Pioneer Spec Series, much better than SX series?

VintageNut

VintageNut

Super Member
I'm getting forgetful lately, so I probably asked this before, but here goes. I'm getting aroused :D by the spec series lately. Now that I have a few of the SX series: SX-1050, SX-1250, SX-1280, SX-980, I'm looking at the spec stuff, and wondering is there that much of a difference in sound quality between the Spec gear and let's say a SX-1250? I would like to hear from owners of both. What tuner was matched with the spec series, was it the Tx-9500 II thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
VN,
I can tell you, you and I have taken a similar journey. I used to have ALL the big Pioneer receivers, along with the Sansui G-9000, 8700DB, 8000, 7700DB, 7500, 9090DB, 8080DB, etc. I even had an absolute mint Hitachi SR-2004 and a couple of the big Kenwoods and Yamahas. With the exception of a few choice Pioneer receivers (and the bulk of them will prolly be sold off this next year), they are ALL gone. I've switched to all Pioneer seperates and integrateds. To me, it is a night and day difference between the sound quality and musical clarity of a good set of seperates and a receiver. After I picked up my first SPEC 4 and SPEC 1, there was no going back.

If MadPioneer see's this thread, I'm sure he'll jump in and give you his $.02 as well. He has an EchoWars refurbished SPEC 2 and SPEC 1 combo.

I actually like the larger Pioneer integrateds over the reveivers as well. The SA-9500, SA-9500II and the SA-9800 to mention a few.

I actually have several SPEC systems put together right now and it's time for me to slow down and just enjoy what I have right now.


Retro
 
Last edited:
I have an SA-9500, I call it my poor man's Spec. to quote Ferris Bueller "If you have the means, I recommend that you pick one up". :thmbsp:
 
bolly said:
these SPECS?
Click to expand...

I have the SA and TX 9500-IIs (a couple of each). Love em. Sound MUCH better than the commensurate (power-wise) SX-950 I have, although the SX-950 sure is pretty. I also have an SA and TX 9100 set, also very nice.


Bolly,

You have them out and ready to ship to me. Far Out! :)

Rich P
 
Last edited:
The SPEC units are indeed very nice, but I am not ready to trade my SX receivers for them. A lot of the SPEC technology went into the SX-1250 and SX-1980 receivers. The SX-1980 also borrowed the quartz locked technology from the Series 20 units.

Receivers have the advantage of a shorter signal path, with no interconnects between tuner, preamp and power amp.

Overall, the difference between TOTL Pioneer receivers and separates is minuscule, IMHO.

Most people I read here start with receivers and then separates. Strangely enough the opposite happened to me. I started with separates prejudiced by years of audiophile snobbism.

When I got the SX-1980 I wasn't even planning to use it as my daily driver.

Thing is separate or integrated, If it works for you and makes music, then go for it! :D

That said, I wouldn't complain if a pair of SPECs show up at my door!
 
Last edited:
I have a lot of TOTL Recievers and Amps from Pioneer. ( Spec-1 + Spec-4, SA-9900, M-25+C-21, SX-1980, SX-D7000 ....)

I think the sound from my SX-1980 is as good as the SPEC-1+4 combo.
( Remember the Spec-4 is newer than the Spec-2 with less distortion and better Specs, but less Power)

But I think the SX-980 (also the SX-1980 and SX-D7000) is better sounding than the SA-9900 or SA-9100. Don´t forget there are 4 and more years of hifi development between them. And when I am hearing tapes and Reel´t´reels the amps don´t have enough treble.

Realy wanting to test them, you need some Accuphase CD-PLayer and some new B&W Speakers.

But I use them with Vintage Pioneer Speakers, Pioneer Reel´t´Reels and Equalizers, so they sound all great and look beautiful. Recievers + Amps :)
 
Another wrinkle...are we comparing stock, untouched gear or fully restored gear including replacement of all electrolytics and the odd dodgy transistor? An SA-9100 with worn dried-out caps is going to sound inferior to a much later SX-980 whose caps are in better shape, albeit nearing the end of their life cycle themselves. A recap might swing things the other way. It's a safe bet that none of this gear we love, if it's running all the original parts, sounds like it did when it was new. But it's also a testament to the quality of this equipment that it still provides more musical enoyment when running on aging caps than new consumer-level stereo gear does fresh from the factory. :yes:

Todd in Beerbratistan
 
I myself was interested in the Spec Series of separates, when I found a SX-1050 that I decided to purchase, I had a full restoration done & man did it sound great. After a year or so I ran across a fully restored Spec 1 & 4 combo that I ended up trading away the 1050 for (with some other goodies) as impressed as I was with the 1050, I'm even more impressed by the Spec combo, although I had to shell out a few more $$ for a decent Tuner.
 
The Spec equipment is top notch stuff. Snap it up when you can. It’s only going to increase in value. Pretty robust circuits but a good refreshing up will make them reliable and sound better.
 
Beyond the power? Spec gear is better only after servicing. Modern equivalent parts are better (and laaaast too).
 
Zeb compare the spec gear to the accuphase you bought? from what i saw the accuphase is a step up from the spec gear.
bd1886 said:
Spec gear is better only after servicing. Modern equivalent parts are better (and laaaast too).
Click to expand...
You could say that for everything that we service. I wish folks could measure or state performance before and after service to see what the instruments say vs what your ear/brain thinks it is hearing.
 
I am a huge fan of the Pioneer equipment.
The Accuphase is better. The C-200 is a better sounding but not as functional as the Spec 1.
The C-300 is one heck of an amp hands down.
The Accuphase Pre C-200, is a little easier to work, (lots of cards) (Accessibility = less man hours) than the Spec 1 but the C-300 Amp is more difficult than the either the Spec 2 or 4.
The Accuphase equipment is built like the Avionics equipment I use to work with back in the 80's
 
P-300 was a tank, when we slugged it around. it used high reliability Toshiba metal can bjts.
I thought that it was strange that Pioneer did not offer a Spec series tuner.
 
They made a rack kit that would accept a tuner making it blend in with the silver Spec equipment.
I’ve only seen images of the setup with the separate tuners installed.
 
This age old argument has come up so many times, Separates versus Combinations eg. Receivers. I guess that Receivers were always seen as a compromise opposed to separates which are dedicated to the cause of sound reproduction. I guess this was true in the early days and also in the more entry level equipment but once the Receiver wars started the gloves came off. I certainly wouldn't say that the big Pioneers, Marantz and Sansui's were at all slouches, rather they were superior to many integrated's and Pre Power combinations. But as time went on more technology went into both variants as the manufacturers had worked out that there was a market for both and plenty of cash to be made.

One thing was certain, the big receivers were certainly coming of age but were always seen as more of a furniture piece with a higher WAF. Opposed to the serious more professional looking stand alone pieces like the Spec series which was pitched at the "audiophile". I'd say at a guess that the big Receivers had the best of both worlds inbuilt.

I have both variants with the Receiver in the family area of the home while the more "Professional" looking stuff if that's the correct word to use, is in the lounge (dedicated Music Room). All in all the high end Receivers were serious stuff and definitely not for kids to play with considering the power that was being fed to the connected speakers and it was more so a personal thing of which format of equipment one preferred.

Me ?........................... I like both.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom