# Stereo Receiver Owners/Supporters: Let's Hear From You!



## Osage_Winter

Any of you Shacksters using a stereo receiver to do your two-channel dirty work, speak up! Do you like your receiver? Does it push enough clean power for you? Share some setup pics as well!

I absolutely love my Onkyo TX-8555; this thing is a real brute -- especially considering its ridiculously low price tag. The build is incredibly solid with beyond standardized heft, right down to its hairline brushed aluminum front panel and ridiculously heavy and solid master volume knob. I really wanted Onkyo's A-9555 integrated amp, but I simply couldn't afford it at the time -- but to be honest, the 8555 stereo receiver could easily be called an integrated amp with a tuner; this thing cranks out some serious current. 

But I'd like to hear from some of you other stereo receiver owners -- do you think a good stereo receiver can be every bit as involving as a decent separates setup? Can some stereo receivers truly give some preamp/amp combos a run for their money? Furthermore, even compared to some ridiculously over the top tube-driven esoteric stuff you'd read about in _The Absolute Sound_, do some of you believe stereo receivers have what it takes to crank out some good sound? 

Weigh in, two-channel receiver owners!


----------



## bambino

:wave:Hi osage, I haven't used my stereo receiver for years but when i got it i loved every minute of and still do when i break it out, i've had it for 18 years and it still sounds justas powerful as the day i got it. By the way it's a Yamaha somthing or other i'll look to see what model it is then let you know but i know it was a brute back in the day:flex: :T.


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> :wave:Hi osage, I haven't used my stereo receiver for years but when i got it i loved every minute of and still do when i break it out, i've had it for 18 years and it still sounds justas powerful as the day i got it. By the way it's a Yamaha somthing or other i'll look to see what model it is then let you know but i know it was a brute back in the day:flex: :T.


Hey Bambino, Good Friend!

Thanks so much for the reply and your input; indeed, I used to have a Yamaha stereo receiver and it was pretty powerful at only 75 watts x 2 -- then again, I did have a graphic EQ running through it, which "goosed" the sound a bit...

If you could get back to me with some thoughts on your Yammie, that would be great! Do you have it permanently hooked up to a 2-channel system?


----------



## bambino

My Yamaha is the RX-570. I'm not sure what the wattage is on it allthough back then i use to build all my own speakers with gobs of drivers per speaker and without knowing much about impedance and speaker building back then i was probly at times running 1ohm loads:huh: and it kept up with every set i built, it is truly a powerful amp.

As far as regular use.... it mainly gets broke out for taking places, like family gatherings and parties stuff like that. I'm kinda the go to guy in our group of people for that sort of stuff. For an amp that is 18 years old it's amazing it's still in action especialy for the abuse that it has taken. Someday i'll retire it to shop duty but right now i still feel it would be an insult to it, LOL! :wave:


----------



## jackfish

I have a preamp/power amp combo now but used a Realistic ST-2380 for 20 years before I gave it away and upgraded to a stacked double New Large Advent/Phase Linear 400 vintage system. That receiver is still going strong for a buddy. Now listen to an Emotiva USP-1 and UPA-1s power Magnepan MMGs.


----------



## lsiberian

I have a stereo amp and it's fun to run my system through it from time to time, but I see the Stereo receivers as mostly overpriced. I'd much prefer a vintage model to satisfy what nostalgia dictates.


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> I have a stereo amp and it's fun to run my system through it from time to time, but I see the Stereo receivers as mostly overpriced. I'd much prefer a vintage model to satisfy what nostalgia dictates.


Many of the stereo receivers out there aren't overpriced in the least; you just need to do some homework. I got my Onkyo TX-8555 for around $250 or so if I remember right during a sale Amazon was running, and this thing performs way beyond what a component of this price category would be expected to do -- trust me. :T

I thought about setting up a "vintage" system for the 2-channel room, as the look and feel of the old, retro gear was just so much cooler than most of what's out today.


----------



## bambino

Today if i was gonna do a dedicated 2 channel stereo system it would be tube amp and preamp driven. I just like the cool factor of tubes and the sound, with worthwhile speakers of coarse.:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> Today if i was gonna do a dedicated 2 channel stereo system it would be tube amp and preamp driven. I just like the cool factor of tubes and the sound, with worthwhile speakers of coarse.:T


I never really got into the tube stuff much; I'm trying to show some love for the 2-channel receivers that are out there, and see if there are any other likeminded folks!

Actually, I believe our own TonyvdB runs a Yamaha stereo receiver in his stereo rig...


----------



## lsiberian

Osage_Winter said:


> Many of the stereo receivers out there aren't overpriced in the least; you just need to do some homework. I got my Onkyo TX-8555 for around $250 or so if I remember right during a sale Amazon was running, and this thing performs way beyond what a component of this price category would be expected to do -- trust me. :T
> 
> I thought about setting up a "vintage" system for the 2-channel room, as the look and feel of the old, retro gear was just so much cooler than most of what's out today.


I will agree to disagree with you, but don't think I've not done my homework. We all have our opinions mine is rooted in my own analysis of the facts. That's not to say the 8555 is a terrible piece of equipment. I just don't see the merits in a brand new stereo receiver these days. I'd prefer a pro level setup for stereo operation myself.


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> I will agree to disagree with you, but don't think I've not done my homework. We all have our opinions mine is rooted in my own analysis of the facts. That's not to say the 8555 is a terrible piece of equipment. I just don't see the merits in a brand new stereo receiver these days. I'd prefer a pro level setup for stereo operation myself.


What's to say my analysis isn't rooted in fact as well? It's my opinion that given the right amount of research, there is _plenty_ of merit in choosing a solidly-built stereo receiver today; for those of us that want a tuner, amp and preamp in a convenient chassis setup, a receiver is a good choice. Granted, an integrated amp is a good selection also for dedicated music listening -- I myself wanted the Onkyo A-9555 integrated but couldn't afford to lay down close to six hundred for the two channel room; the 8555 seemed like a perfect alternative, and it has been proving to be every bit as sonically effective as other integrateds I have demoed. Plus, it includes the tuner, which is nice.


----------



## lsiberian

Osage_Winter said:


> What's to say my analysis isn't rooted in fact as well? It's my opinion that given the right amount of research, there is _plenty_ of merit in choosing a solidly-built stereo receiver today; for those of us that want a tuner, amp and preamp in a convenient chassis setup, a receiver is a good choice. Granted, an integrated amp is a good selection also for dedicated music listening -- I myself wanted the Onkyo A-9555 integrated but couldn't afford to lay down close to six hundred for the two channel room; the 8555 seemed like a perfect alternative, and it has been proving to be every bit as sonically effective as other integrateds I have demoed. Plus, it includes the tuner, which is nice.


No one is saying your analysis isn't rooted in fact. I view differences in opinion and preference as the things that make us stronger not weaker. My reasoning is that I can get a full-featured home theater receiver with comparable features for only a small bit more. 
Perhaps you'd enlighten us a bit with some of your knowledge and analysis of the subject. I'm sure many of our readers would benefit from your insights.
Some questions I have of you.
What are the differences between a stereo and home theater receiver that appeal to you? 

What made you select an Onkyo brand amp over others? 

What were your impressions of other brands? 

How well built does the interior of the amp look to you?

Why did you go with integrated over separates?


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> No one is saying your analysis isn't rooted in fact. I view differences in opinion and preference as the things that make us stronger not weaker. My reasoning is that I can get a full-featured home theater receiver with comparable features for only a small bit more.


But one thing has nothing to do with the other -- they are for different applications, and that's what I was trying to explain to I believe it was TonydB in a different receiver thread; surround receivers for home theater boast features absolutely not necessary in a two channel stereo setup. Hence, why I was personally shopping for a stereo unit; in a stereo setup -- a dedicated stereo setup -- you don't need THX certification, auto calibration, etc. etc. So, the value of a stereo receiver is there for those who want them -- stereo receivers instead are packed with features that befit a piece of gear designed for music reproduction primarily. That's not to say surround receivers won't work in a stereo setup -- they will, but for separate rooms with the purpose of music-only tendencies, why buy a surround receiver when only two channels are being powered? 



> Perhaps you'd enlighten us a bit with some of your knowledge and analysis of the subject. I'm sure many of our readers would benefit from your insights.


Ummm...okay; I doubt this, as it's primarily a home theater-oriented site, but...I sure can share some of this. I have demo'ed at least a dozen integrated amps and stereo receivers back to back at a NYC-based hobbyist outlet, Park Audio on Park Avenue, and have had numerous discussions with the owners and enthusiasts that are on their staff, and the merits of such two-channel applications were readily agreed upon. That's simply a _part_ of my knowledge on the topic in addition to a bit of insight as to the analysis of how I feel regarding this subject...further, let's get to this: 



> Some questions I have of you.
> What are the differences between a stereo and home theater receiver that appeal to you?


I've cited some of these above, but I'll go over them again and expand on them: Stereo receivers are primarily designed for music playback applications; what appeals to me about them is the fact that they're like "affordable" stereo amps with a tuner and preamp built in -- they're even more affordable than most integrated amplifiers, which are also designed for two channel systems. There is a market for such product, it just isn't that popular nowadays with the advent of HT. 

As I said, home theater receivers WILL do fine for two channel playback in stereo mode and such -- I have used my Onkyos for this for years, and they cranked my CD collection just fine. But now that I have a secondary room in my new two story house in which I can separate music listening from HT, I purchased a stereo receiver to power that system -- why would I go out and get a surround AVR with THX certification and surround processing modes just for two channels? The stereo receiver was perfect for this application. 



> What made you select an Onkyo brand amp over others?


This was subjective -- I happen to like the brand a great deal, and there were a dozen other factors or so; first of all, from the brands I demoed, I liked the sound of the 8555 (which I demoed at another shop after Park Audio) and it was simply way too affordable to pass up. Here's an amp section that spits out 100 watts x 2, has a discreet output stage, massive heat sink, oversized capacitor and other premium features, for well under 500 bucks. The build quality of this thing is ridiculous considering its price -- it really does look and feel like a good integrated or power amp, except it has a tuner built in. Further, a friend of mine had an Onkyo M-Series stereo amp that kicked mucho in his 2-channel system, and then he got an Onkyo stereo receiver (one of the predecessors to the 8555) and this thing ROCKED -- I mean, he turned it up and it really did sound like a power amp was driving his speakers...loads and gobs of clean, crisp power. I was convinced this company did HT and stereo receivers right. 



> What were your impressions of other brands?


What does this have to do with the _specifics_ of the thread topic -- that is, stereo receivers _in general?_



> How well built does the interior of the amp look to you?


_Very._ As well as the exterior. 



> Why did you go with integrated over separates?


Convenience of chassis, affordability factor, judgement of my usage parameters -- if I went separates, I was going to have to buy a separate tuner in addition to a preamp and amp; it just seemed logical to look for a good integrated amp or stereo receiver. As I stated, I wanted Onkyo's own A-9555 digital integrated, but couldn't afford it at the time. The 8555 really does sing like an integrated but with a tuner -- and you simply cannot beat it for the price.


----------



## lsiberian

You mentioned in your previous post that you didn't see the need for room correction in your stereo receiver. Wouldn't room correction be equally beneficial to a stereo setup. On a side note how do you respond to the sweet spot concern introduced by a stereo setup?

I think you underestimate are readers in that many love stereo setups. I myself grew up with Stereo so it has a special place. I think you bring up some good points about the simplicity the receiver brings and while they are too pricey for my tastes I can certainly see why you chose what you did.


----------



## mdrake

Very interesting topic. When listening to stereo I realize how far audio has come sense the days of stereo. Not that stereo is bad but it is different. It reminds me of a 1930's car compared to todays automobiles. If I were going to go back to stereo I would go with a quality tube amp. 

Matt


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> You mentioned in your previous post that you didn't see the need for room correction in your stereo receiver. Wouldn't room correction be equally beneficial to a stereo setup. On a side note how do you respond to the sweet spot concern introduced by a stereo setup?


Perhaps room correction could be benefitial for a two channel setup; I just think it moreso for a multichannel home theater kind of rig -- but as I mentioned, I run my two channel and home theater systems separately now. In terms of the sweet spot setup in a two channel system, that is interesting and something I did not address in my last post -- getting the sweet spot right for two channel stereo is every bit as important as getting it right for HT. You really need to be between the two channels -- exactly between them -- for the proper image, and I have made sure of that in my two channel room. I keep my recliner in a position that is between the two bookshelf speakers that are running in that system. 



> I think you underestimate are readers in that many love stereo setups.


I didn't know our members had a love for stereo setups; I am glad, as that was my passion before I ever got into HT! 



> I myself grew up with Stereo so it has a special place.


Indeed...and I as well! 



> I think you bring up some good points about the simplicity the receiver brings and while they are too pricey for my tastes I can certainly see why you chose what you did.


Thank you; although I don't think what I paid for my 8555 was "pricey"...:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

mdrake said:


> Very interesting topic. When listening to stereo I realize how far audio has come sense the days of stereo. Not that stereo is bad but it is different. It reminds me of a 1930's car compared to todays automobiles. If I were going to go back to stereo I would go with a quality tube amp.
> 
> Matt


Thanks for your opinion, Matt!

Indeed, two channel listening does in fact seem antiquated when discussing it during an era of 9.2 channel AVRs and such, but there is something just so special and "right" about a good music system out of two channels just for music listening -- it's why I created a music room separate from my HT. In this room and with my system, I can re-discover my CD and vinyl collections, and do recordings of my favorite music to make custom mixed CD-Rs and such; now, if someone only has ONE room in which to do a system, combining both HT and music, that is absolutely fine too -- a surround AVR will be just fine for stereo playback IMO, and can even be used with surround modes like Pro Logic II Music for psuedo-surround effects; but I went with a separate music room as I had the space in my new house.

That was the essence of this thread, and I think it got a bit lost along the way -- I was suggesting that people can have a separate room for music listening and then drive that system with a stereo receiver or integrated amp, and that is why a stereo receiver would be used...I didn't mean to suggest that someone should buy a stereo receiver and incorporate it into a HT when a surround receiver is already being used there; I wanted to hear from any stereo receiver owners that may be running a secondary system in their homes, separate from their HT systems. :bigsmile:


----------



## lsiberian

Osage_Winter said:


> Perhaps room correction could be benefitial for a two channel setup; I just think it moreso for a multichannel home theater kind of rig -- but as I mentioned, I run my two channel and home theater systems separately now. In terms of the sweet spot setup in a two channel system, that is interesting and something I did not address in my last post -- getting the sweet spot right for two channel stereo is every bit as important as getting it right for HT.


Next time you look at speakers you should check out a bipolar design. The benefit of bipolar is that enlarges the sweet spot area significantly. Obviously DIY is the most common way to make one, but the results are remarkable.


----------



## bambino

mdrake said:


> Very interesting topic. When listening to stereo I realize how far audio has come sense the days of stereo. Not that stereo is bad but it is different. It reminds me of a 1930's car compared to todays automobiles. If I were going to go back to stereo I would go with a quality tube amp.
> 
> Matt


I'm with drake on the tube amp. If i were ever to go back to or have a seperate room for just stereo there would be no question what kind of amp i'd use.....Tube, and nice speakers without a sub. As i mentioned in my earlier post.:T


----------



## mdrake

Osage_Winter said:


> Thanks for your opinion, Matt!
> 
> Indeed, two channel listening does in fact seem antiquated when discussing it during an era of 9.2 channel AVRs and such, but there is something just so special and "right" about a good music system out of two channels just for music listening -- it's why I created a music room separate from my HT. In this room and with my system, I can re-discover my CD and vinyl collections, and do recordings of my favorite music to make custom mixed CD-Rs and such; now, if someone only has ONE room in which to do a system, combining both HT and music, that is absolutely fine too -- a surround AVR will be just fine for stereo playback IMO, and can even be used with surround modes like Pro Logic II Music for psuedo-surround effects; but I went with a separate music room as I had the space in my new house.
> 
> That was the essence of this thread, and I think it got a bit lost along the way -- I was suggesting that people can have a separate room for music listening and then drive that system with a stereo receiver or integrated amp, and that is why a stereo receiver would be used...I didn't mean to suggest that someone should buy a stereo receiver and incorporate it into a HT when a surround receiver is already being used there; I wanted to hear from any stereo receiver owners that may be running a secondary system in their homes, separate from their HT systems. :bigsmile:


I am in the process of setting up a second room just to test speakers in stereo without all the fancy DPS's and sound deadening material. It is kinda fun to get back to the basics and see what a a set of speakers can do without all the fancy stuff. :bigsmile: :T

Matt


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> Next time you look at speakers you should check out a bipolar design. The benefit of bipolar is that enlarges the sweet spot area significantly. Obviously DIY is the most common way to make one, but the results are remarkable.


Yes, but with stereo, it's a bit less of an issue, in that if you place two direct-radiating speakers, whether they are bookshelf/monitor style or towers, in a position that fires directly at the primary seat and toe them in for perfect alignment, and place your seat somewhere between the radiation pattern of these, you're pretty much OK for stereo.


----------



## Osage_Winter

mdrake said:


> I am in the process of setting up a second room just to test speakers in stereo without all the fancy DPS's and sound deadening material. It is kinda fun to get back to the basics and see what a a set of speakers can do without all the fancy stuff. :bigsmile: :T
> 
> Matt


Totally agreed -- please keep us informed on the progress of your project! I'd like to hear about it!


----------



## JCD

Just saw this thread for the first time today.. 

i've been working on my garage to convert it into a listening room for years now -- still need to move a bunch of stuff out, so I'm STILL working on it. Anyway, it was built with the idea of having a two channel system. At the time, I wanted to go the separates route. The most inexpensive way to get there was to find a used dolby pro logic preamp (Marantz) and a used stereo amp (Rotel). I was able to get both for a total of $400 if i remember correctly. I never saw a stereo receiver in that price range. The Onkyo OW mentioned, however, would have been a find.

Stereo setups really are the only way to listen to music;. At least for me.

One other thing, unless I was going for a SUPER efficient horn system, I'd stick to solid state. Tubes are pretty, but I think SS is just fine for me.


----------



## JCD

As soon as I hit post, I remembered one other thing..


I think room correction is VERY important even with a stereo setup. I built some acoustic panels and experimented with a friend of mine. We listened to some well engineered/recorded jazz with and without the panels. Without the panels, the soundstage was gone. Instrument separation was missing. Etc. With panels, all of the imaging returned. The difference was simply huge. And since we're listening rather than watching and listening, I think getting the sound right is more important still. 

Anyway, that's all I got until I hit post again.. :dumbcrazy:


----------



## JoeESP9

Let me start this by saying I've never owned a receiver. With that said, I have one system that does double duty. It started out in 1968 as a two channel system. Over the years since then it and I have gone through many changes.

Music is the primary thing for me. Surround/MC capability is an add on to stereo. Consequently I have a room that is designed and furnished primarily for two channel listening. This includes room treatments and all sorts of tweaks. I have a dedicated stereo preamp (ARC-SP9) feeding a pair of bi-amplified ESL's with two 12" TL subs. All two channel sources use this combination of components. For any and all surround/MC sources my preamp is used in a bypass mode. This allows using my front channel amplification and speaker chain with no switching of gear or cables. All multi-channel sources are connected to my Lexicon processor. The front line level outputs go through my preamp and to my front channel amps and speakers. My rear channel amplifiers are connected directly to the processor. I feel this gives me the best of both worlds.
I can afford only one "good" system so what I have has to suffice. Consequently I've had to make some compromises. I have no center channel speaker and I only have four speakers. I have three (4?) sub woofers the two TL's for the front and a dual sub (2 electrically separate subs in one box) for my rear ESL's. I would love to have six speakers and a center channel. My room just isn't large enough for three more full size full range ESL's. Yes, my center channel would have to be an ESL. 

In my experience two channel receivers do a much better job reproducing stereo sources than any surround receiver. This is very evident to my ears when running a surround type receiver in two channel mode. The "pseudo surround" modes and other surround enhancements don't seem to "work" for me with music mixed and mastered for stereo. So, I don't bother with them.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JCD said:


> Just saw this thread for the first time today..
> 
> i've been working on my garage to convert it into a listening room for years now -- still need to move a bunch of stuff out, so I'm STILL working on it. Anyway, it was built with the idea of having a two channel system. At the time, I wanted to go the separates route. The most inexpensive way to get there was to find a used dolby pro logic preamp (Marantz) and a used stereo amp (Rotel). I was able to get both for a total of $400 if i remember correctly. I never saw a stereo receiver in that price range. The Onkyo OW mentioned, however, would have been a find.
> 
> Stereo setups really are the only way to listen to music;. At least for me.
> 
> One other thing, unless I was going for a SUPER efficient horn system, I'd stick to solid state. Tubes are pretty, but I think SS is just fine for me.


Hey JCD!

Thanks for your input here! Indeed, I agree about stereo setups being the only way to listen to music -- if there is the opportunity to separate an HT system from a two channel variant, I always do so. However, there are times, like when I was living in apartments, when one system had to suffice, and so a surround AVR would pull duty as a stereo device as well, but this was fine for what it was. 

As for the "Onkyo I mentioned being a find," were you referring to my TX-8555 stereo receiver or the A-9555 integrated amp? Either way, these units are beasts -- my TX-8555 does indeed sound like a good amp, not a receiver with tuner built in, and it's built like a tank.


----------



## Osage_Winter

Thanks for your input in the thread, Joe!

One thing confused me though; in the beginning of the post, you state:

*Let me start this by saying I've never owned a receiver.*

But then go on to say:

*In my experience two channel receivers do a much better job reproducing stereo sources than any surround receiver. This is very evident to my ears when running a surround type receiver in two channel mode.*

...can you clarify that a bit? Did I miss something inbetween? 

I feel surround AVRs can produce a good stereo soundstage and image in their stereo or Pro Logic II Music modes, but in a dedicated music listening room, a stereo receiver or amp/separates should be utilized just for two channel playback; just my opinion.


----------



## bambino

I gotta say my Denon 3808ci AVR sounds way better in pure direct stereo mode then my stereo Yamaha ever did JMO.:sn:


----------



## Osage_Winter

Interesting, Bambino...

There's no set rule, or foundation, that suggests a stereo receiver will necessarily outperform a surround AVR running in source direct, pure or stereo mode...it's just that when you have a separate room set up for just music listening, I think the best choice is some kind of stereo gear, not a surround AVR where you won't be utilizing auto calibration and THX modes and such; this is where a nicely built stereo receiver, integrated amp or separates come into play. I was trying to see if we had such enthusiasts with rooms separate from their HTs with this thread, and if they drive said systems with stereo receivers...:T


----------



## bambino

Rite on osage :wave:. Just gonna throw this out there, but i don't use room correction or audessy or EQ, just straight up flat response.:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> Rite on osage :wave:. Just gonna throw this out there, but i don't use room correction or audessy or EQ, just straight up flat response.:T


You mean in your HT system? You run no EQ or Audyssey?


----------



## bambino

Osage_Winter said:


> You mean in your HT system? You run no EQ or Audyssey?


I run it the way it came out of the box...Flat. Once and awhile i'll make a gain adjusment for movies but in the end it always goes back to flat. Just the way i've always done it with all my systems home and car. It's natural that way:T. With the right set up i see no need for adjusment.


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> I run it the way it came out of the box...Flat. Once and awhile i'll make a gain adjusment for movies but in the end it always goes back to flat. Just the way i've always done it with all my systems home and car. It's natural that way:T. With the right set up i see no need for adjusment.


Now _that's_ interesting, as that's the way I run my Onkyo 605 -- without EQ or Audyssey. Although, I have to say, I am uncertain if it was on this site or another, perhaps Audioholics, but someone had suggested or informed me that the system is not actually "flat" just because you use no EQ or room adjustments -- in other words, just because we leave our equalizers off and leave bass/treble, etc. to flat, or "0dB" and such, it doesn't mean the system is running "flat"...but there's a lot more science behind that one to go into here.

Are you saying on your Denon AVR you have Audyssey off and have made channel level adjustments yourself?


----------



## bambino

:wave:. Yep no Audessy or Eq, Sometimes, depending on the movie i will adjust the rear channels for louder effects and the same for the sub, but like i said it always goes back to ''flat when done.

Now when i listen to music it's almost always in pure direct and no sub, once and awhile i'll get a little crazy and pump up the sub or the five channel stereo.:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

Interesting, Bambino...


----------



## bambino

I think that if you have quality gear and it sounds good (which good gear does) then why change it unless neccesary but in my case it's not. Ever since i've been addicted to this audio thing (home & car) i've never seen the purpose of adding more to what allready should be there. JMO:T


----------



## Osage_Winter

I know what you're saying; I suppose that's the reason I run my system without EQ or Audyssey as well, as it just seems more "open" and "spacious" and "natural" with EQ turned off -- like you're hearing the soundtrack the way you're _supposed_ to. 

Still, I can't help but think back to the replies some have given me regarding the fact that a system really isn't running "flat" just by leaving an EQ system off...:scratch:


----------



## bambino

By ''flat'' i'm talking no audessy, EQing, or any other enhancements of any sort. I would like to know what the other folks mean by ''flat'', that is just the term we have always used.:scratch:


----------



## lsiberian

Flat response means it's equalized. Auddysey is good for correcting crossover defects, but room correction is a bit more difficult. It does a great job for what it is though. For stereo I'd prefer doing it by hand with REW and a Behringer Feedback Destroyer.


----------



## bambino

Just curious lisberian, but am i wrong for listening to my system the way i do or do you think i may be missing out on some material? :dontknow:.Thanks for chiming in by the way.:T


----------



## bambino

Now my curiousity is going. Say if i wanted an EQ who makes good add on ones as i have not even seen one in a shop or catalog for years,i know my Denon has an EQ built in but how do you use it properly? Or how would i setup an outboard one if they still exist?:dontknow:


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> By ''flat'' i'm talking no audessy, EQing, or any other enhancements of any sort. I would like to know what the other folks mean by ''flat'', that is just the term we have always used.:scratch:


I was just about to reply to you that someone else in our membership roster here may be better suited to answer that specifically -- and then lsberian answered!


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> Now my curiousity is going. Say if i wanted an EQ who makes good add on ones as i have not even seen one in a shop or catalog for years,i know my Denon has an EQ built in but how do you use it properly? Or how would i setup an outboard one if they still exist?:dontknow:


The outboard EQs, as I stated in a previous post, makes things very complicated from what I understand when it comes to multichannel HT use. They need to be connected through each channel of the system, again, if I am not mistaken or used in some such other ways that makes it more daunting than a simple two channel multiband graphic EQ connected to a stereo system or using the built-in EQ systems of modern AVRs.

As for your Denon, the best way to use it is to run the auto setup routine, allowing the system to analyze the room and make the adjustments for you -- doing multiband EQ adjustments manually on these new surround AVRs is VERY time consuming from what I understand. Of course, you can tweak each band the way you like, but with these modern AVRs, it's just normally better to just let the auto setup routine EQ the audio or leave it off. What kind of room EQ system does your Denon have -- is it Audyssey? I think Denon uses Audyssey as does Onkyo...

When I let Audyssey do its thing on my 605, I didn't care for the "closed cardboard box" effect it gave my system -- something other Onkyo owners have complained wildly about all over the forums with regard to Audyssey; it kind of lopped off the highs of my speakers, like applying a re-EQ curve, and I just didn't like it. I will experiment again at some point though I think.

So, leaving EQ off doesn't mean "flat" the way you're thinking -- but I know exactly what you mean with regard to leaving all this stuff off...:wave: :T


----------



## chas

Osage_Winter said:


> When I let Audyssey do its thing on my 605, I didn't care for the "closed cardboard box" effect it gave my system -- something other Onkyo owners have complained wildly about all over the forums with regard to Audyssey; it kind of lopped off the highs of my speakers, like applying a re-EQ curve, and I just didn't like it. I will experiment again at some point though I think.


Denon allows the user to choose between the standard Audyssey equalization (which does roll-off the highs a bit) or Audyssey Flat - which does not roll-off the highs. From what I understand Onkyo only has the standard Audyssey curve and does not offer "flat". Denon also has a bypass L/R mode which will equalize all channels except the front L/R.


----------



## lsiberian

bambino said:


> Just curious lisberian, but am i wrong for listening to my system the way i do or do you think i may be missing out on some material? :dontknow:.Thanks for chiming in by the way.:T


Certainly not. I don't use an eq system at the present time. I plan to once I get a DCX2496, but that will be a while. I don't even have them level matched.  Great speakers are just great speakers


----------



## tonyvdb

Continued from this thread here


tonyvdb said:


> I did have a Carver Receiver 6250 that I sold about 3 years ago, It was just amazing however I needed the cash and I knew it would fetch more than my Yamaha so i sold it:crying:.
> The 6250 was Bob carvers last and most powerful receiver he made with a magnetic field amplifire with 180watts per ch at 8ohms I can talk about that if you wish :bigsmile:





Osage_Winter said:


> LOL -- okay; yeah, I always wanted to demo Carver stuff but never got a chance. I know their amps were even popular with mobile DJs at one point, they were so powerful.
> 
> Did you use that Carver for two channel music listening?


Yes, the Carver was an amazing receiver and looked really good as well. Bob really knew how to build them. I loved the rack handles it had and found that using the "Sonic Hologram" worked really well. It weighed 45lbs so for a two channel receiver it had a huge power supply.









Here are the specifications:

*Amplifier Section*
8-ohm FTC rated power/ch 125 W
4-ohm FTC rated power/ch 140 W
2-ohm dynamic power/ch 145 W
4/8-ohm FTC rated THD 0.1 %
Rated full power bandwidth 20-20kHz
S/N-IHF A-Weighted,dB 90
Slew Rate 180
Dimensions (HxWxD inches) 19x5.5x18
Comments Stereo receiver. Anthracite finish.

*Tuner Section*
IHF Sensitivity mono/stereo,dBf 10.3/-
Capture ratio,dB 1.5
AM Suppression,dB 62
Alt. ch. sensitivity,dB 72
Seperation at 1kHz,dB 46
THD at 1kHz,stereo 0.09 %
Maximum S/N,stereo,dB 78
Station presets 12

*PreAmp Section*
Frequency response 20-20kHz +- 1dB
Total Harmonic Distortion See amp section
S/N-IHF A-Weighted See amp section
Phono sensitivity for [email protected] 1.5
MM Phono Overload mV 100
Phono input capacitance pF 150
MM S/N A-weighted 0.5v ref. 78
Tone Controls 3-band
Inputs 2 video/5 audio
Comments Sonic Holography

Remote control a/V receiver with sonic holography and ACCD (Asymmetrical charge - coupled FM detection circuit). Carver magnetic field power section produces 125 watts per channel minimum output, both channels driven into 8 ohms from 20-20 KHZ with no more than 0.1% THD. 7 segment LED power meters. 2 video inputs W/dubbing & video monitor output. 7 audio inputs. 6 AM + 6 FM presets W/backup. . Preset scan and auto/Manual tuning. Sonic hologram generator. 3 band tone controls. Dual tape monitors W/dubbing. Loudness EQ & muting. A/B/A + B speakers selection & headphone output.


----------



## bambino

lsiberian said:


> Certainly not. I don't use an eq system at the present time. I plan to once I get a DCX2496, but that will be a while. I don't even have them level matched.  Great speakers are just great speakers


Thanks man, I am just going to keep it ''simple'' as they say and leave things alone, i love the way everything sounds and to me thats all that matters. However on occation i do increase the gain in the rear surrounds for more effects. I would though like it if i knew some audiophile that would give there opinion on how it sounds, just for fun.:bigsmile::T


----------



## JoeESP9

Osage_Winter said:


> Thanks for your input in the thread, Joe!
> 
> One thing confused me though; in the beginning of the post, you state:
> 
> *Let me start this by saying I've never owned a receiver.*
> 
> But then go on to say:
> 
> *In my experience two channel receivers do a much better job reproducing stereo sources than any surround receiver. This is very evident to my ears when running a surround type receiver in two channel mode.*
> 
> ...can you clarify that a bit? Did I miss something inbetween?
> 
> I feel surround AVRs can produce a good stereo soundstage and image in their stereo or Pro Logic II Music modes, but in a dedicated music listening room, a stereo receiver or amp/separates should be utilized just for two channel playback; just my opinion.


Being involved with this hobby for 42+ years I've had many chances to listen to various receivers stereo and AV. Stereo receivers (to my ears) always do a better job with stereo source material. Sure AV receivers sound OK. Stereo receivers seem to do it better.
Music that was mixed and mastered for two channel playback doesn't sound right to me when played back using any kind of surround enhancement. I've tried the Yamaha DSP, ADS Delay unit, Dynaquad, SQ, QS, CD-4 and the modes for enhanced stereo with my Lexicon processor. Two channel stereo works better for me with stereo music.


----------



## Osage_Winter

chas said:


> Denon allows the user to choose between the standard Audyssey equalization (which does roll-off the highs a bit) or Audyssey Flat - which does not roll-off the highs. From what I understand Onkyo only has the standard Audyssey curve and does not offer "flat". Denon also has a bypass L/R mode which will equalize all channels except the front L/R.


You know something, chas? I believe the Onkyos do have that "flat" position on the Audyssey implementation curve -- not sure if my 605 has it specifically, but I can check. That was an interesting point.

But I'm glad someone else confirmed my notion of the highs being lobbed off by the Audyssey EQ curve...

It almost sounds like, to me, the effect the "Re EQ" circuit has when engaged on Onkyo AVRs...


----------



## Osage_Winter

tonyvdb said:


> Continued from this thread here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Carver was an amazing receiver and looked really good as well. Bob really knew how to build them. I loved the rack handles it had and found that using the "Sonic Hologram" worked really well. It weighed 45lbs so for a two channel receiver it had a huge power supply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the specifications:
> 
> *Amplifier Section*
> 8-ohm FTC rated power/ch 125 W
> 4-ohm FTC rated power/ch 140 W
> 2-ohm dynamic power/ch 145 W
> 4/8-ohm FTC rated THD 0.1 %
> Rated full power bandwidth 20-20kHz
> S/N-IHF A-Weighted,dB 90
> Slew Rate 180
> Dimensions (HxWxD inches) 19x5.5x18
> Comments Stereo receiver. Anthracite finish.
> 
> *Tuner Section*
> IHF Sensitivity mono/stereo,dBf 10.3/-
> Capture ratio,dB 1.5
> AM Suppression,dB 62
> Alt. ch. sensitivity,dB 72
> Seperation at 1kHz,dB 46
> THD at 1kHz,stereo 0.09 %
> Maximum S/N,stereo,dB 78
> Station presets 12
> 
> *PreAmp Section*
> Frequency response 20-20kHz +- 1dB
> Total Harmonic Distortion See amp section
> S/N-IHF A-Weighted See amp section
> Phono sensitivity for [email protected] 1.5
> MM Phono Overload mV 100
> Phono input capacitance pF 150
> MM S/N A-weighted 0.5v ref. 78
> Tone Controls 3-band
> Inputs 2 video/5 audio
> Comments Sonic Holography
> 
> Remote control a/V receiver with sonic holography and ACCD (Asymmetrical charge - coupled FM detection circuit). Carver magnetic field power section produces 125 watts per channel minimum output, both channels driven into 8 ohms from 20-20 KHZ with no more than 0.1% THD. 7 segment LED power meters. 2 video inputs W/dubbing & video monitor output. 7 audio inputs. 6 AM + 6 FM presets W/backup. . Preset scan and auto/Manual tuning. Sonic hologram generator. 3 band tone controls. Dual tape monitors W/dubbing. Loudness EQ & muting. A/B/A + B speakers selection & headphone output.


Wow...now _that_ thing looks like a piece of serious audio gear...

Companies need to get back to building these kinds of pieces...

Hopefully, my thread listing the current crop of most of the stereo receivers available on the market will open some folks' eyes to what is out there.


----------



## Osage_Winter

lsiberian said:


> *I don't even have them level matched.*  Great speakers are just great speakers


_That's_ not good for home theater...:rolleyesno:


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> Thanks man, I am just going to keep it ''simple'' as they say and leave things alone, i love the way everything sounds and to me thats all that matters. However on occation i do increase the gain in the rear surrounds for more effects. I would though like it if i knew some audiophile that would give there opinion on how it sounds, just for fun.:bigsmile::T


Bambino,

It is of course up to individual taste and preference, and like I've been told so many times before in this hobby, there is no "home theater police" that is going to come knocking down your door and make you measure your speakers within a decibel of one another and such, but...

It is a good idea not to make the surrounds too hot in dB level -- especially making them hotter and higher than the front soundstage. That's not really how the filmmakers and audio engineers designed the soundtrack for you to experience -- the surrounds are supposed to be there for ambience support and foley effects, creating a realistic back stage with the gentle taps of rainfall, the distant booms of thunder or the occasional gunfight with bullets landing in the rear channels. If you make these channels too hot, it throws the soundstage off -- I bring them up quite a bit too, but I NEVER make either of my surrounds in the 5.1 setup higher than any channels up front. 

For example, my two main left and right channels are set at "+6dB" in the AVR...the right surround is also set to "+6dB" but my LEFT surround, because it is closer to my seating position while still up in the ceiling, is set to "4dB" and I could probably bring that down a notch, too. With the left surround at +6 like the rest, there was WAY too much rear information going to that speaker, and it threw the back balance off.


----------



## Osage_Winter

JoeESP9 said:


> Being involved with this hobby for 42+ years I've had many chances to listen to various receivers stereo and AV. Stereo receivers (to my ears) always do a better job with stereo source material. Sure AV receivers sound OK. Stereo receivers seem to do it better.
> Music that was mixed and mastered for two channel playback doesn't sound right to me when played back using any kind of surround enhancement. I've tried the Yamaha DSP, ADS Delay unit, Dynaquad, SQ, QS, CD-4 and the modes for enhanced stereo with my Lexicon processor. Two channel stereo works better for me with stereo music.


Yes, I understand and actually agree -- but I didn't understand what you meant by the comment regarding that you never owned a receiver but you tended to think the stereo ones did a better job in two channel...did you mean the ones you have _auditioned?_


----------



## bambino

Osage_Winter said:


> _That's_ not good for home theater...:rolleyesno:


I'm with lisberian, i don't have my levels matched either along with anything else. Whats wrong with that?:huh:


----------



## bambino

Osage_Winter said:


> Bambino,
> 
> It is of course up to individual taste and preference, and like I've been told so many times before in this hobby, there is no "home theater police" that is going to come knocking down your door and make you measure your speakers within a decibel of one another and such, but...
> 
> It is a good idea not to make the surrounds too hot in dB level -- especially making them hotter and higher than the front soundstage. That's not really how the filmmakers and audio engineers designed the soundtrack for you to experience -- the surrounds are supposed to be there for ambience support and foley effects, creating a realistic back stage with the gentle taps of rainfall, the distant booms of thunder or the occasional gunfight with bullets landing in the rear channels. If you make these channels too hot, it throws the soundstage off -- I bring them up quite a bit too, but I NEVER make either of my surrounds in the 5.1 setup higher than any channels up front.
> 
> For example, my two main left and right channels are set at "+6dB" in the AVR...the right surround is also set to "+6dB" but my LEFT surround, because it is closer to my seating position while still up in the ceiling, is set to "4dB" and I could probably bring that down a notch, too. With the left surround at +6 like the rest, there was WAY too much rear information going to that speaker, and it threw the back balance off.


Everyone likes things different ways and if i'm happy then thats all that matters.:R


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> I'm with lisberian, i don't have my levels matched either along with anything else. Whats wrong with that?:huh:


Bambino,

Not sure what you mean by "anything else" not being "matched," but it is absolutely essential to balance the individual channel volumes to hear the DVD or BD soundtrack properly. There are entire roundtable discussions devoted to this topic, just do a Google search.

Also -- lsberian mentions "great speakers are just great speakers" but that has nothing to do with balancing them properly in the 5.1/7.1 soundscape.


----------



## Osage_Winter

bambino said:


> Everyone likes things different ways and if i'm happy then thats all that matters.:R


If you want to go according to personal preference sure, but it's not the way you're supposed to hear a film soundtrack depending on how "out of whack" those surround channels are.


----------



## bambino

like i said in my previous post, if i happy with it thats what matters. On that note, when folks come over and listen to music or watch movies i always get good reviews:bigsmile:. So point i'm trying to get across is i don't care about a round table discussion on what right, wrong or the way it's supposed to be. If it sounds good to me HOO RA!


----------



## Osage_Winter

Just out of curiosity, if you aren't running "any speaker balancing" or calibration on your system/AVR, what exactly do you have your channel levels set to, dB wise?


----------



## bambino

0


----------



## Osage_Winter

Every channel is at zero?


----------



## bambino

We have gone over this several times. There is nothing wrong with the way i have my system setup.Remember it's personal preferance to me and like i said i get nothing but two thumbs up from the folks that here it so.....


----------



## Osage_Winter

I didn't say anything regarding that when I replied with the question to your "0" statement -- but now that you brought it up, please remember that just because _you_ think it sounds good or others that come to your house do, that does not mean that it is _definitely set up right_; there is a big difference here. You can set it up all you want according to taste -- but that does not mean that it is balanced the way a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker suite and system _should_ be.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to wrap one's head around; and frankly, I am surprised no one else has chimed in here with regard to balancing a surround sound system according to room, seating position, channel trim, etc -- you continue to insist that your system is _definitely_ set up right, but it can't be if you didn't make adjustments and calibrate for _your room and listening position(s)_. It may be right for your personal ear, but please don't press the fact that you know it's set up properly, as that is somewhat misleading.


----------



## bambino

Sorry but i never said it was setup right, it's setup to my personal preferance. Thank you.onder:


----------



## Osage_Winter

My apologies...you said this:



bambino said:


> There is nothing wrong with the way i have my system setup.


...and mentioned it several times in this thread alone, suggesting that you refuse to believe your system is not balanced properly; if it's according to personal taste, that's one thing. But I think it's a bit misleading to say there's "nothing wrong with the way it is set up."


----------



## bambino

OK, then misleading it is if you insist.


----------



## Osage_Winter

I'm not "insisting" on anything, but okay...:huh:

It's merely a fact that if your system isn't calibrated _in some fashion_ based on your room and primary (at least) listening position, it is not "set up right." :T


----------



## bambino

Yeah, i got that about 10 posts ago. Good to go?


----------



## Osage_Winter

Apparently, you didn't get it...

And yes, I believe we can move on now if you so choose.


----------



## bambino

Thank goodness. Now i think i'll call a shrink to help get the swelling in my brain down, LOL!:clap::T


----------



## eugovector

This thread is now closed as it has turned argumentative, rather than informative.


----------

