 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
| [ Asylum Support ] [ Rules ] |
| Model: | SX-1980 |
| Category: | Receiver |
| Suggested Retail Price: | $1200 back in the 70's |
| Description: | Classic, vintage, respected top of the line receiver with huge power reserves |
| Manufacturer URL: | Pioneer |
| Review by jaconde (A) on September 19, 2004 at 01:19:17 IP Address: 209.219.209.68 | Add Your Review for the SX-1980 |
The Pioneer SX-1980 is quite possibly the most beautiful looking receiver ever made. At 270wpc, its more than a receiver, its an assault weapon! I had it hooked up to a pair of Bose 901 series IV because they're just about the only speakers that wont burst onto flames when you crank up the 1980. If you listen to classical music, dont bother reading this. The SET and tube lovers should surf elsewhere. But if you love hard rock, at rock concert decibles, and dont mind cops knocking at your door, snag one of these monsters off ebay! If the price is too steep for you, you cant go wrong with the SX-1280 or SX-1250 at 160wpc. My 1980 died around 1995. While I now own McIntosh equipment, I still bought an SX-850 on ebay simply for it's looks.
| Product Weakness: | Will cause small speakers and lab rats to explode! :) Cops will know you on a first name basis. |
| Product Strengths: | Ultimate hard rock machine. |
| Associated Equipment for this Review: | |
| Amplifier: | SX-1980 |
| Preamplifier (or None if Integrated): | none |
| Sources (CDP/Turntable): | JVC turntable JVC cassette deck |
| Speakers: | Bose 901 series IV |
| Cables/Interconnects: | standard fare |
| Music Used (Genre/Selections): | Sabbath, Zeppelin, Purple, Priest |
| Type of Audition/Review: | Product Owner |
Follow Ups:
nt.
"They want you to come back home where you're safe."I'm not falling for that line twice! ;)
drool ...
(nt) no text
- This signature is two channel only -
is one of us who's jerking our collective chain, so to speak. I mean, he's got a review of this ancient receiver and another of Bose 901 speakers(?!)...By the way, "La Jaconde" is the Italian name for the mysteriously smiling, enigmatic painting by Leonardo da Vinci...The Mona Lisa...I think something's up here (nice try, though).
No chain jerking here. Just someone who really enjoyed the 1980.
Since you've read my posts about the Bose 901's, then you know that I have conceded to the fact that there are speakers out there that can blow them out of the water. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a novice.Understand I was 19, loved heavy metal, and held delta house type parties with my party animal friends. We all had a grand old time.
I can still remember hearing a McIntosh setup for the first time when I was 12. Always coveted them since them. The 1980 was but a step towards what I've always wanted. Everything is relative. The 1980 and the 901's were perfect for my needs at that time.
Now that I'm older, playing heavy metal at brain frying volumes is no longer my goal. I want to hear everything in the music at civilized listening levels. I came to this board hoping to obtain useful feedback from audio enthusiasts. With very, very few exceptions, I get responses from constipated snobs.
There were no posts on the 1980, so I decided to put one up. It was done in a tounge-in-cheak style because that's just me. I don't take myself or life too seriously. Obviously, some people take themselves and their sound systems way, way too seriously.
When I called McIntosh and explained to them that I wanted to hook additional speakers to augment the Bose 901's, that did'nt have a snobby attitude. The did'nt say, "Bose 901's stink, dont play them on your McIntosh". The simply explained how to accomplish this. I e-mailed Roger Russel, the designer of the McIntosh C-26 pre-amp, for some info. He's a real down to earth guy. He did'nt look down his nose at me.
So, I'm not jerking anyones chain. My posts are sincere.
If I cant find any useful info on this board, I'll go elsewhere.
You might want to try some big JBL speakers or Pioneer HMP-100 speakers. Give them a listen and see what you think. Rock music can image too.Dave
Yeah, but your 1975 is still going strong! Seriously powerful nails on chalkboard. This receiver will really complement the "highs" of the 901s. Buying equipment strictly for its looks is a great way to collect really cheap equipment that looks cool over shag carpet. How about a couple of old Nikko or Phase Linear amps for your old Mac gear? Maybe a pair of Cerwin Vega floorstanders (more drivers IS better, right?) and black light poster for the bedroom too.A little more upscale version of this setup was Crown amps and preamps through JBL L-100s (lifetime free driver replacement!). Then clip it until the waves go square! Possible side effects: bleeding from the ears and nose with throbbing headache. Add a Hartley 24-inch sub and have sudden nausea with balance problems. Have fun!
Nikko's dual mono mos-fet amp was a good sounding amp. Have you heard it?Dave
this is a good sample of the maximum feedback era in amplifier design. The output transistors did not have the linearity of today's newer output devices or lower capacitance so lots of feedback and compensation was required in order to meet the marketing imperative of "low, low, low, vanishing low distortion". TIM (transient intermodulation distortion)was not a chic topic of the SX-1980 era so this was the accepted comprimise associated with lots of global feedback. Of course I am not trying to argue the merits, or demerits of TIM but, the fact is that these older high feedback amplifiers likely exibited it along with some higher order harmonics which tended to make the sound "hard" - although this is debatable. They also had a bad habit of exibiting large amounts of crosstalk - especially recievers.Nevertheless, the SX-1980 era amplifiers generally encompassed one attribute that is becomeing more and more rare these days. That is, it encompassed an all discrete design - preamp to power output. In other words from the input to the output the amplifier signal path is engineered using only discrete componentry. No op-amp shortcuts are employed. All discrete circuitry does not guarantee superior sonics but, if properly engineered the risk of inferior sonics is indeed quite low. The newer NAD amplifiers attest to this. The little NAD C320 BEE is superb as an amplifier especially considering it's cost.
But back to that SX-1980 reciever, yes, it is a brute especially when low impedances are avoided ( < 4-ohms). Beware of problems at it's age though. The years will take it's toll on pc relays, electrolytics, and even transistors.
Thank you for your informative synopsis and for the memories. The Pioneer SX-1980 reminded me (especially your comments about 4 ohm loads) to some degree about a mid 1970s Sansui intergrated amp I owned. It was Sansui's largest and meanest, putting out 180 watts. And it looked like it could go toe to toe with any speaker and win with a knock out if called upon. But it quickly met its match with my first highend speaker called the Ohm F. I didn't realize it at the time but the F, which demanded a high current amp (hey, the Sansui "looked" the part), ate the Sansui for lunch. The Sansui could do nothing with the F but make it sound bad. I subsequently learned that the F had impedances that dipped close to 3 ohms (4 ohms nomimally) and that the Sansui put out *less* watts at 4 ohms than it did at 8 ohms and that it was current limited to boot. It probably ran out of gas at an accelerated rate as the load fell below 4 ohms.Any way, I called Ohm and asked them for their recommendations. They gave me three, a GAS Ampzilla (the largest one?), the SAE 2500, which put out close to 500 watts into 4 ohms, and one other amp that escapes me (definitely they said to avoid tubes because of insufficient damping factor). I settled on the SAE which turned out to be a great match for the F.
Robert C. Lang
Your probably right about the "hard" sound of early SS. This probably wouldn't have been nearly as much of a problem in the days of Analog.I know last year I bought 2 early SS amps still in the box from a dealer who had been storing some equipment for many many years.
They were both from around 1982. One was a Harman Kardon the other Fisher. Both had very good tuners. But used with CD's they definitly were on the bright and hard side.
Looking back at the generally euphoric nature of old tube amps its suprising how these old SS amps were able to gain acceptance.
Hate to say this about Pioneer. But 'back in the day', late 70's. We use to laugh at Pioneer owners. Much like the Bose owners of today. Believed the hype, thought they had the best and bought in droves. A step behind Kenwood and JVC and several more behind Yamaha.
I've not heard the 1980 but I have heard lower wattage Pioneer receivers of the 70's and while I don't think they are the end-all in amplification, I would not call the Pioneer sound hard. In fact they are very smooth. I agree that Yamaha was ahead of Pioneer. I don't have enough experience with Kenwood and JVC to judge them. You want to hear some hard solid state, listen to some early Dynaco or Crown.Dave
Why is this post categorized as a review? There are no comments about its sound quality or performance in general, other than stating what one is left to assume is the manufacturer's rated power output. One can make comments about a component from a distant memory, of course--in this case nine years--but that does not make it a review.A review would have given us useful, detailed comments about how this ol' monster of a receiver sounds today, but since the unit is long dead, doing so would be a trifle difficult.
Whatever the post may be, it is certainly not a review.
Any owners of working Pioneer SX-1980 receivers out there?
I have a 1980. I bought it off ebay as "needing work". There was no -35 volts from the power supply. I replaced a zener diode that acts as a voltage regulator and voila - it works. It will still blow your socks off! I've got it hooked up to a pair of Polk Audio Monitor 10Bs and believe me, you don't want to put the volume up over 1/3rd unless you've got one hell of a big sound stage.
Enjoy your 1980! 1/3 on the volume control sounds about right.
If you want specs on the pioneer, go to the many websites, such as audio classics, or silver pioneer. I'm not here to bore people with jargon. I'm just letting you know the 1980, which I bought in its debut year in 1978 while stationed overseas, sounded great and kicked major ass.While the MSRP was $1250 in the states, I was able to pick it up at a military exchange for $750. The McIntosh 4100 receiver, which I now own thanks to ebay, sold for $1999 in 1978. While the sound quality of the 4100 is superior to the 1980, it's only 75 Watts with 8ohm speakers.
The fact that the Sx-1980 is selling on ebay ABOVE the 1978 MSRP should tell you something. With the exception of the Marantz 2500 and 2600, no receive made in 1978 has such a phenominal resale value. I picked up the Mac 4100 this year for $600.
In 1978, there was simply NOTHING on this planet that gave you 270 watts with the SX-1980's sound quality for the $750 that I spent.
You want a "real" review, gimme a f*cking break, you make me laugh!
Pardon me, I somehow never realized that a review comprises juvenile writing ("speakers that wont [sic] burst onto [sic] flames") and no useful observations about the product. Then a follow-up whose best feature is an expletive. You more than make up for what I lack in sophistication.
You need a sense of humor and some e-lax.
I've got a terrific sense of humor. But there is nothing funny about seeing an adult post a so-called review that offers no useful information about a product and is written at a third-grade level with a kindergarten mentality, at best, and then is defended the same way. Grow up. Middle school awaits you.As for your "e-lax" (sic) comment, I suggest you try taking it by mouth next time--you obviously have the ingress and egress locations reversed.
snore..............
....this review took NINE YEARS to write and so every single word should be savoured - like each sip of the finest vintage wine.Aspects such as what the receiver sounds like may well be forthcoming in a follow-up review, expected sometime around 2013.
Sometimes less is more....more or less?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I guess "The Ultimate hard Rock Machine" does not qualify as description of how the receiver sounds.Is "It sounds good, really, really good" a better description?
Call me a cro-mag, but describing the sound of a receiver in words other than bad, OK, pretty good, great etc is like trying to descibe the color orange.
I spared you waiting 9 years for my reply ;)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
