The old Pioneer CL-99A's I just got.

mhardy6647

Dont' forget, it's a quad (four-channel) receiver!

Eight speakers = four "A"/main speakers (i.e., in one room) and four "B"/remote speakers (for another room). At least, that would be my not-altogether-uneducated guess.

Tony M

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Dont' forget, it's a quad (four-channel) receiver!

Eight speakers = four "A"/main speakers (i.e., in one room) and four "B"/remote speakers (for another room). At least, that would be my not-altogether-uneducated guess.

Yep...That's what the Owners Manual says. You are right.

This receiver does sound fantastically clear and powerful to me too.
The bass and treble ranges from those dials are large.

I haven't read if ALL 8 speakers can be playing at once yet. I have to start over and read from the beginning more thoroughly knowing this new to me 8 speakers outputs from such an old receiver. I read from page 10 forward.
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/920230/Pioneer-Qx-949.html?page=10#manual

Tony M

Quad means 4, not 8.
This is a Double Quad receiver or Dual Quad...

I read I think on page 5 that I can have 8 speakers hooked up at once and all playing as long as they're 8 ohm speakers.

So...I'll bet this receiver would get smokin hot pushing 8 speakers at once.

I did read in this manual that while playing in Quad, people don't need to turn the volume up as much. Really? Maybe...

I used to have 4 Polk Monitor 10's hooked up to an old Luxman 1030 I believe and that receiver powered them easily. I played as loud as I wanted for months.

Oh well, time to organize my cottages 2 rooms before summer hits!
Also time to sell some things or donate them if no buyers call even after reducing prices if need be.

mhardy6647

I would imagine it's designed to handle two sets of 8 ohm speakers, since that's the most likely load that would've been placed upon it. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that many folks had the gumption to set up two independent quad speaker systems, even if they had the wherewithal (which, given the price of that receiver, they likely would have!).

The Monitor 10 (at least the early models thereof) is a nominal 6 ohm load, so exercise a little caution if you were to go that route as part of your dual quad system.

Couple of comments:

This receiver has (I presume) four identical power output amplifiers, but one power supply. That said, the per channel power rating is (at least by modern standards) modest, and a photo of the guts of one suggests (to me) that it probably has a semi-split P/S (i.e., dual transformer secondaries, most likely for "front" and "rear") similar to, e.g., the Kenwood KA-7100 stereo amp of a couple of years later.


source: https://classicreceivers.com/pioneer-qx-949


Adding two more speakers (i.e., going from stereo to quad), all else being equal, would result in 3 dB more SPL at the listening position. Of course, for 'true' four-channel program material, the output from the rear channels would be (much) lower than the front ones, so the actual volume increase with four speakers wouldn't be that much. If, however one fed the same stereo signal to front and rear channels, you would, at least on paper, get 3 dB more output.

Tony M

Maybe you can understand this description of it's power supply they describe.

Capacitorless power?
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/920230/Pioneer-Qx-949.html?page=3#manual

mhardy6647

It's OCL = output capacitor-less. The power supplies still use capacitors as filters and storage reservoirs.

Here's what "OCL" means: In the early days of soiled solid state, limited availability of reliable, affordable (NPN/PNP) pairs of transistors for "fully complementary" output led to the use of a 'quasi-complementary' output scheme. In that case, there was, essentially, a biasing DC voltage that rode under the music signal all the way through the output stage. That DC HAD to be removed, else it would cook the loudspeakers' voice coils. Rather than use transformers (which are expensive, especially wide bandwidth output transformers with good power handling capacity), the hifi manufacturers used blocking capacitors between the output transistors and the speaker connections on the back panel of the amp or receiver. These capacitors were large value and moderately high voltage but cheap compared to transformers. They had the interesting effect of rounding off the sound of the earlier capacitor coupled amps that some folks (at least nowadays!) will describe as tube-like. <don't get me started...>

Eventually, the industry moved towards fully complementary "push-pull" circuits that allowed the output transistors to operate around a midpoint of zero DC volts. This amplifier topology requires no output capacitor -- hence OCL.

When there entire amplifier signal chain is complementary and there are no blocking/coupling capacitors or transformers anywhere from the input to the output, the brochures would usually refer to the amp or receiver as Direct Coupled (DC).

Aren't you sorry you asked?!

Now, all this being said, IF anything goes wrong, the amplifier can gleefully cook one's
loudspeakers with the DC "rail" voltage that powers the outputs! This is one of the reasons why it is ESSENTIAL to have fast acting and reliable protection circuitry on an OCL or DC solid state amp. If a transistor fails (shorts), the usual result is instantaneous destruction of at least one speaker

mhardy6647

FYI, in case you didn't know, you can D/L a manual for the QX-949 at:
http://www.kallhovde.com/pioneer/qx-949-om.pdf

they also have the QX-949A manual:
http://www.kallhovde.com/pioneer/qx-949om.pdf

The service manuals are on that site, too, FWIW.

Tony M

Your explanation goes a level or two above my brains knowledge of rails and what transformers usually do. I tried to understand but it's no use right now for sure. Sorry.

I have both manuals already saved in a side bar. Thanks though.

Well you mentioning there better be fast blow fuses for this design and there are.

I saw about 6 of them underneath when deoxidizing the volume pots. I also saw at least one slow-blow fuse too. I thought how delicate these fuses were and why none were blown yet amazed me. I thought about cleaning the fuses and holders but was more concerned at the moment to see how the volume dial would perform after deoxidizing.

I tried to find a picture on-line of how nice the underneath was laid out but couldn't. I should've taken a pic. or two while it was exposed yesterday. 13 screws and I could have the bottom off again I guess. It really was impressive.

Today I went out and cleaned the dust off the back of this unit. Even the power cord was dusty thick in spots. It cleaned off easy enough but these RCA jacks...

The RCA jacks seem to have a thick hard grunge on them or the film is degraded that was coating them. I used 409 and scrubbed hard but they still aren't fully shinny.

Did they use like a poly coating on the outside of them?

Can I use Brass-o to clean them? Maybe a glass stove top cleaner we have under the sink?

I can get a pic. of these RCA jacks if that would help.

mhardy6647

Speakers. AC good (too much AC not so good -- but that's a different issue). DC bad. Output capacitors make bad DC go away.

Complementary design makes bad DC go away too -- and without output capacitors... unless something goes astray



I wouldn't worry about the fuses & holders.

You might want to try a pencil eraser on the stuff on the RCA jacks.
I can suggest a zillion things that will work to some extent -- but my suggestions may make other folks cringe or pass out or start watching CNN or something

I'd say, start weak and go stronger. Stop when you like they way they look, and manage your expectations (i.e., they may not get to the point of looking like new, and that may be fine). I mean, e.g., Windex on a paper towel, applied with a little elbow grease and allowed to dry may be fine.

mlistens03

I used a teeny bit of De-Oxit on a Q-tip to clean off the terminals on the back. Did the job perfectly, they look new!
Also worked on a similarly aged Lafayette that I had, although not quite the same success. Still a thousand times better though.

mhardy6647

DeOxit's on the short list -- depends on how grungy the jacks are.
I've been looking for good ideas on teh webz.
Offered strictly "as-is" and FWIW:

https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/new-way-to-me-to-clean-vintage-rca-jacks.643088/
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/is-it-ok-to-clean-around-rca-plugs-and-speaker-terminals-with-91-alcohol.303969/

Tony M

Thanks Doc.

I do appreciate you trying to simplify electronic power systems to me/us.

I'll go try an eraser right now. The pencil eraser helped! It got them shinier and the thick tarnish parts/sections disappeared. It seems they just need polishing now. They look close to being very acceptable now. Most people would be happy with them now but I've cleaned so many others to perfection with just 409 before that I feel these might get there too. Maybe not.

But they're cleaner now FOR SURE! I think you can now make out the ones I didn't use the eraser on.






This pic is before I switched to close-up mode w/flash. It doesn't show the RCA's as well BUT it does show how MINTY ( ) this cover and receiver really is.



Thanks Doc!

mhardy6647

@mlistens03's suggestion of a little touch up with DeOxit is a good one, too... at this point you could use almost anything noncorrosive (and, of course, not too strong of any organic solvent) to do the final spruce up. Wipe 'em dry when you're finished.

Microfiber cloth or anything reasonably lint-free is a good choice, IMO (and FWIW).

Tony M

OK.

I just got a can of Deoxit-Gold in the mail yesterday. I took another members suggestion about this one companies name "Hosa Technology" selling deoxit on the web.

I started today with it but it didn't seem to be dissolving the film. So I went back to 409 and rubbed real hard to not much success there either. I'm going to try that glass stove top cleaner asap and see if that brings the final shine back. I'll wipe very clean and spray the GOLD on and dry again. I have these blue shop towels that are pretty lint free that I've been using for years.

Plus I'll clean the inside of all these RCA jacks.

mhardy6647

go gentle on the insides -- use something that's volatile; e.g., the DeOxit product you have and a Q-tip or something (even a paper towel rolled into a rattail ) -- or even rub some Deoxit on the tip of a cannon fodder RCA plug and work it in and out (oooh, baby) of the jack(s).



Pro tip -- for basic, umm, dexoit-ing, I'd suggest great regular flavor CAIG DeOxit D5 (i.e., instead of the "Gold" stuff). The DeOxit product line has long been a bit arcane -- the D5 is good stuff, although there are situations where it can do more harm than good (e.g., pots with plastic/carbon conductive surfaces). My luck has been good, but there are horror stories out there. One "issue" with D5 -- it can clean away the lubricants that provide the feel we prize in some controls. CAIG's "Faderlube" product (now called "Fader F" ) is designed for faders (slide controls) but will (can) also reconstitute "feel" in a pot that's been DeOxit-ed and lost its tactile mojo

The CAIG "ecosystem" is a little abstruse

https://caig.com/#

Tony M

Thanks again Doc.

I still have a 1/4 can of D5 on hand. That's what I've been using for years to much success. I've lent it out to a few people to clean their receivers pots also.

I have some tightly wound Q-tips that should fit in there nicely. push in, pull out, repeat. That reminds me of something but it's very foggy now and I can't remember what.

I think I'll take our "glass stove top cleaner" to those RCA outer jacks today.

mhardy6647

should be OK, but you might want to look carefully at the ingredients (go online and look at the product's MSDS if the ingredients aren't listed on the can or bottle). The stovetops are pretty delicate, so my guess is that the cleaner's pretty gentle... but it's cheap insurance to check

VSAT88

Good lord man they are clean already !!! Lol, the insides of the jacks can be cleaned by using a Q-tips™ I cut the cotton completely off mine though and use only the paper stick part and Deoxit™ (D5) . By removing the cotton on the ends I do not get cotton trapped in there and the paper is a bit more abrasive than the cotton anyway. Paper is what many (including me) use for cleaning the occasional relay contact..

VSAT88

OH, I read up above ^ that you have tightly wound Q-tips. What brand are they ? I would like to be able to use those myself if they are consistent in size.

Tony M

I'll read the bottle and see if it's safe to touch/polish stainless (or the like) trim.

These are named "Assured". 350 count. I think my wife got them at Walmart.

I haven't tried one yet. Mine look tighter wound than the ones in this picture! BUT...

I'll post back if they fit in OR if they're too big and need unwinding.

Not even close to fitting inside. SORRY. wishful thinking I guess.

The glass stovetop cleaner didn't have any major warning about touching metal or even a minor one, so I tried it. I didn't change the dull ones at all BUT there was some shinning to a lot of others. It seems to be pitting on the dull ones. Mostly on the very top ones. So they're as clean as they can get now. I sprayed D5 inside each one and pushed a Qtip with most of the cotton removed back and forth. No dirt appeared. I think I've done all I want to do with it now. The push-buttons need a pro I believe to get to their depth of dismantling. Maybe in the summer I'll hand it to some guy in town that likes to fix these old receivers.

mhardy6647

I'm pretty tightly wound -- something to do with all of the caffeine I quaff, I think.

Tony M

My neighbor can't start his day without it.

I think I need to start back to drinking some in the morning to get motivated more.

Going out to see if I can organize to make space to move those Tritons into their designated spots. It will take a day or three to do this I think. Oh well, starting right now.

VSAT88

Coffee oh yeah...

mhardy6647

https://youtu.be/YQfzrBcjoBs

mhardy6647

speaking of cleaning interconnects and whatnot
and with some trepidation
@Tony M you might want to take a look at this thread from Someplace Else asking about cleaning gold-plated connectors.

https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/how-to-clean-and-or-polish-gold-plated-rca-plugs-and-jacks.859095/

Then again, you might not, given that it contains some really stupid statements (e.g., the "gold is a big atom" thread...but that's one of several really clueless posts therein).

Still, I felt compelled to mention it, since it's sort of on topic

YMMV.

pitdogg2

Clean gold or silver with those gold or silver cleaning cloths sold at the jewelry counters at you local discount store. they work GREAT !!!

Regular Deoxit is a more powerful cleaner than the pro gold stuff. the Pro Gold is actually made to be put on after you clean with Deoxit. I only use the 100% Deoxit and Pro gold the D5 stuff is only a 5% solution of the actual chemical.

aprazer402

The thread that keeps coming back!

https://omaha.craigslist.org/ele/d/omaha-marantz-speakers-fisher-504/6810360039.html NO AFFIL.

Posting just because it has a Fisher Quad Receiver.

Tony M

That receiver looks huge too.

I might've offered quite a bit lower knowing one side doesn't put out sound.

aprazer402

I'm not a buyer at any price. Too much inventory now!

Tony M

why not?