.
I'd like to compare those two along with the HK3490.

So that would be comparing 100w, 120w, 150w receivers. I know HK gear is always underrated, don't know about the Outlaw.


----------



## tesseract

PT800 said:


> Yep, HK gear is quite good, especially their old Citation series. $2k is certainly a piece of change for a stereo amp. That's why I mentioned the Outlaw RR2150 @ 1/2 the price. Although it has 1/3 less power @ 100w, but has full bass management with XOs 60,80,100, bypass.
> I'd like to compare those two along with the HK3490.
> 
> So that would be comparing 100w, 120w, 150w receivers. I know HK gear is always underrated, don't know about the Outlaw.



I've always admired the Outlaw receiver, it's industrial design, bass management system and power into 4 ohms.

"_The Outlaw RR2150 exceeded its 100Wpc specification by 1dB, delivering no less than 125W into 8 ohms (21dBW) at clipping, defined as 1% THD (fig.6). It gave 190W into 4 ohms (19.8dB), this 0.8dB higher than the specified 160W, and even managed 310W into 2 ohms with one channel driven (18.9dBW). That this $600 receiver managed to survive this high-power testing without blowing fuses or anything breaking is high praise. The RR2150 is a powerhouse! _"

http://www.stereophile.com/content/outlaw-audio-rr2150-stereo-receiver-measurements


----------



## GranteedEV

tesseract said:


> The HK 990 looks like a fantastic amp. The only problem is it's price.


I think the thing to note, is that its price, given its feature set and what's under the hood, is "realistic". If you've ever heard of their Citation amps, this one was designed by the same guy.

I really know of no other 2 channel device, preamp or receiver, that matches the feature set of the HK 990.


----------



## tesseract

The HK 990 is a unique integrated, but the price is widely lamented, criticized even.

I used to own a Citation amp, it was very unhappy with low impedance (less than 8 ohm) loads. So I traded it for a Hafler XL600. :flex:


----------



## PT800

tesseract said:


> The HK 990 is a unique integrated, but the price is widely lamented, criticized even.
> 
> I used to own a Citation amp, it was very unhappy with low impedance (less than 8 ohm) loads. So I traded it for a Hafler XL600. :flex:
> 
> That was a long time ago and I learned a lesson that day. lddude:


I've got a Citation 19 and that will most certainly do 4u. In fact it doubles power with each time the load is cut by half. 16u=50w, 8u=100w, 4u=200w and bridged 8u=400w.

As for the cost of the 990, $2k seems high, but I have also spent $1500 for a Parasound P7 pre-amp, but it is 7 channel with BM. But as to if the 990 is as good as my P7/Citation 19 combo, don't know, and I paid slightly less than $2k for both.


----------



## GranteedEV

I've only heard amazing things about the citation amps myself. Is it possible there were different generations of those amps?


----------



## tesseract

Not all Citation amps had the same specs. Mine was advertised in the stereo mags as putting out 100 watts into 4 ohms and 100 into 8 ohms like it was a good thing! :scratch: HK spec'ed many amps this way for a while.

I was glad when I brought the Hafler home and got the bass I paid for out of my 4 ohm Teledyne era Acoustic Research speakers.


----------



## GranteedEV

the HK990, at least, is rated 150w into 8 ohms, 300w into 4 ohms, and I suspect is comfy with 2 ohm loads too.


----------



## PT800

GranteedEV said:


> I've only heard amazing things about the citation amps myself. Is it possible there were different generations of those amps?


There are many Citation pre-amps/power amps. They started with the first Citation and went to at least Citation 22. From what I've read, the Citation XX is considered the very best power amp of the Citation line.
I was using a Citation Eleven pre with the 19 power amp. A very good combo. But then started have problems with the Eleven, after having all the caps replaced two years before.


----------



## tesseract

GranteedEV said:


> the HK990, at least, is rated 150w into 8 ohms, 300w into 4 ohms, and I suspect is comfy with 2 ohm loads too.


HK hasn't played games with power ratings in quite a while, I was stating my experience with Citation (which are nice amps, you should try one if you get the chance). I've been following the 990 for a while now and am aware of it's specs. I even search for a used one now and again. Good luck with that, huh? :sad: 

Now if they would just drop the price so regular guys like me can afford one. Looking forward to forum member Kalman Rubinson's upcoming Stereophile review.


----------



## olddog

I found my sweet spot finally in a Carver M-1.0t with my Denon 2808 and B&W 805s. The Denon was just not there and I could not afford tubes so after a couple of years looking I ran across this Carver gear-I recapped and brought it up to date and haven't had the itch for over a year now to trade for anything else. The M-1.5t's are very good also if you have some Maggies that need the power and these things can be had pretty cheap if you shop.


----------

