View Full Version : Pioneer SX-3700


Eilati
03-12-2004, 05:29 PM
Can you give me an idea of what this receiver is worth?
Uri

bully
03-12-2004, 05:45 PM
Don't get excited by that middling unit. Whatever they want for it is too much. $30 might be OK. In great condition.

mwebb
03-12-2004, 09:04 PM
Wasn't that one of the last "good" pioneers, early 80's quartz tuner etc? Produced right before everything went downhill, probably 83-84 I could be wrong of course.
If so, I think it may be worth 50-60 depending upon the condition

matt

tommyd111
03-12-2004, 09:19 PM
1980 -1982 fluoroscan series
Fluoroscan Tuning, Power Out Meter, DC Configuration Power

MSRP: $375.00
USED: $75.00
Wholesale
Mint: $45.00
Average: $26.00

Macdaddy
08-27-2004, 08:05 PM
Ewww, I got screwed then. Paid $109 last month on E-pay. Now it is in near mint condition, I can't find a scratch on it. However there is a bit of noise on treble, balance and volume pot. Seller said it was checked out by tech, his reply e-mail was that dust settles in transit sometimes.
I wish I had discovered this forum and a few other sites first. Of course it was toward end of auction so I jumped! I assumed this model had the non switching amp, of course it doesn't. Still it is a decent reciever.

Bill

crooner
08-27-2004, 08:57 PM
It's a very nice receiver, IMO. In certain aspects I like it more than the SX-780. Tuner is much more accurate, and it has a signal strength meter for FM (an absolute "must" IMO). The '780 only has a center tuning meter.

Outputs on the SX-3700 are discrete vs STK Darlington Packs on the '780. The SX-780 does have better speaker connectors, and the power transformer has nice end bells. Overall they perform very similarly.

Plus, you can't beat the Floruoscan meters and digital display. Pretty me thinks!

Macdaddy
08-27-2004, 09:16 PM
Crooner, I agree it is very nice in fact I got it to go with my CTF-800 that I bought new back in high school in 79. I have to get that back up and running again I replaced the motor a few years ago and think I fried it adjusting the small pot inside the motor. It went into a high rpm mode and I shut the deck down immediately! Thank goodness Pioneer still has that in stock yet.

It's funny the toys I couldn't afford as a kid I can now get for 1/3 of the price on E-bay all these years later.

BeatleFred
08-28-2004, 12:49 AM
Hmmmmm, I dunno.... I think the 3700 is a decent receiver, but if I had to choose, I like the SX-780 alot better. The SX-3900....3400 came out in mid-late 1980 to replace the 1978/79 SX-1980...480 Line.

Replacing the TOTL, 270W, SX-1980, with the SX-3900 seems like a major step down to me, and along the same lines, I feel the same way about the 3700 vs 780.

The blue power meters are nice, but I like the classic style orange/black vu style meters on the SX-1980....Line better.

B/F

Macdaddy
08-28-2004, 01:11 AM
Featurewise the 780-1280 models had them beat , but when they introduced the non switching amp circuitry, those win hands down for sound.

After the new models came out I went down to the local stereo store. And the guy was doing an A/B between the 780 and the 8800 with an album I think through some HPM-100's and I thought the difference was night and day.
He was using the Dark side of the moon album and the clarity was there with the new amp design.
I was just blown away with how much more detail in the music came through.

Bill

crooner
08-28-2004, 01:14 AM
Well, what I understand about the Fluoroscan series was that pretty much the receiver power wars were over. The emphasis was now on things like digital frequency readouts, quartz locked tuning and such.

Evidently, there was cost reduction going on at Pioneer. Fortunately, quality was not compromised {in the fluoroscan series}. For instance, they reduced weight by using a different design of heat sink, that had the same surface area but less cost. They also did away with the power transformer end bells.

I don't believe a SX-3900 would sound significantly less powerful than the SX-1980. Remember, doubling the wattage yields only a 3 dB perceivable increase in loudness. IMHO, though impressive and an engineering feat, the SX-1980 was overkill for regular music listening with normal speakers.

Regards,

crooner

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by crooner
Well, what I understand about the Fluoroscan series was that pretty much the receiver power wars were over. The emphasis was now on things like digital frequency readouts, quartz locked tuning and such.

[ snip}

SX-1980 was overkill for regular music listening with normal speakers.

Regards,

crooner

What's this - an over kill? Oh come on there guy.:uzi: The SX 1980 is for the big boys who can handle such awesome power there dude. Boy, I would love to add this bad boy to my collection.
BH

sixt8mopar
08-28-2004, 09:21 AM
I would have to agree.The sx-1980 is overkill for regular music listening.A little too much for me.100-200 watts a channel is more than enough for me.When I first discovered vintage audio a few years ago I had a serious wanting for a 1980.Now I think I would much rather have a 1050,1250....1080,1280 series receiver.The 3800,3900 are solid preformers as well.

hotgas
08-28-2004, 10:48 AM
I have both sx1050 and sx3900. I like the 3900 much more with its beautiful fluoroscan lights that make the 1050 look so plain. Sound wise, they are all the same with my ears. I think the 3900 looks very cool and matches well with my other Marantz, Sumo Charlie, and tube systems. The 1050 is just too classic ... so I have to put it in my bed room. My wife also likes the 3900 when it is turned on. :thmbsp: I'd love to own a 1280 too but have not had a chance to see a CHEAP one locally yet :)

crooner
08-28-2004, 10:57 AM
Benny Hill, please let us know what kind of speakers do you have that can actually use all that power.

Having gobs of power is great, but speaker efficiency (SPL) is a much more important spec, IMO. Time has proven this to be true.

And I do love all my Pioneer receivers, BTW.

Toasted Almond
08-28-2004, 12:30 PM
I picked up a beautiful SX-3700 recently. Still have it. The only flaw at all is the power knob is GONE. Luckily it failed in the "on" position, and all you have to do is plug the receiver into a switched outlet or surge protector thing.

TA

gyusher
08-28-2004, 12:49 PM
In my mind a SX-3700 is worth anywhere from 5 dollars to 500 dollars depending on condition. . .

An ordinary unit typical of what you see in a Thrift Store would be 25-35 bucks.

A perfect one with original box and manual and all of it in as new condition, I dont mean shined up to look good but a truly MINT+++ one that is a one owner, perfect(and I mean perfect, not almost perfect) case, perfect face, prefect back, bottom, feet, all nice sharp edges, bold like new lettering, no scorched boards from heat, all original working lamps, nothing but normal maintanance would of course bring much more money.

I value a receiver's history almost as much as the unit itself. . .

Paying upwards of 200 bucks I would feel no discomfort at all if in this condition.

If I owned one in this condition you can bet I wont take less than 200 bucks for it and you can also bet I would get my price.

Saying that it had better be right, every nut and bolt untouched, all original or at least if it has been serviced (a plus if by the right person) it was done by someone like EchoWars who's judgment we all trust and value highly.

Toasted Almond
08-28-2004, 12:55 PM
You'd pay $500 for a 45wpc receiver? You sit tight while I make it a quest to track down 3 or 4 of those with boxes and manuals for you. Okay, don't go anywhere now!

TA

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by crooner
Benny Hill, please let us know what kind of speakers do you have that can actually use all that power.

Having gobs of power is great, but speaker efficiency (SPL) is a much more important spec, IMO. Time has proven this to be true.
And I do love all my Pioneer receivers, BTW.

crooner, one doesn't need any kind of special speakers in order to use the 1980, just knowing one has all that power is a nice feeling. It may be an over kill for some but I can handle the massive power. :D
BH

gyusher
08-28-2004, 02:08 PM
You'd pay $500 for a 45wpc receiver


I thought I was pretty clear I would pay 200 bucks if it was in the description I described. . . There are people who would and do pay more. . .

My point is providing it was as I described it. Remember last year the NOS 780s that poped up on eBay?? As I remember a couple of them got damned close to 500 bucks.

I also stated I would not pay over 25-30 bucks for a Thrift store or Garage sale version. . .

Show me a NOS or a one owner unit in absolutly perfect condition, with the original box, manual and accessories (also in mint condition) and you bet I would pay 200 plus for it 45wpc and all. . .

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:01 PM
Hey crooner read this...!!!


The SX-1980 was not for everyone; Pioneer had receivers for consumers who did not need the power and performance this receiver was capable of. But then, Lamborghinis and magums of champagne are not for everyone either. The SX-1980 is the most sought-after Pioneer receiver today, oftentimes being bought over the internet at its original list price.

If Pioneer built a receiver with this level of power and build quality today, what do you think it would sell for? According to S. Morgan Friedman's Inflation Calculator, it would list for $3,638.00!
:banana:
BH

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:36 PM
This is one bad boy.
BH
:grnbounce
:grnbounce

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:41 PM
Takes a " man " to handle such muscle power.:D
BH

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:44 PM
crooner, look at those muscles these baby have, can you handle it? hummmmm...... .:D
BH

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 05:49 PM
It's nice to see under the hood of one of these babies. crooner can't handle this baby....:D ( just kiddin around. )
BH

Macdaddy
08-28-2004, 06:06 PM
Thanks gyusher,
I feel a bit better now that maybe I didn't overpay too much. Don't have original box or manual but like i said in earlier post not a scratch on it and sound is good except for a couple of the pots needing cleaned. And the inside is extremely clean as well.

Bill

crooner
08-28-2004, 07:18 PM
The speaker connectors on that SX-1980 suck if you ask me. At that price, Pioneer should have used the connectors from the SPEC series. Now that's really a "He-Man" rig!

I used to own a McIntosh MC2205, with 205 watts per channel (that's real RMS power BTW), autoformer loaded. Weighs 85 pounds. Now that one would blow that receiver out of the water!

Macdaddy
08-28-2004, 08:17 PM
Crooner, too funny!
Ok can I now put up a pic of my Carver PM 1.5 from work? Mine may not be as big as yours but packs plenty of punch. Sad thing is I have the controls set between .5 and 1. kind of hard seeing how controls detented. Now that's too much power for the room! Wish I had one at home though.

BTW any of you guys ever look inside one of these beasts? When mine had a problem a few years ago the engineer had it opened in the shop and it has this rail system which is hard to describe. It is almost like a piece of art it is so beautiful. I still don't quite understand how it works but it has been thoroughly reliable for over a dozen years

Bill

Retro Stereo
08-28-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by crooner
I used to own a McIntosh MC2205, with 205 watts per channel (that's real RMS power BTW), autoformer loaded. Weighs 85 pounds. Now that one would blow that receiver out of the water!


Just thought I'd let you know that the RMS rating for the Pioneer SX-1980 is 270 watts per channel, which looks to be a little higher that the 205 from you MAC. Also the Pioneer SPEC 2 is 250 watts per channel into an 8 ohm speaker. I have a pair of power-hungry 1979 Teledyne Acoustic Research AR-9's and that SX-1980 did a fine job powereing those 4 ohm speakers. I actually just recently sold my SX-1980 because someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse and am now bi-amping those AR-9's with a SPEC 2 for the bottom drivers (500 watts per channel for those 4 ohm speakers) and a SPEC 4 for the upper drivers. Granted, the SPEC 2 and SPEC 4 drive those speakers a lot more effortlessly, but there are not a lot of receivers out there, like the SX-1980, that would even have made those AR-9's burp......



Retro

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by crooner
The speaker connectors on that SX-1980 suck if you ask me. At that price, Pioneer should have used the connectors of the SPEC series. Now that's really a "He-Man" rig!

I used to own a McIntosh MC2205, with 205 watts per channel (that's real RMS power BTW), autoformer loaded. Weighs 85 pounds. Now that one would blow that receiver out of the water!


I'm not sure about that crooner! :screwy:

270 watts of meaty muscle power is awesome!
BH

crooner
08-28-2004, 08:39 PM
now, how much does 65 watts translate into real dB output?
That's the difference between 205 watts and 270 watts.

All the power output talk is meaningless unless we discuss actual SPL levels (so now you know why the power wars didn't last!). For an amplifier to be significantly more powerful than the Mac it would take a 10dB increase or a DOUBLING in output power. That's 520 watts per side, right there.

Besides, this unit has a much greater reserve power than the Pioneer receiver, and I would not be surprised if it surpasses the SPEC, being rated rather conservatively.

In to a real world load (even a 1 ohm load, that's the beauty of autoformers) , it would crank out much more than 205 watts. Much closer to 250 watts with 500+watts on peaks. All this within reasonable THD levels, thanks in part to the "Power Guard" scheme (impossible to blow a tweeter with this baby).

Try connecting Apogee Scintilla speakers (1 ohm load) to a regular receiver or power amp. I doubt they would survive!

The Mac always sees the same impedance thanks to the matching autoformer.

I mean, Pioneer is great but the autoformer coupled power amps are in a class by themselves.

Now, give me a (autoformer coupled) Sansui BA-5000 for instance, that's a whole different animal!

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 08:41 PM
You're too funny crooner..... :blah:

:blah:
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah:

glen65
08-28-2004, 09:08 PM
Lets see what were we talking about..Mac? Oh yes now I remember
Pioneer SX-3700.
I inherited one of these awhile back. Even with the poor
condition of the unit it sounded pretty nice. Has a pretty
good FM section also. I was glad to see they did away
with the ICs in the protection circuit and the output that
are present in the 780. But unfortunately they thought
it was a cool idea to use an oddball Ic in the preamp
and phono sections. "M5214" Damn near impossible find.
So if I have to replace any of them Iwill have to fabricate
a replacment. :scratch2: Probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
Im sure some of the new Op amps would sound better anyway.
They are running a 4558 Op amp in the tuner. Would like
to ditch that puppy and replace it with a Burr-Brown unit.
should make a big difference.

crooner
08-28-2004, 09:37 PM
Yes, the thread was somehow "deviated" by the mere mention of Pioneer's powerhouse receiver! :(

It's back on track, hopefully, with this pic of my SX-3700

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by crooner
Yes, the thread was somehow "deviated" by the mere mention of Pioneer's powerhouse receiver! :(

It's back on track, hopefully, with this pic of my SX-3700



Yikes! Pioneer seem to lost that vintage look when the 80's rolled around.
BH

:uzi:

glen65
08-28-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Benny Hill
Yikes! Pioneer seem to lost that vintage look when the 80's rolled around.
BH

:uzi:

It could be worse, Just get into the mid 80s VSX line
and you will see what I mean.

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by glen65
It could be worse, Just get into the mid 80s VSX line
and you will see what I mean.


Hey I know exactly what you mean bud, plus the weight lose in these mid to late 80's receivers....yikes!!!!
BH

hotgas
08-28-2004, 10:32 PM
The SX3700 is vey nice. My 3900 also looks very nice. The classic look of 1980 also very nice and I like them all. But to keep the 1980 is not my intention if I happen to own one cheap. Yeah, only cheap because I'll never spend big buck buying VINTAGE receiver. They are old and will FAIL soon. The looks of 1980 and its bulky mass is like Arnold, if you folks know what I mean. :)

Benny Hill
08-28-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by hotgas
The SX3700 is vey nice. My 3900 also looks very nice. The classic look of 1980 also very nice and I like them all. But to keep the 1980 is not my intention if I happen to own one cheap. Yeah, only cheap because I'll never spend big buck buying VINTAGE receiver. They are old and will FAIL soon. The looks of 1980 and its bulky mass is like Arnold, if you folks know what I mean. :)


Quote - They are old and will FAIL soon. " are you referring to the 80's Pioneer gear? If so then I can see your point but not the 70's version, no way there guy. Much better quailty there. Beefer units then the 80's.
yeah they will fail and they are old, guest that's why they are in high demend. Most of the componets can be replace with today's replacements and even better then what came with the receiver originally from the manufacture some 20+ yrs ago.
BH

Grumpy
08-28-2004, 10:53 PM
Dude

You call one more person a loser and you will be out on you behind !

There is room for everyone AND everyones opinions on AK.

Now play nice !

Grumpy

Macdaddy
08-28-2004, 11:21 PM
LOL.....LOL....LOL..... I was wondering when this would get back on track.

Well I will bet this 3700 I just bought will outlast my Sony STR965 I bought new back in mid 90's. I think I got 4 years use out of it and the Surround was really good sounding. Then one day the magic "protection " was flashing in the display. Come to find out quite a few Sonys have had this problem, seems to be an issue with Power supply. The local Factory authorized service center charges a flat $125 to fix, seems a bit steep and I think for 100 more could have a brand new surround receiver.
I have an el cheapo Pioneer sx-2300 that finally died after about 14 years.
And don't even get me started on the regulator that went on my nice Sony EXR tv after about 4 years.
Oh no now I'm going off in a another direction.......

crooner
08-28-2004, 11:26 PM
Bravo! Well said Mr Grumpy!!!

Also, private messages should not include derogative remarks of any kind...

Benny Hill
08-29-2004, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by grumpy
Dude

You call one more person a loser and you will be out on you behind !

There is room for everyone AND everyones opinions on AK.

Now play nice !

Grumpy

Hey Grumpy, I removed my statement BUT will not apologie for saying it.
BH

Toasted Almond
08-29-2004, 08:25 AM
If I were Chuck Barris you would've heard "the gong" a long time ago on this fellow.

TA

Benny Hill
08-29-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Toasted Almond
If I were Chuck Barris you would've heard "the gong" a long time ago on this fellow.

TA


And why is that Toasted Almond.
BH

Grumpy
08-29-2004, 08:45 AM
My guess us because you clearly have an attitude.

Sorry guys but I know this thread will turn nasty as soon as TA replies to Benny.

Thread Closed