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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.