Best surround receiver for stereo

[Shadow_Ferret]

My 1978 Pioneer SX780 is starting to go. I already had it in the shop once for almost $200 and I'm not about to spend any more on it (since I can get something equivalent on Ebay for that much).

So my question becomes, for about $500, what surround receiver for stereo would you recommend? Eventually, I will move into home theater, but for now I just want a replacement receiver that will sound as good as my antique while still giving me the option to add more speakers and being up-to-date technology-wise.

For reference, my current receiver is only 35 watts but seems more than powerful enough to blast me away in my 12 x 26 ft. rec room without even having to crank the volume knob halfway.

Thanks.

 

[j_garcia]

I think you might want to look for another vintage guy possibly, because you may find it hard to find a current receiver that will sound just as good in a $500 surround receiver. Those old Pioneers sound great and had more than enough power; my dad still has one circa early 70s in the garage.

My recommendation - look for a used Marantz SR7000 or SR8000 - great sounding 5.1 receivers. New, I'd still say consider Marantz, Harman Kardon, possibly Onkyo.

An interim solution may be an integrated amp or a stereo receiver like the Onkyo TX-8211.

 

[Pyrrho]

There is one area that you probably will not match that old Pioneer, and that is tuner performance. For reasons that are beyond me, virtually all (I can think of no exceptions at the moment) manufacturers these days put poor performing tuners in their receivers. It would not cost much; a $100 Pioneer car stereo has a decent tuner, but a multi-thousand dollar home receiver has garbage for a tuner. So, if you use the tuner in that old Pioneer, you may want to buy a vintage receiver and use that until you want to have surround, and then use the vintage receiver as a tuner. Alternatively, you could buy a vintage tuner and a surround receiver now.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the Pioneer SX-780 was rated at a little more than 35 watts, though my memory could be off.


Surround receivers... Unless you are using low impedance speakers, I doubt there will be much difference between most $500 receivers in stereo performance. I do, however, strongly recommend that you only consider models that have a feature for automatically balancing the speakers, as proper speaker balance is essential for good performance. Without such a feature, you need a SPL meter and a tripod, and to take the trouble of setting this manually. You will have enough new things to worry about without needing to worry about that.

I also recommend that you get a receiver that has both the original Dolby Pro Logic (DPL), as well as Dolby Pro Logic (DPL) II and IIx. The reason to have the original is because films were mixed with a Dolby Pro Logic encoder, and were originally intended to be decoded that way. You might like the added processing of DPL II or IIx, and you might not. If you have it all, you can use whatever you prefer. Some receivers do not have the original DPL, just DPL II/IIx

When it comes time to set up your surround system, you will want to take a look at:

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/home_entertainment/roomlayout.html

 

[j_garcia]

DPLII and IIx should decode a Dolby Surround encoded movie just fine, and in fact, I found PLII to be better than DPL in basically every case. Many receivers (all that I have used) can toggle between DPL, DPLII movie, and DPLII music, though I have not used every receiver on the market of course.

You don't need a tripod to do a level calibration manually, and a basic level calibration only takes about as long as it will take a receiver with automatic setup to do it, though i do think this is a very worth while feature if you aren't the type to do manual level adjustments.

 

[Pyrrho]

DPLII and IIx should decode a Dolby Surround encoded movie just fine, and in fact, I found PLII to be better than DPL in basically every case. Many receivers (all that I have used) can toggle between DPL, DPLII movie, and DPLII music, though I have not used every receiver on the market of course.

You don't need a tripod to do a level calibration manually, and a basic level calibration only takes about as long as it will take a receiver with automatic setup to do it, though i do think this is a very worth while feature if you aren't the type to do manual level adjustments.

When movie soundtracks are encoded in Dolby Pro Logic, they start with 4 channels, one of which is not full frequency. The original DPL properly decodes what was originally mixed in Dolby encoded films. DPL II synthetically generates a difference between the two rear speakers, and redirects (misdirects) some of the front treble to the rear. See:

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/surround.html

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/208_Dolby_Surround_Pro_Logic_Decoder.pdf

Four encoded channels properly decodes into a four-channel playback experience. DPL II is a DSP mode.

That said, if you like DPL II, fine. But if you want to hear it the way it was originally mixed, you need to use the original DPL.

As for the tripod, you are right that the levels can be set without it, though it will be more difficult to get it right without one.

Edited to add:

I believe Onkyo and Panasonic have left off the original DPL on their DPL II receivers. Obviously, any company can start or stop doing such a thing, so one would want to check on the particular model before one makes a purchase, if one cares about such things.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You won't find a $500 new surround receiver to sound like your older Pioneer SX series (I usually describe the sound as having a tiny reverb, with a sweetness on the top end, and deep defined bass).
I've got an old SX 680, and the sound is amazing - even with just a bass/treble control. Don't downgrade to todays sub $500 technology for two channel music. Go to ebay, and buy another vintage Pioneer or Marantz for stereo.

When you're ready for surround sound, whatever you buy today more than likely will be outdated by the time you decide to go home theater (unless of course it's fairly soon).

http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.com/SX-1250.htm

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html

 

[MacManNM]

You won't find a $500 new surround receiver to sound like your older Pioneer SX series (I usually describe the sound as having a tiny reverb, with a sweetness on the top end, and deep defined bass).
I've got an old SX 680, and the sound is amazing - even with just a bass/treble control. Don't downgrade to todays sub $500 technology for two channel music. Go to ebay, and buy another vintage Pioneer or Marantz for stereo.

When you're ready for surround sound, whatever you buy today more than likely will be outdated by the time you decide to go home theater (unless of course it's fairly soon).

http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.com/SX-1250.htm

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/mindex.html

I totaly agree. You are MUCH better off going with a vintage pioneer, marantz, or even McIntosh. What is wrong with your unit now? What is it doing? It must have been a pretty major problem to have spent 200 on it last time.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Well, it wouldn't power up any more. That problem was rectified, but an ongoing problem has been a hissing in the left channel that gets louder the longer the unit is played. Recently however that problem has evolved from mere hissing to a crackling and an eventual complete drop out of the left channel.

 

[j_garcia]

Sounds like a capacitor or something on the board is failing. When you had it repaired last time, what did they fix?

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

*looks embarrassed*

I have no idea. I was just happy to have it working again.

 

[mtrycrafts]

My 1978 Pioneer SX780 is starting to go. I already had it in the shop once for almost $200 and I'm not about to spend any more on it (since I can get something equivalent on Ebay for that much).

So my question becomes, for about $500, what surround receiver for stereo would you recommend? Eventually, I will move into home theater, but for now I just want a replacement receiver that will sound as good as my antique while still giving me the option to add more speakers and being up-to-date technology-wise.

For reference, my current receiver is only 35 watts but seems more than powerful enough to blast me away in my 12 x 26 ft. rec room without even having to crank the volume knob halfway.

Thanks.

What speaker load are you driving now? Impedance, sensitivity?

Anything that will handle your speakers that meets your surround processing will do you well, regardless of the other bs floated about.

 

[Pyrrho]

What speaker load are you driving now? Impedance, sensitivity?

Anything that will handle your speakers that meets your surround processing will do you well, regardless of the other bs floated about.

I presume you mean the amplifier section, not the tuner performance? If so, I agree with you. (If this is too short and cryptic, please read my two posts above.)

 

[MacManNM]

http://cgi.ebay.com/MARANTZ-2270-Near-Mint_W0QQitemZ5815540904QQcategoryZ50591QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here you go dude, this is actually a step up from your Pioneer. I have several of these (2235, 2245, 2250, 2270) and they all are great performers. Plus they have preamp outputs if you ever want to use them as a preamp-tuner and add an amp.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

You know, I used to go to the local audiophile store and drool over those Marantz's.