# Do you think some receivers sound better than others?



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

I asked that one time and they said it wouldn't matter what receiver you had. It's just about more options. Is that true? If you get a higher priced receiver, can that change the sound dramatically, just so-so? Hoping for opinions. Thanks.


edit: um...okay. I just saw the sticky. Sorry. I couldn't delete this.

edit: well, I looked at the thread and now I'm not sure it answers it or not.

edit: it did. I think it was because it sad "amp," and I am used to "receiver."


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> I asked that one time and they said it wouldn't matter what receiver you had. It's just about more options. Is that true? If you get a higher priced receiver, can that change the sound dramatically, just so-so? Hoping for opinions. Thanks.
> 
> 
> edit: um...okay. I just saw the sticky. Sorry. I couldn't delete this.
> ...


Hello,
For the most part, it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. On the other end of the spectrum, entry level AVR's are especially hamstrung in respect to their power supply and if using relatively power hungry speakers and or a large room, it can be a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers.
All the best,
J


----------



## yoda13 (Feb 14, 2012)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> For the most part, it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. On the other end of the spectrum, entry level AVR's are especially hamstrung in respect to their power supply and if using relatively power hungry speakers and or a large room, it can be a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers.
> All the best,
> J


Everything Jungle Jack said here is 100% accurate. But, if you plain to use a room that is not the size of an arena or listen at levels that will shift your eyeballs, it doesn't matter as much. Unless you have speakers with a sensitivity of 84db, then it's another story.

My room is about 3400ish square meter an my speakers L/C/R, are a93db. I had a Pioneer VSX 520 a few years ago and it was quite adequate power wise.

What I didn't know is what a huge difference room correction would make. I believe that what Jungle Jack said, in combination with a good room correction software being Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, EzsetEQ, ARC, Trinnov etc is what you're looking for. On the other hand, if you have mediocre speakers in a square glass room with no acoustical treatment, no receiver of any brand at any price point will remedy to that 

You budget will be the most important aspect of what you'll get.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> For the most part, it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. On the other end of the spectrum, entry level AVR's are especially hamstrung in respect to their power supply and if using relatively power hungry speakers and or a large room, it can be a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers.
> All the best,
> J


How much power do I need? I have htr-5930 from Yamaha. It says 8 ohms but I have noticed I need to turn it up to get good clarity. I don't think I'm going deaf. I remember a long time ago I was at a circuit city. They had an Onkyo. Sounded good in the store. Brought it home with my Klipsch speakers (I have polk now. I had to sell the old ones.) I barely had to turn it up to hear it with clarity, good sound all that. This one, I have to turn it up.

Tsi300, old nasty Yamaha sub, CS20 center.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> How much power do I need? I have htr-5930 from Yamaha. It says 8 ohms but I have noticed I need to turn it up to get good clarity. I don't think I'm going deaf. I remember a long time ago I was at a circuit city. They had an Onkyo. Sounded good in the store. Brought it home with my Klipsch speakers (I have polk now. I had to sell the old ones.) I barely had to turn it up to hear it with clarity, good sound all that. This one, I have to turn it up.
> 
> Tsi300, old nasty Yamaha sub, CS20 center.


Indeed. Klipschs are some of the most efficient speakers on the planet. That is they require a mere handful of watts to play at very high SPL's. The Polks you have are far more difficult to drive. Especially the TSI's.

As that Yamaha is pre HDMI and does not have a very large power supply, it certainly would be a good time to consider getting a new AVR.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

All great comments, I will put in my two cents as well:
Receivers all should sound similar however as jack and others have pointed out that if power supply is not able to supply enough juice to the amps it does not matter what the specifications are in the manual. Many tests that are done at the manufacturer are big time flawed and the numbers that are listed might as well be guesses. 
Speaker efficiency, Ohms and the room will all play a big part in what you will hear.
The room correction in most receiver as pointed out will also play a part in the final outcome. 
in the end its really hard to do a comparison unless you do it in your room that your using it in with all the same gear.


----------



## hjones4841 (Jan 21, 2009)

Many folks get tied up in the power ratings, thinking that 140W is so much better than 100W, whereas there is actually little difference. I agree that the current output capability of any amp is a key factor on what it can actually deliver, and that is why the power supply is important. And a weak power supply shows up in "all channels driven" tests. If two channels driven gives 140W/ch and 5 channels driven gives 80W/ch, then that is evidence of a less powerful power supply.

I think that a large difference in receivers is whether or not they have room correction and auto setup features. The higher up the food chain usually gets better software/firmware for making the speaker to room interface better with resultant better overall sound.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

There are very few if any receivers out there that can do 140watts into even two channels and certainly none under $1500. The issue with the manufacturers tests is that they never do full frequency tests they do it with a 1kHz test tone and thats how they get away with those over inflated readings.
Most receivers will truly output less than 25% of their rated output.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I agree with hjones. Don't get caught up too much in the power rating unless you have really demanding speakers.

There are a lot of manufactures out there that make nice receivers with room correction: Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon, pioneer/elite... Just be careful assuming that room correction software is going to turn magically turn your speakers from goats to heros. Time issues are any easy fix, but truthfully, your room and acoustic treatments are the best way to truly get good sound.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Indeed. Klipschs are some of the most efficient speakers on the planet. That is they require a mere handful of watts to play at very high SPL's. The Polks you have are far more difficult to drive. Especially the TSI's.
> 
> As that Yamaha is pre HDMI and does not have a very large power supply, it certainly would be a good time to consider getting a new AVR.


How come the polks are difficult to drive? Why are the Klipsch more efficient?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> How come the polks are difficult to drive? Why are the Klipsch more efficient?


Hello,
It lies mainly with the Horn Loaded Design. Going all the way back to the original Klipsch Horn, they have made speakers that are amazingly efficient. Whereas most Klipschs sensitivity is around 101db's, the TSI's are 89db's. For every 3db difference you need double the power to get the same SPL.
J


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> It lies mainly with the Horn Loaded Design. Going all the way back to the original Klipsch Horn, they have made speakers that are amazingly efficient. Whereas most Klipschs sensitivity is around 101db's, the TSI's are 89db's. For every 3db difference you need double the power to get the same SPL.
> J


I looked at the Polk top of the line. They were 90db. I guess they're all hard to get going for Polk (RtiA9). Does that mean get different speakers? Just turn things up louder? I just feel like they are..."duller." I don't mean my room acoustics are bad. Maybe it is what you are describing.

Klipsch KF-30 Sensitivity - 97.5dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter

edit: funny, even the older KG4 has SENSITIVITY: 94dB @ 1watt/1meter


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> I looked at the Polk top of the line. They were 90db. I guess they're all hard to get going for Polk (RtiA9). Does that mean get different speakers? Just turn things up louder? I just feel like they are..."duller." I don't mean my room acoustics are bad. Maybe it is what you are describing.
> 
> Klipsch KF-30 Sensitivity - 97.5dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter
> 
> edit: funny, even the older KG4 has SENSITIVITY: 94dB @ 1watt/1meter


Hello,
Getting a better AVR would really do a great deal towards bringing out the best in your Polks. Upgrading the Subwoofer would be 1b for me personally.
J


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Getting a better AVR would really do a great deal towards bringing out the best in your Polks. Upgrading the Subwoofer would be 1b for me personally.
> J


Is it because the AVR would give me more power? Which one do you suggest? Sorry, didn't understand "1b."

Thanks, btw.

edit: anything used for $200 or less?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> Is it because the AVR would give me more power? Which one do you suggest? Sorry, didn't understand "1b."
> 
> Thanks, btw.


Provided you did not get a entry level AVR, then yes you would get more power. In addition, HDMI, and the major advancement of RoomEQ. As for 1b, as in upgrading the subwoofer is almost as important as the AVR.

Something like a Marantz SR6007, Denon AVR-3313, Onkyo TX-NR818, Yamaha Aventage 2010, Pioneer Elite SC-58 would all represent major upgrades.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Provided you did not get a entry level AVR, then yes you would get more power. In addition, HDMI, and the major advancement of RoomEQ. As for 1b, as in upgrading the subwoofer is almost as important as the AVR.
> 
> Something like a Marantz SR6007, Denon AVR-3313, Onkyo TX-NR818, Yamaha Aventage 2010, Pioneer Elite SC-58 would all represent major upgrades.


That must be why my center always sounds louder. Polk makes the line with 91db, fronts at 89db. I'm sure it's by design for movies.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

fftopic2:

As far as tonality is concerned, there are big differences between various brands due to the many variables and compromises used in its design and contruction. Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones.

For one, you do get what you pay for, the Integra DTR-8.8 used a conventional transformer but the DTR-9.9 used a toroidal transformer. More expensive units may feature better DAC chips, better quality reisstors, thick Copper Plates for shielding ($$, Sony ES, I think Marantz Too), Harman-Kardon may not give you a lot of input and gadget (pandora, etc) flexibility, but they put their money in to where it counts: stuff like over engineered-oversized amp sections and PSUs. More expensive units (frequently, Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, Sony ES) will have lower _total harmonic distortion_ levels (THD) and beefier Constuction (Aventage). With pricier units you often find better calibration abilities (Sherwood R972 Trinnov, MCACC, Audyssey), better video/audio processing, THX certification (as if it means much), and much much more than I can pull out of my brain this early in the morning.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

toroidal transformers do not change how it will sound however they are far more efficient. If they are undersized they will still cause distortion in the amps.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> That must be why my center always sounds louder. Polk makes the line with 91db, fronts at 89db. I'm sure it's by design for movies.


Not by design as all your channels really should be level matched. Rather, more often than not, the higher up in a brand's series you go, the less concern about the speaker being used with lower priced AVR's, etc..
The matching TSI series Center Channel I believe is less efficient than CS20 CC you are using.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> toroidal transformers do not change how it will sound however they are far more efficient. If they are undersized they will still cause distortion in the amps.


They are much quieter too.
http://aazon.com.tw/Advantages.aspx?id=100727002Adv


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Not by design as all your channels really should be level matched. Rather, more often than not, the higher up in a brand's series you go, the less concern about the speaker being used with lower priced AVR's, etc..
> The matching TSI series Center Channel I believe is less efficient than CS20 CC you are using.



The cs10 is also 91db.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

Indeed. The CS Series is a decent bit cheaper than the TSi. Lower priced speakers tend to be easier to drive as they are usually used with entry level AVR's whereas the TSi's are designed with the expectation that more expensive related electronics will be used.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Jungle Jack said:


> Indeed. The CS Series is a decent bit cheaper than the TSi. Lower priced speakers tend to be easier to drive as they are usually used with entry level AVR's whereas the TSi's are designed with the expectation that more expensive related electronics will be used.


I thought the CS10 and CS20 were the matches for the Tsi series.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> I thought the CS10 and CS20 were the matches for the Tsi series.


You are correct. I do not follow Polk very closely and was mistaken as usually there would be a TSI named Center Channel. Regardless, I would seriously consider getting a new AVR if possible.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

goodears said:


> I looked at the Polk top of the line. They were 90db. I guess they're all hard to get going for Polk (RtiA9). Does that mean get different speakers? Just turn things up louder? I just feel like they are..."duller." I don't mean my room acoustics are bad. Maybe it is what you are describing.
> 
> Klipsch KF-30 Sensitivity - 97.5dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter
> 
> edit: funny, even the older KG4 has SENSITIVITY: 94dB @ 1watt/1meter


Don't try to compare your speakers to the Klipsch as they are very different and much more efficient speakers.

Most speakers seem to have an efficiency of 86 to about 90 db. Your speakers are at the top of the range and are fairly efficient.

My brother used to have a pair of AR3a speakers. They were in the 85 db range and he powered them quite well with about 40 W. Of course he was listening to music and not special effects in movies.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> Don't try to compare your speakers to the Klipsch as they are very different and much more efficient speakers.
> 
> Most speakers seem to have an efficiency of 86 to about 90 db. Your speakers are at the top of the range and are fairly efficient.
> 
> My brother used to have a pair of AR3a speakers. They were in the 85 db range and he powered them quite well with about 40 W. Of course he was listening to music and not special effects in movies.


Indeed. That being said, the reason behind my assertion that a new AVR should be considered is the fact that the Yamaha he owns predates HDMI and also happens to be relatively entry level.

In addition, the TSi's do sound their best with a strong amplifier stage. Considering the years of use, I would say the OP definitely got his money worth. In addition, the Yamaha could be sold on Craigslist to offset some of the purchase price.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Are there any lower cost or used I should be looking for?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

goodears said:


> Are there any lower cost or used I should be looking for?


Hello,
What is your budget. With HDMI Boards being so expensive to replace or repair, you really are better off at least getting a refurbished or B-Stock AVR. That way you will have a 1 year warranty that can be extended to 3 years of manufacturers warranty if purchasing Onkyo. (shoponkyo.com)

For $269 you can get an Onkyo TX-NR609 from Accessories4less. This AVR has an amplifier stage comparable to other brands $1000 AVR's. This is due to the 609 being THX Select2 Certified. This being said, if you can stepup one level to the TX-NR709, it adds Audyssey MultEQ XT, Preamp Outputs, and slightly more power. However, it is the upgrade to MultEQ XT which provides EQ to the Subwoofer Channel whereas the 609 offers Audyssey 2EQ which does not apply filtering to the Subwoofer Channel that really makes the juice worth the squeeze.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

Jungle Jack said:


> Indeed. That being said, the reason behind my assertion that a new AVR should be considered is the fact that the Yamaha he owns predates HDMI and also happens to be relatively entry level.
> 
> In addition, the TSi's do sound their best with a strong amplifier stage. Considering the years of use, I would say the OP definitely got his money worth. In addition, the Yamaha could be sold on Craigslist to offset some of the purchase price.


Getting HDMI switching is a great benefit and alone is worth the upgrade. Not certain what you mean by "a strong amplifier stage." 

The best way to measure amplifier power is in db, since our ear hear that way (log). It takes a lot more power to hear the difference. Twice the power is barely noticeable.



His HTR-5930 has 80W per channel. If he were to go for an upgrade to 120W per channel, that would be a 1.76 db increase in power, which is insignificant. Typically a 2 - 3 db change is the minimum change that is perceptible. If we accept 3db as the minimum, he would have to double his power to 160 W per channel to barely notice the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/EARS.htm

That is to say that the Yamaha actually has 80 watts of power going into 5 Channels. Many AVR's rated at 120 Watts per channel strain to even hit 50 watts when all channels are driven. This is especially the case with entry level AVR's.

This is what makes AVR's like the Onkyo TX-NR609 so special. It appears that Home Theater Magazines Website is down, but the 609 reached about 90 watts into 5 channels. Most AVR's in the 609's price range offer around half that. And while indeed even doubling the power might not make an audible difference, but when driving an AVR with a weak amplifier stage it is far easier for it to go into distortion often damaging speakers.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> Getting HDMI switching is a great benefit and alone is worth the upgrade. Not certain what you mean by *"a strong amplifier stage." *
> 
> The best way to measure amplifier power is in db, since our ear hear that way (log). It takes a lot more power to hear the difference. Twice the power is barely noticeable.
> 
> ...


I think he means a powerful and robust amplifier design made with good quality components.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> I think he means a powerful and robust amplifier design made with good quality components.


What is "a [more] powerful and robust amplifier design"?

What are "good quality components", or conversely, what is inferior of other brands?


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

TheHammer said:


> Getting HDMI switching is a great benefit and alone is worth the upgrade. Not certain what you mean by "a strong amplifier stage."
> 
> The best way to measure amplifier power is in db, since our ear hear that way (log). It takes a lot more power to hear the difference. Twice the power is barely noticeable.
> 
> ...


A note about my post (above): through some glitch, those two paragraphs after the links are not mine but are from some other source. They should not be included in my post. They do not reflect my opinion.


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

They are mine. And I have no idea how or why they were included in your post. Thanx for the clarification.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> What is "a [more] powerful and robust amplifier design"?
> 
> What are "good quality components", or conversely, what is inferior of other brands?


A robust design, would mean an amp capable of holding high amounts of reserve current and/or beefier-oversized parts. Higher quality components like capacitors, transistors, resistors, transformers (major differences) , etc do cost more and are built with tighter tolerances. Lesser quality parts can interact and alter the integrity of an incoming signal. A rule of thumb here is, generally a good quality 50watt amp will weigh much much more than a low quality 100watt amplifier. 

You can liken this to, a car made from iron, steel, and plastic and take the same car blueprint design but make it from Carbon Fiber and Titanium. Alternative analogies: German Tank (high quality, robust, over engineered) vs an American Sherman (cheap, mass produced) or A Mercedes A-Class vs a Mercedes McLaren SLR


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

8086 said:


> fftopic2:
> 
> As far as tonality is concerned, there are big differences between various brands due to the many variables and compromises used in its design and contruction. Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones.
> 
> For one, you do get what you pay for, the Integra DTR-8.8 used a conventional transformer but the DTR-9.9 used a toroidal transformer. More expensive units may feature better DAC chips, better quality reisstors, thick Copper Plates for shielding ($$, Sony ES, I think Marantz Too), Harman-Kardon may not give you a lot of input and gadget (pandora, etc) flexibility, but they put their money in to where it counts: stuff like over engineered-oversized amp sections and PSUs. .


I agree; there is a lot more to the sound quality of an AVR than just the amplification. Any element, from the RCA jacks to the Soldering methods to the purity of the copper conductors, the DACs and DSPs will have some effect on the overall sound quality. My first Dolby Digital receiver, a low-end Sony, sounded terrible. It sounded like someone had put a cloth over the speakers. I bought a JVC after that(a $500-ish AVR at the time) and the difference was night and day. Don't get me wrong; amplification is very important, but it's only one link in a very long chain from original signal to the Sound waves leaving your speakers.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Utopianemo said:


> I agree; there is a lot more to the sound quality of an AVR than just the amplification. Any element, from the RCA jacks to the Soldering methods to the purity of the copper conductors, the DACs and DSPs will have some effect on the overall sound quality. My first Dolby Digital receiver, a low-end Sony, sounded terrible. It sounded like someone had put a cloth over the speakers. I bought a JVC after that(a $500-ish AVR at the time) and the difference was night and day. Don't get me wrong; amplification is very important, but it's only one link in a very long chain from original signal to the Sound waves leaving your speakers.


I concur. For about two decades I've looked at mid priced (non-es) Sony audio products, wanting to like them. But walk away feeling like my signal is under non-stop assault by the low-fidelity gestapo. The receivers always sounded as if there was a pillow over top of my speaker suffocating the life out of the music. On the lower end of things, there are massive differences between amplifiers. On the Über-High end of things, the differences begin to vanish and it becomes a game of tiny (near inaudible) details along with a diminishing audible return on your investment.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> A robust design, would mean an amp capable of holding high amounts of reserve current and/or beefier-oversized parts. Higher quality components like capacitors, transistors, resistors, transformers (major differences) , etc do cost more and are built with tighter tolerances. Lesser quality parts can interact and alter the integrity of an incoming signal. A rule of thumb here is, generally a good quality 50watt amp will weigh much much more than a low quality 100watt amplifier.
> 
> You can liken this to, a car made from iron, steel, and plastic and take the same car blueprint design but make it from Carbon Fiber and Titanium. Alternative analogies: German Tank (high quality, robust, over engineered) vs an American Sherman (cheap, mass produced) or A Mercedes A-Class vs a Mercedes McLaren SLR


And this applies to the Yamaha amp that he is replacing? The Yamaha has lower quality caps, transistors, resistors, etc? And you know this how? You measure an amplifier's sonic quality in lbs?


----------



## Jungle Jack (Jul 28, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> And this applies to the Yamaha amp that he is replacing? The Yamaha has lower quality caps, transistors, resistors, etc? And you know this how? You measure an amplifier's sonic quality in lbs?


As it weighs around 20 pounds, it is not exactly taking a huge leap of faith to question the ability to drive what are relatively inefficient speakers in the Polk TSi's. In a sense the Yamaha was matched with the Klipschs that were originally placed together and the Klipschs can be driven loudly by a clock radio.

It seems like you are looking for a debate where there is not one. The main reason why it might be time for a new AVR is that the Yamaha is pre HDMI. Not many here ascribe modifiers like warmth or brightness to amplifier sections. However, many here do question the size of power transformers, capacitor banks, and proper heat sinking. Especially with entry level AVR's.

This thread began with the OP discussing how much higher he had to set his volume level compared to his prior Klipschs. Combined with the age of the AVR, it does not seem too bold to recommend considering getting a new AVR. Between HDMI and RoomEQ, those alone make it worth the price of admission. Most here do believe that watts are watts, but sometimes more watts are needed. I do lament the title of this thread as it is much like other joyous threads like "Do all Amplifiers Sound the Same" and other ephemera that only seems to cause derision.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

I think it is time to step back and look at some of the statements made in this thread:

" it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. "

True, to an extent. Higher power is better. But measure the difference not in watts, but db. A rule of thumb is 2X the power is 3 db and that is about the minimum it takes to hear a difference.

"a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers."

Sort of. Running an amp into clipping creates square waves which contain harmonics that can overload and damage the tweeter, only. This can be an issue at a rock concert, not generally in a house with any reasonable amp where normal listening levels use very little power.

"As that Yamaha.... does not have a very large power supply" & " if power supply is not able to supply enough juice to the amps it does not matter what the specifications are in the manual."

Power supply capability can be inferred by the audio power output. See db, above. You will need to double the power to hear it. Power tests are regulated by the FTC.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/P974222amplifierrule.pdf

" If two channels driven gives 140W/ch and 5 channels driven gives 80W/ch, then that is evidence of a less powerful power supply."

True. But remember that if one tests at 80 and the other at 100, the difference is not audible. There is also controversy as to running all channels flat out is a realistic test that relates anything to real world use.

"The issue with the manufacturers tests is that they never do full frequency tests they do it with a 1kHz test tone and thats how they get away with those over inflated readings."

Not true. The FTC ", requires a manufacturer’s stated power rating must be met, with both channels driven, over the advertised frequency range – usually 20 Hz to 20 kHz – at no more than the rated total harmonic distortion (or THD)."

"Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones."

No evidence to support this. The difference between amp design is efficiency. 
Class AB amps are 30 to 50% efficient while class D amps are 80 to 90% efficient. AB amps run hotter, need bigger heat sinks and power supplies. While many claim sonic superiority of one vs the other, this has not been demonstrated in ABX blind testing, much to the frustration of "golden ears".

" Higher quality components like capacitors, transistors, resistors, transformers (major differences) , etc do cost more and are built with tighter tolerances. Lesser quality parts can interact and alter the integrity of an incoming signal. "

Generally quality of the part equates to reliability. Higher quality resistors are tighter tolerance (+/- ohms) and do not affect sound. Similar for transistors and caps. Building an amp out of military grade components will not sound better but might last longer and will be more expensive.
Remember that blind testing has been done to compare amps of different price / quality and no one could pick out the difference. This does not include features such as room equalization.

"A rule of thumb here is, generally a good quality 50watt amp will weigh much much more than a low quality 100watt amplifier."

It depends on design. A good quality class D amp with a toroidal transformer might weigh less but sound the same as a good quality class AB with a traditional transformer. Manufacturers know that people equate weight with quality and use that to sell their products.


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

Some of you all must be listening to content at extreme levels if you really use 80-100wpc when listening to real world content. Especially with 89db sensitivity speakers. 10wpc would get you 100db at one meter. I dunno about you guys but in my experience 90 decibals is more than enough for most people. A serious question I have is have any of you ever put a watt meter on your system to see what your actually using? I haven't myself, but my uncle has one and if he pushes his system to two watts per channel stereo it will literally run you out of the room. Granted he's running klipsch lascalla's, but 10wpc would still be plenty if he was running a 90db efficiency speaker.


----------



## yoda13 (Feb 14, 2012)

TheHammer said:


> I think it is time to step back and look at some of the statements made in this thread:
> 
> " it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. "
> 
> ...


pretty much!!:T


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> I think it is time to step back and look at some of the statements made in this thread:
> 
> " it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. "
> 
> ...


[3] I did say rule of tumb, which implies that most of the time it may be true. But not always. I have picked up some 100w Class A or A/B amps which weigh almost nothing and sound that way too.

[1]You are right about efficiency. Switching from my Integra DTR-7.6, and a very old 1990s Onkyo, to my Yamaha RX-V1 on Bower and Wilkins DM601, I can hear massive tonality differences in the bass and mid range frequencies. The Yamaha sounds much clearer, more controlled, less mid-bass bloat. At my local Magnolia, I tried various amps and it was clear as day between the various models. The Pioneer SC-?? with Ice Amps had really nice bass definition but treble did have a different ring to it than the Yamaha, Denon, and Pioneer VSX sitting next to it. 

[2]When it comes to components, there is a difference; just as there is a difference in the sound of a transistor vs a vacuum tube (valve in Euroland)

Blind tests prefer over-engineering and carefully selected components.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

I don't want to get too far off the original topic, but isn't a bit silly to be so dogmatic over the lab test vs. listening test debate? It isn't too outlandish to think that test equipment, while invaluable, can't tell us everything about everything when it comes to the character of a sound. There is more going on in an audio chain than merely the transmission of a given set of frequencies at a certain SPL. 

On the other hand, professional listeners tend to get wrapped up in their own perceived abilities. Audio reviews by these people tend to sound like love letters to their own egos. 

At the end of the day, I care about how it sounds to ME. I see measurements and subjective reviews as both valuable tools to help me figure out which gear might suit my needs/tastes.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Utopianemo said:


> I don't want to get too far off the original topic, but isn't a bit silly to be so dogmatic over the lab test vs. listening test debate?* It isn't too outlandish to think that test equipment, while invaluable, can't tell us everything about everything when it comes to the character of a sound. There is more going on in an audio chain than merely the transmission of a given set of frequencies at a certain SPL.*
> 
> On the other hand, professional listeners tend to get wrapped up in their own perceived abilities. Audio reviews by these people tend to sound like love letters to their own egos.
> 
> At the end of the day, I care about how it sounds to ME. I see measurements and subjective reviews as both valuable tools to help me figure out which gear might suit my needs/tastes.


I agree. :TT:hsd:


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> [2]When it comes to components, there is a difference; just as there is a difference in the sound of a transistor vs a vacuum tube (valve in Euroland)
> 
> Blind tests prefer over-engineering and carefully selected components.


Tubes do sound different than transistors. Tubes have a high level of even order harmonics and sound better to many people. Bob Carver once took a transistor amp and added even order harmonics and passed it off as a tube amp.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/the_carver_challenge/

That is an interesting link. If one were to accept its conclusion, then it condemns all modern receivers, even though made with "high quality components".


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

Utopianemo said:


> At the end of the day, I care about how it sounds to ME. I see measurements and subjective reviews as both valuable tools to help me figure out which gear might suit my needs/tastes.


Absolutely. However, beware of the placebo effect.

I believe speakers and their placement are by far the greatest single determinate of sound quality. Auto equalization systems like Audyssey, also have a significant effect.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Truly fascinating article. It's interesting to me that the results of the challenge seem to have had no particular effect on said magazine's perspective on cost vs. performance. It is often true that cults continue despite being exposed as fraudulent....

I wouldn't say the conclusions from the article condemn all modern amps, they just indicate that the peculiarities of "good" amplifiers (past a certain price-point) need not be the result of higher-priced innards.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The reasons for pricing, just like decisions to purchase, often are not directly related to performance. This is true in most products. People buy things based upon many different kinds of reasons and most of them are very subjective, whether they realize it or not.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

lcaillo said:


> The reasons for pricing, just like decisions to purchase, often are not directly related to performance. This is true in most products. People buy things based upon many different kinds of reasons and most of them are very subjective, whether they realize it or not.


Agreed. I have to admit that if I owned an amplifier company, and I had an amp that cost $300 to produce, and I had a choice to put it in a utilitarian shell and charge $800 or an elegant shell and charge $2700, I would go elegant. 

I also have to admit that if I were to audition 2 similar-sounding amps of which I had no personal knowledge(including price), I would subconsciously want to purchase the amp described as "performing on par with amps costing 2x the price" over the amp that has "stellar performance". I know people who would veer toward an amp that cost more because they subconsciously regard expense as a quality. Lastly, I know people who will just want a product because it's cheaper, regardless of performance. We all have reasons for our subjective opinions.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

What if I upgrade my Yamaha htr-5390 to a Denon AVR-1912? Will I notice a difference? I know it has more features, just sound, or maybe the ability to adjust sound would be worth it?

$200 on CL.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Utopianemo said:


> Agreed. I have to admit that if I owned an amplifier company, and I had an amp that cost $300 to produce, and I had a choice to put it in a utilitarian shell and charge $800 or an elegant shell and charge $2700, I would go elegant.
> 
> I also have to admit that if I were to audition 2 similar-sounding amps of which I had no personal knowledge(including price), I would subconsciously want to purchase the amp described as "performing on par with amps costing 2x the price" over the amp that has "stellar performance". I know people who would veer toward an amp that cost more because they subconsciously regard expense as a quality. Lastly, I know people who will just want a product because it's cheaper, regardless of performance. We all have reasons for our subjective opinions.


Performance beats Price any day of the week. Which is why Emotiva is so hot right now. They are cutting out all the middle men and offering you near-factory direct pricing (wholesale?). The only real downside here is you dont get the local expertise of a dealer and the ability to do A to Z comparisons.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

goodears said:


> Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.


If you need the receiver, then go for it. Personally, I would get a 3 channel Emotiva and be done. 

Focus on _quality_ Front L+R and Center speakers. You can even skip on the subwoofer and/or surrounds since they account for only about +/-10% of the soundtrack. And that's how I would build a nice sounding system on a low budget. Quality 3 channel over mediocre 5 channel.


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

goodears said:


> Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.


The differences you will notice going from no sub, to a decent sub would be much greater than the minor differences you may or may not notice between any receiver. A good sub is one of the most important pieces of a home theater setup. If you need a new avr for other reasons, like then it may be better to to that route and save up money for a good sub or build one. But if your just wanting a new avr because you think 20-30wpc is going to improve your system more than a quality sub will, I am afraid you won't be happy with your upgrade. 

Just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt and audition as many options as you can.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

I would look for a receiver with a nice amp. It depends on your budget and what features your looking for. I would spend a lot more on speakers and nice sub.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

asere said:


> I would look for a receiver with a nice amp. It depends on your budget and what features your looking for. I would spend a lot more on speakers and nice sub.


Interesting diversion of opinions. One for the sub. One for the amp. I'm more watching CL for the bargain than I can go out and buy and HSU. I just don't have it....yet. Life will happen and you know what that means. By by money :huh:


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm also looking at some Klipsch speakers because I have to turn up my amp so much to power my polks. I think it might make them not sound as good. I thought because the polks are 89db and the Klipsch are usually 94+db, then it might make a big difference. What do you think?


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

goodears said:


> I'm also looking at some Klipsch speakers because I have to turn up my amp so much to power my polks. I think it might make them not sound as good. I thought because the polks are 89db and the Klipsch are usually 94+db, then it might make a big difference. What do you think?


Chances are if you make the switch to klipsch, your avr's room correction will trim them back so that your volume dial would read about the same as with any other speaker you use. If you have a speaker that will reach reference level with 0db trim and another that reaches it easier, it will just trim them back so they all are level matched and your volume dial will read the same.

If your able to listen at a volume level you like without clipping the amp and sending it into protection, chances of you noticing a difference in sound quality with an avr that gives you an extra 20wpc is slim to none.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

JDEaston said:


> Chances are if you make the switch to klipsch, your avr's room correction will trim them back so that your volume dial would read about the same as with any other speaker you use. If you have a speaker that will reach reference level with 0db trim and another that reaches it easier, it will just trim them back so they all are level matched and your volume dial will read the same.
> 
> If your able to listen at a volume level you like without clipping the amp and sending it into protection, chances of you noticing a difference in sound quality with an avr that gives you an extra 20wpc is slim to none.


You mean the AVR "knows" the speaker is more sensitive? And it adjusts the volume number on the screen based on it?


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

goodears said:


> You mean the AVR "knows" the speaker is more sensitive? And it adjusts the volume number on the screen based on it?



It's not hard to test speaker sensitivity. Its a measure of input vs output. Nearly all AVRs are capable of doing it.


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

goodears said:


> You mean the AVR "knows" the speaker is more sensitive? And it adjusts the volume number on the screen based on it?


In a nutshell, yes. As 8086 said, its just input vs measured output. Any avr with auto calibration will do it. There are other things, such as distance said speaker is from the microphone, that will affect where your avr sets the trim level at, but it starts the process by measuring sensitivity.

My Yamaha sets reference (0db on my volume dial) right around 90db in room volume. Although it doesn't set the trim the same for any of my speakers, I have checked with a spl meter and they are level matched at my listening position. As far as power goes, my Yamaha rx-v571 has a weak amplifier stage compared to more expensive avr's, but it will drive my system for hours on end at reference level without any issues. I never listen that loud for extended periods of time when I am in the room, but do from time to time when we have guests over and everyone is in various rooms throughout the house.

When I purchased this receiver I did so just to upgrade to hdmi and 7.1, with intentions of upgrading to a nicer more powerful rig when funds were available. I have been happy enough with its power and processing that I decided to put my money into building two 15" Dayton subs and couldn't be happier. My next upgrade will be a DIY l/c/r build. Eventually I will replace my avr with a nicer one, but its not high on my list anymore.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Goodears, you never mentioned your budget. If you're attached to your speakers(it doesn't seem you are), then you need some more power. An Emotiva amp, as mentioned earlier, would likely be your best bet(although I'd go with a 5-channel in case you ever wanted to use them--one 5-channel is much cheaper than one 3 and an additional amp later). 

If you're not attached to your speakers, you should dump them and go back to Klipsch, or you might consider Hsu monitors. They're both horn based and I've heard that the Hsus pack a whallop, especially considering the cost. At that point, though, you're going to need a sub. 

For what it's worth, my opinion is that if your system is for HT specifically(you have said that it is), and you're not buying towers that easily play lower than 40Hz, then a sub is integral to your setup.

Another thing to consider is that if you plan on having an HT system long term, you WILL eventually need to update your AVR, regardless of whether you keep your Polks in your system forever or not. You might as well spend the money now on a good AVR and/or amp and see how your speakers sound at that point. Or maybe go fishing or something.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

What about the high-end Pioneers? Don't they have a "2nd" amp inside them for more power? I don't have the money for them, but I am curious what you think.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

goodears said:


> Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.


I believe that the LEAST important part of a HT is the amp / receiver. Double blind (ABX) has consistently shown that the only difference between amps are power and features. The difference in power is overstated since it takes twice the power to sound just a little bit louder. Features can be important to a user if they value auto room EQ, AirPlay, DNLA, etc. The single biggest determination of how your system will sound are the speakers and their placement. 

A sub is important if your main speakers are small, or if you watch lots of action movies and like it to shake your furniture (I do!). However, a really good sub costs big bucks. Those $100 subs are not really subs because they do not produce much subsonic (hence the name "sub") sounds. The placement of the sub is maybe the most crucial of any speaker (OK, this is debatable) because of the reinforcement of walls and the influence of standing waves. This will test out the all important WAF (wife acceptance factor). Mine constantly complains about my huge black box, but accepts that it is not going anywhere.....


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

goodears said:


> I'm also looking at some Klipsch speakers because I have to turn up my amp so much to power my polks. I think it might make them not sound as good. I thought because the polks are 89db and the Klipsch are usually 94+db, then it might make a big difference. What do you think?


If you are going from 89 db to 95 db, then that is a 6 db change in efficiency. That is the equivalent of increasing your amp power by a factor of 4. And no, the auto room EQ will not do away with that power, it will be there.

However, I think it is far more important to listen to the quality of the sound of the speakers. I have found that Klipsch are fabulous outdoors for concerts, but I have never been a fan of the folded horn Klipsch sound inside. But one person's wonderful speaker will always sound lousy to someone else.

A speaker with a sensitivity of 89 db will match up with a 100 watt amp just fine, unless perhaps your room is about the size of a large cathedral.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

As a young adolescent, I thought all amplifiers were the same. But time and experience have taught me that there can be dramatic differences between A and B and it _mostly_ comes down to what you can get in a given price range. I have had my share of Pioneers (low end and high end), Onkyo's (WRAT and pre-WRAT), Yamahas, Harman-Kardon, Denon, (auditioned) McIntosh and during my years in a dorm, we experiemented and listened to many Vintage classics from those brands as well as Marantz and many others. The vintage HK integrated was a beast and a half; probably the best one in our circle of friends. 


The bad-

I also at one time had a couple of 50 or 75w Radio Shack integrated AMP which sounded like a opera singer with a mouth full of marshmallows. I used these on my computer back in the 90s for playing Doom in Dolby quad surround. I owned this unit up along with a 2nd newer one* until a few years ago and would often just toy around with it until I junked it for scrap. 

The Mass Market Pioneer VSX-D710s from the early 2000s sounded gritty, grainy, harsh compared to my Onkyo Integra DTR-5.5 (WRAT). 

Yahama's are great, but lower cost mass market (Best Buy) units of a similar era just sound dull, overly warm, slightly muted compared to their more expensive flagship models. 
On all the spaeakers I own, my Integra DTR-7.6 has a broad soundstage compared to Yamaha RX-V1. But the Yamaha is much tighter and more controlled at mid volume vs the Integra.

I don't believe any more. I know there is a big difference between amps.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Guys, don't mistake amps for receivers. Honestly, I have no idea whether the amplification section on one AVR is better than the amplification section on another. I can tell you that to my ears, there is a HUGE difference between the sonic qualities of one AVR and another; particularly those at a low price point. Again, there is a lot going on from initial signal to speaker terminal, and amplification is just one small part.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Utopianemo said:


> Guys, don't mistake amps for receivers. Honestly, I have no idea whether the amplification section



Receivers contain an amplifier section. By the classic definition, a receiver is an integrated amp with a built in tuner or serveral separate components bundled in to one package. Typically receivers are a box of compromises built to meet a certain criteria, usually cost.


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

Utopianemo said:


> Guys, don't mistake amps for receivers. Honestly, I have no idea whether the amplification section on one AVR is better than the amplification section on another. I can tell you that to my ears, there is a HUGE difference between the sonic qualities of one AVR and another; particularly those at a low price point. Again, there is a lot going on from initial signal to speaker terminal, and amplification is just one small part.


Are you listening to the avr's without any room corection turned on and calibrated manually? I believe if you manually calibrate multiple avr's, running the same speakers, at the same distance and spl, it would be hard to distinguish any of them in a blind test. The sonic differences most people hear is the eq that room correction adds.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Most of the AVR comparisons I did that led me to to these conclusions were done before room correction was an included feature on consumer-level AVRs, and a good deal of it was done in my house, with all things the same except for the receiver. Typically, when I evaluate an AVR I alternate between direct mode and standard Dolby Digital or lossless, but spend the most amount of time listening in direct mode, so I can listen with as little amount of processing as possible. It's fairly easy to hear the differences in receivers that way.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Utopianemo said:


> Most of the AVR comparisons I did that led me to to these conclusions were done before room correction was an included feature on consumer-level AVRs, and a good deal of it was done in my house, with all things the same except for the receiver. Typically, when I evaluate an AVR I alternate between direct mode and standard Dolby Digital or lossless, but spend the most amount of time listening in direct mode, so I can listen with as little amount of processing as possible. It's fairly easy to hear the differences in receivers that way.


I do pretty much the same thing. But I also evaluate the quality of the DSP, because once you apply room correction; the DSP will be on nearly all the time.


----------



## JDEaston (Dec 30, 2011)

Utopianemo said:


> Most of the AVR comparisons I did that led me to to these conclusions were done before room correction was an included feature on consumer-level AVRs, and a good deal of it was done in my house, with all things the same except for the receiver. Typically, when I evaluate an AVR I alternate between direct mode and standard Dolby Digital or lossless, but spend the most amount of time listening in direct mode, so I can listen with as little amount of processing as possible. It's fairly easy to hear the differences in receivers that way.


You must have really good ears. In most blind A/B comparisons, most humans (<1%) cannot distinguish the difference between A and B, without any other processing turned on, with an amp that can adequately power the speakers being used in the test. Congrats.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Well, FWIW, I bought the Denon AVR-1912. At least I have hdmi now. Paid $175 but it has no remote and didn't have the setup mic. I have an ipad though, so I can control it with that hopefully. If not it has buttons.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Good luck to you! For what it's worth, in some cases the iPad/iPhone remote control apps are significantly better than the actual remote. If you can hook your AVR up to your home network, you can control it from anywhere in the world you can find a wifi hotspot....meaning, at the very least, you don't need to point your remote at the unit to do stuff. The apps are also more intuitive and user friendly in most cases. I use my iPod to operate my wireless Roku and I love it.


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

JDEaston said:


> You must have really good ears. In most blind A/B comparisons, most humans (<1%) cannot distinguish the difference between A and B, without any other processing turned on, with an amp that can adequately power the speakers being used in the test. Congrats.


Less than 1% of all people? If so then I'm not surprised; most people don't listen intently and/or have not educated themselves on how to listen and evaluate sound. I'm not a "golden ears" by any means but I used to record music so I've had to learn a bit about critical listening. The other thing I want to stress is that most of my testing has been with lower-end receivers, and agree with what was said before that there tends to be more variety of sound "quality" down in the lower levels of AVRs. I'm sure I'd be able to distinguish a difference between any two higher-end receivers, but not necessarily a qualitative one. Once you get up in price, they all start to sound pretty good.


----------



## goodears (Jan 2, 2013)

Utopianemo said:


> Good luck to you! For what it's worth, in some cases the iPad/iPhone remote control apps are significantly better than the actual remote. If you can hook your AVR up to your home network, you can control it from anywhere in the world you can find a wifi hotspot....meaning, at the very least, you don't need to point your remote at the unit to do stuff. The apps are also more intuitive and user friendly in most cases. I use my iPod to operate my wireless Roku and I love it.


Thanks. So far it is working pretty well. Plus there's always the front panel. It's not *that* far away.


----------



## menace2society (Jan 26, 2011)

I definitely think some receivers sound better then others. I'm in the process of trading in my onkyo tx-nr 709 because I don't like the way it sounds. I had tx-nr3007 and I loved it. I bought the 709 went my 3007 died and the warranty company decided not to fix it, they gave me the full price I pad for it and because I never used more then 7 channels I figured I'd save a few dollars and buy the 709. Well after about 10 months I have to say good buy to the 709. It never sounded as good as the 3007, it always sounds thin with out the body/fullness 3007 had. In the mids is where it suffered the most the openness that the3007 had was just not there. I guess it's hard to downgrade, I know I won't do it again.


Menace


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

menace2society said:


> I definitely think some receivers sound better then others. I'm in the process of trading in my onkyo tx-nr 709 because I don't like the way it sounds. I had tx-nr3007 and I loved it. I bought the 709 went my 3007 died and the warranty company decided not to fix it, they gave me the full price I pad for it and because I never used more then 7 channels I figured I'd save a few dollars and buy the 709. Well after about 10 months I have to say good buy to the 709. It never sounded as good as the 3007, it always sounds thin with out the body/fullness 3007 had. In the mids is where it suffered the most the openness that the3007 had was just not there. I guess it's hard to downgrade, I know I won't do it again.
> 
> 
> Menace


I could definitly tell a difference going from a DTR-5.5 to a DTR-7.6. I preferred the smaller and older DTR-5.5 much more than the newer DTR-7.6. It had a much better tone to it and sounded a _tad_ more analog.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> As a young adolescent, I thought all amplifiers were the same. But time and experience have taught me that there can be dramatic differences between A and B and it mostly comes down to what you can get in a given price range. I have had my share of Pioneers (low end and high end), Onkyo's (WRAT and pre-WRAT), Yamahas, Harman-Kardon, Denon, (auditioned) McIntosh and during my years in a dorm, we experiemented and listened to many Vintage classics from those brands as well as Marantz and many others. The vintage HK integrated was a beast and a half; probably the best one in our circle of friends.
> 
> The bad-
> 
> ...


Ok, I know it is possible for someone to build a really lousy amp that all of can tell the difference at at the top of my list would be some (all?) built by Radio Shack.

But many people felt the way you do and those professionals who reviewed amps for a living were often called "golden ears" because they could allegedly hear what others could not.

Some time ago, there was a landmark controlled test where many of these "golden ears" participated in a carefully controlled ABX test. The amps were precisely balanced to 0.1 db (my recollection) since only a tiny difference in volume can show up as a positive difference in an ABX test. The amps tested went all the way from a $200 Pioneer to amps costing thousands. As long as the volumes were the same, and none of the amps were driven into clipping, they all sounded the same. Nobody in the ABX test could tell one from the other. I am excluding tube amps from this comparison.

I have no doubt that you are "detecting" differences between amps. But accurately comparing amps without the ability to quickly switch back and forth, through the same speakers, at identical volumes, it is impossible to have a fair listen.

BTW, I knew of one salesman who gave demos, showing the superiority of the amazingly expensive amp vs. the less expensive ones. I knew him well enough that he confessed to me that the store always set the more expensive amp and just a slightly higher volume. It always sounded better.

After the results of the double blind test was published, the "golden ears" we're furious. They claimed that something was fixed in the test and that they were duped. They went back to their magazines and continued to review amps, always knowing which one was under test, always finding differences. Every review I read, it was always the most expensive amp that sounded the best.

There are some that doubt the validity of ABX testing. To question a protocol is a good exercise and should be done. There was another test that finally convinced me that all [reasonably designed] amps sound alike. If an amp sounds different, then the output, put though a speaker load, must be different. I read about a test there the outputs of several amps were compared in real time and there was no difference. In another case, the output of one was subtracted electronically from another. It was played through a speaker and displayed on an oscilloscope. Nothing. No difference.

I believe that it is far more important to audition speakers. This is extremely frustrating since their interaction with the room makes any comparison difficult.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Yes, speakers matter more than amplifiers. But having a bad amp is like eating cake that isn't properly (over/under) baked.


----------



## menace2society (Jan 26, 2011)

8086 said:


> I could definitly tell a difference going from a DTR-5.5 to a DTR-7.6. I preferred the smaller and older DTR-5.5 much more than the newer DTR-7.6. It had a much better tone to it and sounded a _tad_ more analog.


Sometimes new isn't better, and sometimes less isn't more eather. There just aren't any absolutes in this game.:coocoo::coocoo::coocoo:

Menace


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> Yes, speakers matter more than amplifiers. But having a bad amp is like eating cake that isn't properly (over/under) baked.


But my point is that when choosing between today's receivers (ignoring the room EQ circuitry), there is no such thing as a bad amp.

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx


----------



## Utopianemo (Dec 12, 2012)

Once again, there's no reason to be dogmatic about any of this. To all, find what you like by whatever means seem most sound to you and be happy with your choice. The person with whom you disagree has every right do the same without having to defend his/her position. 

With regard to ABX testing, see the link earlier in the thread about Stereophile's challenge to Mr. Carver. On the one hand, the magazine clearly and begrudgingly admitted Carver tweaked one of his amps to the point where it sounded indistinguishable from the reference amp of their selection at a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, both the reviewers and Carver could easily tell the amps apart, as well as clearly define the differences, until nearly the end of the challenge process. 

The only other thing about ABX comparisons is that different amps don't behave in an identically linear fashion from one output level to the next. Moreover, I don't listen to content at the same volume level from one session to the next, sometimes I tweak the volume even in the same session. Obviously, one can't compare amps that way, but it's also true that different amps behave differently when really pushed, and I like to crank it to hear the difference. But that's just me.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> But my point is that when choosing between today's receivers (ignoring the room EQ circuitry), there is no such thing as a bad amp.
> 
> http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx



There are several flaws in that article, most notably that they fail to even mention what model number of the Pioneer is. It lacks a lot of transparency; They don't even tell you about testing methodology or how or if they even calibrated both the Pioneer and the fancy amp & speakers to identical volume levels. Was this a pre-1990 pioneer or something new? They fail list other equipment used like pre-amps and source players and material*. All of those are major factors in sound quality. 


*A good example here is my old Jon Secada CD: Heart Soul and a Voice or Oasis: What's the story Morning Glory (SACD), which sounds no better on my new schmancy equipment than my lower grade stuff. The OASIS disc is widely regarded as one of the worst engineered records in existence.


----------



## menace2society (Jan 26, 2011)

Whether it's just presevied or actual, I here a difference between one receiver and another, if I'm paying for vaporware So be it. I just want to be happy with what I spent my money on. There will always be opinions and unless we can find a way to Prove whether someone hears something they say they hear or not, this debate will go on forever. I don't always believe what reviewers say, especially audiophiles because some people like one thing and some people will like something totally different you just have to hear it for yourself. Some people like totally flat I don't think that's the best way to listen to any genre of music. When I go listen to live music I would bet $10 million to 10 doughnuts that the music that I hear live is not flat, Yet for me that's the best way I like to hear music, live. I think people should just be happy with what they purchase regardless of what someone thinks about what someone else purchased or how much it cost,its your money after all.

Menace


----------



## dduval (Feb 26, 2012)

8086 said:


> Yes, speakers matter more than amplifiers. But having a bad amp is like eating cake that isn't properly (over/under) baked.


+1


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> There are several flaws in that article, most notably that they fail to even mention what model number of the Pioneer is. It lacks a lot of transparency; They don't even tell you about testing methodology or how or if they even calibrated both the Pioneer and the fancy amp & speakers to identical volume levels. Was this a pre-1990 pioneer or something new? They fail list other equipment used like pre-amps and source players and material*. All of those are major factors in sound quality.
> 
> *A good example here is my old Jon Secada CD: Heart Soul and a Voice or Oasis: What's the story Morning Glory, which sounds no better on my new schmancy equipment than my lower grade stuff.


Unfortunately, the original full original article is apparently not available online. What you are reading is a synopsis of the original.

At one point, I had a copy of the original, but I doubt I still have it. The had excruciating detail including information about the test methodology - ABX is somewhat standard. It included a listing of what amps were used and how they were balanced. The volumes were set to be within 0.1 db (my memory) as small differences in volumes will give false positives in a ABX test. 

When the first test was published, there was a huge uproar. Stereo Review, who published the test, relied on advertising from these amplifier companies and they were furious. Other "Golden Ear" magazines, like Stereophile, dismissed the results because they could not believe that a pair of mono block amps costing thousands would sound the same as a few hundred dollar Pioneer amp.

Many have tried to find flaws. However, every time that a carefully controlled ABX test has been run, amps sound the same.

I, too, have been skeptical, especially since I grew up in the era where there were profound differences in amps. But since, roughly, the early 1980's, all reasonably designed transistor amps sound the same. If they do not, then the differences are so subtle, that they are overwhelmed by almost everything else in the sound chain.

For that reason, when someone comes to me to ask what they should buy to get a good sound system, my comment is to spend your time, energy and money on picking out the speakers. The main difference in AV receivers is cost and features. Reliability is important, but difficult to predict other than history of the brand. Wattage is mostly unimportant since most seem to be close to 100 watts and it takes double (or half) that power to even have a subtle difference.

All claimed significant differences in amp sound is due to flawed methodologies, usually loudness differences, setup (speakers, room, source material, etc.) placebo effect, or sound memory limitation (which is profound and what ABX overcomes).

I would love to be proven wrong, but so far, any claims of different sounding amps are under uncontrolled circumstances and are therefore inherently flawed.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> Unfortunately, the original full original article is apparently not available online. What you are reading is a synopsis of the original.
> 
> At one point, I had a copy of the original, but I doubt I still have it. The had excruciating detail including information about the test methodology - ABX is somewhat standard. It included a listing of what amps were used and how they were balanced. The volumes were set to be within 0.1 db (my memory) as small differences in volumes will give false positives in a ABX test.
> 
> ...


If you are willing to spend a few hundred $$$. I suggest you try the following (older) receivers (and multiple speakers):
Sony STR-DE598
Pioneer VSX-D710s
Onkyo) Integra DTR-5.5 (using 2ch Analog MCH input in Pure Direct mode). Or any Onkyo with WRAT and Pure Direct MCH. I'm not sure what the Onkyo equivalent of this receiver is; but I can imagine it being bit similar. 

The Sony will sound dull. The Pioneer will sound gritty and its volume control sounds rough and stepped. And every one who's been over to my place has said all amps (receivers) are the same till I ran my demo and they all agreed with my statement. The Onkyo sounded cleanest, most musical, most natural of the Bunch. All tests were done on Paradigm Mini-Monitors (version 1-4 will do fine). I also tried this on my Paradigm Studio 60 v2 and achieved similar results. I eventually sold all these receivers and was honest with my buyers. They were set on the model I had on Craigslist. And each person was suprised to hear how much better Onkyo was than the one they were getting (at a low low price).


----------



## menace2society (Jan 26, 2011)

TheHammer said:


> Unfortunately, the original full original article is apparently not available online. What you are reading is a synopsis of the original.
> 
> At one point, I had a copy of the original, but I doubt I still have it. The had excruciating detail including information about the test methodology - ABX is somewhat standard. It included a listing of what amps were used and how they were balanced. The volumes were set to be within 0.1 db (my memory) as small differences in volumes will give false positives in a ABX test.
> 
> ...


In a way I wish I heard things the way you do, I could save myself a whole lot of money:spend::spend::spend::bigsmile:


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> If you are willing to spend a few hundred $$$. I suggest you try the following (older) receivers (and multiple speakers):
> Sony STR-DE598
> Pioneer VSX-D710s
> Onkyo) Integra DTR-5.5 (using 2ch Analog MCH input in Pure Direct mode). Or any Onkyo with WRAT and Pure Direct MCH. I'm not sure what the Onkyo equivalent of this receiver is; but I can imagine it being bit similar.
> ...


I wish I had the option to take you up on this comparison. However, I would not consider this test to be valid unless:

* All amps are set to the same volume level within 0.1 db using a sound level meter.
* All amps are run flat without any room equalization or any other sound processing.
* The tests are run blind, or even better, double blind. 

BTW, the comment about the Pioneer's volume control could be true, although I would like to confirm that. It also may be different from model to model, or design year. That is one of those "features" that is part of my disclaimer. Once the amps are set to the same volume, the sound is transparent.

There have been many that feel the way that you do, quite strongly, with often different preferences, but it does not stand up under carefully controlled blind testing.

And to further confuse the situation, there are many people on this and other discussion groups who feel as strongly as you do, but put Onkyo towards the bottom of the list. 
"You always hear yammy= natural. Denon = smooth. Onkyo = power."
And still others that would not be caught dead with anything other than separates, who feel that any integrated amp or receiver is inferior.

Go figure.

Maybe some day I will be able to take you up on your challenge. I hope so.

Thanks for being such a good sport during our discussions.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

menace2society said:


> In a way I wish I heard things the way you do, I could save myself a whole lot of money:spend::spend::spend::bigsmile:


I wish I was immune. Over the years, I spent way too much $, usually on separates, usually chasing power. I was like a kid with a corvette. Occasionally, I would open it up for friends, just to show I could. But for day to day use, all that high quality stuff just idled. It eventually got relegated to the closet when we did not have room for the humongous speakers. And when we did have room again, I found I did not miss them. Luckily, everything was highly valued on the used market and I got some good return when I sold it all.

I came to this site because I am now in the market for an upgrade of my system. I am looking for certain features. By the time I have everything I want, it is still fairly pricy, although I think I am going to be able to avoid the top of the line.

I wish I could find out factual information about how the different room EQ work. I think Audyssey is the save choice and I cannot go wrong with it. The different generations of Audyssey is confusing. But it would be nice to compare the specs with Pioneer and Yamaha. It seems like the manufacturers are pretty tight lipped about # of bands, type of EQ (parametric?), freq covered, correct or identify phase problems, etc. Since I participated in room EQ the old fashioned manual way many times, I would like to know how the automated ones work.

The professional reviews of receivers are pretty weak in this area and usually just say that they work fine.

It would also be nice to know a bit about reliability. Onkyo had a pretty bad run for a while. Are they really over it? I know of a bunch of Yamaha receivers that refuse to die. Are they still as good? Is HK really back to what they were? Marantz? The second guessing goes on and on.

And I have not even asked about on screen display and remote, iPad app, etc.


----------

