I used to own this receiver in the 70's and loved it. I did have it hooked up to 4 speakers at times. When I was renting a house I kept it my bedroom and used the top 2 channel controls for the living room and the bottom 2 for my bedroom.
Back in the late 90s I bought and sold vintage audio gear but had to quit buying quad receivers because I couldn't get rid of them but I personally love them especially Sansui
Back in the mid seventies there was a radio station WWKS in Beaver Falls PA that broadcasted in quadraphonic. I remember going to someone's house that had a quad receiver. I mailed them for a bumper sticker and they sent me one. Kiss Rock they called themselves. But my favorite station was WDVE Pittsburgh album rock. Kiss was a close second.
I had bought that model Pioneer receiver used. It was sold by a soldier returning to the lower 48 states from Alaska. The deal included speakers, turntable, 4 ch. reel to reel recorder and a small collection of quad records. The FM tuner was great for pulling in standard FM multiplex but the “rock concert” TV shows with FM quad simulcasts were the best. The CD-4 record format required a special phono cartridge and stylus. RCA had the largest library of 4 channel (CD-4) recordings. Unfortunately, incompatible 4 channel record formats confused everybody.
I have this beautiful unit .I did a complete full restoration ..SO far is the unit that has taking me the most time to do ..I spent 5 days on it ..Just to order the caps ,resistors etc was a big ,huge,enormous task.. So this units fully restored like mine are teherfore so expensive.. I also did replace all the bulbs ..Al are now white Leds .even on the round screen .Which is not s scope ..and uses lights
A few months ago, I picked up a copy of The Yes Album at an estate sale. When I got it home and took out the record, the inner sleeve (both sides) described the "QUADRADISC" technology used on the record. It must have been an early pressing (or maybe the first pressing). The cool thing is that it's backward-compatible with 2-channel stereo, and it sounds fine when played on a regular 2-channel system.
@@stereoniche Of course, it's possible that it could just be a stereo record that the previous owner accidentally put in the inner sleeve from another (quad) record 😅. Unfortunately, I don't know anybody with a Quad-capable system to try it out.
It was the original surround sound. Died because they couldn't get a consensus for the encoding, and different record cos required different decoders for SQ/QS/CD-4 encoding. The 949 decoded all of them, but Marantz required an additional/expensive CD-4 decoder. Have this receiver and LOVE it.
i forget to refer that the Es-2000 system has better sounding and stronger tone controls and the most strong loudness i ever heard , having 30 watts it made vibrate some powerfull CS speakers from second half of the 80´s that surprised me because i had a 90 watts per channel amplifier and the woofer didn´t move but with the super strong loudness and only 30 watts it made the woofer vibrate a lot and never damaged as i have them today and they when conected sound perfect but it´s one of those that i put on top of them the SB-F3 speakers from technics and the sound felt perfect it complemented frequencies heard less in the Pioneer´s CS speakers which were critisized but had a much higher level of DB´s in sensitivety and being friend of the owner of the music store in my town that sold since components to instruments , professional material and music as in records and cds when they apeared, i paid for the most expensive CS what today is 100€ ,at the time only a litle sized speaker from a brand not expensive would cost a litle more.i start to add things to my coments that i remenber and think it should be said but let me see other of your videos and if the topic is more directioned for other type of material i´ll coment too.
If left in regular 4 CH mode, stereo recordings are simply duplicated to the other two speakers. SQ, Stereo Quad, was supposed to be 4 CH matrixed down to 2 CH, but I am not sure if that is the way this function works on the QX-949.
@stereoniche I'm not sure on this model either, but I had an awesome Toshiba that had a 4 channel matrix simulated quad I assumed this one should have also. It's too bad quad didn't stick around, I remember hearing it once back in the day and it was surreal, but as you said the cost of having to add another set of speakers and being a little complicated didn't motivate enough interest in it
@@brucesamuelson7541 It does have an SQ mode, but the way I read the manual, it takes 4 ch and converts it to 2 ch. I have a quad JVC that does exactly what you describe in converting 2 CH to a matrixed simulated 4 CH, so I am really not sure. Perhaps the Pioneer manual is just not explaining it well and I am over thinking it. 🙂
A lot of Pioneer receivers from that era have gone up in price. Even the lower end models command high prices. I waa unaware how sought after the Quàd models were.
What's your take on Panasonic quad? Not certain regarding audio quality but I've seen some on ebay and they look a lot more attractive with their bells and whistles in contrast to their modest looking 2-channel models produced in those days.
I have actually not owned any, so do not have a comparison, but in general, they made some nice gear. They owned the Technics brand, so certainly had the engineering chops.
Are those the ones that have a "joystick" to set the balance levels? I think that's a cool-looking feature, even if you're not using the quad capability.
Although a very pretty receiver, I always tell people to go for a Sansui QRX-x001 series receiver if they're looking to get into quad. The matrix decoders in Pioneer stuff were always lackluster, with obvious pumping and steering effects when decoding SQ material. Sure, Sansuis only had center front/back logic when it came to SQ decoding but at least the second generation Vario-Matrix circuits can hold you over with QS-encoded material until you found an external SQ decoder (Lafayette, Sony, Tate or even a newer digital Surround Master). CD-4 is something I never dealt with. Too much hassle when you can just grab the quad 8 track or reel version of an RCA/JVC/Warner album.
Sir it has matrix ability.. yes thats hafler pseudoquad..earlier called dynaquad..that receiver with run fine in 2 channel mode at 4 ohm. Before you laugh im pioneer certified repair tech. And amps i hand made in 1988 some were badged Hafler.. im not guessing here..
@@stereoniche because in 2 channel mode it sees half the imp..by the way .im pioneer certified repair tech..or at least i was back in the day when there was such a thing and pioneer existed..yes pioneer is owned by chinese phone company now..sigh
You've got a lot of stuff Scott, but as for sound quality, can you name even one receiver or amplifier from the 1970s which is solid state, that compares sonically with good equipment of today? Or that even compares to the best equipment from the 1990s? Would I think a Harmon Kardon 730 receiver sounds as good as cheaply priced Schitt Audio, Gishelli? Or even Adcom amps from a decade later than the 1970s? Where real progress was being made from decade to decade; unlike now, where many people really wonder? I remember plugging my expensive headphones into a circa 1988 Adcom preamp and thinking "they never sounded anywhere near this good before". Was there anything from the 1970s that I would have felt the same way about? I've collected many things in the past and some things were foolish of me to collect...I was highly seeking out old RCA Living Stereo classical lps in the 1980s/1990s. Some of them were known to get $1,000 to $2,000 per lp lp.on the used market. CountlessIt would have made a collectors day to find a clean copy of The Pines Of Rome or the Bizet/Carmen lp. And there were countless titles getting $100 to many hubdreds of dollars dollars too.Then Classic Records started re-releasing them, and almost overnight, their prices came crashing down. Even doctors and lawyers, who losing tens of thousands of dollars on their depreciating value was not earth shattering to them, were dumping them as fast as they could, to get at least a decent portion of what they paid..Titles getting $500 back then, are often going for only $50 on ebay. Does it ever feel foolish collecting what you do? Nostalgia is a driving force behind the prices of, for example, the prices old Pioneer receivers are now getting.. But the guys that were well to do enough to buy a monster powered Pioneer, Technics or Marantz receiver in 1980 are usually 75 years old now. How much time does their hearing and lifespan have left? In less than 10 years most of them will be dead. Will it be like when Classic Records started re-releasing Living Stereos and the prices collapsed alnost overnight? My very first serious stereo was a Sherwood receiver and Jensen speakers with two tone grills. If I saw them in a store (never have) it would really bring back memories and I'm sure I'd spend 10 or 15 minutes looking at it and pleasantly playing around with it. But would my nostalgia be so strong that I'd buy it? If it performed like modern equipment; maybe I would. But I'm sure it doesn't, and I'd just think to myself "Id only look at it and never use it " So I'd take one last look and that would be it. The other thing about collecting old audio equipment is while you are collecting it; it is rotting. Oxidation, old capacitors are drying out and the equipment is going out of spec with each decade since it was new. Are there many people buying old audio gear from the 1960s and 1970s younger people? I would doubt it; but if so, why do they think equipment from so far back is cool? Is it the look, or just hoping to turn a profit profiton people who have little time left? The window of opportunity could soon be closing fast.
"can you name even one receiver or amplifier from the 1970s which is solid state, that compares sonically with good equipment of today?" In short, it isn't a topic that ever crosses my mind. It really is just that simple. This morning I went to an event with my 16 yo daughter and we took her car. She likes to give me her phone which uses Spotify so I can play some of my favorite tunes. Well, this morning, I wanted to hear Hotel California so I tee'd that up. I enjoyed it just as much this morning listening to it on her factory car speakers as I have the thousands of times I've heard it before over the last 50 yrs. The point is, I enjoy the "experience", not always the most accurate sound. This vintage gear takes me to another place/time along with the music. THAT is what matters. All else is mute.
@stereoniche I can, my Pioneer SA9900 integrated amplifier with sheilded dual mono amplifiers and tone control assembly that has over 5400 variations sounds better than anything that can be bought today for under $10k!
@ Bruce. And can we assume that you've heard every amplifier under 10k?? That would be SOME LIST.. Longer than the list you see pictures of Santa Claus holding. You would have to travel all over the world like him to hear everything too. LOL....and no, I know it's only a children's story. I modify equipment and there is more point to point connections inside amps nowadays, without near as much internal wiring.. The bypassing of electrolytic capacitors, and anything else that doesn't absolutely need to be in the signal path, results in a more direct cleaner sound. You do give up a little transparency and openness with tone control circuits, but I do like tone controls; especially ones with a bypass button
@Scott. As you say, music can be enjoyed on anything. Even a transistor radio. I think the Traffic song Heaven Is In Your Mind, said it well. But transistor radios are cheap and don't cost much money. Buying vintage audio equipment is not cheap, and usually does cost much money for prime pieces. Since it's main purpose is to play music, I prefer to buy equipment which will give me the best listening experience, sound quality wise. Which for me and many others IS the PRIORITY, and which does enhance the listening experience. I understand though that each person is coming fron somewhere different, and for some like yourself, financial considerations do not seem to be a factor, like it is, for almost all of the rest of us. I still do sometimes think I miss the old black out dials, and some of the many controls which let one manipulate the sound to more of a degree. If I didn't know how to do that with mods, maybe I'd really be lost. Good video!
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Note: I changed my ratings graphic and in this video I forgot to update the total score to be 215 points (it is not 240 pts).
I used to own this receiver in the 70's and loved it. I did have it hooked up to 4 speakers at times. When I was renting a house I kept it my bedroom and used the top 2 channel controls for the living room and the bottom 2 for my bedroom.
Yes, I can see how this would make for an awesome multi-room setup.
Back in the late 90s I bought and sold vintage audio gear but had to quit buying quad receivers because I couldn't get rid of them but I personally love them especially Sansui
Back in the mid seventies there was a radio station WWKS in Beaver Falls PA that broadcasted in quadraphonic. I remember going to someone's house that had a quad receiver. I mailed them for a bumper sticker and they sent me one. Kiss Rock they called themselves. But my favorite station was WDVE Pittsburgh album rock. Kiss was a close second.
I often recall some great times listening to some radio stations with friends. Later, it became MTV for a while, but always fun.
I had bought that model Pioneer receiver used. It was sold by a soldier returning to the lower 48 states from Alaska. The deal included speakers, turntable, 4 ch. reel to reel recorder and a small collection of quad records. The FM tuner was great for pulling in standard FM multiplex but the “rock concert” TV shows with FM quad simulcasts were the best. The CD-4 record format required a special phono cartridge and stylus. RCA had the largest library of 4 channel (CD-4) recordings. Unfortunately, incompatible 4 channel record formats confused everybody.
I have this beautiful unit .I did a complete full restoration ..SO far is the unit that has taking me the most time to do ..I spent 5 days on it ..Just to order the caps ,resistors etc was a big ,huge,enormous task.. So this units fully restored like mine are teherfore so expensive..
I also did replace all the bulbs ..Al are now white Leds .even on the round screen .Which is not s scope ..and uses lights
Yeap, they are a a BEAST to restore. Best of luck with it and they ARE certainly beautiful!
I am one of those. I have the qx 949 (needs work) , qx 646 and Sansui qr 6500, qrx 9009 (needs work) and a Dual 1229q turntable. Love em.
A few months ago, I picked up a copy of The Yes Album at an estate sale. When I got it home and took out the record, the inner sleeve (both sides) described the "QUADRADISC" technology used on the record. It must have been an early pressing (or maybe the first pressing). The cool thing is that it's backward-compatible with 2-channel stereo, and it sounds fine when played on a regular 2-channel system.
Quite the find. I cannot recall ever finding a Quad album.
@@stereoniche Of course, it's possible that it could just be a stereo record that the previous owner accidentally put in the inner sleeve from another (quad) record 😅. Unfortunately, I don't know anybody with a Quad-capable system to try it out.
Always appreciate your videos. Thanks as always Scott
Thanks for watching!
It was the original surround sound. Died because they couldn't get a consensus for the encoding, and different record cos required different decoders for SQ/QS/CD-4 encoding. The 949 decoded all of them, but Marantz required an additional/expensive CD-4 decoder. Have this receiver and LOVE it.
Very true. Seems like they would have learned from that failure before the whole VHS/Beta fiasco. LOL
This equipament it looks very very good! I have a Pioneer SX 1010 and I love it! Congratulations for your vídeo!!!
Thanks for watching. The SX-1010 is awesome!
@@stereoniche Thanks a lot!!!
i forget to refer that the Es-2000 system has better sounding and stronger tone controls and the most strong loudness i ever heard , having 30 watts it made vibrate some powerfull CS speakers from second half of the 80´s that surprised me because i had a 90 watts per channel amplifier and the woofer didn´t move but with the super strong loudness and only 30 watts it made the woofer vibrate a lot and never damaged as i have them today and they when conected sound perfect but it´s one of those that i put on top of them the SB-F3 speakers from technics and the sound felt perfect it complemented frequencies heard less in the Pioneer´s CS speakers which were critisized but had a much higher level of DB´s in sensitivety and being friend of the owner of the music store in my town that sold since components to instruments , professional material and music as in records and cds when they apeared, i paid for the most expensive CS what today is 100€ ,at the time only a litle sized speaker from a brand not expensive would cost a litle more.i start to add things to my coments that i remenber and think it should be said but let me see other of your videos and if the topic is more directioned for other type of material i´ll coment too.
It has simulated quad so it doesn't have to be a quad source. It sounds cool to hear the music roll 360 around you try it sometime
If left in regular 4 CH mode, stereo recordings are simply duplicated to the other two speakers. SQ, Stereo Quad, was supposed to be 4 CH matrixed down to 2 CH, but I am not sure if that is the way this function works on the QX-949.
@stereoniche I'm not sure on this model either, but I had an awesome Toshiba that had a 4 channel matrix simulated quad I assumed this one should have also. It's too bad quad didn't stick around, I remember hearing it once back in the day and it was surreal, but as you said the cost of having to add another set of speakers and being a little complicated didn't motivate enough interest in it
@@brucesamuelson7541 It does have an SQ mode, but the way I read the manual, it takes 4 ch and converts it to 2 ch. I have a quad JVC that does exactly what you describe in converting 2 CH to a matrixed simulated 4 CH, so I am really not sure. Perhaps the Pioneer manual is just not explaining it well and I am over thinking it. 🙂
A lot of Pioneer receivers from that era have gone up in price. Even the lower end models command high prices. I waa unaware how sought after the Quàd models were.
Yeah, they too have crept up in price, they were a bit under the radar for a while, but are still less than their 2 ch cousins.
The "shibata" stylus was invented to play "quad" records.
Did not know that, thanks for the information.
What's your take on Panasonic quad? Not certain regarding audio quality but I've seen some on ebay and they look a lot more attractive with their bells and whistles in contrast to their modest looking 2-channel models produced in those days.
I have actually not owned any, so do not have a comparison, but in general, they made some nice gear. They owned the Technics brand, so certainly had the engineering chops.
Are those the ones that have a "joystick" to set the balance levels? I think that's a cool-looking feature, even if you're not using the quad capability.
@@davidbono9359 Model SA-507. And Sanyo.
Although a very pretty receiver, I always tell people to go for a Sansui QRX-x001 series receiver if they're looking to get into quad. The matrix decoders in Pioneer stuff were always lackluster, with obvious pumping and steering effects when decoding SQ material. Sure, Sansuis only had center front/back logic when it came to SQ decoding but at least the second generation Vario-Matrix circuits can hold you over with QS-encoded material until you found an external SQ decoder (Lafayette, Sony, Tate or even a newer digital Surround Master). CD-4 is something I never dealt with. Too much hassle when you can just grab the quad 8 track or reel version of an RCA/JVC/Warner album.
If anyone were looking to set up quad, then yes, I agree as well. My use is strictly 2 channel.
Sir it has matrix ability.. yes thats hafler pseudoquad..earlier called dynaquad..that receiver with run fine in 2 channel mode at 4 ohm. Before you laugh im pioneer certified repair tech. And amps i hand made in 1988 some were badged Hafler.. im not guessing here..
Thanks David, but I am unclear why you are pointing this out as I gave it points for being able to handle 4 ohm speakers.
@@stereoniche because in 2 channel mode it sees half the imp..by the way .im pioneer certified repair tech..or at least i was back in the day when there was such a thing and pioneer existed..yes pioneer is owned by chinese phone company now..sigh
@@davidstevens7809 Great point. Can you send me an email? Send to stereoniche@gmail.com
You've got a lot of stuff Scott, but as for sound quality, can you name even one receiver or amplifier from the 1970s which is solid state, that compares sonically with good equipment of today? Or that even compares to the best equipment from the 1990s? Would I think a Harmon Kardon 730 receiver sounds as good as cheaply priced Schitt Audio, Gishelli? Or even Adcom amps from a decade later than the 1970s? Where real progress was being made from decade to decade; unlike now, where many people really wonder? I remember plugging my expensive headphones into a circa 1988 Adcom preamp and thinking "they never sounded anywhere near this good before". Was there anything from the 1970s that I would have felt the same way about?
I've collected many things in the past and some things were foolish of me to collect...I was highly seeking out old RCA Living Stereo classical lps in the 1980s/1990s. Some of them were known to get $1,000 to $2,000 per lp lp.on the used market. CountlessIt would have made a collectors day to find a clean copy of The Pines Of Rome or the Bizet/Carmen lp. And there were countless titles getting $100 to many hubdreds of dollars dollars too.Then Classic Records started re-releasing them, and almost overnight, their prices came crashing down. Even doctors and lawyers, who losing tens of thousands of dollars on their depreciating value was not earth shattering to them, were dumping them as fast as they could, to get at least a decent portion of what they paid..Titles getting $500 back then, are often going for only $50 on ebay. Does it ever feel foolish collecting what you do?
Nostalgia is a driving force behind the prices of, for example, the prices old Pioneer receivers are now getting.. But the guys that were well to do enough to buy a monster powered Pioneer, Technics or Marantz receiver in 1980 are usually 75 years old now. How much time does their hearing and lifespan have left? In less than 10 years most of them will be dead. Will it be like when Classic Records started re-releasing Living Stereos and the prices collapsed alnost overnight? My very first serious stereo was a Sherwood receiver and Jensen speakers with two tone grills. If I saw them in a store (never have) it would really bring back memories and I'm sure I'd spend 10 or 15 minutes looking at it and pleasantly playing around with it. But would my nostalgia be so strong that I'd buy it? If it performed like modern equipment; maybe I would. But I'm sure it doesn't, and I'd just think to myself "Id only look at it and never use it " So I'd take one last look and that would be it.
The other thing about collecting old audio equipment is while you are collecting it; it is rotting. Oxidation, old capacitors are drying out and the equipment is going out of spec with each decade since it was new. Are there many people buying old audio gear from the 1960s and 1970s younger people? I would doubt it; but if so, why do they think equipment from so far back is cool? Is it the look, or just hoping to turn a profit profiton people who have little time left? The window of opportunity could soon be closing fast.
"can you name even one receiver or amplifier from the 1970s which is solid state, that compares sonically with good equipment of today?" In short, it isn't a topic that ever crosses my mind. It really is just that simple. This morning I went to an event with my 16 yo daughter and we took her car. She likes to give me her phone which uses Spotify so I can play some of my favorite tunes. Well, this morning, I wanted to hear Hotel California so I tee'd that up. I enjoyed it just as much this morning listening to it on her factory car speakers as I have the thousands of times I've heard it before over the last 50 yrs. The point is, I enjoy the "experience", not always the most accurate sound. This vintage gear takes me to another place/time along with the music. THAT is what matters. All else is mute.
@stereoniche I can, my Pioneer SA9900 integrated amplifier with sheilded dual mono amplifiers and tone control assembly that has over 5400 variations sounds better than anything that can be bought today for under $10k!
Think what you like, personaly I feel it is a nice hobby to have, provideing you can afford it and want to own it, then go for it.
@ Bruce. And can we assume that you've heard every amplifier under 10k?? That would be SOME LIST.. Longer than the list you see pictures of Santa Claus holding. You would have to travel all over the world like him to hear everything too. LOL....and no, I know it's only a children's story.
I modify equipment and there is more point to point connections inside amps nowadays, without near as much internal wiring.. The bypassing of electrolytic capacitors, and anything else that doesn't absolutely need to be in the signal path, results in a more direct cleaner sound. You do give up a little transparency and openness with tone control circuits, but I do like tone controls; especially ones with a bypass button
@Scott. As you say, music can be enjoyed on anything. Even a transistor radio. I think the Traffic song Heaven Is In Your Mind, said it well. But transistor radios are cheap and don't cost much money. Buying vintage audio equipment is not cheap, and usually does cost much money for prime pieces. Since it's main purpose is to play music, I prefer to buy equipment which will give me the best listening experience, sound quality wise. Which for me and many others IS the PRIORITY, and which does enhance the listening experience. I understand though that each person is coming fron somewhere different, and for some like yourself, financial considerations do not seem to be a factor, like it is, for almost all of the rest of us. I still do sometimes think I miss the old black out dials, and some of the many controls which let one manipulate the sound to more of a degree. If I didn't know how to do that with mods, maybe I'd really be lost. Good video!
What's the price of this in Indian rupees plz...
1,000,000 rupees! ..... Actually, it is not for sale. :-)