PDA

View Full Version : Market value



kingjames
01-24-2006, 08:22 PM
It would appear that the market on Ebay favors the Pioneer over the Marantz, the Marantz 2275 is going for a fully refurbished unit at about $400.00 and a Pioneer SX1980 that's classified as non working went for over $1000.00. I have been watching ebay closely for the SX1980 and saw 2 units in the last 2 weeks go for almost if not over $1000.00 for non working units.A fully operational SX1980 is going around $1700.00. There is a Marantz 2275 on ebay right now that has some issues and it is only at 100+ dollars with 18 hours left.We all know how big ebay is and let's face it,we may not like the prices there for JBL'S but it is a good indicator of what the market is.

Note... Moderator can you please move this to the thread"Amplifier Decison" that is where I wanted to post and accidentally posted a new thread. Thanks Jim

saeman
01-24-2006, 08:38 PM
King Jim: The ebay buyers looking for big receiver power would definately prefer the SX-1980 at 270 WPC compared to 2275 rated at 75 WPC.

norealtalent
01-24-2006, 08:45 PM
...and the system I could build with that $1700 would be truly amazing in comparrison...:D

JBL Dog
01-24-2006, 08:48 PM
It would appear that the market on Ebay favors the Pioneer over the Marantz, the Marantz 2275 is going for a fully refurbished unit at about $400.00 and a Pioneer SX1980 that's classified as non working went for over $1000.00. I have been watching ebay closely for the SX1980 and saw 2 units in the last 2 weeks go for almost if not over $1000.00 for non working units.A fully operational SX1980 is going around $1700.00. There is a Marantz 2275 on ebay right now that has some issues and it is only at 100+ dollars with 18 hours left.We all know how big ebay is and let's face it,we may not like the prices there for JBL'S but it is a good indicator of what the market is.

Note... Moderator can you please move this to the thread"Amplifier Decison" that is where I wanted to post and accidentally posted a new thread. Thanks Jim

Jim:

:hmm:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Marantz 2275 a 75 watt per-channel receiver and a Pioneer SX1980 270 watts per-channel? Not sure if that's a fair comparison??

kingjames
01-24-2006, 08:48 PM
King Jim: The ebay buyers looking for big receiver power would definately prefer the SX-1980 at 270 WPC compared to 2275 rated at 75 WPC.

Riessen, maybe I'm wrong but I always thought that the more Wattage you had the clearer the sound.I remember hearing somewhere that high wattage does not necessarly mean high volume but cleaner music. What's your thoughts on this?

kingjames
01-24-2006, 08:57 PM
Jim:

:hmm:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Marantz 2275 a 75 watt per-channel receiver and a Pioneer SX1980 270 watts per-channel? Not sure if that's a fair comparison??

I am not speaking of wattage here, once you start blasting speakers to their extreme distortion is no longer an issue. I am talking about vintage receivers and what they sound like period.You can not compare these two receivers power wise because there is no comparison, however I was talking about clean sound,receiver_vs_ receiver at a moderate volume level.Is a Marantz cleaner sound than a Pioneer? The market doesn't think so.

zevic
01-24-2006, 09:11 PM
Hi :offtopic::offtopic::offtopic::offtopic:I am just trying to talk to dj dog just askin lol did u get my message. if u didnt check your private mesages.

zevic
01-24-2006, 09:17 PM
didja get my message if you know plz help lol thanks!:offtopic:

saeman
01-25-2006, 12:14 PM
Riessen, maybe I'm wrong but I always thought that the more Wattage you had the clearer the sound.I remember hearing somewhere that high wattage does not necessarly mean high volume but cleaner music. What's your thoughts on this?

I'm probably not the one to give a good answer to this. You need one of our electronics "gurus" to speak up.

Right now I'm running the bottom end of my 4350's on 600 WPC, RMS ( a friend of mine runs his 4350's on 1000 WPC of bridged Crowns) - mostly because that's when I have and not that they require it. The result is PlEnTy of headroom. At levels I can't stand to listen too, the amps are just idling and the outputs are barely warm.

About 20 years ago I was running a pair of my Sovereigns full tilt, listening to Sultans Of Swing as I remember. The walls were bulging and then I heard a snap and the right channel lost all the highs. I was running them on a power amp that had a rated output of 100 WPC. It was aparantly not enough power to handle the peaks. I learned from that experience that compression drivers do not like square wave. I sent the driver (LE85) into JBL and their comment was "VOICE COIL SHATTERED". They repaired it under warranty - bless their souls.

From that day on I have always powered my speakers with amps that have plenty of headroom. How much is enough? I don't know but double the handling ability of the speakers is what I shoot for. I run a pair of L100's of a 200 WPC RMS amp and they sing. I've got a pair of electrostatics that sound like crap on less than 200.

You need to ask some of the other guys out there who can "splain" to you in better terms.

JBL Dog
01-25-2006, 12:56 PM
I'm probably not the one to give a good answer to this. You need one of our electronics "gurus" to speak up.

Right now I'm running the bottom end of my 4350's on 600 WPC, RMS ( a friend of mine runs his 4350's on 1000 WPC of bridged Crowns) - mostly because that's when I have and not that they require it. The result is PlEnTy of headroom. At levels I can't stand to listen too, the amps are just idling and the outputs are barely warm.

About 20 years ago I was running a pair of my Sovereigns full tilt, listening to Sultans Of Swing as I remember. The walls were bulging and then I heard a snap and the right channel lost all the highs. I was running them on a power amp that had a rated output of 100 WPC. It was aparantly not enough power to handle the peaks. I learned from that experience that compression drivers do not like square wave. I sent the driver (LE85) into JBL and their comment was "VOICE COIL SHATTERED". They repaired it under warranty - bless their souls.

From that day on I have always powered my speakers with amps that have plenty of headroom. How much is enough? I don't know but double the handling ability of the speakers is what I shoot for. I run a pair of L100's of a 200 WPC RMS amp and they sing. I've got a pair of electrostatics that sound like crap on less than 200.

You need to ask some of the other guys out there who can "splain" to you in better terms.

After frying many-a high frequency phragm back in the early DJ days, I finally listened to the guys at Antech Labs in St. Louis and beefed up my power amps to get the headroom I needed. My general rule for power sources is to (at least) double the rated power of the speaker. I use EV S-152's for some of my small club gigs. They are rated at 200 watts continuous pink noise (whatever that means). I like to power them with a QSC PLX3420 (700 wpc @ 8 ohms). I've gotten over 1000 shows (4 hours average) from some of my S-152's without a single user-caused problem.

You can never have too much headroom. You speaker components will thank you for it. (Are we still on topic??).

Audiobeer
01-25-2006, 02:10 PM
If you wanted a fair comparison Marantz Vs Pioneer compare the marantz 2500 to the Pioneer SX-1980. Both of these were the top recievers. If you wanted to compare a Marantz 2275 your rival with Pioneer would be the Pioneer SX 850 or SX-950. Marantz and Pioneer head to head? I like the sound of Pioneer yet the Marantz always wins in price and collectibility.......that is before the operation was moved from california to Japan.

gene
01-25-2006, 06:33 PM
pioneer call them ,The silver face receivers. They are the best receiver ever built period. All others tryed to build a receiver that would compare to the pioneer sx models. some came close, like the marantz- sansui etc but all they can do is follow the leader. pioneer sx 1980 model output is 270 rms and 330 rms at cliping. pioneer even at low volume would have a better sound than the marantz. all marantz receiver build in that era have a high distortion rate. turn the volume handle at 11 or 12 oclock and you would here what I am talking about pioneer cost more but my its worth it. I sold my receiver to build custom jbl speaker. I wish I still had it:banghead:

Nightbrace
01-25-2006, 07:05 PM
The bottom line King James, is that the higher the power rating the better the "perceived" quality, the fact of the matter is that, for most systems 50 watts a channel RMS is plenty. The higher you go up the Marantz/Pioneer chain, the more features you will get, although you probably won't even use them, and the better the tuners get, but not that much. Case in point my Pioneer SX-780 was identical to the SX-1080, no need for more, so why spend more? The tuner on my Pioneer SX-737, actually performs better than the 1080, go figure.


But people pay to say that they have the biggest baddest receiver, as the Ebay prices would dictate. I would suggest getting a decent Pioneer/Marantz like te SX-780 or marantz 2238 and work your way up. And if you have any of the higher powered receivers to sell them.

hapy._.face
01-25-2006, 07:25 PM
..if you have any of the higher powered receivers to sell them.

Good advice- the market seems to be EXTREMELY ripe for the high powered silver faced Pioneers. I have an SX-790 (black face) that probably won't get a $100 bid- yet it's in PERFECT condition. Same performance (sonically) as the bigger boys, but not as collectable. Great tuner, though!

Mr. Widget
01-25-2006, 09:40 PM
What's the value in market value? I have seen L100s go for over $1000 a pair on eBay several times... what does that prove??? It proves there are people willing to pay $1000 for a pair. It doesn't have any bearing on the quality of the sound... in this case it doesn't even have any bearing on the collectability or rarity either...

The Marantz 2275 vs. the Pioneer SX1980... I think the color of blue light the Marantz produces is prettier than the silver dials on the Pioneers. I am not being flippant by the way... I think this is as relevant as any of their specs... if I were looking to get a Pioneer, I'd probably look for the SX1010, but that's just me. If I want sonic nirvana, I'll look elsewhere, but if I am after a receiver on steroids, the Marantz 2500 with the amplifier section of the Marantz 510 amp and the o-scope is the one I'd get... or maybe I'd get a big Quad amp just for kicks... in reality my Marantz 2275 gets used once every couple of years as it is, so I doubt I'll be buying any receivers anytime soon.

I am not really opposed to these things... I've owned gear from Pioneer, Sansui, Marantz, Kenwood, Teac, and Sony... but I have also owned gear from McIntosh, Threshold, GAS, PS Audio, and Electrocompaniet... in my opinion the second group are superior to the first in sonics, aesthetic appeal, build quality, and when the time came for it, in resale value.

I have owned other brands too, but these were less consistent... I've had both good and bad from B+K, Adcom, SAE and Phase Linear for example.


Widget

kingjames
01-25-2006, 10:24 PM
Night ..Brace I again agree with your post, however I will not dump my 160 watt per channel for a 50 watt per channel receiver. There are a several reasons I went with a high power Pioneer rceiver. I will try to explain my reasons here. I have always liked Pioneer because it has clean sound(to me),it has dependability after all this thing is over 30 years old and it still performs like it was manufactured yesterday,it has that 70's look and feel about it and at times I will look at this unit and it will remind me of things from the past(sounds corny I know) it's like buying a old 50 chevy and then you get in and you are surrounded by that old car smell and then you start to reminisce.It has ample power when I need it, my listening level 99 % of the time is only at 30 watts or so, but then there's that time that I throw on some Floyd or Zeppelin and now I'm at 100 watts or so.This doesn't happen often but it does happen. The tuner section of a Pioneer is the best that I ever dealt with.I did not buy this as a status symbol nor do I use it as a paper weight, I use it to deliver to my ears the music that I enjoy listening to.

Mr.Widget.. You are also right, Marantz does have a pretty blue light, and cosmetically they do look better than any Pioneer,I just like my Pioneer better. I wanted to ask you about the L100's going for a $1000.00 though. Why would a person spend a 1000.00 on L100's? Do you think they don't know what there buying?Why else would they spend that kind of money? I don't think it is because they want to brag,there are much better speakers to do that with,4435's 250ti's etc;. I would never spend $1000.00 for a set of L100's but there are some people doing it,makes you kind of wonder.It doesn't really matter why they spent that much in my opinion,but as long as there doing it the market will rise for JBL'S.

Nightbrace
01-25-2006, 10:40 PM
Well then keep it, there are other reasons such as the ones you presented as to why people are in love with these receivers, I wasn't saying in anyway that you were one who just kept it as a paperweight, but many do. Its good to see that you enjoy it so much. I am just confused as to why you were asking for a fair market value, and don't be mad I just gave you a suggestion, its not set in stone, I was assuming you were wanting to sell it. I had a Pioneer SX-1080 as well. I agree with you about the tuner being better, Pioneer tended to put their better tuners in their flagship receivers.

I just thought you should know, and anyone else on LH for that matter, that if you had a lower powered receiver and this one side by side, I doubt you could tell any difference, the only difference is that your amp has more room to go when transients are presented.
And how do you know you are using 30 watts? What speakers are you using? Very rarely do I ever run my amplifier that high and my JBL's are about 93 Db efficient at 1 watt at 1 meter, using 30 watts would put me over 110 Db, much too loud for my ears.. Do you have the loudness feature on as peaks in the bass tends to draw out more power from the reserve. Or are the tone controls all the way up? My SX-737 at about 1/4 turn gets the job done nicely at around 100 Db with the tone controls on flat, this is higher than most peoples listening levels and I am probably around 10-15 watts peak. I listen usually around 90-95 Db., which would be about 1 watt/ Get yourself a radio shack Db meter, the amount of wattage you are using won't tell you anything only the SPL levels will. This will help greatly in tuning the speakers to your room, an endeavor I could not have completed without it.

Nightbrace
01-25-2006, 10:43 PM
Ok, so you have a 160 watt receiver? Is it the SX-1280?? If so, its value is around $750 in top flight condition. The Marantz 2275 is around $300. Hope this helps. I am assuming you want this for insurance puposes based on your thread.

JBL Dog
01-25-2006, 10:51 PM
My SX-737

I cut my teeth on an SX-636, great series of Pioneer Receivers.


:applaud:

kingjames
01-25-2006, 10:59 PM
night..brace you must have misread my post, I was not mad and never suggested that you said I should use it as a paper weight.I have an SX1250 which is rated at 160 rms and the SX1280 is rated I believe at 180 or 185 rms. I have no intention on selling my receiver so I need no insurance quotes,I am running 2 Sov II's and 2 4425's and I guessed at the wattage,didn't know I had to be exact.MY my my,were a little touchy here aren't we? What was in my thread that made you respond the way you did in your second reply?

kingjames
01-25-2006, 11:06 PM
by the way this thread was started comparing a Pioneer Sx1980 to a Marantz 2275, and no where in this thread was I asking for the market value on my receiver I already know what it's worth.

Nightbrace
01-25-2006, 11:24 PM
What? I don't understand you, there was no hostility, its just that you implied I was trying to FORCE you to sell it, or at least thats what I inferred. Sorry if you somehow took it the wrong way. Actually I have seen similiar powered Marantz receivers go for a lot higher than Pioneers of the same wattage. Ever see the prices for some of the Marantz tuners? You might be shocked. My Pioneer SX-737 outperforms even the most expensive Marantz receivers. People are somehow "taken" by the oscilloscope and gyro-tuning. Why not just get a Marantz 2226 (my first hi-fi receiver), and pay half as much and get virtually the same tuner and heck it has a great little amp too.

The problem with the higher powered Marantz's is they seem to vary MUCH more for whatever reason, at least on Ebay. Most of the lower powered Marantz's, under 50 watts, go for around $150, while the lower powered under 50 watt Pioneer's are dirt cheap, less than $80.

If its the SX-1250, I'd insure it for $600, but you can always go higher if you wish. I'd go to http://www.classicaudio.com/value/pio/index.html in case your insurance company needs some sort of verification.

FYI< if you love the SX-x50 line, as I can tell you do, The SX-x80 line is a step above the x50 line-up as the amplifiers have a wider frequency response (Direct Coupled) and are a little cleaner at the top and bottom. And most have neat meters. They are not very accurate, but neat nonetheless. BTW, you never answered me how you knew you were running 30 watts.

As far as I know the tuner sections of the SX-x80 are very similiar to what you have as well. The Blackked out 737 and up units are even a bit better as far as the tuners go and use identical sounding DC amplifiers as the SX-x80 series. Virtually all the Pioneers of the mid-late 70's sound the same, but there are subtle differences between the SX-1250, SX-1280, and SX-1010 for instance. Overall I'd rate the 1010 being the best, mainly for its tuner, as it arguably has the best tuner ever with a Pioneer logo on it. Next the 1280, and last the 1250. Not to discredit the 1250 as it is a stellar performer, worthy of a $600 insurance estimate if its in MINT condition.

I personally had a TX-9100 tuner and the SX-737 outperformed it in everyway. Imagine how good the 1010 would be. To me the blackked out ones stand out a little more not only in terms of asthetics, but their amps are as good as any made by Pioneer and their tuners are stellar, amoungst the best ever made as a part of a receiver.

Nightbrace
01-25-2006, 11:37 PM
King James, I inferred what your intention was after reading the thread and I was only trying to help. The question of the difference between the 2 was already answered earlier in the post, but I'll lend my 2 cents.

Hands down the SX-1980 is a MUCH better performer in Every aspect. The Marantz has its applications as well, but it won't be as detailed, but what it will have that the Pioneer won't is that classic warm tube-like "marantz" sound which to me is very similiar to a MacIntosh which many people on this board regard very highly, above both Pioneer and Marantz. I thought I'd mention it, because in a lot of ways I'd rate some of the Mac's as boutique.

To make a more accurate comparison, the 2275 to my knowledge has a freq. response of 20-20,000 Hz. so it won't be nearly as good as even the Pioneer SX-880 either which has a similiar power rating but is DC and has a larger bandwidth. Even this Pioneer tuner would edge out the Marantz too, but it just doesn't look as neat. $300 can be had for the Marantz 2275, and a SX-880 can be gotten for under $150 and its better in everyway, at least to me, and remember my first receiver was a Marantz 2226, so I should be a bit biased, but in this case, I am not. I think its a no-brainer. Pioneer wins this race..

Now a Pioneer Sx-850 vs. the Marantz 2275 would be a bit closer, but I'd still give the edge to the Pioneer.

My Marantz 2226, along with the higher models in this lineup like the 2238, 2252, 2285, 2330 are all DC, and have the warmth that everyone associates with Marantz with the larger bandwidth and greater detail of the Pioneers. They sound nearly as good as Pioneer, but still their tuners don't compare. The sound presented is different, not boutique, but just a little different.

In a race between the Marantz 2285 and the Pioneer SX-950, I'd have to call it a dead heat, even though the Marantz 2285 is DC both the SX-980 and SX-939 would be better for sure.

Basically the mid-late 70's Pioneer's are at least as good or better compared to even the Best Marantz's/ I am splitting-hairs now as they are in reality VERY similiar. I think it really comes down to what particular receiver you perosonally like best.

I hope this helps.

Mr. Widget
01-25-2006, 11:50 PM
Mr.Widget.. Why would a person spend a 1000.00 on L100's? Do you think they don't know what there buying?Why else would they spend that kind of money? I don't think it is because they want to brag,there are much better speakers to do that with,4435's 250ti's etc;. I would never spend $1000.00 for a set of L100's but there are some people doing it,makes you kind of wonder.It doesn't really matter why they spent that much in my opinion,but as long as there doing it the market will rise for JBL'S.Who knows? I expect it is mostly eBay newbies that just discovered that those L100s they wanted 30 years ago are once again available. I bought mine a few years ago... maybe ten... (it was pre eBay for me) for $400 with the Marantz 2275. I thought I'd use them in my office as a nice little system. Well I have WAF issues in the living room and PAF (partner acceptance factor) in the office... my business partner told me that there was no way in hell he'd put up with that "monster sound system" in "our" office... so off to storage they all went... I already have a couple of nicer systems in the house and in the shop so I'll keep them for???. I have lent the system to friends for parties and the like but have decided to keep it mostly for sentimental reasons... your old car smell if you will.


The focus of my post regarding your Market Value query was that just because receiver A sells for more than receiver B it is no indication of quality... and I am not saying that your Pioneer doesn't sound as good as my 2275... I have no idea. My guess is that they are very similar up to the point of clipping. As I like the look of the vintage Marantz receivers, I certainly understand your appreciation for the silver Pioneer.

That said, I would bet you the replacement cost of your receiver that a $200 PS Audio III preamp and a $250 GAS Grandson sounds better than any Pioneer receiver you choose... up to the point of clipping. I made this comparison with several Pioneer, Marantz, and Yamaha receivers 30 years ago and the little 40 watt amp smoked them all. It sounded like it had more balls, better detail, and none of that nasal congestion. After this comparison... I left the world of receivers and began the downward spiral into separates.

For those of you that think the appeal of separates is for snob appeal or that people spend ungodly amounts of money on some equipment to impress... I don't doubt that it occurs, but anecdotally, the people that I know that have high end systems do it for their own amusement... none of their friends know what a Threshold or Audio Research amp is anyway so how could they impress them. That's what Rolexes are for.


Widget

jbl4ever
01-26-2006, 12:01 AM
Widget you hit the nail on the head:applaud:

Nightbrace
01-26-2006, 12:03 AM
Sent you a PM, where to find the PS Audio III preamp and GAS Grandson for those prices? How about a set of 4301B's for the office? They are rather small, and from what I have read should be superb. Maybe you could hide the receiver somewhere :).

Since I never drive my speakers to clipping, will I notice improvements at normal listening volumes from 90-110 Db? My PAudios get to 105 with about 1 watt. And the JBL's (L36's) go to around 10-15 watts at the same DB level.

I understand completely the benefits of separates, but at these relatively moderate levels, I can't imagine hearing much of an improvement., can you help me to understand why?

Zilch
01-26-2006, 12:04 AM
That's what Rolexes are for.Actually, they're more impressed by my SpongeBob watch, it seems, on those occasions when I deign to flash it.

And I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would give a WHIT about the quality of a tuner, either.... :p

Mr. Widget
01-26-2006, 12:24 AM
Sent you a PM, where to find the PS Audio III preamp...I really prefer the 4.5 and newer PS Audio preamps... I only mentioned the III because it was the one that was available back then. I have bought a couple PS Audio preamps on eBay... some with better luck than others... all very inexpensive.


Maybe you could hide the receiver somewhere :). The whole point of the Marantz was that I liked looking at it too... he obviously doesn't share my passion.



Since I never drive my speakers to clipping, will I notice improvements at normal listening volumes from 90-110 Db? My PAudios get to 105 with about 1 watt. And the JBL's (L36's) go to around 10-15 watts at the same DB level. In regards to an earlier post about your PAudio speakers... while it is enough that you like them... you owe it to yourself to listen to better speakers... you'll be damaged for life. On second thought don't leave the house stay satisfied!:applaud:



I understand completely the benefits of separates, but at these relatively moderate levels, I can't imagine hearing much of an improvement., can you help me to understand why?Level... I listen to my system at 85 to 105dB... typically I listen with peaks of 95dB. My HF amp is being asked to put out about 0.25 watt. I can totally evaluate an amp at this SPL and the power level. The differences between better amps and amps of lesser quality tend to be a matter of smoothness, detail, bass control, in some cases they can affect sound stage perception and in the case of most solid state amps that I dislike, they can sound nasal and hard.

These qualities may get worse when an amp is pushed hard, but some amps are very consistent and sound hard at all power levels. Just because it is a separate amp and has massive reserves and weighs a ton, there is no guarantee that it will sound good. Like speakers they need to be auditioned. They can also be affected by the speakers, so it is best to audition them with your own speakers.


Widget

Mr. Widget
01-26-2006, 12:34 AM
And I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would give a WHIT about the quality of a tuner, either.... :pCan't argue with that! The compressed audio that is broadcast over the airwaves makes an iPod look like high end audio. In some markets, Boston for one there are some stations that broadcast high quality audio, but none around here.:(

Besides, the program material is generally not very inspired either.

Widget

Nightbrace
01-26-2006, 12:43 AM
Yeah I agree, he just seemed really focused on the tuners, so I thought I'd tell him what I thought. I listen to Sirius Sattelite radio from my Dish Network with great results. I'd put it at CD quality, although I think its broadcast in 48 Khz.
It might raise some eyebrows with an external DAC.

kingjames
01-26-2006, 08:20 AM
Many years ago I did have separates(if that's what you want to call them) I can't remember the name of the thing's, I know the amp had tubes but the preamp did not.They were both cheap in cost and build. I want to say they were the ugliest things I've ever seen but I only paid I think about 40 or 50 dollars for both.There was only 1 light on each unit just so you know it was getting power.I bought these only because my amp went dead and had nothing else to listen to and I couldn't have that. I bought them from an old thrift store here in Chicago(Which is still open by the way).What struck me was the very clear sound that these ugly things produced.They didn't have much power but what it did have I thought was sufficient.I remember that these units had a liitle hum and that is why I ended up tossing them. Can't say nothing bad about these things as they provided to me very clean sound at the time I had nothing else to listen to.I don't know why when I tossed these that I never bought separate's again. In my day when all the receivers were being built I fell in love with all of them. The Marantz especially because cosmetically it was by far in my opinion the best looking.Back then these receivers had all the bell's and whistles but also had the craftsmanship. I remember the preference I showed to Pioneer over Marantz was only because of the tuner.I never thought that the Pioneer sounding better only that I was able to pull in stations better without using 10 feet of tin foil. I will say this and I thought I was making my point that the market right now is favoring the Pioneer's.I'm a simple person and don't have the knowledge for all the bi-amping and such so I keep it simple.Look at all those vintage receivers on ebay. Marantz,Hitachi,Technics,Pioneer,Rotel,Sherwood,Sa nsui and etc;all of them are still going strong,there is no substitute for 60's and 70's quality.

Note...Not to change the subject but I forgot to mention this to you guys.There is a place out here got Swap-A-Rama it is an indoor and outdoor Flea Market. There is this Chinese man that has been going here for years and all he does is arrive at this place at about 6 AM and goes to the outside vendors and buys all the electronics,but only stereo equipment he has been doing this for years. I had forgot about this guy because he sells his wares inside which I never go. Last week I had to go inside for something and came upon his stand and WOW this guy has about 100 stacks of all old shit. I see Adcom, Rotel,Marantz,Sansui,Nakamichi,just to name a few. I didn't have time to go through the stuff when I was there. Saturday I am going there to see what old goodies I can find.If anyone has any requests pm me with a model number and I'll see if he has it.He is very cheap as well. For a sample right on top is an Adcom I don't know if it was an Amp,tuner,preamp or what but he only had a $69.00 price tag on it. This guy always plugs the stuff in to see if it powers on before he buy's it.This Adcom I would guess was maybe 20 something inches long,black in color with orange lettering for Adcom,had quite a few buttons and switches,but no display.Let me know if you guys are looking for anything. Saturday morning I'm going to go see what he has.