Pioneer "hi-fi"

dipiazza

Anybody know much about these?

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/AudioComponents/Hi-FiAudio

Are they supposed to be superior to the elite line? I dont really see why pioneer would want to make something like this.

Fongolio

From what I have read they are Pioneers answer to seperates and have been getting good reviews. It was either The Absolute Sound or Hi Fi + where I read a very good review for the stereo amp. As good or better than the Elite line.

WilliamM2

All the components say "Elite" right on the front, so are they better, or just an addition?

dipiazza

WilliamM2 wrote: »

All the components say "Elite" right on the front, so are they better, or just an addition?

Your right. I didnt even notice that.

I guess its just an attempt to get into the 2ch market with their elite stuff. Maybe not a bad idea then.

mhardy6647

mmm... Pioneer used to make some halfway interesting separates...

Yashu

My first stereo was vintage Pioneer separates. I still have the TT, modded it slightly, but shouldn't have.

Someone brought this up in a thread a while back, I think they are rebadged components from another company... I don't think this is TAD stuff, does TAD only make speakers?

zingo

And then there are these at 330lbs each:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Products/HomeEntertainment/Speakers/TAD-HomeSpeakers/ci.Reference+One.Kuro

mhardy6647

I cannot vouch for speaker systems, but some of the TAD drivers are incredible. Priced to match...

dorokusai

Pioneer has a long way to go in they want to erase the mediocrity that the name embraced thoughout the 1980's and beyond. The Elite line is a nice venture and hopefully they will build upon it but I'd bet the ship was sent adrift ages ago.

venomclan

Pioneer came out with some hi-end speakers last year for $9k/pair. They have been getting very good reviews, but I agree that people will hesistate before spending that much $ on a brand found in Best Buy.
Venom

wizzy

venomclan wrote: »

... people will hesistate before spending that much $ on a brand found in Best Buy ...

I'm thinking resale value ... what drops in price faster, what will you have an easier time getting rid of later - A $30k Lexus or a $65k Volkswagen? A $30k BMW, or a $65k Chevy? A low middling of the line NAD, or a high middling of the line Sony ES?

Lower end upscale products almost always win in terms of value retention versus high end downscale products.

Of course, if one finds a $9k Pioneer speaker to really be the best speaker they have ever heard, all of that is irrelevant (or should be) to that person

Yashu

I would take NAD over Sony ES any day... so I guess you make a valid point.

I think these components are nice, but like Yamaha, Onkyo, and some of the others, they are just trying to have an offering in that range. It is a marketing thing. Most big companies release a product to fill a void so they can say they have it covered. They may not expect it to sell well, but they can tell their shareholders, we have product penetration in this or that market.

Pioneer is a little different because they do have some TAD speakers under the Pioneer name that truly are good speakers, and I think These separates and the new ones from Yamaha are well made, but I think it's more of just a "we have all our bases covered" kind of thing.

There are some diehard fans of these brands that remember the 70's fondly and then go to look for latest offerings, plus now Pioneer can position their booth next to the other 2 channel hifi brands at the electronics shows, that alone is an eye-catcher. I had a Pioneer reciever in the mid 90's that I got for a 2nd system. It was terrible, looking at these new components, I can safely say they probably sound 100X better, but probably cost 100X more. I still think this big brand 2 channel stuff is more of a statement to shareholders than us audiophiles.

It has worked before in the past. Marantz is making a comeback by offering good components at fair prices, but Pioneer has some work to do to overcome their "gold button" phase.

dkg999

I saw the new Pioneer components at Tweeter in Schaumburg IL last night. Had a chance to look them over while they were getting my TV out of the back. I wasn't real impressed with the cosmetics, but the external build seemed pretty solid. I was able to get them to power a pair of LSi7's, and seemed to be pretty much typical Pioneer house sound signature, but it's pretty hard to tell much in the crappy Tweeter sound rooms.

venomclan

wizzy wrote: »

I'm thinking resale value ... what drops in price faster, what will you have an easier time getting rid of later - A $30k Lexus or a $65k Volkswagen? A $30k BMW, or a $65k Chevy? A low middling of the line NAD, or a high middling of the line Sony ES?

Lower end upscale products almost always win in terms of value retention versus high end downscale products.

Of course, if one finds a $9k Pioneer speaker to really be the best speaker they have ever heard, all of that is irrelevant (or should be) to that person

Perception is reality. If the Pioneers sound great and a person buys them for long term, than that is that. B&W sells speakers at that price range all day long, but pulled out of the big box retailers when they tried to go more mass market, ie. Tweeter/Sound Advice. The $65k Volkswagen failed because of its name, while its Audi identical twin sells well. It is all brand recognition and placement, rather than actual performance. Otherwise Bose would be out of business.
Venom

LuSh

Yashu,

Why wouldn't companies like Pioneer and Yamaha release stereo channel products when they in-fact developed world class products when stereo was actually a big deal? I applaud companies for getting back to their roots.

Yashu

I never said it was a bad thing. They became cheap-o plastic crap beginning in the 90's, when stereo wasn't a big deal and home theater was/is.

I never said it was BAD they are getting back to their roots, I am only saying that I am not suprised. Pioneer and Yamaha went a LOOOOOONG time between losing their roots (80's) and getting them back (2008). What this says to me is this: The ipod and "retro" generations are growing up and spending more money on stereo again... we must carry a product for those people. We must tell shareholders wanting to know if we have a product for this market that we have one so they shut up about it. Pioneer and Yamaha do not make money off this... but they do keep their shareholders happy, and give some retro lovers, and some of us older guys that remember when the brands used to be quality in stereo, something to take a look at and consider.

My first stereo was a Pioneer... it was built like a tank. It wasn't very expensive but it FELT like it was. I bought something from them in the 90's and it was just pathetic. Yamaha, same story... was impossible to find anything without a bunch of DSP and other gimmiky crap.

It's nice to see the gimmiks gone and the basics back... but they aren't going to sell in large numbers. They have been out of the game for so long, many have either written them off, or found new brands at better prices. Many many many new brands popped up to fill the voids when the giants began to create plastic crap. SS 2 channel is just a different landscape now... I wish Pioneer, and Yamaha too (I like the new yamahas), good luck.

dkg999

Based on my brief (emphasis on brief) listening session at Tweeter ........ if you put the Pioneer components in a decent listening environment with a pair of Polk LSi7 or LSi9, you might have a fairly reasonable priced and very nice sounding 2 ch system. The Pioneer sound signature seemed to be very much compatible with the LSi7's I had it powering.

Yashu

I am sure these components are quality. They look like they are built well, and have the minimalistic aesthetic that is missing from most big brand stuff.

The thing is... anyone into vintage audio can tell you... you didn't have to go out of your way to find quality in the 60s, 70s, and even early 80s. If you bought a Pioneer, Yamaha, Sanui, Marantz, etc... rack system in the 70s, chances are pretty good that the equipment was built well, sounded great, and looked good. I have restored some vintage stuff, and things that were common then, when restored to factory specs, hold their own very well against very expensive modern stuff, when it comes to amplification.

"They don't build em like they used to". We have all heard this said, and it is true when it comes to certain markets. The average consumer market does not have access to the quality stereo setups that they did then. We do, but we are not average.

I like that you are seeing these Pioneers in Tweeter. That is the closest any of the big corporate brands has gotten to the average person in a while (as far as amps go). B&K got close for a while, but this is good news.

I restored a '83 NAD 2155 for $175 dollars. I bought it for cheap, and it sounds better than any of the amps I have had previously. It runs cooler than any amp I have had, and it seems to get the job done without some of the latest marketing gimmiks. I have heard restored Pioneer, Yamaha, and Sansui from the 70s, and I remember the sound of my own Pioneer system, after I hooked some good speakers up to it, before I got rid of it (like an idiot, I thought newer meant better). Getting back to roots is what more companies should do. Those roots were damn strong. MAC gear from that era is sold on the 2nd hand market as if it was still brand new.

Speakers too, while we are at it. The cult of the SDA and Monitor is just one of the many examples of wonderful sounding vintage speakers. Smaller Advents stand against many modern bookshelves. JBL made the Paragon in 1957, and some consider it one of the best sounding loudspeakers ever made.

That is the thing... you didn't have to even know what an audiophile was to have something that produced what is considered "audiophile sound" today. The problem is... the average consumer moved onto HT (nothing wrong with HT, there is good innovation going on there today) and whizbang gimmiks from other plastic companies. That just leaves us, not a huge market, but growing. Gen X is already seeing the light, ditching iPods for real stereo, even vinyl, or just the act of hooking that iPod into a real stereo enlightens these people.

So... Pioneer and Yamaha have began to examine their roots. Who is next? Sansui has released a couple heritage models, but very limited production, and Marantz is coming back on the scene with a pretty good integrated. NAD has continued to be affordable and they have recovered from their PE designs with the 320bee, one of the best values in modern audio. Polk carries the LSi inside Tweeter and Frys, which is amazing in itself.

dorokusai

I agree with Yashu.

It's too little too late as there are far more players on the hi-fi scene then there was in the 70's and 80's. High end audio is still as affordable or as insanely priced as you could possibly wish. I'm not impressed by the offerings by Pioneer and it's feels like a sad case of knowing they were losing some marketplace and potential revenue, and far less about the actual consumer.

dkg999

Not disagreeing with Yashu and Doro's comments, however when I put my marketing hat on (which is what I do all day!) ....... you have a group of consumers who if you look at their age in the hey-day of Pioneer, Marantz, etc. 2 ch gear, and you look at their spending power as a target market today, then it would appear to be a market to get a product line in front of. If you also leverage the affinity play that they have found memories of their old Pioneer, Marantz, etc. systems, and you can expose them to a reasonably priced stereo system that brings out those fond memories, then you can kick lose some disposable income directed towards your products. It's probably a good gamble on Pioneer's part.

dorokusai

Well, they certainly have nothing to lose beings they are part of the largest group of electronics manufacturers in that portion of the globe. What's reasonable about a $60k pair of TAD loudspeakers? Sure, statement product, big deal.

Yashu

dkg999: I was saying something similar. We both have a similar view on marketing. I don't work in a marketing dept. anymore, but I have in the past. Sometimes, it is just good to have *something* in a target market. Both for the image of the company and for the shareholders (sorry to say, but the shareholders are the true customers).

Pioneer can say, we have this market covered, yadda yadda. Sure, some people will look back like I did, with rose colored glasses and think, I sure miss my old Pioneer system I had back in '78, those were good times, and try out this new stuff... but remember, people like that have been burned by these companies all through the late 80's and on through the 90s. It is hard to change the image after a whole new generation has never even seen, let alone, heard a vintage Pioneer system, but yet, have quite the purchasing power.

Audiophiles usually pass up these brands by habit, so who is left to actually buy these units? We have a million other high end choices big and small, we have had them all along, Pioneer and the other giants left our frame of view a long time ago, and if you are a vintage hobbiest, then you aren't looking for a new product anyway.

I think it is smart that companies look to their roots, but it is going to take more than one product range, and it is going to take time, to be able to win people back. I think it can be done. Pioneer has won respect by using it's TAD division for speakers, but instead of putting TAD on them, they say Pioneer. The question here, is are these companies trying to win us back, or are they just trying to sound good to their shareholders? Time will tell. I think Pioneer is more genuine. There is TAD, and their HT efforts are top notch, they make the best plasma monitors in the business. I am not sure if they are trying to compete in 2 channel, but they might genuinely want to offer something nice to compliment their other high end offerings. I would like to see more work done on their HT receivers. You can buy a 5.1 or 7.1 channel receiver from NAD that will whipe the floor with Pioneer's "elite" HT stuff, and it won't cost much more either. I am not saying that NAD is some perfect company, but that it would be nice to see Pioneer take this 2 channel effort, and extend it into HT. Sleek lines, minimal design, quality build, and loads of power, possibly some kind of "loose" design, to keep you from needing that extra 2 channel amp for your mains. When I see these crazy HT recievers with more features than watts, that need cooling fans, often overheat, and you still have to get a separate amp to use your new RTIa speakers with, I can't help but wonder where the progress is.

LuSh

Yashu:

I couldn't disagree with you more in regards to Home Theater. A properly calibrated Pioneer Elite receiver (VSX 94) should at the very least sound the equal of the NAD. Many of these 'gimmicks' are true advancements in the field of audio. MCACC and Audyssey room calibration is a great stride forward. You will notice NAD receivers use the latter. It saddens me that two channel as whole has made very little forward thinking progress in comparison home theater. The ability to parametrically EQ a system to a room is a god sent. Lossless audio formats such as Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio are huge leaps in terms of ultimate resolution from disc formats.

Compare a $1000 retail A/V receiver today in comparison to a $1500 unit from 10 or 15 years ago. Todays unit will destroy it hands down; it probably won't be close. My point is that while most people think the big guy's started making crap they didn't. They refocused on a growing market (home theater) and stepped aside from two channel. If these retro products take off or there is a growth potential make no doubt about it; the big guys will be back and most likely engineer products we could never think possible at price points we could afford. The only REAL world big thinking advancements I've seen in audio have come from the AV side. Two channel stopped progressing and instead started 'refining' in the 90's. The big guy's are the ones that push technology forward. Make no mistake.

wizzy

Maybe, I know a Pioneer VSX-816 connected to my RTi10's sounded like crap compared to how they sounded connected to a HK-3480

Maybe the VSX-816 isn't "Elite" enough. But man, it should be plenty fine to drive two speakers. Or at least fine enough to best a receiver you can buy all day long for $190 direct from HK. We're not talking about esoteric oh I sat down and listened and if I concentrated I could hear minor variances. It was night and day.

LuSh

wizzy,

With all due respect you're comparing a two channel receiver with an AV receiver; I don't see how the two relate.

Yashu

They relate because it is the center of my whole point. If the amp section can't even drive two lone speakers, how is it suppose to drive 7? NAD or Adcom amp sections have no problems with RTi10s.

Maybe not elite enough I guess. What I am saying is, in the 2 channel world, you generally can drive most speakers with a solid 2 channel amp. Most A/V receivers can't even do two full range, let alone 7. How often have we had to recommend an extra 2 channel amp for the mains in an HT system? Every other thread just about. So yeah, it relates.

They need to take the 2 channel way of doing things and correctly apply it to 5 or 7, with a reasonable price, and no overload of features, include a surroundsound processor, and instant HT integrated. They try to fit too many features and too little power into too weak of an enclosure that runs too hot, needs fans, still can't drive those RTi 12s, and half the thing is encased in thin plastic. I have been to several HT places recently, so I know the landscape here. It's not impressive. It makes more sense to buy a cheap a/v reciever and use it as a pre with a good solid 5 channel amp, but they don't sell those at Tweeter.

LuSh

Yashu,

Actually it doesn't relate at all because you're comparing apples and oranges. Most AV receivers can power two speakers; some require more modest loads then others. Using your very own logic I could suggest that Adcom and NAD can't power a single speaker when I mate them up with one Apogee Duetta or Diva speaker let alone a pair. I also would find it strange and ill advised to pair a $300 AV receiver with $1200 speakers but that's just me.

The level of performance from a $1000 AV receiver from today was unthinkable even ten years ago. I think you've isolated yourself into thinking that no real progress has been made and instead we have been hammered with useless features; at some price points this might be true but overall the level of fidelity and performance has clearly improved year after year in home theater.

By contrast two channel performance and unique innovation might have peaked in the late 80's early 90's; refinement is what we're left with. The only areas explored recently in two channel performance is that of room correction which has been brought forth with little success and digital playback systems which send out single bit of information at insanely high sampling rates.

The real innovation has been brought forth from the AV side and hopefully if the big companies see a growth pattern within the two channel side we might all benefit.

Yashu

The progress has been made in the processing, not the amp sections. That is what I was trying to say. The amp sections in these new mass consumer recievers aren't much better than the amp sections in the 70s. Things are better now than they were 10-15 years ago (when it was ALL about cost cutting), but the only real evolution in amp design is Class D, I would say these cool running tripath-like amps are pretty neat, but they don't have the power yet.

The jury is still out as to whether class D is really that good, but in-general, the real revolution is in the processor, not the amp(s). This means that the money is thrown at designing better and better processors, and that isn't bad, you are right, today things are waaay better in terms of that. I was trying to say that a 5.1 or 7.1 receiver from one of the big Japanese brands, we are still having the same problems we had 10-15 years ago in terms of underpowering, over-rating, overheating, trouble with low impedance, etc. That NAD example I gave... it might not be able to crank up those Apogee speakers, but it *will* get down into 2ohms and lower to give it a shot. Hook those up to an Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, basically any Japanese black plastic face receiver, and it will fly right into protection mode. The money is going towards bringing you a better surroundsound and DSP processor, more features relating to room adjustment, EQ, everything of that nature, but we are still in the 90s as far as those amp sections go. We have to recommend extra 2 channel amps all the time here for people with *good* recievers. An upper end Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon, those are *good* HT recievers, but they should also be able to power *good* speakers to their full range. That includes RTi10s 12s, LSi 15s etc. (as far as Polk goes, I am not even going to attempt to name all the good HT speakers out there)

Many people will buy a lower power HT reciever with the same processing features, and use it as a preamp, with separate poweramps to get the best of both worlds. The thing is, I remember a time when you could count on brands like Yamaha, Pioneer, even Onkyo had some OK vintage stuff. Marantz and Sansui kindof tried to bring their image back, and now Pioneer and Yamaha are moving in that direction and I am very happy about it. I want this to be a paradigm shift where these companies have learned from the 2 channel world, how it has grown and changed in the last 20 years, and how it can be applied to all things modern, HT included. Many "audiophile" brands already do this, but they aren't on the shelves of Tweeter.

I shouldn't be putting this all on the receivers... lately speakers have been harder and harder to drive. In 1978, almost every conventional speaker was above 90db sensitivity. You could drive Advents or JBLs to extreme volumes with a 35w amp. This just isn't true today.

I am not arguing that the technology has not advanced in an extreme way as far as these new receivers go, I am only saying that I hope some of the 2 channel ethos, quality amp sections (that don't die with 4ohm or lower impedance), good PSUs, discrete design (for what can be done this way), well thought out layouts, strong chassis, and quality front panel design. Some have been doing this all along, but the mass consumer companies like Pioneer, Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Sony, it would be nice to see them touch on those roots again in some of their HT gear.

I think Pioneer has the best chance out of them all to do it.

venomclan

Nice discussion. There are a few companies that make the higher quality AVR'sbut they cost a bundle. Who here would buy an AVR, regardless of te brand, when you can get sperates? Todays general AVR buyer is clueless and does not care. The AVR's in CC and BB are "good enough" for the speakers they wil use them with.
Venom

Yashu

With speakers like Polk LSi and RTiA finding their way into the big box stores, "good enough" is going to change to "sounds like crap", and we will be continuing to tell people to go out and buy separate amps for their receiver.

LuSh

It really begs the question...if innovation is happening in processing don't you think it's time that speaker manufactures step up and produce quality products with new radical designs? Why should one need a monster amplifier in this day and age. He/she shouldn't. The fact that most designs don't offer an active cross over which is DSP controlled is disheartening. Why passive speakers still exist - I have no idea. Inefficient speaker design which requires gobs of power is a step backwards.