Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    stj
    stj is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19

    OLD receiver and new Universal player question

    I'm asking an earlier question differently.

    If I attach a new pioneer universal player to a 25 year old stereo receiver, will I get the detailed sound produced by the player? Or are more advanced electronics also needed in the receiver?

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    143
    Hi stj,
    I think that as long as your receiver is in good shape the new player would work fine. I have recently listened to several systems with vintage equipment paired with modern digital sources and they sounded very good to me. Good luck.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Well there's no way to get digital 5.1 out of an old stereo receiver. The best you will do is 2 channel analog which will work fine for SACD and CD. It will work okay for DVD but you'll be missing out on the 5.1 sound.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    41
    Am I right in saying that SACD 'reproduces' very high frequencies that the ear cannot hear (behond the usual 20hz-20khz range), but gives the recording atmosphere and spacialness?

    If this so, doesn't one require a newer amplifier and speakers that can handle this range?

  5. #5
    stj
    stj is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19
    Thanks for the responses. I'm most interested in listening to stereo so not having 5.1 is fine. We have two HTIBs and don't even have the surrounds set up. One aspect of the EX-500 elite was virtual surround, which would be nice.

    I'm guessing that I can just hook up the left and right audio outputs to the receiver.

  6. #6
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    I was going to say that he should go with the analogs but he doesnt have anything else to use. LOL
    Look & Listen

  7. #7
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolby
    Am I right in saying that SACD 'reproduces' very high frequencies that the ear cannot hear (behond the usual 20hz-20khz range), but gives the recording atmosphere and spacialness?

    If this so, doesn't one require a newer amplifier and speakers that can handle this range?
    No, there's nothing a new amp can do that an old one can't. In fact, give me an old tube amp over any mid-fi reciever any day. IN FACT, add a good turntable to that and you'll blow away ANY mid priced CD/new amp combo you can think of.

    SACD doesn't have any higher frequencies, it's got more resolution and higher sampling. Analog vinyl sound without the pops, clicks, and hiss

  8. #8
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    No, there's nothing a new amp can do that an old one can't. In fact, give me an old tube amp over any mid-fi reciever any day. IN FACT, add a good turntable to that and you'll blow away ANY mid priced CD/new amp combo you can think of.

    SACD doesn't have any higher frequencies, it's got more resolution and higher sampling. Analog vinyl sound without the pops, clicks, and hiss
    Whatever.
    Look & Listen

  9. #9
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    Whatever.
    You're saying an old amp can't reproduce the same frequencies as a new amp?

    Explain yourself, young man.

  10. #10
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994

    Talking

    My bad,i was thinking it was older but 80 isnt that old but no dig. connection so its more about the player. I was thinking it was older and wouldnt have more then 30 watts,maybe but we dont know anything other then 25 years old,right? Might be top of the line or an old Emerson. I worked in the audio section at Zodys in 71 and most was between 20 and 50 watts from what we carried.
    Look & Listen

  11. #11
    stj
    stj is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19
    The stereo receiver I am using is a Sherwood S9200CP. Speakers Energy C-5's.

    I have not listened to SACD's but would like to be able to. This is why I wondered whether the Pioneer EX500, player receiver combo might be an inexpensive alternative to just getting a player. Can't find any reviews though.

    That said, 90+% of the CD's I listen to will not be SACD. So, would something that states
    it does 2X and 4X Cd upsampling make more sence? I'm going to start a new thread on this topic out of curiosity.

  12. #12
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Why not a new receiver? Nice ones go for under 400 bucks.
    Look & Listen

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Plaucheville, LA
    Posts
    70
    I have a Panasonic DVD recorder that also plays DVD Audio discs. I play it through my mid-80s Hafler preamp and power amp in stereo. It sounds wonderful. Your old Sherwood may sound better than most new receivers. Peace.
    Mark Wellman
    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

  14. #14
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark of Cenla
    I have a Panasonic DVD recorder that also plays DVD Audio discs. I play it through my mid-80s Hafler preamp and power amp in stereo. It sounds wonderful. Your old Sherwood may sound better than most new receivers. Peace.
    And why might an old Sherwood sound better then new receivers?
    Look & Listen

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Plaucheville, LA
    Posts
    70
    Mostly because of better power supplies and much better overall construction. I am far from the only one to have such an opinion. Peace.
    Mark Wellman
    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

  16. #16
    nightflier
    Guest

    What is "nice"

    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    Why not a new receiver? Nice ones go for under 400 bucks....And why might an old Sherwood sound better then new receivers?
    A "nice" receiver will set you back a lot more than $400. As long as STJ is sticking with analog stereo, a vintage receiver could very well have fuller sound than the thiner sound typical of computer-chip-generated sound from the sub $400 receivers out there.

    As far as watts & sound go, I have a 1981 "vintage" Panasonic receiver at work (with the silver front, analog dials, and analog meters) that would probably look pretty out of place compared with a Sony all digital budget unit. But it cranks out 80W per channel and sounds fantastic (yes, in stereo, no digital, no remotes, no presets). It is powering a pair of also vintage and rather inneficient Pioneer speakers. It may not be hi-fi, but its sounds very good. Oh, and I almost forgot, we purchased a K-mart variety $20 DVD player to play music CD's and they also sound fine. I suppose that adding an Arcam CD player would be a substantial improvement, but that would be overkill, here.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular N. Abstentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,671
    Quote Originally Posted by shokhead
    My bad,i was thinking it was older but 80 isnt that old but no dig. connection so its more about the player. I was thinking it was older and wouldnt have more then 30 watts,maybe but we dont know anything other then 25 years old,right? Might be top of the line or an old Emerson. I worked in the audio section at Zodys in 71 and most was between 20 and 50 watts from what we carried.
    Let's not forget..watts is not everything. Most people don't even realize that they will never use over 15 watts, and these same people are anal about requiring that they have the latest amplifier because it's 110 wpc instead of the old outdated 100 wpc model. I have to just laugh at these people!

    Also, let's not forget that a 15 watt tube amp will actually be much much louder than a 15 watt transistor amp, so in fact an old 40 watt tube amp could very well blow away a modern budget amp rated at 100 watts per channel...because for one thing the budget amp will in reality maybe be 30 watts per channel plus it's transistor.

  18. #18
    stj
    stj is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by N. Abstentia
    Let's not forget..watts is not everything. Most people don't even realize that they will never use over 15 watts, and these same people are anal about requiring that they have the latest amplifier because it's 110 wpc instead of the old outdated 100 wpc model. I have to just laugh at these people!

    Also, let's not forget that a 15 watt tube amp will actually be much much louder than a 15 watt transistor amp, so in fact an old 40 watt tube amp could very well blow away a modern budget amp rated at 100 watts per channel...because for one thing the budget amp will in reality maybe be 30 watts per channel plus it's transistor.

    Maybe I shouldn't overlook some of the new recievers by Onkyo and Pioneer that only deliver 75-80 wpc at 6 0hms. The specs and price are tempting, but I had wondered If they would have enough power to drive my Energy C-5's. Sounds like they might.
    Last edited by stj; 05-09-2005 at 05:25 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •