# Best flagship A/V receiver?



## Kain

Options I am considering:

Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A3030
Anthem MRX 710
Pioneer SC-79
Onkyo TX-NR5010
Denon AVR-4520

Looking for something to drive my original (bought new in 2002) Klipsch RF-7, RC-7, and RS-7 speakers. The subwoofer is a Seaton Sound SubMersive. My room is small, about 15 feet x 11 feet x 9 feet. I need high SPL capability with excellent dynamics and excellent overall sound quality. I need to be able to hit reference level with ease. The overall sound should be smooth and not too bright as I already have speakers that lean towards the brighter side of the scale. Build quality and reliability are extremely important as well.

Currently, my main home theater is still in the DVD ages with an SD plasma, DVD player, and a flagship A/V receiver from the DVD ages (2003-2004). I will be upgrading the TV to a 1080p TV, getting a Blu-ray Disc player, and a new flagship A/V receiver.

I was pretty much set on the RX-A3030 until I read how good the MRX 710 sounds. Some reviews stated that it is as close as you can get to separates with an A/V receiver. Is it really that good? However, it definitely does not have all the features of the other units mentioned. While sound quality is top priority for me, there still should be some good features available that I might want to take advantage of later down the road such as Internet connectivity.


----------



## nova

I think all of them would do very well. I'd probably lean toward the Yamaha for build quality and reliability. Onkyo if you're into room correction or are planning on using the receivers' video processing. If audio performance is of utmost importance I'd lean toward the Anthem. 
Looks like a tough choice but I think your best bet would be to pick the one that has the most features that you need or think you may want in the future.


----------



## JBrax

That is an impressive list and like Mark said any would be great. I've never had any experience with Anthem but I've read some impressive articles about them and their room correction software. I'm a really big fan of Audyssey and would probably choose one of them employing XT32 which would include the Onkyo and Denon.


----------



## onedayiwillbedone

I know it is a step down but I have had the Onkyo 3010 for a few months now. It is powering klipsch rf82's, rf62's, rc62, rc52 and using outdoor klipsch for front high. It is an amazing receiver thus far with amazing room correction. The video looked better and crisper on my epson 6020 than it was with previous receiver which was an onkyo 805. The 4 sub outs are great along with all the other features and ease of use.


----------



## Almadacr

For me Denon , Pioneer and Anthem sound the best ( music also included ) but i also would put in the mix the Marantz SR7008 (or a pre/pro AV8801) .

If you are doing 50/50, movies/music , the Denon and the Marantz would be my option for your Klipsch . 

But it comes down to personal preferences . Did you audition all those models ?


----------



## tcarcio

I chose the Onkyo. I only have experience with the Pioneer and an Onkyo and I love what Audyssey does much more than Mcacc for room correction.


----------



## BeeMan458

Why do people do this to me? :rubeyes:...:innocent:...:devil:



Kain said:


> Looking for something to drive my original (bought new in 2002) Klipsch RF-7, RC-7, and RS-7 speakers. The subwoofer is a Seaton Sound SubMersive. My room is small, about 15 feet x 11 feet x 9 feet. I need high SPL capability with excellent dynamics and excellent overall sound quality. I need to be able to hit reference level with ease. The overall sound should be smooth and not too bright as I already have speakers that lean towards the brighter side of the scale. Build quality and reliability are extremely important as well.


We're running an older pair of the RF-7s in the form of Epic CF-3s. The CC is a RC-64 II and the surrounds are KSP-S6s. We have a pair of Rythmik FV15HPs. We upgraded from a Marantz SR5007 because it didn't have what it takes to cleanly reach and hold onto full on reference level play. The top of the 4520, in an entertainment credenza, door open a couple of inches with extra vent holes cut into the back of the credenza, after a movie at reference level playback, is not so hot that your can't run your hands all over the top metal casing. It was not that way with the SR5007 which was too hot for the hand.

That said, we recently purchase the Denon AVR4520CI, which comes with XT32 and SubEQ HT. The reason we purchased the 4520 was for the reason you listed, the ability to run full on reference level output with low low distortion. At the same time we acquired Denon's universal blu-ray player, the DBT-3313UDCI. We purchased the 4520 for three reasons, reference capable amplifier section, HDMI switching capability and XT32/SubEQ HT room correction software.

An aside, research showed me that the 4520CI is suppose to have pared down (from 11.2 to 9.2) guts of the Marantz AV8801 inside. Being this is a flagship model and Marantz and Denon are both the same company (D&M Group), it makes manufacturing sense to blend these two flagship Pre-Pros.

Here are a couple of review links. The first link is to a HTS review. I was partial to the last comment:

"Summing It Up

In conclusion, I am thoroughly impressed with this unit. It has about all the features you could ask for in a receiver/processor and ample power to accommodate most any speaker system. *I initially intended on reviewing it and then selling it, but instead I have already sold my Onkyo 5508, XPA-3 amp and XPA-1 monoblocks. I keep thinking to myself that the 4520 seems to be a little on the pricey side, but if you consider what any other processor with the same features would cost you and then add the expense of amplification, the 4520 price actually sounds like a bargain.* I think the most surprising part of my experience with the 4520 has been its ability to drive my MartinLogan speakers effortlessly. I had almost given up on ever trying receiver power because I have always read and heard that the Prodigy’s pretty much needed at least 300 watts of good clean power to perform their best. I will have to disagree with the naysayers, as I find it hard to get any better than what it is right now with the 4520 the only power amp source in my system. Excellent job Denon!"

The second link is to a recent Sound and Vision review that included bench tests to certify it's output capability. The specs of the 4520, five channels driven are equal to that of McIntosh separate amplifiers and considering the price difference between a McIntosh Pre-Pro/amplifier combination to that of a 4520, in my opinion, that's huge.

And that's why I voted for the 4520. :bigsmile:...:T

(system photos and REW graphs can be found in our photo gallery)


----------



## sub_crazy

I chose the Onkyo based on my previous experience with the 5508 and 3008 compared to the Denon 4311 and Pioneer Elite SC-05 I have all owned in the past. I really do like the Pioneer Elite receivers but MCACC doesn't EQ as well as Audyssey. I also had better EQ results with the Onkyo variation of XT32 than I did Denon's by a decent margin. With the Onkyo's I didn't need to use an additional EQ for my subs, with the Denon I had to still tame some peaks and this was in the exact same system with the same mic placement. 
The Onkyo also had a more dynamic tone which made the Denon sound a little bland in comparison for movies, for music the more laid back sound of the Denon was better though for jazz and easy listening. 

I don't know about these new receivers though, just going off of past receivers I have owned.


----------



## Sonnie

I would get one with Audyssey XT32, as it does the best job with equalizing the subwoofer. Only a couple of the newer Pioneer models are using any filters on the subwoofer. Yamaha's YPAO does not equalize subs (not sure on their reasoning to exclude it). As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more important than getting your subwoofer response right. 

I am not familiar with the current ARC system, but the older one was not that impressive to me... Audyssey XT did a better job back then... and I had the Anthem processor, not the receiver. I would probably lean towards the Denon or Onkyo. I have had the 4520 and it is nice (those are actually my comments quoted above)... and I now have the 3010 Onkyo. I have had the 4311, 4520, 5508, and 5509... and a slough of others. I can tell you I have never heard a sound difference in the amps. The correction system makes the difference in my opinion, but not between the ones with XT32, which result pretty much in identical results when everything is setup properly. Any of those receivers will easily power Klipsch speakers to their fullest extent and do it clean... I doubt you could stay in the room with them. I would look for XT32 and the other features that are important to you.


----------



## jamfan76

I voted for Anthem! Partially since i own a mrx 510 

If you are looking for sound performance, i'm going to have to suggest the Anthem. If you want all the bells and whistles of internet radio, built for ipods, front or rear usb for flac or mp3's, you'll need to look elsewhere... 

I feel as the anthem arc is fairly easy to use and tinker with. The quick measure tool on arc is great for finding the best location available for your speakers/sub. Giving the user play-ability of speaker locations prior to running arc.. 

My only audyssey experience comes from audyssey 2eq, so i can't compare to other audyssey flavors...


----------



## vidiot33

jamfan76 said:


> I voted for Anthem! Partially since i own a mrx 510  If you are looking for sound performance, i'm going to have to suggest the Anthem. If you want all the bells and whistles of internet radio, built for ipods, front or rear usb for flac or mp3's, you'll need to look elsewhere... I feel as the anthem arc is fairly easy to use and tinker with. The quick measure tool on arc is great for finding the best location available for your speakers/sub. Giving the user play-ability of speaker locations prior to running arc.. My only audyssey experience comes from audyssey 2eq, so i can't compare to other audyssey flavors...


Lots of good buzz about the Anthem and Audyssey, but I after extensive research, I've decided to go with the Yamaha. I understand the subwoofer bass management isn't there, but I wouldn't have used it anyway, since I have Dspeaker Antimode correction, which I would submit would be superior to any correction offered in the Yamaha anyway. Reliability is important to me, which is why I ruled out Arcam and Cambridge. Also, in my experience, the benefits of separates is overrated.


----------



## BeeMan458

vidiot33 said:


> but I wouldn't have used it anyway, since I have Dspeaker Antimode correction, which I would submit would be superior to any correction offered in the Yamaha anyway.


Just saying, i went from a Marantz SR5007 w/Anti-Mode 8033SII to the Denon AVR4520CI and XT32 w/SubEQ HT is superior to the Anti-Mode 8033S II.


----------



## prerich

Depends on what you're looking for. lddude: Wisdom would look at your particular needs because all of those receivers are nice.


----------



## vidiot33

Agree 100%. I like what I've been hearing about the Natural DSP mode Yamaha uses. To me, flat is way too bright, but again, to each his own.


----------



## BeeMan458

vidiot33 said:


> Agree 100%. I like what I've been hearing about the Natural DSP mode Yamaha uses. To me, flat is way too bright, but again, to each his own.


Movie sound tracks are created flat and playing them flat is how they were intended to be heard. Are you sure the acoustics measurements of the room are flat? Or are you guessing they're flat?

Are you using REW to measure your room acoustics? Do you have any graphs we can look at?


----------



## Kain

Thanks for all the feedback.

I see that most voted for the Denon. However, I've noticed that some reviews stated that its sound quality is not up to par with its rivals. Is this true? For example:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/receivers-separates-amps-reviews/denon-avr-4520ci-review/
http://www.whathifi.com/review/denon-avr-4520


----------



## BeeMan458

Kain said:


> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> Is this true?


No it's not. The reviewer in the first link was using very inefficient surround speakers with a sensitivity of 85dB. With speakers that were this "bad" one would be lucky to reach reference level play and if they did they'd be distorting the output and quite possibly the speaker itself. The second link didn't even take the time to list the speakers they were using. When the reviewers you linked to, manual set the Audyssey/Denon settings, they used the wrong settings. At minimum, all speakers are to be set to small and all crossovers are expected to be set to 80Hz with everything else to be bass managed over to the LFE channel. LFE channel is expected to be set to 120Hz.

I gave a mini-review and why the 4520CI was a good choice and linked to two long, complete, legitimate reviews. The first review was by HTS's own Sonnie and second, "Sound and Vision" which includes bench tests to verify output. I listed and linked to the speakers we are using our 4520CI with. I also have in our photo album, graphs based on our dual subwoofer setup using XT32 w/SubEQ HT.

And as soon as you can, order up a second Seaton. It will make a difference.

What do I think? I think the links you posted as examples dissing the 4520CI are terrible reviews that should be ignored and for what ever reason, each have given a review where comments of poor performance are just that, unsubstantiated opinions with no facts to back them up. If they're reading what I'm posting, my suggestion, provide empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.

I have run a bunch of blu-ray movie tracks through our system and have found, there are tracks that are golden, that leave one in stunned silence and there are other tracks that are mediocre and no amount of gear is going fix bad mastering.

Last night's movie was "Escape Plan" and it was blessed with a mediocre sound track. "Black Hawk Down" has a sound track that is seriously limited for output. Movies that have left us in stunned silence when they ending credits rolled, "The Island" and "Flyboys." A movie with huge dynamic range is "Act of Valor" that is best played at full on reference with is +/-0dB MVC.

Three movies that are basshead monsters are "Pacific Rim", "Battle: LA" and "Inception". But if one doesn't have accurately dialed in gear, measured to verify it's accuracy at setup, so as to be able to accurately reproduce these sound tracks as intended by the producer and sound/audio engineer, the listener will never know they're being robbed and they'll blame the poor performance on everything but their own incompetence.

...lddude:

Hope the above rantings help.


----------



## fschris

Wait for emotiva xmc


----------



## BeeMan458

fschris said:


> Wait for emotiva xmc


...+1...^

I'm a big fanboy of Emotiva. I don't own any of their gear but if I had to break ranks, I would do so with Emotiva. Just a bit more than a flagship receiver with better room correction software and amplifier section.

(my wife does "NOT" like me reading this kinda stuff)


----------



## jamfan76

Kain said:


> I see that most voted for the Denon. However, I've noticed that some reviews stated that its sound quality is not up to par with its rivals. Is this true?


If you can demo or listen to any of the receivers that you are interested, i'd highly suggest you do it. We each like a different sound than the other...


----------



## BeeMan458

jamfan76 said:


> We each like a different sound than the other...


Me? I'm partial to a sound I can afford to buy.


----------



## JimmyLeggs

I voted Denon never actually hearing it 

Own the Anthem MRX300 and ARC is pretty impressive.

Owned several Pioneer Elites and wasnt too fond of MCACC or their stereo performance.

Was looking to get the x4000 but ended up with a 3010 only because of price and features.

From what I read about the MRX 510/710 they have removed the option of adding Front height speakers. I could be wrong but something to look into if you were considering that option.


----------



## Kain

I've read quite often that the Onkyo has a more aggressive or dynamic sound that is favorable for movies compared to the Denon. Basically, it is more exciting than the Denon. Is this true? I'm looking for "explosive" sound.


----------



## sub_crazy

Kain said:


> I've read quite often that the Onkyo has a more aggressive or dynamic sound that is favorable for movies compared to the Denon. Basically, it is more exciting than the Denon. Is this true? I'm looking for "explosive" sound.


I had the Denon 4311, Onkyo PR5508 and Marantz AV7005 all around the same time. I was able to compare the Onkyo to both the Denon and Marantz in my system and found the Onkyo to have a more dynamic sound. Both the Denon and Marantz were smoother sounding with music which I preferred over the Onkyo but for movies the Onkyo made me jump during action scenes. These were long term comparisons of at least a couple of weeks to a month since I owned all 3. 

I haven't heard the newer Denon, Marantz or Onkyo offerings so I don' know if that has changed at all.


----------



## NBPk402

Just to let you know... Today I think is the last day of the big sale on the 4520 here... So if you want to get the 4520 I would get it now.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> I had the Denon 4311, Onkyo PR5508 and Marantz AV7005 all around the same time. I was able to compare the Onkyo to both the Denon and Marantz in my system and found the Onkyo to have a more dynamic sound. Both the Denon and Marantz were smoother sounding with music which I preferred over the Onkyo but for movies the Onkyo made me jump during action scenes. These were long term comparisons of at least a couple of weeks to a month since I owned all 3.
> 
> I haven't heard the newer Denon, Marantz or Onkyo offerings so I don' know if that has changed at all.


I'm betting that results would become different if the tests were conducted under blind conditions within several minutes of one another unless you were comparing room correction facilities.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> I'm betting that results would become different if the tests were conducted under blind conditions within several minutes of one another unless you were comparing room correction facilities.


Well you are more than welcome to spend your own money and buy some blindfolds, who is stopping you?

As far as my personal comparison I really wanted to like the Marantz the best because it was better looking and have always been a fan of Denon receivers having owned a number of them in the past. The difference in sound was very clear though, blindfold or not IN MY SYSTEM. It was also clear that the XT32 did a better job at EQ with my subs with the Onkyo than the Denon, the Marantz was limited to normal XT. I verified this with my Velodyne SMS-1 which had to be use to tame some peaks with both the Denon and Marantz but not needed with the Onkyo. 

I like doing long term comparisons instead of a marathon in one day but do listen to the same material within several minutes when swapping out. If I am use to the SQ of a receiver for a couple of weeks to a month then switch out I can get a better grasp of what it has to offer or detract. Sometimes it only takes a week to know it is not doing it for me to switch back to my prefered receiver. 

All this has to so with system synergy as well, a brighter sounding speaker is going to sound better with the mellow sounding Denon an Marantz. A duller sounding speaker would benefit from the more forward sounding Onkyo. This is why I put in caps above "In My System" since I know the effects could be the opposite in someone elses system, that's a bet I am willing to take.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> Well you are more than welcome to spend your own money and buy some blindfolds, who is stopping you?
> 
> As far as my personal comparison I really wanted to like the Marantz the best because it was better looking and have always been a fan of Denon receivers having owned a number of them in the past. The difference in sound was very clear though, blindfold or not IN MY SYSTEM. It was also clear that the XT32 did a better job at EQ with my subs with the Onkyo than the Denon, the Marantz was limited to normal XT. I verified this with my Velodyne SMS-1 which had to be use to tame some peaks with both the Denon and Marantz but not needed with the Onkyo.
> 
> I like doing long term comparisons instead of a marathon in one day but do listen to the same material within several minutes when swapping out. If I am use to the SQ of a receiver for a couple of weeks to a month then switch out I can get a better grasp of what it has to offer or detract. Sometimes it only takes a week to know it is not doing it for me to switch back to my prefered receiver.
> 
> All this has to so with system synergy as well, a brighter sounding speaker is going to sound better with the mellow sounding Denon an Marantz. A duller sounding speaker would benefit from the more forward sounding Onkyo. This is why I put in caps above "In My System" since I know the effects could be the opposite in someone elses system, that's a bet I am willing to take.


I guessed you missed the caveat ...."unless you are testing room correction facilities".. which I expect to be different blindfolded or not.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> I guessed you missed the caveat ...."unless you are testing room correction facilities".. which I expect to be different blindfolded or not.


The Denon and Onkyo both use XT32, I have read though that they have leeway in how they implement it so results can vary. 

I did listen to music without the room correction engaged and came to the same conclusion, the Denon and Marantz are more laid back and smoother sounding while the Onkyo is more forward with more dynamic kick. For music aside from rock and dynamic based music I prefer the Denon and Marantz, they sound great with jazz and vocal's. I was never that crazy about the Onkyo for music but movies and TV it was a clear favorite and that entails about 95% of my usage nowadays. 

I don't use the Onkyo anymore though, I got a Sherwood R-972 with Trinnov EQ and the soundstage was so huge and realistic I could not go back to the Onkyo even though it was still more dynamic. I wish Onkyo or Denon would dump Audyssey in favor of Trinnov and I would order that right away. Not about to spend $40K for the ADA pre/pro that has Trinnov built in but for people who have that kind of coin it's probably worth it.


----------



## Savjac

Kain said:


> Thanks for all the feedback.
> 
> I see that most voted for the Denon. However, I've noticed that some reviews stated that its sound quality is not up to par with its rivals. Is this true? For example:
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/receivers-separates-amps-reviews/denon-avr-4520ci-review/
> http://www.whathifi.com/review/denon-avr-4520



Honestly in my most humble opinion what you are linking to is nothing more than differing opinions. 
I would like to believe that most reviewers are honest and have no axe to grind and in presenting their findings are merely referencing those biases. These types of reviews should truly raise up ones ears after reading so many opinions of late that tend to believe everything designed well tends to sound the same. :devil:

Look, there is really no way one can go wrong with any of the products as long as the feature set you have in mind is met. Yes they will have some different sound but they will essentially drive your Klipsch to any level that would be considered reasonable and beyond.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> The Denon and Onkyo both use XT32, I have read though that they have leeway in how they implement it so results can vary.
> 
> I did listen to music without the room correction engaged and came to the same conclusion, the Denon and Marantz are more laid back and smoother sounding while the Onkyo is more forward with more dynamic kick. For music aside from rock and dynamic based music I prefer the Denon and Marantz, they sound great with jazz and vocal's. I was never that crazy about the Onkyo for music but movies and TV it was a clear favorite and that entails about 95% of my usage nowadays.
> 
> I don't use the Onkyo anymore though, I got a Sherwood R-972 with Trinnov EQ and the soundstage was so huge and realistic I could not go back to the Onkyo even though it was still more dynamic. I wish Onkyo or Denon would dump Audyssey in favor of Trinnov and I would order that right away. Not about to spend $40K for the ADA pre/pro that has Trinnov built in but for people who have that kind of coin it's probably worth it.


Same speakers in the same room in the same listening position?


----------



## tonyvdb

Trinnov is amazing, In some ways much better than even Audyssey particularly if its in a oddly shaped room.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> Same speakers in the same room in the same listening position?


Exactly the same, the only thing changed was the receiver/pre-pro. I was even careful to use as closely as I could the same Audyssey measurement points using a microphone boom stand. I then checked the results with my SMS-1 for the subwoofer channel. I even ran multiple Audyssey calibrations for both the Denon and Marantz since it did not make sense why the sub channel response was so peaky at 2 spots compared to the Onkyo which nailed it nearly every time. A friend of mine who was using a 4311 had to use his SMS-1 to tame a nasty peak as well in his system so I chalked it up to Onkyo's implementation of XT32 working better. I later even added a Onkyo 3008 for a second system with XT32 and it also made such a nice smooth sub graph that an extra eq for the sub channel was not needed.
The Sherwood R-972 I now use with Trinnov doesn't do as nice a job on the sub channels as the Onkyo XT32 did. Audyssey is missing the 3D spatial mapping though, which I am now addicted to and will try and hold on to for as long as I can until something reasonably priced comes out with Trinnov. 

I owned both the Denon 4311 and Onkyo 5508 at the same time and then sold the 4311 and picked up a Marantz AV7005 to compare to the Onkyo since the Marantz had gotten such stellar reviews. I always enjoyed the Onkyo for movies but for music it was lacking and I was hoping for something that would fill in that gap. Both the Denon and Marantz were better musically but the movie perfomance just sounded to dull for me to give up the Onkyo.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> Exactly the same, the only thing changed was the receiver/pre-pro. I was even careful to use as closely as I could the same Audyssey measurement points using a microphone boom stand. I then checked the results with my SMS-1 for the subwoofer channel. I even ran multiple Audyssey calibrations for both the Denon and Marantz since it did not make sense why the sub channel response was so peaky at 2 spots compared to the Onkyo which nailed it nearly every time. A friend of mine who was using a 4311 had to use his SMS-1 to tame a nasty peak as well in his system so I chalked it up to Onkyo's implementation of XT32 working better. I later even added a Onkyo 3008 for a second system with XT32 and it also made such a nice smooth sub graph that an extra eq for the sub channel was not needed.
> The Sherwood R-972 I now use with Trinnov doesn't do as nice a job on the sub channels as the Onkyo XT32 did. Audyssey is missing the 3D spatial mapping though, which I am now addicted to and will try and hold on to for as long as I can until something reasonably priced comes out with Trinnov.
> .


I'm sorry......I can understand that the implementation of auddessy can be different among different AVR manufacturers and I don't have a problem understanding how that could affect sound. What I have a hard time understanding is how AVRs could sound different from one another if output speaker levels were matched and the AVRs were used well within their power delivery envelope; ie not driven to the limits of their power reserves. I'm an EE by schooling and that has clouded by ability to understand this.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> I'm an EE by schooling and that has clouded by ability to understand this.


Don't worry, it's not personal. I'm ignorant and my thinking is still cloudy.


----------



## vidiot33

I believe, unless the 2 receivers being compared are overdriven, while they will sound similar, they may not sound identical, due to the interaction of the various components which make up a receiver. Years ago, Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review fame demonstrated that the difference between amps lies in the complex relationship of the different components that are in the chain. Not everyone will hear a difference, and these differences may well be subtle. To make matters worse, unless you're measuring clipping, which can occur much more frequently than many believe, you won't be able to measure this difference.


----------



## willis7469

BeeMan458 said:


> Don't worry, it's not personal. I'm ignorant and my thinking is still cloudy.


Me too! Ain't It great? Smother me in snake oil and call me....oh wait. 
My question is if they all "sound" the same, are we just paying extra for the GUI, and a nicer remote? I guess I should call Mark Fleischmann, and tell him it's all in his head too.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> I'm sorry......I can understand that the implementation of auddessy can be different among different AVR manufacturers and I don't have a problem understanding how that could affect sound. What I have a hard time understanding is how AVRs could sound different from one another if output speaker levels were matched and the AVRs were used well within their power delivery envelope; ie not driven to the limits of their power reserves. I'm an EE by schooling and that has clouded by ability to understand this.


I have a hard time understanding it too but what I do know after owning over probably 50 different pre-pro's and receivers over the years is that there _can_ be a difference but not always. 
My thinking has always been that a properly functioning amp or pre-amp should all sound the same, it is the ones that are not functioning properly that sound different. Whether that is because of a defect in the manufacturing or a poorly executed design the product in question does not reach the baseline for performance. It is not that one pre-amp is exceeding the baseline, just that the others are below it. 

Don't say sorry though, you're much more smarter than me and it is all just opinion anyway.


----------



## sub_crazy

tonyvdb said:


> Trinnov is amazing, In some ways much better than even Audyssey particularly if its in a oddly shaped room.


I'm with you! Closing your eyes and not being able to point out were the speakers are located is what has me hooked. This effect really benefits those who cannot locate their speakers in the best possible location, if you can set them up for perfect placement then Trinnov would probably lose out to Audyssey. 3D spatial imaging......gotta love it :T


----------



## MartyM

My last two A/V receivers have been Yamaha. That said, I have been considering Denon for my new receiver. It was been 10 years since I purchased a receiver and it is a real state state for trying to audition A/V equipment. The store I used to frequent went out of business about 5 years ago when the last recession hit. Of the three or four stores still in my community, only one has equipment that you can audition. Two of them only have links to the manufacturers websites. That's something I can do at home. Don't know how I will decide on what to purchase if I can hear the products.


----------



## BeeMan458

MartyM said:


> Don't know how I will decide on what to purchase if I can hear the products.


We purchased our flagship AVR for three reasons.

1. The amplifier section.

2. Switching purposes

3. Audyssey XT32 w/SubEQ HT

We don't use any of the other features. We use Klipsch horn loaded speakers because they're forward and to many, bright. With the occasional spate, we're not into music. We watch broadcast programming and movies. We've found the quality of the output is up to the quality of the sound track as sound quality between sound tracks vary greatly. Some movies are flat. Some are have too much bass and some are absolutely spectacular and the ending of the movie leaves us in stunned silence.

Personally, once a system is dialed in, with popcorn in hand and loved ones all around, few if any are going be in critical listening mode, complaining about too warm or too cold as much of the differences (if any) will be removed by the room correction software EQ'g the sound field flat. Variations in speakers, sound tracks, et cetera will hide much also.

My suggestion, if you're familiar with Yamaha, you'll do best sticking with Yamaha. Once one steps outside their comfort zone, all bets are off and you'll worry or worse, think you made a bad decision. I'm familiar with Marantz and Denon. I went with the Denon AVR4520CI which is suppose to have scaled down, AV8801 Pre-Pro guts inside.

We love it. We're happy with it and as I posted above, sound tracks vary as to sound quality and this "NEEDS" to be taken into consideration. In the end, always go with what makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


----------



## sub_crazy

Good advice by BeeMan, go with what you know and stick with Yamaha. I don't think you can go wrong with either Denon or Onkyo but there all good and what's right for one person may not be right for another.


----------



## MartyM

Thanks for the advise BeeMan.


----------



## BeeMan458

...


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> My suggestion, if you're familiar with Yamaha, you'll do best sticking with Yamaha. Once one steps outside their comfort zone, all bets are off and you'll worry or worse, think you made a bad decision. I'm familiar with Marantz and Denon. I went with the Denon AVR4520CI which is suppose to have scaled down, AV8801 Pre-Pro guts inside.
> 
> We love it. We're happy with it and as I posted above, sound tracks vary as to sound quality and this "NEEDS" to be taken into consideration. In the end, always go with what makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside.



I might be the minority but I don't agree with you on this one. 
I think we should all try different receivers/pre pros etc... in our systems this way we can determin which we prefer.
Jmo

I do get your point about making a bad decision but that's why we have a return policy and places like this to help us make good decisions


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> I might be the minority but I don't agree with you on this one.
> I think we should all try different receivers/pre pros etc... in our systems this way we can determin which we prefer.


And the money and time to effect all these in home system trials are to come from where? :scratch:



> ...and places like this to help us make good decisions


Which was what I was doing. Sharing so as to help one make a good decision. This is why I recommend going with that what makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside. In doing this, the individual is less likely to second guess themselves but if going with the unknown, doubt will always linger regarding the question of it being the right decision.

Last night's movie was "Now You See Me." It had an excellent sound track and it was an entertaining movie. There's nothing wrong with our system that merits an upgrade other than I like new expensive stuff, just to say, I have new and expensive stuff. This represents personal dynamics. That said, we watch movies with terrible sound tracks which lack any depth of character and are just there. These tracks do not show off the good qualities in our system. The point, within one's price range, one can try all the systems out there and they'll still have the same results. It's just a fact, some sound tracks are better than others and is the person's system and personal awareness, high enough to notice these differences long after the system has been installed?

Then again, agreeing with you, maybe it's just me as I don't see a need to try every beer made, so as to assure me that I'm perfectly happy with what I currently drink.

...lddude:


----------



## chashint

When picking between 'flagship' AVRs you really cannot make a mistake unless the model turns out to be a lemon.

I have no plans to replace what I have but when the time comes my next AVR will have a fully functional USB port on the back as well as the front.
Once you get to the top tier it's the little things that separate the products.


----------



## Almadacr

BeeMan458 said:


> And the money and time to effect all these in home system trials are to come from where? :scratch:


Rule #1 in the audio world ..... audition not specs . Do you buy a car without test driving it ?


----------



## sub_crazy

Almadacr said:


> Rule #1 in the audio world ..... audition not specs . Do you buy a car without test driving it ?


That's what I like to do but not everyone can purchase multiple items to try out. This is why these forums exist to share knowledge and experience with others so they can make a more informed decision.


----------



## Almadacr

sub_crazy said:


> That's what I like to do but not everyone can purchase multiple items to try out. This is why these forums exist to share knowledge and experience with others so they can make a more informed decision.


When possible everyone should audition before buying it , of course when it comes to ID company's this is not impossible but i know it's a big hassle but not impossible and most of them have a 30 day return policy . 

In the case of the AV receivers named by the OP are all available in stores ... not that difficult to audition .

We can give ideas and what sounds good to us , but every each one of us have different opinions but it's the OP that have to live with it .


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> And the money and time to effect all these in home system trials are to come from where? :scratch:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> The point,
> Then again, agreeing with you, maybe it's just me as I don't see a need to try every beer made, so as to assure me that I'm perfectly happy with what I currently drink.
> 
> ...lddude:



I do get your point I just have a different view of it.

If I had gone the way you were saying I would still own a Sony avr and never tried something different. I have had Sony ES, 
Yamaha, marantz, pioneer,Pioneer elite, Onkyo, Denon, and Rotel in my system.

I have bought many and borrowed or purchased from dealers and big box stores. I have found some that sound great, and some that were ok. All of them powered my speakers. All of them could play plenty loud. But some just brought out that extra bit of something... that made it sound great. 
The people who are just looking for that system that sounds good; they will most likely be happy with what they get as long as it has the options and connections that they wanted.

But if you are like me you may want more so you have to try it. 

Please understand. I'm not saying you can't go with what you know many of us do. I'm just saying you may be happier with your purchase knowing that you did try others and picked the best from the lot.


----------



## Kain

Just thought I would update this thread. Basically, I am going put the upgrade on hold. I have decided to turn the current home theater room into a bedroom and one of the bedrooms into the home theater. This will allow me to have a 65" (or even slightly larger) TV and spread out the left/right speakers more for better stereo separation. Only grip is that the new home theater room is almost or basically a square. It is also about the same width but shorter in length compared to the current home theater room. Let's see how it turns out! By the way, I am not going to exchange the two rooms till I am ready to re-build the home theater from the ground-up. I'll be replacing everything so I might as well just leave it as it is till I am ready to start a new home theater from scratch (which will include UHD/4K, new speakers, etc.).


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> But if you are like me you may want more so you have to try it.


Being sixty-two, I've learned, more only breeds dissatisfaction and keeps one from being settled in the mind. Wanting more, keeps the mind unsettled while looking for the better fix. Ignorance is bliss and I'll take bliss over dissatisfaction any day of the week.

I had a conversation with my wife a couple of days back about how good our system sounds and talked about a winning lottery ticket and a whole new sound system and the question, would a $30k USD system bring better sound or just bring frustration into our happy lives? I think if we cash a winning lottery ticket of substantial size, instead, I'll buy a 225HP Yamaha outboard motor and hang it on the garage wall. It will look very nice there.

(to some, my above will sound like the words of a crazy man and to some, my above will make perfect sense)


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Almadacr said:


> Rule #1 in the audio world ..... audition not specs . Do you buy a car without test driving it ?


Auditions are only useful if done properly especially when comparing AVRs. They need to be done side by side through the same equipment and within moments of one another. Take very detailed notes if side by side comparisons cannot be made because the time of auditory memory remaining accurate falls off very quickly with time.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> Auditions are only useful if done properly especially when comparing AVRs. They need to be done side by side through the same equipment and within moments of one another. Take very detailed notes if side by side comparisons cannot be made because the time of auditory memory remaining accurate falls off very quickly with time.


I agree with everything else being equal when evaluating AVR's so the only variable is the AVR itself. Even though I do keep the AVR's on the same rack for quick swapping out in the beginning and the end of the evaluation I get more info from long term auditions. Usually after a week or so I will swap to the other and listen to the same content. If I find myself really missing the AVR I just removed after a week then it goes back in and the comparison starts again. 

I always use the same demo material but also use the AVR's in everyday use to watch my favorite TV shows. I have probably been using the same demo material for about 4 or more years now and I know if something is missing or if a bass line is lacking impact. I also use music material known for having a spacious soundstage which I can tell right away if it is not right. 

I just find that doing a side by side demo that lasts for more than an hour can begin to introduce fatigue which will alter the comparison. One thing I am very sensitive to is ear fatigue which will begin affecting me pretty quick if equipment it is harsh sounding at all. I also don't like components which are too laid back sounding, they tend to bore me quick. I can tell you that the Marantz AV7005 bored me really quick for movies but could put me to sleep like a baby with a smile on my face with Alison Krauss serenading me. The Onkyo 5508 was like drinking a Red Bull with movies but a little on the shrill side for music except when I did a Audyssey Pro calibration which smoothed it out a little. For my tastes and the fact that I am about 90% movies and TV the Onkyo won out in a long term comparison. If my main tastes were Jazz and vocal music then it would have been the Marantz. The Denon 4311 might have been a good compromise between the 2 but it lost out to the Onkyo and I had already sold it when the Marantz showed up.

I have sold components as I use to believe it all sounded the same and at that time I was a reseller anyway so it was a natural thing to do. It is then when you can sometimes really hear a difference when a single component is switched out the next time you take a listen. One time I really didn't know why it just sounded off and I thought for sure someone messed with the system. I then replaced the same item I replaced earlier with something else and that's when I figured out it was that item that changed the sound to a point were i didn't like it at all. That item was a really expensive and well reviewed piece as well and I even brought in another to see if maybe the one I had was defective and no, they sounded the same. I brought up that experience to a dealer I knew who carried both and he said he was not surprised, the really expensive component was not a good match for the Aerial Acoustics Model 9 speakers I had at the time.

It's just my experience though and like the component I had was a bad match for the Aerial 9's I had I am sure it was a great match for a bunch of other speaker owners and none of us would be wrong.


----------



## Bear123

3dbinCanada said:


> I'm sorry......I can understand that the implementation of auddessy can be different among different AVR manufacturers and I don't have a problem understanding how that could affect sound. What I have a hard time understanding is how AVRs could sound different from one another if output speaker levels were matched and the AVRs were used well within their power delivery envelope; ie not driven to the limits of their power reserves. I'm an EE by schooling and that has clouded by ability to understand this.


Perception is reality. So clear differences are perceived unless biases are somehow removed. Slight differences in level will alter "perceived" sound "quality", maybe add some "air" and "spaciousness", possibly even alter the "clarity" and "broaden the envelopment of acoustical imagery saturation and room particle fluctuations"


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> I agree with everything else being equal when evaluating AVR's so the only variable is the AVR itself. Even though I do keep the AVR's on the same rack for quick swapping out in the beginning and the end of the evaluation I get more info from long term auditions. Usually after a week or so I will swap to the other and listen to the same content. If I find myself really missing the AVR I just removed after a week then it goes back in and the comparison starts again.
> 
> I always use the same demo material but also use the AVR's in everyday use to watch my favorite TV shows. I have probably been using the same demo material for about 4 or more years now and I know if something is missing or if a bass line is lacking impact. I also use music material known for having a spacious soundstage which I can tell right away if it is not right.
> 
> I just find that doing a side by side demo that lasts for more than an hour can begin to introduce fatigue which will alter the comparison. One thing I am very sensitive to is ear fatigue which will begin affecting me pretty quick if equipment it is harsh sounding at all. I also don't like components which are too laid back sounding, they tend to bore me quick. I can tell you that the Marantz AV7005 bored me really quick for movies but could put me to sleep like a baby with a smile on my face with Alison Krauss serenading me. The Onkyo 5508 was like drinking a Red Bull with movies but a little on the shrill side for music except when I did a Audyssey Pro calibration which smoothed it out a little. For my tastes and the fact that I am about 90% movies and TV the Onkyo won out in a long term comparison. If my main tastes were Jazz and vocal music then it would have been the Marantz. The Denon 4311 might have been a good compromise between the 2 but it lost out to the Onkyo and I had already sold it when the Marantz showed up.
> 
> I have sold components as I use to believe it all sounded the same and at that time I was a reseller anyway so it was a natural thing to do. It is then when you can sometimes really hear a difference when a single component is switched out the next time you take a listen. One time I really didn't know why it just sounded off and I thought for sure someone messed with the system. I then replaced the same item I replaced earlier with something else and that's when I figured out it was that item that changed the sound to a point were i didn't like it at all. That item was a really expensive and well reviewed piece as well and I even brought in another to see if maybe the one I had was defective and no, they sounded the same. I brought up that experience to a dealer I knew who carried both and he said he was not surprised, the really expensive component was not a good match for the Aerial Acoustics Model 9 speakers I had at the time.
> 
> It's just my experience though and like the component I had was a bad match for the Aerial 9's I had I am sure it was a great match for a bunch of other speaker owners and none of us would be wrong.


Thanks for that. Although you and I may disagree about AVRS sounding the same/different without the room correction facilities employed, you understand the benefits of controlled auditioning.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Bear123 said:


> Perception is reality. So clear differences are perceived unless biases are somehow removed. Slight differences in level will alter "perceived" sound "quality", maybe add some "air" and "spaciousness", possibly even alter the "clarity" and "broaden the envelopment of acoustical imagery saturation and room particle fluctuations"


I'm not sure the point you are trying to make in this post. My take is perception is based on biased reality.


----------



## vidiot33

I'm with you, but there are people out there who claim to hear great differences between cables, power cords, etc., and I don't engage them because they get quite defensive and nothing anyone says is going to change their perceptions...


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> Thanks for that. Although you and I may disagree about AVRS sounding the same/different without the room correction facilities employed, you understand the benefits of controlled auditioning.


Why is it so hard to believe that a component that has a DAC section, pre-amp and amp section sound different from another? Don't you think it would make a difference if a designer had free reign to use the best components compared to one that has a limited budget and must compromise? This is of course assuming that they both have the same experience, knowledge and talent.


----------



## BeeMan458

sub_crazy said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that a component that has a DAC section, pre-amp and amp section sound different from another?


Because there's no empirical evidence to support this claim? Just saying, one can only push the tip of a string so far and then the tip is no longer being pushed.

If what you suggest in your above was true and accurate, there should be easily obtainable testing data to support the above yet, so far, there's not. And so far, when double-blind, peer reviewed tests are conducted, differences disappear. And the testing gear I suggest, is the same testing gear used in the design and manufacture of all this gear.

For the sake of argument, let's go with, there are differences, human hearing transcends the sensitivity of testing equipment and all double-blind tests are done in such a way so as to mask any differences. Yes, that's a stretch but what the hey, trying to give a little here. And to be fair, you want me to go with the above?

My curiosity, how much of the differences being heard, are intentionally designed into the system for psychological sales purposes; colored sound? And at the same time, why are these differences only heard in sighted tests, can't be tested for and from the gate, all double-blind tests are inherently flawed?

The reason I'm asking these questions, my mind is having trouble wrapping it's think around these existential paradoxes.

Me? I read reviews, looked at accepted test data and buy what allows me to sleep all warm and fuzzy at night. Is there a test for warm and fuzzy?


----------



## lcaillo

At least one post has been removed and more may be upon review.

Let me remind everyone that your opinion is welcome, as long as it is relayed with respect for the views of others. We can differ in our views, even vigorously debate, without getting nasty or personal. If you feel a post is outside the rules and not made in the spirit of civil discourse, report it and let us handle it. We will not allow any thread to degrade into bickering and insults.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> Why is it so hard to believe that a component that has a DAC section, pre-amp and amp section sound different from another? Don't you think it would make a difference if a designer had free reign to use the best components compared to one that has a limited budget and must compromise? This is of course assuming that they both have the same experience, knowledge and talent.


Sticking to the pre-amp and amp sections for now with the following assumptions: same speakers and rooms both amps being able to drive the speakers comfortablly and well within their power envelopes levels matched...

One would need to look at the waveform arriving at the speaker. To make the speakers sound different, the waveforms have to be different from one another and the only two aspects of a waveform being diffferent is phase and amplitude. Those are the only two factors governing a waveform and they are related through a complex relationship. Most mid level and up AVR amplifier sections and pre-amp sections will have a flat frequency response well beyond the audible bandwidth which will also allow the phase relationship to be maintained. Its only when the pre-amp or amplifier is beginning to run out of room/power that the waveform begins to alter the amplitude/phase relationship that will affect a change in the sound.


----------



## lcaillo

These are your assumptions. There are many kinds of distortion that can occur in the processing and amplification of a signal. While among the listed units I doubt that there is much audible difference, I would not oversimplify the matter. Amplitude and phase can be affected by many things.

I maintain what I have always said, that both sides of this argument have some truth and are wrong in some ways. Both make assumptions that are poorly founded. Overall, however, I believe that those who believe that there are likely to be little or no audible difference among competent amplifiers are more often correct.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

lcaillo said:


> These are your assumptions. There are many kinds of distortion that can occur in the processing and amplification of a signal. While among the listed units I doubt that there is much audible difference, I would not oversimplify the matter. Amplitude and phase can be affected by many things.
> 
> I maintain what I have always said, that both sides of this argument have some truth and are wrong in some ways. Both make assumptions that are poorly founded. Overall, however, I believe that those who believe that there are likely to be little or no audible difference among competent amplifiers are more often correct.


If you look at my previous response, I stayed away from DACS and the conversion realm. From that standpoint, I would agree with you. Lots can happen in the land of in between to introduce all kinds of artifacts. Even then, competent designers have reduced their affects well beyond the threshold of hearing. I also would like to point out that I never said that amplitude and phase can't be affected. If you do an A/B comparison on an oscilloscope of the output waves of two different AVRs (while meeting the conditions I said needed to exist) and they are identical in amplitude and phase, then they will sound the same.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Is there a test for warm and fuzzy?


Thread count? :rofl2:


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Thread count? :rofl2:


...


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> Thread count? :rofl2:


Rofl!!!
Hey bee what was it you said once? It's harder for you to prove I'm crazy than me to prove I'm not!


----------



## lcaillo

3dbinCanada said:


> If you look at my previous response, I stayed away from DACS and the conversion realm. From that standpoint, I would agree with you. Lots can happen in the land of in between to introduce all kinds of artifacts. Even then, competent designers have reduced their affects well beyond the threshold of hearing. I also would like to point out that I never said that amplitude and phase can't be affected. If you do an A/B comparison on an oscilloscope of the output waves of two different AVRs (while meeting the conditions I said needed to exist) and they are identical in amplitude and phase, then they will sound the same.


It can be very hard to see visually on a scope that waveforms are identical. You would have to observe every frequency at every amplitude to determine this. While I agree overall that differences are much less frequently audible than many believe, there are lots of ways for a signal to be distorted.

We could do a much better job of quantifying what differences are and are not present than the current methods of reporting specifications and testing.


----------



## sub_crazy

BeeMan458 said:


> Because there's no empirical evidence to support this claim? Just saying, one can only push the tip of a string so far and then the tip is no longer being pushed.
> 
> If what you suggest in your above was true and accurate, there should be easily obtainable testing data to support the above yet, so far, there's not. And so far, when double-blind, peer reviewed tests are conducted, differences disappear. And the testing gear I suggest, is the same testing gear used in the design and manufacture of all this gear.
> 
> For the sake of argument, let's go with, there are differences, human hearing transcends the sensitivity of testing equipment and all double-blind tests are done in such a way so as to mask any differences. Yes, that's a stretch but what the hey, trying to give a little here. And to be fair, you want me to go with the above?
> 
> My curiosity, how much of the differences being heard, are intentionally designed into the system for psychological sales purposes; colored sound? And at the same time, why are these differences only heard in sighted tests, can't be tested for and from the gate, all double-blind tests are inherently flawed?
> 
> The reason I'm asking these questions, my mind is having trouble wrapping it's think around these existential paradoxes.
> 
> Me? I read reviews, looked at accepted test data and buy what allows me to sleep all warm and fuzzy at night. Is there a test for warm and fuzzy?


I read reviews too but I then like to bring in the items and compare to what I already have. More times than not they are very similar to identical sounding but at times the differences have been audible enough to warrant a change. The last comparison I did was with the Onkyo 5508 and Sherwood R-972 and without room correction I couldn't really tell much of a difference and would not be able to pick out which is which in a blind test. With both EQ's engaged I just could not go without the Trinnov processing even though the Sherwood is a pain to use ergonomically. In this comparison you are absolutely right, a double blind test would show no difference, unfortunately they make more than 2 different receivers.

I could definitely tell the difference between the Marantz AV7005 and Onkyo 5508 though. After a week of using the Marantz I had to go back to the Onkyo because the dynamics felt constrained with movies. Maybe it was a frequency extension problem as I use 8 sealed subs in my system with a total of 17 drivers which easily extends to single digits bass. It's not uncommon for some components to roll off earlier in the bass and that has been tested. It could be that the Marantz bass signal begins to roll off sooner than the Onkyo which is entirely possible. This would make a difference in my system which extends so low but wouldn't in a system that extends to only 20hz. I really liked the Marantz for music though, the Onkyo sounded harsh in comparison and that was easy for me to realize as I could listen to the Marantz all day for music but would shut off the Onkyo after about an hour which was all I could take. 

Maybe the problem is you think I am making a blanket statement that ALL AVR's sound different, that's not the case. If 1 out of 20 sounds different in a double blind test then what I am saying would be true. It is not possible to conduct a test like that though since it would be overload for anyone. I would think it would be difficult to do a double blind test of anything over maybe 6 or so items as the biggest flaw with double blind tests are humans. I would think more than 6 would induce mood, alertness, ear fatigue and auditory memory issues with a majority of people. 

We will just agree to disagree though with no hard feelings. I was just sharing my first hand experiences and only pointed out the times were the differences were noticeable to me. As a point of reference I have had probably 30 or more pre-pro and AVR's through my systems over the years. Most have been pretty much similar with an exception of a few. I am not the guy screaming from the mountain top that they all sound different, just saying that some do.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> If you look at my previous response, I stayed away from DACS and the conversion realm. From that standpoint, I would agree with you. Lots can happen in the land of in between to introduce all kinds of artifacts. Even then, competent designers have reduced their affects well beyond the threshold of hearing. I also would like to point out that I never said that amplitude and phase can't be affected. If you do an A/B comparison on an oscilloscope of the output waves of two different AVRs (while meeting the conditions I said needed to exist) and they are identical in amplitude and phase, then they will sound the same.


But the title of the thread is "Best flagship A/V receiver?" and everyone listed have DACS in the signal path. If you agree that lots can happen in the land of inbetween then what are we discussing here?


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> Rofl!!!
> Hey bee what was it you said once? It's harder for you to prove I'm crazy than me to prove I'm not!


"It's easier for you to prove I'm crazy than it is for me to prove I'm not."

...


----------



## 3dbinCanada

If there are differences between AVRs of the same manufacturing line, then the tolerances of the components put into the AVR must be suspect and out of line that was to be designed into the AVR. That is entirely in the realm of responsibilities and could account for a difference in sounds.


----------



## BeeMan458

sub_crazy said:


> We will just agree to disagree though with no hard feelings.


It's okay to disagree without hard feelings.....just ask my wife. 

A question was asked and the singular point of my comment, there's no empirical evidence to support claims of differences but their is empirical evidence to support comments regarding differences in room correction algorithms and how DSPs process sound.

I am in agreement that DSPs, although I like what they do to sound and like you, I can only handle them for about an hour, then my auditory senses are fatigued or fried for the session.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> But the title of the thread is "Best flagship A/V receiver?" and everyone listed have DACS in the signal path. If you agree that lots can happen in the land of inbetween then what are we discussing here?


Component tolerances out of whack here could play a big role. However, if the components are within designed tolerance parameters, I tend to think that even here that differences would be below audible thresholds.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> If there are differences between AVRs of the same manufacturing line, then the tolerances of the components put into the AVR must be suspect and out of line that was to be designed into the AVR. That is entirely in the realm of responsibilities and could account for a difference in sounds.


Now you have me confused :huh:

The thread was asking about AVR's from different mfg's and I was comparing Onkyo vs Denon/Marantz (I couple those 2 since they are both under the same corporate umbrella) I agree though that AVR's from the same mfg would most likely sound the same but have never really tested that theory.


----------



## sub_crazy

BeeMan458 said:


> "It's easier for you to prove I'm crazy than it is for me to prove I'm not."
> 
> ...


That is a great line BeeMan, if it is OK with you can I add that as my signature :bigsmile:


----------



## BeeMan458

Back in the day, Marantz had a clean sound with depth where as the Denon unit was a bit flat and to my ear, seemed to lack dynamics. When I recently interacted online with others who were familiar with the two brands, this difference has disappeared because the two companies had joined forces and separate development teams aside, product development and manufacturing, for pricing purposes, demand the two units have as much in common as possible. Think Ford and Mercury and how despite being two separate divisions, the Mercury was just a fancier version of the Ford.

Recently, we retired a Marantz SR5007 for the flagship benefits of a Denon AVR-4520CI which has XT32/SubEQ HT installed. More money, more output, better room correction software. Money well spent.


----------



## BeeMan458

sub_crazy said:


> That is a great line BeeMan, if it is OK with you can I add that as my signature :bigsmile:


...

Sure.


----------



## sub_crazy

Your right about Denon and Marantz, still good company's though. McIntosh is also under the same umbrella and at one time introduced a Pre-pro which was a rebranded Marantz but for a significant increase in price. I think it was the MX-120 that was a rebrand of the Marantz AV7005 right down to the same Audyssey XT, not XT32. I think it was like 3 times the price but all the specs were the same except for the faceplate.

I really did like the Denon 4311 though and I am sure the 4520 adds even more goodness, I might have to give that one a shot one day.

Check out my fancy shmancy new signature, thank ya kindly :T


----------



## BeeMan458

sub_crazy said:


> I think it was like 3 times the price but all the specs were the same except for the faceplate.


:rubeyes:



> Check out my fancy shmancy new signature, thank ya kindly :T


...:sn:


----------



## JBrax

I find threads like this entertaining. It doesn't matter what is being compared this always happens. What is the best…insert toothpaste, car, truck, bike, paper clip, and just about any item. I have learned to mostly avoid stating brand X is better than brand Y. What I will do is relay my opinion of what I own or have owned and whether or not I am/was happy with said brand. The majority of people vehemently promote or defend what they own in order to justify their purchase. I have found myself doing this very thing.


----------



## BeeMan458

JBrax said:


> The majority of people vehemently promote or defend what they own in order to justify their purchase.


I don't have to justify my purchase. I already have my wife's permission.

Wife! I'm going buy this.

Oooooo, you're so strong.

...

(a man can dream)


----------



## JBrax

That's the funny thing. I don't necessarily think we're justifying it with our wives but more to this very crowd and our buddies that come over to check out our toys. The wives seem to accept (mine anyway) our interests and purchases just as we do theirs (we should anyway).


----------



## BeeMan458

Our problem, we've put together a system that it would cost up to twice what we spent to best the current system and with our finances, even if I wanted to, I can't justify anymore upgrades. So now I enter the delusional phase where I convince myself that I've achieved good enough and don't need better.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Our problem, we've put together a system that it would cost up twice what we spent to best the current system and with our finances, even if I wanted to, I can't justify anymore upgrades. So now I enter the delusional phase where I convince myself that I've achieved good enough and don't need better.


Take solace in the fact the money saved from not buying any new equipment can be spent on more movies and music.  . I'm actually very happy with the audio side of my set up. I could use a bigger screen.


----------



## BeeMan458

You can make a ranch bet that any spare change is going towards content.


----------



## vidiot33

BeeMan458 said:


> Our problem, we've put together a system that it would cost up twice what we spent to best the current system and with our finances, even if I wanted to, I can't justify anymore upgrades. So now I enter the delusional phase where I convince myself that I've achieved good enough and don't need better.


Bingo! 2 great points made: first, the law of diminishing returns: with a good system, it can cost lots of money to improve it, even marginally. Second, satisfaction with our current gear. If we've chosen well, let's simply enjoy what we've got, and not be lusting after the latest and greatest. I've told myself I'm not going to read the A/V magazines anymore after I get this latest system in place...


----------



## willis7469

vidiot33 said:


> Bingo! 2 great points made: first, the law of diminishing returns: with a good system, it can cost lots of money to improve it, even marginally. Second, satisfaction with our current gear. If we've chosen well, let's simply enjoy what we've got, and not be lusting after the latest and greatest. I've told myself I'm not going to read the A/V magazines anymore after I get this latest system in place...


Me too. Just like the sign at the bar that says Free Beer....tomorrow!


----------



## chashint

Yes the $$$ required to gain even a marginal improvement can easily double the current investment.
It happens pretty quickly once a person is a notch or two above entry level.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> Yes the $$$ required to gain even a marginal improvement can easily double the current investment. It happens pretty quickly once a person is a notch or two above entry level.


Quite true. I'll paraphrase an earlier post by seconding that if it costs that much to upgrade, we must have done somethin right! ...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> ...we must have done somethin right!


I'm going make a copy of this comment for my wife's benefit.

(see honey, I didn't mess it up)

...


----------



## willis7469

Lol! I hope it works! My wife has accepted that I'm terminal. And that's pretty much it.


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> It can be very hard to see visually on a scope that waveforms are identical. You would have to observe every frequency at every amplitude to determine this. While I agree overall that differences are much less frequently audible than many believe, there are lots of ways for a signal to be distorted.
> 
> We could do a much better job of quantifying what differences are and are not present than the current methods of reporting specifications and testing.


Might i make an observation ? Although reading that seems kind of funny as I am typing before i see an answer. Oh well, here goes, Must we assume that differences in equipment that are audible are the result of distortions somewhere in the equipment ? Might the differences not be design related ?
I say this because as you know i am a strong proponent of differences being audible in more components than the general audience may acknowledge, although the polls remain quite telling about almost 50/50. Like most any type of quality audio video component, there is a designer, a design goal, a target audience and a price point to which each component is designed. I cannot fathom that decent audio/video gear is designed on a computer to said price point and audience, put into manufacture and sold without the intervention of human senses. Having visited several manufacturers of audio gear i can say without reservation that not one of them let anything go into production without the benefit of being listened to and the more expense limited production units will go through much more aural testing than say some of the lesser costing high volume manufacturers but all will be ear tested if you will. 
For us to surmise that all designers hear things the same would be wrong, and the same goes for video in that all of those designers will have differing goals that they seek. Different components within the manufacturing process by definition HAVE to make some sort of difference to be meaningful in design and implementation. In reading posts within this thread, most everyone prefers the sound of one manufacturer over another, if nothing else than by the way they spend their money. It seems a bit of a stretch for a consumer to say they prefer brand A over brand B, defend their beliefs vehemently and then go on to say there is really no difference in the perceived sound of their favorite component. We should all own the same component, or from the same manufacturer at whatever price point of power/feature point we choose. 
There are differences, we all discuss them and should revel in these differences, that is what makes us who we are.

Lastly, I wonder, of those who voted, how many have actually spent quality time with all of the receivers mentioned and if they have not, why they recommend something not experienced.


----------



## NBPk402

Savjac said:


> Might i make an observation ? Although reading that seems kind of funny as I am typing before i see an answer. Oh well, here goes, Must we assume that differences in equipment that are audible are the result of distortions somewhere in the equipment ? Might the differences not be design related ?
> I say this because as you know i am a strong proponent of differences being audible in more components than the general audience may acknowledge, although the polls remain quite telling about almost 50/50. Like most any type of quality audio video component, there is a designer, a design goal, a target audience and a price point to which each component is designed. I cannot fathom that decent audio/video gear is designed on a computer to said price point and audience, put into manufacture and sold without the intervention of human senses. Having visited several manufacturers of audio gear i can say without reservation that not one of them let anything go into production without the benefit of being listened to and the more expense limited production units will go through much more aural testing than say some of the lesser costing high volume manufacturers but all will be ear tested if you will.
> For us to surmise that all designers hear things the same would be wrong, and the same goes for video in that all of those designers will have differing goals that they seek. Different components within the manufacturing process by definition HAVE to make some sort of difference to be meaningful in design and implementation. In reading posts within this thread, most everyone prefers the sound of one manufacturer over another, if nothing else than by the way they spend their money. It seems a bit of a stretch for a consumer to say they prefer brand A over brand B, defend their beliefs vehemently and then go on to say there is really no difference in the perceived sound of their favorite component. We should all own the same component, or from the same manufacturer at whatever price point of power/feature point we choose.
> There are differences, we all discuss them and should revel in these differences, that is what makes us who we are.
> 
> Lastly, I wonder, of those who voted, how many have actually spent quality time with all of the receivers mentioned and if they have not, why they recommend something not experienced.


Could it be the same as cars... Where one car will be faster than another even though each car has exactly the same parts?


----------



## BeeMan458

How is the home theater gear used? How is the car driven?

I run the home theater system for performance. I drive the car for transportation.


----------



## NBPk402

BeeMan458 said:


> How is the home theater gear used? How is the car driven?
> 
> I run the home theater system for performance. I drive the car for transportation.


What I was getting at was... If you take 2 brand new cars (same model, options, and setup) they very well can perform different, whether it is handling, performance, gas mileage, noise, etc. This makes me think that it is possible for 2 amps to actually sound different too. Whether or not each one will be different is not guaranteed... Just a thought. :T As an example I would not be surprised if you took 2 identical amps and measured them they would have different results.


----------



## TheaterAdviceGuy

Look at the anthem stuff.


----------



## lcaillo

Savjac said:


> Might i make an observation ? Although reading that seems kind of funny as I am typing before i see an answer. Oh well, here goes, Must we assume that differences in equipment that are audible are the result of distortions somewhere in the equipment ? Might the differences not be design related ?
> I say this because as you know i am a strong proponent of differences being audible in more components than the general audience may acknowledge, although the polls remain quite telling about almost 50/50. Like most any type of quality audio video component, there is a designer, a design goal, a target audience and a price point to which each component is designed. I cannot fathom that decent audio/video gear is designed on a computer to said price point and audience, put into manufacture and sold without the intervention of human senses. Having visited several manufacturers of audio gear i can say without reservation that not one of them let anything go into production without the benefit of being listened to and the more expense limited production units will go through much more aural testing than say some of the lesser costing high volume manufacturers but all will be ear tested if you will.
> For us to surmise that all designers hear things the same would be wrong, and the same goes for video in that all of those designers will have differing goals that they seek. Different components within the manufacturing process by definition HAVE to make some sort of difference to be meaningful in design and implementation. In reading posts within this thread, most everyone prefers the sound of one manufacturer over another, if nothing else than by the way they spend their money. It seems a bit of a stretch for a consumer to say they prefer brand A over brand B, defend their beliefs vehemently and then go on to say there is really no difference in the perceived sound of their favorite component. We should all own the same component, or from the same manufacturer at whatever price point of power/feature point we choose.
> There are differences, we all discuss them and should revel in these differences, that is what makes us who we are.
> 
> Lastly, I wonder, of those who voted, how many have actually spent quality time with all of the receivers mentioned and if they have not, why they recommend something not experienced.


I would guess that virtually no one has direct experience with more than one or two of the models listed. I have only heard one of these. I have an opinion based on my experience of the brands in general and knowledge of the features. Many things are quite consistent among brands over many models. Many people do not ever actually spend much time with devices they buy. If no one ever gave an opinion on anything that they did not spend extensive time using we would have very little to talk about. Even if I did evaluate each of these, it is unlikely that I could do so in the same system with any degree of control over the conditions. So the likelihood of hearing differences that are meaningful may be very small if they are there. There are many reasons to buy a particular model, however, that have little to do with how it sounds. 

Whether there are actual differences in the sound of these AVRs is likely not terribly relevant to most who would purchase them. There is a lot more to a purchase for most people than which one sounds best in an objective listening test. Frankly, for most people, the difference in room correction software will make far more difference than any difference in the inherent sound of the device.


----------



## lcaillo

TheaterAdviceGuy said:


> Look at the anthem stuff.


Do you have some experience with it that you could share?


----------



## magic

ellisr63 said:


> What I was getting at was... If you take 2 brand new cars (same model, options, and setup) they very well can perform different, whether it is handling, performance, gas mileage, noise, etc. This makes me think that it is possible for 2 amps to actually sound different too. Whether or not each one will be different is not guaranteed... Just a thought. :T As an example I would not be surprised if you took 2 identical amps and measured them they would have different results.


No because, in a double blind test 
Both cars going at the same speed limit( level matched )
They should will feel like you are doing that speed.


----------



## Savjac

ellisr63 said:


> Could it be the same as cars... Where one car will be faster than another even though each car has exactly the same parts?


To a very minor extend yes indeed this is possible, but in the world of mass produced equipment that we are talking about, probably not, at least in our price range.

While i can't say definitively as this is just a guess, but odds are that even different priced products from the same manufacturer may have a house sound so to speak, but they may be somewhat different to the ear when we get them home. Its not likely that a $ 2000 AVR from company A is going to be designed, sourced and built by the same engineers, factories or even countries as a $ 300 AVR from the same company and that is before we take into consideration the inherent quality of the components in the AVR. 

One would think, although that may be a big mistake in my case, that the "Flagship" products are just that, designed and built to a higher standard and should be able to present the differences in components more readily than the lower end of the product line. With that in mind, it would really be beneficial to lay hands/ears on a high quality device for a time to realize what it is capable of, however, that really is not such an easy option to encounter, not too many dealers want to loan out 5 items for long term use. As such, deciding between brands at this price point is truly going to be based on the needs of the purchaser in way of looks, performance and a general searching online about quality control. This last bit is where this type of site and interaction can be very helpful.


----------



## Savjac

magic said:


> No because, in a double blind test
> Both cars going at the same speed limit( level matched )
> They should will feel like you are doing that speed.


This could be quite true, however, how long could both cars move without crashing if the drivers have blind folds ? :innocent:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> Might i make an observation ? Although reading that seems kind of funny as I am typing before i see an answer. Oh well, here goes, Must we assume that differences in equipment that are audible are the result of distortions somewhere in the equipment ? Might the differences not be design related ?
> I say this because as you know i am a strong proponent of differences being audible in more components than the general audience may acknowledge, although the polls remain quite telling about almost 50/50. Like most any type of quality audio video component, there is a designer, a design goal, a target audience and a price point to which each component is designed. I cannot fathom that decent audio/video gear is designed on a computer to said price point and audience, put into manufacture and sold without the intervention of human senses. Having visited several manufacturers of audio gear i can say without reservation that not one of them let anything go into production without the benefit of being listened to and the more expense limited production units will go through much more aural testing than say some of the lesser costing high volume manufacturers but all will be ear tested if you will.
> For us to surmise that all designers hear things the same would be wrong, and the same goes for video in that all of those designers will have differing goals that they seek. Different components within the manufacturing process by definition HAVE to make some sort of difference to be meaningful in design and implementation. In reading posts within this thread, most everyone prefers the sound of one manufacturer over another, if nothing else than by the way they spend their money. It seems a bit of a stretch for a consumer to say they prefer brand A over brand B, defend their beliefs vehemently and then go on to say there is really no difference in the perceived sound of their favorite component. We should all own the same component, or from the same manufacturer at whatever price point of power/feature point we choose.
> There are differences, we all discuss them and should revel in these differences, that is what makes us who we are.
> 
> Lastly, I wonder, of those who voted, how many have actually spent quality time with all of the receivers mentioned and if they have not, why they recommend something not experienced.


Maybe I'm over simplifying here but AVR designers don't worry about sound like they do in speakers (excluding DSP here). AVR designers are more worried about faithfully reproducing the signal input and amplifying it without altering the amplitude (all frequencies amplified equally relative to one another)  and phase relationships. If you keep those two aspects as true to the original signal, then the sound takes care of itself.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> This could be quite true, however, how long could both cars move without crashing if the drivers have blind folds ? :innocent:


I hitchhiked home once where the driver closed her eyes while passing a car. I was as white as a ghost by the time i got home.


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> I hitchhiked home once where the driver closed her eyes while passing a car. I was as white as a ghost by the time i got home.


This is too funny :rofl:

I cannot imagine your reaction, immmm ...strange lady could you please open your eyes for a bit ??


----------



## BeeMan458

ellisr63 said:


> What I was getting at was... If you take 2 brand new cars (same model, options, and setup) they very well can perform different, whether it is handling, performance, gas mileage, noise, etc.


In my offhand way, I was agreeing with you. What's not seen or discussed, if one takes a performance based piece of gear, and doesn't use it's capabilities, the differences in capabilities won't be noticed. Unfortunately, quite often, in my effort to be pithy, my intent gets lost in the nature of my posts.

Question? How many people overdrive their gear because they're expecting too much from their underpowered gear; introduced distortion?

Another point I don't see discussed, quality of recorded material. I've noticed a great deal of variation in movie sound track quality. Having THX reference level playback capability does not assure one of quality sound tracks.


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> Maybe I'm over simplifying here but AVR designers don't worry about sound like they do in speakers (excluding DSP here). AVR designers are more worried about faithfully reproducing the signal input and amplifying it without altering the amplitude (all frequencies amplified equally relative to one another) and phase relationships. If you keep those two aspects as true to the original signal, then the sound takes care of itself.


I understand where you are coming from here and would agree that the intent of any good AVR is to faithfully reproduce a signal in theory, however, i really do believe that "Most" good AVR's are designed by folks that do worry about the sound. The problem to me is, in designing the product, they may use a completely different set of "Ideals" if you will than what you or I may have. If the designer is using lets say a set of old Sansui speakers and I am using a new set of speakers from one of the recent rounds of listening tests done by the members here, there is a huge probability that we may not like the sound of that AVR. Does that make sense ?


----------



## BeeMan458

Savjac said:


> If the designer is using lets say a set of old Sansui speakers and I am using a new set of speakers from one of the recent rounds of listening tests done by the members here, there is a huge probability that we may not like the sound of that AVR. Does that make sense ?


Yes. The revealing nature of quality gear.


----------



## magic

Savjac said:


> This could be quite true, however, how long could both cars move without crashing if the drivers have blind folds ? :innocent:




I'm picturing the police pulling them over and seeing the seeing-eye dogs getting the tickets
Just priceless lol


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> Maybe I'm over simplifying here but AVR designers don't worry about sound like they do in speakers (excluding DSP here). AVR designers are more worried about faithfully reproducing the signal input and amplifying it without altering the amplitude (all frequencies amplified equally relative to one another) and phase relationships. If you keep those two aspects as true to the original signal, then the sound takes care of itself.


You are assuming that all designers are more worried about faithfully reproducing the signal. I would assume that after the initial design is built and listening tests are done then each particular designer will make changes based on their preferences. Some designers will just be happy with a flat frequency response while others prefer more of a house curve or more roll off in the top end. Of course a lot of this will be accomplished with the EQ parameters they set but I am sure there are hardware changes they can implement to affect these changes as well. 

Why would a designer want to put out a product that sounds just like his competition? If anything they want the sound to stand out from the rest as being superior to boost sales. If they all sounded the same then there wouldn't be much competition just like if all cars performed the same. Just like Dodge with the Viper and Chevy with the Corvette this is where the designers have more free reign just like A/V designers do with the flagships. It's below these flagships that things are more homogeneous but probably carry the same sound characteristics of the flagships, like a smoother top end or more goosed up bottom.

If every designer had the same goal then you're right, it should all sound the same. To expect that every designer has the same goal, not likely.


----------



## Almadacr

sub_crazy said:


> Why would a designer want to put out a product that sounds just like his competition?


I have the chance from listening in store and in the same room different AVR's with the same speakers , as also i had 5 different brands of receivers at my place with the same tunes ( one of them my own guitar tracks ) and all had a different sound signature but i'm not a electric engineer .


----------



## BeeMan458

Once I got over the thought of: do all AVRs sound different? Making our choice became that much easier.

I had been a Denon/Marantz baby for years. When it came time to upgrade to today's technology over yesterday's technology, I went with what I knew, Denon/Marantz. I asked but felt stupid asking about AVR/amplifier differences as in the end, I knew from my audio education, that once the curtain goes down, in a properly developed, peer reviewed double-blind, study, nobody could choose the difference at a rate better than random chance. Ohhhhh, the angst of it all.

My position? My bias? I want to believe there's a difference. I want to believe in snake oil. That's my bias. I want to choose the bottle marked snake oil. I like pretty things but, my stupid education tells me that snake oil is just that, nothing more than snake oil in a fancy bottle. How's that for a conundrum? Do I give into my inner-personal desires or do I give into my education? Should I just strip off all the trappings of the educated civilized person and go back to the garden.........commando? Shall I pretend my hearing is better than all the electronic test gear that this equipment is based on and buy into the culture that humanity has achieved a degree of evolution which supersedes the culture of science; can we really test for everything? Shall I become another human, frozen in time between their brutish African, sub-Saharan plains roots and that of a decent modern day Western humanities education? What to do?

Well the above aside, if anybody can find a review that tops that of Sonnie and the one put out by Sound and Vision, I'm all eyes. In the meantime, Denon gave me a Godfather deal when they said, we'll sell you our flagship AVR, including shipping and a full three year warranty for twenty percent off retail and to sweeten the pot, we'll throw in a free flagship universal player, the DBT-3313UDCI. That's right, no charge. So, I marched right in, told my wife of this deal, stopped quibbling, hit the hip, pulled out the plastic, sold out, said yes and purchased the AVR by the manufacture that keeps me all warm and fussy at night, got a killer good price, a free Universal Blu-ray player and allowed the hunt for audio Nirvana to come to an end.

The moral of the story, always go with the deal that gives you way more than you figured on and in the morning, when you wake up, won't make you feel dirty, used and embarrassed in the eyes of your peers. I love it when I can marry snake oil with a modern day education.

...:bigsmile:


----------



## Almadacr

BeeMan458 said:


> Once I got over the thought of: do all AVRs sound different? Making our choice became that much easier.
> 
> I had been a Denon/Marantz baby for years. When it came time to upgrade to today's technology over yesterday's technology, I went with what I knew, Denon/Marantz. I asked but felt stupid asking about AVR/amplifier differences as in the end, I knew from my audio education, that once the curtain goes down, in a properly developed, peer reviewed double-blind, study, nobody could choose the difference at a rate better than random chance. Ohhhhh, the angst of it all.
> 
> My position? My bias? I want to believe there's a difference. I want to believe in snake oil. That's my bias. I want to choose the bottle marked snake oil. I like pretty things but, my stupid education tells me that snake oil is just that, nothing more than snake oil in a fancy bottle. How's that for a conundrum? Do I give into my inner-personal desires or do I give into my education? Should I just strip off all the trappings of the educated civilized person and go back to the garden.........commando? Shall I pretend my hearing is better than all the electronic test gear that this equipment is based on and buy into the culture that humanity has achieved a degree of evolution which supersedes the culture of science; can we really test for everything? Shall I become another human, frozen in time between their brutish African, sub-Saharan plains roots and that of a decent modern day Western humanities education? What to do?
> 
> Well the above aside, if anybody can find a review that tops that of Sonnie and the one put out by Sound and Vision, I'm all eyes. In the meantime, Denon gave me a Godfather deal when they said, we'll sell you our flagship AVR, including shipping and a full three year warranty for twenty percent off retail and to sweeten the pot, we'll throw in a free flagship universal player, the DBT-3313UDCI. That's right, no charge. So, I marched right in, told my wife of this deal, stopped quibbling, pulled out the plastic, sold out, said yes and purchased the AVR by the manufacture that keeps me all warm and fussy at night, got a killer good price, a free Universal Blu-ray player and allowed the hunt for audio Nirvana to come to an end.
> 
> The moral of the story, always go with the deal that gives you way more than you figured on and in the morning, when you wake up, won't make you feel dirty, used and embarrassed in the eyes of your peers. I love it when I can marry snake oil with a modern day education.
> 
> ...:bigsmile:


Sonnie talked about amps not the AVR's if i'm not mistaken .

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-receivers-processors-amps/34084-can-we-really-hear-difference-between-amps.html


----------



## sub_crazy

Sonnie did do a review on the Denon 4520: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s/65664-denon-avr-4520ci-receiver-review.html


----------



## sub_crazy

I never actually read Sonnies review, missed it somehow. I did find this interesting in the first paragraph though:



> _About a year ago I decided to give up my Denon 4311 receiver so that I could give the Onkyo 5508 preamp/processor a spin in my system. *The 5508 has performed very well, yet for some reason I have this perception that it is noticeably forward, particularly in the dialog/midrange area. When using it I find myself backing down the center channel output from time to time, depending on the source material. On the other hand, the 4311 gave me the impression it was a bit softer… perhaps more laid back with its sound, most noticeably in that same dialog/midrange area. Ironically I remember having to increase the center channel level on it occasionally so that I could hear the dialog better in movies. With music and video concerts I believe I would have to lean towards the sound of the Denon over the Onkyo.* Although I will admit that I have been more satisfied with the 5508 after using Audyssey Pro, which I never used with the 4311. Regardless, both units sound really good in my system and I think most people would be satisfied with either as a processor. Of course neither of these units will be the main focus of this review._


I had the same impression as well and also preferred the 4311 over the 5508 for music. For movies though I prefer the more forward sound of the Onkyo than the laid back sound of the Denon. For me I also got better impact with my subs using the Onkyo and that was the clincher right there.


----------



## Almadacr

sub_crazy said:


> Sonnie did do a review on the Denon 4520: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s/65664-denon-avr-4520ci-receiver-review.html


Even so and taking from what Sonnie wrote " *I can not definitively conclude without AB testing, but I do not perceive that the 4520 is quite as laid back as the 4311, yet it still does not seem to be quite as forward as the 5508. 

*There are differences even between receivers from the same brand , would be great for Sonnie to chime in .


----------



## Savjac

BeeMan458 said:


> Once I got over the thought of: do all AVRs sound different? Making our choice became that much easier.
> 
> I had been a Denon/Marantz baby for years. When it came time to upgrade to today's technology over yesterday's technology, I went with what I knew, Denon/Marantz. I asked but felt stupid asking about AVR/amplifier differences as in the end, I knew from my audio education, that once the curtain goes down, in a properly developed, peer reviewed double-blind, study, nobody could choose the difference at a rate better than random chance. Ohhhhh, the angst of it all.
> 
> My position? My bias? I want to believe there's a difference. I want to believe in snake oil. That's my bias. I want to choose the bottle marked snake oil. I like pretty things but, my stupid education tells me that snake oil is just that, nothing more than snake oil in a fancy bottle. How's that for a conundrum? Do I give into my inner-personal desires or do I give into my education? Should I just strip off all the trappings of the educated civilized person and go back to the garden.........commando? Shall I pretend my hearing is better than all the electronic test gear that this equipment is based on and buy into the culture that humanity has achieved a degree of evolution which supersedes the culture of science; can we really test for everything? Shall I become another human, frozen in time between their brutish African, sub-Saharan plains roots and that of a decent modern day Western humanities education? What to do?
> 
> Well the above aside, if anybody can find a review that tops that of Sonnie and the one put out by Sound and Vision, I'm all eyes. In the meantime, Denon gave me a Godfather deal when they said, we'll sell you our flagship AVR, including shipping and a full three year warranty for twenty percent off retail and to sweeten the pot, we'll throw in a free flagship universal player, the DBT-3313UDCI. That's right, no charge. So, I marched right in, told my wife of this deal, stopped quibbling, hit the hip, pulled out the plastic, sold out, said yes and purchased the AVR by the manufacture that keeps me all warm and fussy at night, got a killer good price, a free Universal Blu-ray player and allowed the hunt for audio Nirvana to come to an end.
> 
> The moral of the story, always go with the deal that gives you way more than you figured on and in the morning, when you wake up, won't make you feel dirty, used and embarrassed in the eyes of your peers. I love it when I can marry snake oil with a modern day education.
> 
> ...:bigsmile:


Interesting opinion and outlook, if Sonnie or Sound and Vision put forth a series of thoughts or beliefs, it becomes fact while any other thoughts or beliefs would be considered snake oil. I do not discount what Sonnie wrote as that is what he heard, however, sound and vision is a for profit venture that, like stereo review and maybe even audio magazine before it really do not publish reviews that are negative. Julian was famous for his lines in way of, xyz should be considered one of the best in class blah blah blah while never calling attention to much of anything negative. What may be happening, although it is only a guess, comes in your summation that to not follow a certain train of beliefs put forth by "some" others in this hobby, one becomes embarrassed in the eyes of ones peers. Maybe one should hang with better peers that would not judge you by your choice in audio gear. 

As the very smart Stephen Ross once said, 

_"Research is supposed to train the mind into channels of scientific (and therefore respectable) thought, but does not this kind of research sometimes encourage the erroneous belief that only that which can be measured is worthy of serious attention? “Not everything we count counts. Not everything that counts can be counted,”_

So yes, your hearing is infinitely better than test equipment as the latter can never provide the information needed to fit your personal choices of how things should sound in your room with your equipment. So by following the beliefs of others we can experience their personal choices as encountered in their test lairs. That to me seems to be the less than stellar way to add to "our" enjoyment and personal experience. As mentioned earlier, if the listening or testing is done on equipment that is the polar opposite of what we own, the end result will really be cause for concern. Being ones own judge of acceptable or not acceptable is really the only way to stand tall before our peers, imo of course. 

Lastly, if the thoughts or beliefs espoused by tens of thousands of other hobbyists that may not necessarily agree with sound and vision are considered snake oil, why would sites like this even exist ? Should we all just browse the papers for a good deal as suggested in your post and be happy and content in the belief that a good deal is the best way to pick equipment for our hobby ? Why even go for the flagship, imagine the thousands we could save knowing that all gear sounds the same irrespective of lineage as long as it has the minimum parameters needed to play music and movie soundtracks. I think nothing can be that universal in any hobby.

This stuff should be fun, picking gear is a delight, playing with the stuff when we get it home can be such a fulfilling occurrence as it can also be a complete pain. That is what a hobby is all about while not necessarily impressing anyone as if impressions are the goal, the just make stuff up.


----------



## NBPk402

Savjac said:


> Interesting opinion and outlook, if Sonnie or Sound and Vision put forth a series of thoughts or beliefs, it becomes fact while any other thoughts or beliefs would be considered snake oil. I do not discount what Sonnie wrote as that is what he heard, however, sound and vision is a for profit venture that, like stereo review and maybe even audio magazine before it really do not publish reviews that are negative. Julian was famous for his lines in way of, xyz should be considered one of the best in class blah blah blah while never calling attention to much of anything negative. What may be happening, although it is only a guess, comes in your summation that to not follow a certain train of beliefs put forth by "some" others in this hobby, one becomes embarrassed in the eyes of ones peers. Maybe one should hang with better peers that would not judge you by your choice in audio gear.
> 
> As the very smart Stephen Ross once said,
> 
> _"Research is supposed to train the mind into channels of scientific (and therefore respectable) thought, but does not this kind of research sometimes encourage the erroneous belief that only that which can be measured is worthy of serious attention? “Not everything we count counts. Not everything that counts can be counted,”_
> 
> So yes, your hearing is infinitely better than test equipment as the latter can never provide the information needed to fit your personal choices of how things should sound in your room with your equipment. So by following the beliefs of others we can experience their personal choices as encountered in their test lairs. That to me seems to be the less than stellar way to add to "our" enjoyment and personal experience. As mentioned earlier, if the listening or testing is done on equipment that is the polar opposite of what we own, the end result will really be cause for concern. Being ones own judge of acceptable or not acceptable is really the only way to stand tall before our peers, imo of course.
> 
> Lastly, if the thoughts or beliefs espoused by tens of thousands of other hobbyists that may not necessarily agree with sound and vision are considered snake oil, why would sites like this even exist ? Should we all just browse the papers for a good deal as suggested in your post and be happy and content in the belief that a good deal is the best way to pick equipment for our hobby ? Why even go for the flagship, imagine the thousands we could save knowing that all gear sounds the same irrespective of lineage as long as it has the minimum parameters needed to play music and movie soundtracks. I think nothing can be that universal in any hobby.
> 
> This stuff should be fun, picking gear is a delight, playing with the stuff when we get it home can be such a fulfilling occurrence as it can also be a complete pain. That is what a hobby is all about while not necessarily impressing anyone as if impressions are the goal, the just make stuff up.


I'll just throw this into the mix... Have you ever heard of the bit about what makes you think the color blue is in fact blue? I think that it is very possible that what I hear is not necessarily the same as what you hear. What do you think of that? :T


----------



## BeeMan458

Savjac said:


> Interesting opinion and outlook, if Sonnie or Sound and Vision put forth a series of thoughts or beliefs, it becomes fact while any other thoughts or beliefs would be considered snake oil.


Not at all. The comment was what it was, if anybody has a better review than that of Sonnie and Sound and Vision, I'm happy to look at it and said as much when I posted:

"Well the above aside, if anybody can find a review that tops that of Sonnie and the one put out by Sound and Vision, I'm all eyes."



> What may be happening, although it is only a guess, comes in your summation that to not follow a certain train of beliefs put forth by "some" others in this hobby, one becomes embarrassed in the eyes of ones peers.


But that's not what I wrote when I posted:

"The moral of the story, always go with the deal that gives you way more than you figured on and in the morning, when you wake up, won't make you feel dirty, used and embarrassed in the eyes of your peers. I love it when I can marry snake oil with a modern day education."

....^

(humor)

Maybe I should quit trying to write as some get what I'm sharing and most don't. Please reread what I posted and keep comedy in mind as there's truth in comedy, as well as many other human conditions.


----------



## Savjac

ellisr63 said:


> I'll just throw this into the mix... Have you ever heard of the bit about what makes you think the color blue is in fact blue? I think that it is very possible that what I hear is not necessarily the same as what you hear. What do you think of that? :T


As far as I am concerned, this statement is spot on and goes to the heart of my post better than I said it myself.
So, Yes. :clap:


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> Yes. The revealing nature of quality gear.


Yep you said it. 

I pose this thought the receiver designers know that not all recordings and speakers are the same.... so I think as a designer they try to design an avr to sound good overall. Maybe highlight what they feel people would want to here more.

Not naming brands 
1)An avr that makes your speakers disappear

2) an avr that has large dynamics

3) one that has less bass but mids super clear

4) Etc...etc... 

.
Maybe it does this Just enough that we consider it their house sound. This doesn't take away from room correction however.

What do you think ?


----------



## BeeMan458

For home theater, in my opinion, dynamic capability of a system is pretty much right up there with "everything."

Bass capability, I ascribe to the subwoofer system, bass management and how the producer/sound engineer mixed the sound track. If I'm wrong on this point, I'm happy to read what ever one has to share. And being a simple mind, all the et cetera.....has a tendency to confuse me. 

I'm not a Pre-Pro kinda guy so I have no idea how much Pre-Pro electronics play into the sound equation. So let me ask, amplification capability aside, how much does the AVR's Pre-Pro play into the equation? The Pre-Pro in our unit is suppose to be a scaled down version of the high-end Marantz Pre-Pro; AV-8801.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

The key words to Sonnie's review is I wish I had both to A/B test the AVRs meaning that he fully understands that auditory memory becomes inaccurate quite quickly. Dr. Floyd Toole pioneering work into Audio and has demonstrated the flaw of accurate long term auditory memory.


----------



## lcaillo

Very interesting show at the heart of this issue:

http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/308752278/brand-over-brain


----------



## BeeMan458

What, no link to the trailer? 

"The Greatest Movie Ever Sold"


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> You are assuming that all designers are more worried about faithfully reproducing the signal. I would assume that after the initial design is built and listening tests are done then each particular designer will make changes based on their preferences. Some designers will just be happy with a flat frequency response while others prefer more of a house curve or more roll off in the top end. Of course a lot of this will be accomplished with the EQ parameters they set but I am sure there are hardware changes they can implement to affect these changes as well.
> 
> Why would a designer want to put out a product that sounds just like his competition? If anything they want the sound to stand out from the rest as being superior to boost sales. If they all sounded the same then there wouldn't be much competition just like if all cars performed the same. Just like Dodge with the Viper and Chevy with the Corvette this is where the designers have more free reign just like A/V designers do with the flagships. It's below these flagships that things are more homogeneous but probably carry the same sound characteristics of the flagships, like a smoother top end or more goosed up bottom.
> 
> If every designer had the same goal then you're right, it should all sound the same. To expect that every designer has the same goal, not likely.


I find it unlikely that a designer would design in a "house curve" because it would no longer be considered HiFi. Its coloring the sound and it no longer faithfully amplifies the signal input. Adding the effects of house curves would totally screw with the interaction of one's speakers and the room's acoustics. Adding a house curve will also but at disadvantage the room correction facilities because one is starting with colored source.


----------



## magic

Are not speakers in themselves not coloring the sound?? 

Why would you not assume the same for the designers of AV receivers. Also that does not mean the receiver is not faithfully reproducing the sound in the amplification section.
It just means that when you take it out of pure direct mode you are getting the house sound. 

I don't listen to pure direct and from my belief most people say they want the pure sound but if you listen to it long enough it can be fatiguing and as much as I would like to believe that the true faithful reproduction of the source is attainable I know it is not... unless your listening to live un-amplied music.

I hope you understand what I mean


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> I find it unlikely that a designer would design in a "house curve" because it would no longer be considered HiFi.


I put our system together. Do I qualify as a designer? There's nothing wrong with designing or adding a house curve. What did your professors tell you in your art classes?



> Its coloring the sound and it no longer faithfully amplifies the signal input.


Absolutely it colors the sound and thankfully it's no longer faithful the signal input. What happens when you use spices when cooking? What is food like sans spices.



> Adding the effects of house curves would totally screw with the interaction of one's speakers and the room's acoustics. Adding a house curve will also but at disadvantage the room correction facilities because one is starting with colored source.


That's a yes and a no. Get the room dialed in and then season or "screw with" to taste as what's happening, one is adjusting to personal taste as opposed to messing with the interaction of sound waves (acoustics) in the room. Because higher frequencies are so short, they don't suffer from this malady in the same way bass waves do. Jacking up the bass, doesn't mess with the interaction so much as it creates a bass hump, making the bass more dramatic but over all, in the bass frequency, when one steps back and looks at the whole of the graph it's self, the bass region is still flat showing that the overall bass intensity is equally jacked up but the acoustics have not been messed with. It's not a case of a singular frequency or octave.

The cool thing, one is dealing with the transient nature of a sound track as opposed to a singular bass note. Other than turning up the heat in the bass region, done right, the bass isn't boomy or bloated.


----------



## Savjac

BeeMan458 said:


> For home theater, in my opinion, dynamic capability of a system is pretty much right up there with "everything."
> 
> Bass capability, I ascribe to the subwoofer system, bass management and how the producer/sound engineer mixed the sound track. If I'm wrong on this point, I'm happy to read what ever one has to share. And being a simple mind, all the et cetera.....has a tendency to confuse me.
> 
> I'm not a Pre-Pro kinda guy so I have no idea how much Pre-Pro electronics play into the sound equation. So let me ask, amplification capability aside, how much does the AVR's Pre-Pro play into the equation? The Pre-Pro in our unit is suppose to be a scaled down version of the high-end Marantz Pre-Pro; AV-8801.



Dynamic capability is truly important but in reality most home systems can play quietly and at some truly insane levels on the high end. a police whistle can hit well over 90db for...well as long as the police can hold their breath. So, there is truly a difference between dynamic capability and "Dynamics" can be a subject all on its own. Bass capability is indeed "Part" of the bass capability of a system and yes how an engineer will work with the soundtrack will indeed make or break a soundtrack. The problem is, the subwoofer without a proper bed that is provided by the actual main speakers is not going to provide that "Impact" designed into gun shots, lightening and things like that as the frequency of most things in the tracks will come in above what the sub should be set to. As such the sub will enhance the true low bass but it must work invisible and remained unnoticed aside from the mains. Your Klipsch speakers fit the bill here very well because they possess that dynamic impact we so enjoy. 
A Pre Pro is nothing more than and AVR cut into separate pieces. They both work to bring the signal from an outside device to the speakers and both can and do color the sound to whatever point they are designed.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

magic said:


> Are not speakers in themselves not coloring the sound??


Totally and so does the room the speakers are in



magic said:


> Why would you not assume the same for the designers of AV receivers. Also that does not mean the receiver is not faithfully reproducing the sound in the amplification section.
> It just means that when you take it out of pure direct mode you are getting the house sound.


My whole arguement is premised in Pure direct mode without any post DSP being applied. Once you had DSP, things change dramatically.  



magic said:


> I don't listen to pure direct and from my belief most people say they want the pure sound but if you listen to it long enough it can be fatiguing and as much as I would like to believe that the true faithful reproduction of the source is attainable I know it is not... unless your listening to live un-amplied music.
> 
> I hope you understand what I mean


I use Pure Direct for music and run my towers full range. When watching BluRays and DVDs, I use the flat setting for Yamaha's YPAO. When I watch TV tha is not encoded with DD, I will apply a DSP such as "sports" mode for those all important hockey games.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> I put our system together. Do I qualify as a designer? There's nothing wrong with designing or adding a house curve. What did your professors tell you in your art classes?


You qualify as a system's integrator, not a designer. :neener: I'm not suggesting that adding a house sound is a bad thing as long as it can be disabled...Call it DSP.  





BeeMan458 said:


> Absolutely it colors the sound and thankfully it's no longer faithful the signal input. What happens when you use spices when cooking? What is food like sans spices.


Using your analogy, Toasting moldy bread before spreading a thick dollop of PB will still taste like moldy bread. 




BeeMan458 said:


> That's a yes and a no. Get the room dialed in and then season or "screw with" to taste as what's happening, one is adjusting to personal taste as opposed to messing with the interaction of sound waves (acoustics) in the room. Because higher frequencies are so short, they don't suffer from this malady in the same way bass waves do. Jacking up the bass, doesn't mess with the interaction so much as it creates a bass hump, making the bass more dramatic but over all, in the bass frequency, when one steps back and looks at the whole of the graph it's self, the bass region is still flat showing that the overall bass intensity is equally jacked up but the acoustics have not been messed with. It's not a case of a singular frequency or octave.
> 
> The cool thing, one is dealing with the transient nature of a sound track as opposed to a singular bass note. Other than turning up the heat in the bass region, done right, the bass isn't boomy or bloated.


Designers offer a choice in house curves through RC facilities. My arguments have been premised on the fact that designers will strive for the flattest response curve possible on the pre-amp and amplifier sections itself without DSP. They add house curves through DSP and RC facilities. That's a totally different argument that I won't go down as the house curves now become a choice of listener preference. I hope I've clarified this as my last post was taken out of context.


----------



## chashint

3dbinCanada is correct, for the pure direct mode engineers will design for reproduction of the input signal with amplification only.
Any other modification of the signal would be considered a defect.
To design otherwise would be the kiss of death in any objective review.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> You qualify as a system's integrator, not a designer. :neener:


Ah shucks. I was so looking forward to a new moniker.



> Using your analogy, Toasting moldy bread before spreading a thick dollop of PB will still taste like moldy bread.


I promise not to use moldy bread as my house curve. At the same time, one does recognize that the amount of mold included in cooking around the world, is quite surprising.  



> Designers offer a choice in house curves through RC facilities.
> 
> ---snip---
> 
> I hope I've clarified this as my last post was taken out of context.


My apologies as I wasn't trying to take your post out of context. My understanding, a "House Curve" is an act by the owner of the system as opposed to the designer of the the appliance. I see, once again, I went down the wrong rabbit hole.


----------



## Savjac

chashint said:


> 3dbinCanada is correct, for the pure direct mode engineers will design for reproduction of the input signal with amplification only.
> Any other modification of the signal would be considered a defect.
> To design otherwise would be the kiss of death in any objective review.


One would like to think this to be true, but its not. Almost everything in the AVR these days goes through the processing computer, however, some modes do less to the signal than others. The only way to get around almost ALL the processing is to use the 7.1 channel inputs on the AVR if they have that option. 

I spoke at length to one of the folks that is an actual designer of home audio components and he did say the only way to get around the computer/processor is to purchase an all analog pre amp that essentially does no processing. Using the direct mode cuts off a good bit of what the processor does such as bass management but the signal is still routed through it, and pure direct is the same but it shuts down the lights and some other extraneous stuff in the AVR. 

This is not considered a defect, it is what modern home theater AVR's have become, computers in a box.


----------



## chashint

It does not matter that 100% of processing cannot be completely turned off in an AVR. 
In objective 3rd party testing even modest AVRs have a flat frequency response exceeding 20-20khz and THD <0.1%.
That is representative of design that is not tailored for house curve.
If a designer were able to bring an AVR product to market that did measure flat in pure direct mode it would be crucified in the audio press and internet forums.


----------



## sub_crazy

I totally messed up in describing a designer using a house curve, I was just riffing :dontknow: I didn't think that is the way the rest of the thread would go but I said it and I am here to represent it 

I do know that most speaker designers use extended listening sessions after careful modeling and testing then do their final adjustments from there. I think it is safe to assume that a majority of electronics designers do the same thing if the budget allows. I am not an EE so I don't know what different components could affect the sound aside from DAC's but I know what I hear.

I do find it interesting that you discount Sonnie's thoughts about the sound difference by saying:



3dbinCanada said:


> The key words to Sonnie's review is I wish I had both to A/B test the AVRs meaning that he fully understands that auditory memory becomes inaccurate quite quickly. Dr. Floyd Toole pioneering work into Audio and has demonstrated the flaw of accurate long term auditory memory.


But just earlier in this thread I commented that I had BOTH the 4311 and 5508 in the same rack for quick comparison and also long term testing and came to the same conclusion as Sonnie. I had not read Sonnie's review before I was made aware of it by Beeman's post. 

Here is my first post in this thread from 4-24-14 in were I describe the sound I experienced which is pretty similar to Sonnie's experience:



sub_crazy said:


> I chose the Onkyo based on my previous experience with the 5508 and 3008 compared to the Denon 4311 and Pioneer Elite SC-05 I have all owned in the past. I really do like the Pioneer Elite receivers but MCACC doesn't EQ as well as Audyssey. I also had better EQ results with the Onkyo variation of XT32 than I did Denon's by a decent margin. With the Onkyo's I didn't need to use an additional EQ for my subs, with the Denon I had to still tame some peaks and this was in the exact same system with the same mic placement.
> The Onkyo also had a more dynamic tone which made the Denon sound a little bland in comparison for movies, for music *the more laid back sound of the Denon* was better though for jazz and easy listening.
> 
> I don't know about these new receivers though, just going off of past receivers I have owned.


Sonnie found the Denon 4311 to be more laid back sounding as well. While not proof of anything it is 2 people with first hand listening experience in their own system. Maybe Sonnie didn't A/B them back to back but I did.

It doesn't really matter if you believe me or if I believe you, like someone stated earlier in this thread: _*I think that it is very possible that what I hear is not necessarily the same as what you hear.*_ But at least I heard it, you're just quoting studies and theories.


----------



## Savjac

chashint said:


> It does not matter that 100% of processing cannot be completely turned off in an AVR.
> In objective 3rd party testing even modest AVRs have a flat frequency response exceeding 20-20khz and THD <0.1%.
> That is representative of design that is not tailored for house curve.
> If a designer were able to bring an AVR product to market that did measure flat in pure direct mode it would be crucified in the audio press and internet forums.


Once again, the point is missed in that no one mentioned a house curve but rather a house sound. I really have no clue what you are saying here and flat response means little in the real world. Flat response could be the dullest sound in the world or the nicest never the less if something is released like that....well never mind, we are not in the same ballpark here.


----------



## willis7469

I won't bore you all with more of my anecdotes, but I do have a couple questions. 
1) what about the days before "pure direct" and such? I've A/B'd rcvrs in the past and heard distinct differences. (Stereo mode, bass/treble at 0 etc)
2)if I understand the electrical engineers standpoint, you could build a rcvr, and never listen to it, knowing it will perform a certain way based on a scope?


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> I won't bore you all with more of my anecdotes,....


...:rubeyes:...:hissyfit:...:crying:...

Story, story.

......:bigsmile:


----------



## willis7469

Well Bee, it all started in about 1979....
Lol!


----------



## chashint

willis7469 said:


> Well Bee, it all started in about 1979....
> Lol!


You are young.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> You are young.


Considering my Bday is this month, I'll take that as a compliment! My story actually began in 74, but when I was 5, my dad showed me his reel to reel, and vinyl stuff. ...hooked!


----------



## BeeMan458

Savjac, thanks for the reply.

(in those days, who could resist the allure of a reel-to-reel)


----------



## Almadacr

willis7469 said:


> I won't bore you all with more of my anecdotes, but I do have a couple questions.
> 1) what about the days before "pure direct" and such? I've A/B'd rcvrs in the past and heard distinct differences. (Stereo mode, bass/treble at 0 etc)
> 2)if I understand the electrical engineers standpoint, you could build a rcvr, and never listen to it, knowing it will perform a certain way based on a scope?


I think that one of the post's buy *Sub-Crazy* was really explanatory....we are all tone deft specially in my case after 29 years playing guitar and other instruments and not knowing nothing about music changes as well friends that are professional musicians (some of them also have the HT disease ) so we lack the electrical engineer brain where our brain plays tricks with us :huh:


----------



## magic

Almadacr said:


> I think that one of the post's buy Sub-Crazy was really explanatory....we are all tone deft specially in my case after 29 years playing guitar and other instruments and not knowing nothing about music changes as well friends that are professional musicians (some of them also have the HT disease ) so we lack the electrical engineer brain where our brain plays tricks with us :huh:


Sorry, Almadacr you lost me a little bit on this one can you explain further 
Thanks


----------



## Almadacr

magic said:


> Sorry, Almadacr you lost me a little bit on this one can you explain further
> Thanks


Easy , the user in question since his first post # 26 claimed " I'm betting that results would become different if the tests were conducted under blind conditions within several minutes of one another unless you were comparing room correction facilities" . This was regarding *Sub-crazy* explaining 3 different brands of receivers and said they all sounded different . 

I don't know but , clearly some members were " accused " of not knowing how things work or what they ear and that they are not electrical engineers ( that one was at me ) . 

Another is audition it is only acceptable if done in the same room with identical circumstances :rolleyesno: but if i do it at my own environment it's Bias :huh: . 

To summarize *Sub-Crazy* gave the best answer in question " why we hear differences " .



> It doesn't really matter if you believe me or if I believe you, like someone stated earlier in this thread: I think that it is very possible that what I hear is not necessarily the same as what you hear. But at least I heard it, you're just quoting studies and theories.


----------



## magic

Ok I got what your saying now.

Makes sense on what he is saying to 


Edited
If you hear a difference after trying them.... I mean you take the time to properly compare them then their is a difference. Then go buy it. But if you don't here a difference... or you don't like the change you do here don't change.

I just don't understand why every time we get into this discussion of AV r's we have the double blind comments brought up.

The AV receiver manufacturer is the only one who makes sure that they have perfectly flat sound out of the receivers.

Forget about the sound engineer who edited the music

Forget about the musicians who used tube amps to get the sound they wanted 

Forget about not having the top of the line microphones when recording the sound

Forget about the speakers they used to get the mix the way they wanted it to sound.
( by the way if you really wanted to here what the engineers were hearing you would be using their speakers. But that's a different story.) 

I'm not suggesting you go to this extreme but to say the AV receiver is 100% identical in a double blind test doesn't seem right. Especially when the top amp designers say different. 

Then again it could be a ploy by the designers to to make more money. 


Does anyone have a detailed list of instructions on how to do a double blind test. I'll set it up but I'm warning you all that if I do this I don't want to here one word from anyone... When I give you my results... lol ;-)

Yea that includes the power out of the wall was 120 for the first avr and 117 for the 2nd one....or you should have done it at 2 am when the power from the city is cleaner... (come on guys I'm joking )



Just don't tell best buy about the test till I return it. 
;


----------



## Almadacr

magic said:


> Ok I got what your saying now.
> 
> Makes sense on what he is saying to
> 
> 
> Edited
> If you hear a difference after trying them.... I mean you take the time to properly compare them then their is a difference. Then go buy it. But if you don't here a difference... or you don't like the change you do here don't change.
> 
> I just don't understand why every time we get into this discussion of AV r's we have the double blind comments brought up.
> 
> The AV receiver manufacturer is the only one who makes sure that they have perfectly flat sound out of the receivers.
> 
> Forget about the sound engineer who edited the music
> 
> Forget about the musicians who used tube amps to get the sound they wanted
> 
> Forget about not having the top of the line microphones when recording the sound
> 
> Forget about the speakers they used to get the mix the way they wanted it to sound.
> ( by the way if you really wanted to here what the engineers were hearing you would be using their speakers. But that's a different story.)
> 
> I'm not suggesting you go to this extreme but to say the AV receiver is 100% identical in a double blind test doesn't seem right. Especially when the top amp designers say different.
> 
> Then again it could be a ploy by the designers to to make more money.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have a detailed list of instructions on how to do a double blind test. I'll set it up but I'm warning you all that if I do this I don't want to here one word from anyone... When I give you my results... lol ;-)
> 
> Yea that includes the power out of the wall was 120 for the first avr and 117 for the 2nd one....or you should have done it at 2 am when the power from the city is cleaner... (come on guys I'm joking )
> 
> 
> 
> Just don't tell best buy about the test till I return it.
> ;


:T


----------



## magic

I have had receivers in my system time and time again and they don't all sound the same to me....maybe it's my ears too...


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> I just don't understand why every time we get into this discussion of AV r's we have the double blind comments brought up.


Because in my opinion, to openly leave this 400kg gorilla out of the the discussion, is to be intellectually disingenuous.


----------



## willis7469

I've read countless AVR reviews over the years, as well as owned a variety of them. My favorite part of reviews is when they get to the subjective listening tests, and say, I knew this Marantz would sound like the last onkyo and denon I reviewed cause they measured exactly the same. ...oh wait, they don't. 
This is where I wish an OEM would chime in, so we can have something to hang a hat on. Double blind tests? Link please. 
Magic, I'll be happy to read and comment on your test! I won't tell BB either.


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> Because in my opinion, to openly leave this 400kg gorilla out of the the discussion, is to be intellectually disingenuous.


But BeeMan458 ...why do we not discuss the pre amps in the avrs the same way that we discuss amps sounding the same 

Or discuss Why Audyssey gives different results on different avrs. ( shouldn't it make all avrs sound the same across all audyssey platforms )

Or why pioneer avrs won't let you listen to audio while your in the 9 band eq
OK the last one is my personal grip 
Lol !!!


----------



## magic

willis7469 said:


> I've read countless AVR reviews over the years, as well as owned a variety of them. My favorite part of reviews is when they get to the subjective listening tests, and say, I knew this Marantz would sound like the last onkyo and denon I reviewed cause they measured exactly the same. ...oh wait, they don't.
> This is where I wish an OEM would chime in, so we can have something to hang a hat on. Double blind tests? Link please.
> Magic, I'll be happy to read and comment on your test! I won't tell BB either.


Thanks it would be nice if an OEM could chime in


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> But BeeMan458 ...why do we not discuss the pre amps in the avrs the same way that we discuss amps sounding the same
> 
> Or discuss Why Audyssey gives different results on different avrs. ( shouldn't it make all avrs sound the same across all audyssey platforms )
> 
> Or why pioneer avrs won't let you listen to audio while your in the 9 band eq
> OK the last one is my personal grip
> Lol !!!


.....IDK.....:huh:...but I do know that crab tastes better when it's on my plate than when it's on your plate.

...:whistling:

(guess what we're having for our pre-game dinner)

...


----------



## chashint

willis7469 said:


> I've read countless AVR reviews over the years, as well as owned a variety of them. My favorite part of reviews is when they get to the subjective listening tests, and say, I knew this Marantz would sound like the last onkyo and denon I reviewed cause they measured exactly the same. ...oh wait, they don't.
> This is where I wish an OEM would chime in, so we can have something to hang a hat on. Double blind tests? Link please.
> Magic, I'll be happy to read and comment on your test! I won't tell BB either.


http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm


----------



## willis7469

Thanks


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> .....IDK.....:huh:...but I do know that crab tastes better when it's on my plate than when it's on your plate.
> 
> ...:whistling:
> 
> (guess what we're having for our pre-game dinner)
> 
> ...


What no Nochos !!!! 
You have to have Nochos 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=supr...utube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoAqm9hE7jrs;1920;1080


----------



## magic

chashint said:


> http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm




Thanks also .....
reading this I found the following.
From the author ::



""Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed,more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up""






Now I know this is in relation to amps...but the room correction and preamp sections how does that relate ?


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> What no Nochos !!!!
> You have to have Nochos
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=supr...utube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoAqm9hE7jrs;1920;1080


Nachos are very good.

...


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> Thanks also .....
> reading this I found the following.
> From the author ::
> 
> 
> 
> ""Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?
> 
> No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.


The stated rules of ABX double-blind testing, Amps are gain matched, played withing specification and all settings are the same. The point, if someone finds need to over drive their amplifier section, the rational recommendation would be to upgrade their speaker system, amplifier section or both. We already have a sensitive speaker section so we upgraded the amplifier section and sonically, the results have been very gratifying.


----------



## djcooldad

Hi,i was in the same situation that you are in making a decision to buy a flagship i did have yamaha receiver in the past did not quite impress me in term of sound quality and then i switch to pioneer the pioneer was not a flagship but was consider of THX and i was quite satisfy with it .but now that i bought the denon 4520 i am so happy with sound quality , technology wise very impressive its the feeling of having completed my dream what a piece of equipment ! its pure gold in its kind i really recommend the denon very happy with it. this is it you can't go wrong Go DENON


----------



## 3dbinCanada

One of the OPs stated that they thought a flat response was fatiguing. That's their personal preference and I can't argue that.

What I'm saying is that even though AVR designers design for a flat frequency response across the audio spectrum, it doesn't mean that the AVR changes the input signal to make the output a flat response making all frequency components equal in amplitude. A flat response simply means that the amplifying process applies the same amplification across all frequency components amplifying each frequency component equally so the relative amplitude between frequency components remain unchanged from input to output. Designers will not mess with this as the Audio press will have a field day with them and rightfully so. If one doesn't like a flat response, one can alter it with the tone controls or the AVR's built in EQ.

Personally, I prefer the flattest response possible so that I can hear what the recording engineer intended for us to hear.


----------



## BeeMan458

> A flat response simply means that the amplifying process applies the same amplification across all frequency components amplifying each frequency component equally so the relative amplitude between frequency components remain unchanged from input to output.


...lddude:

And how many denizens of Best Buy or Costco will understand your above? 

...:clap:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> ...lddude:
> 
> And how many denizens of Best Buy or Costco will understand your above?
> 
> ...:clap:


:doh: I believe my systems integrator has some s'plainin to do to the "Geek Squad"


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> :doh: I believe my systems integrator has some s'plainin to do to the "Geek Squad"


....


----------



## chashint

magic said:


> Now I know this is in relation to amps...but the room correction and preamp sections how does that relate ?


Here is why pure direct mode is specified in discussions about AVRs sounding the same.
Turn off the signal processing and eq (nitpick if anyone desires) and the preamp / processor is designed to produce a flat response too.
Hence in blind testing one cannot be identified from another when the same source and speakers are used.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

chashint said:


> Here is why pure direct mode is specified in discussions about AVRs sounding the same.
> Turn off the signal processing and eq (nitpick if anyone desires) and the preamp / processor is designed to produce a flat response too.
> Hence in blind testing one cannot be identified from another when the same source and speakers are used.


Don't forget to add "while the amps being compared are operating well within their power envelope."


----------



## chashint

3dbinCanada said:


> Don't forget to add "while the amps being compared are operating well within their power envelope."


Yes that is an additional requirement and not a nitpick.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

chashint said:


> Yes that is an additional requirement and not a nitpick.


Its funny that none of us are arguing that AVRs sound different when not level matched, or driving different speakers, or with DSP/room correction facilities turned on or driven into clipping. :devil:


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> Its funny that none of us are arguing that AVRs sound different when not level matched, or driving different speakers, or with DSP/room correction facilities turned on or driven into clipping. :devil:



Ummmmm........... I am pretty sure there were a few people who mentioned they heard a difference. Early on in the thread you asked me specifically how I tested and all those boxes were checked. 

Maybe add some ginkgo biloba to your diet :huh: :bigsmile:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> Ummmmm........... I am pretty sure there were a few people who mentioned they heard a difference. Early on in the thread you asked me specifically how I tested and all those boxes were checked.
> 
> Maybe add some ginkgo biloba to your diet :huh: :bigsmile:


I was being sarcastic :T


----------



## TheHammer

magic said:


> I just don't understand why every time we get into this discussion of AV r's we have the double blind comments brought up.


First, I would respectfully suggest that we understand the placebo effect and how powerful it is.

There are many references on the web from reliable sources. 

http://listverse.com/2013/02/16/10-crazy-facts-about-the-placebo-effect/

There is a reason why all serious research used double blind testing and statistical analysis.

There are famous professional audio analysts that claim that there are obvious audible difference in non-tube amps, yet cannot pick out those amps when the test is done double blind.

An analysis of subjective reviews of amplifiers reveals contradictory conclusions. If the differences are clearly audible, why doesn't each of these highly trained experts hear the same differences.

Those of us that accept the power of the placebo effect are still waiting for a valid study that reveals these significant audible difference in AVR's.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> I was being sarcastic :T


Ooops :duh:

My sarcasm filter was on the fritz that day :help:


----------



## sub_crazy

TheHammer said:


> First, I would respectfully suggest that we understand the placebo effect and how powerful it is.
> 
> There are many references on the web from reliable sources.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2013/02/16/10-crazy-facts-about-the-placebo-effect/
> 
> There is a reason why all serious research used double blind testing and statistical analysis.
> 
> There are famous professional audio analysts that claim that there are obvious audible difference in non-tube amps, yet cannot pick out those amps when the test is done double blind.
> 
> An analysis of subjective reviews of amplifiers reveals contradictory conclusions. If the differences are clearly audible, why doesn't each of these highly trained experts hear the same differences.
> 
> Those of us that accept the power of the placebo effect are still waiting for a valid study that reveals these significant audible difference in AVR's.


To quote the article you linked: 

_*Fact: Placebo Has An Evil Twin Named “Nocebo”.*

Just as our expectations of a drug’s effectiveness can influence our reaction to a placebo, an expectation of side effects can cause us to experience them as well. This has manifested itself in a multitude of very extreme ways and has come to be known by the extremely sinister sounding “Nocebo.”

One notable study documenting the effects of Nocebo took place in Italy where both people with and without lactose intolerance took what they thought was lactose (it wasn’t). Sure enough forty-four percent of those with intolerance and a staggering twenty-six percent without it developed symptoms of gastrointestinal discomfort. 

As if tricking yourself into diarrhea and stomach cramps weren’t bad enough, imagine losing faith in your working because of what your doctor told you. “Nocebo” effect regrettably works on those taking real pharmaceuticals as well, as revealed by a study conducted on men taking Finasteride for their enlarged prostates. Half were told by the doctor that erectile disfunction was a possible side effect and the other half were not. Of the group told about the side effect, forty-four percent reported erectile dysfunction compared to only fifteen percent of the group that had not been told.

One patient participating in a trial for antidepressant medication swallowed twenty-six of the placebo pills in a suicide attempt. Even though they were completely harmless, his blood pressure somehow dropped dangerously low.
_

Placebo or Nocebo I enjoy this hobby and trying new products. Whether someone hears the same or different than myself I take solace in the fact that there can be a difference. Life would be boring if everything was the same so hear what you would like and I will do the same, blindfold or not.


----------



## willis7469

http://www.cnet.com/news/do-all-amplifiers-sound-alike/

Here's just a couple of bits to consider, by 2 pretty well respected audio gurus. I did read the Richard Clark thing. Written by someone not affiliated, but certainly a supporter. However, IMO, it seems slightly suspect to EQ the response curve of one amp to match the other. He said he could easily do this with a cap and resistor(paraphrase). Isn't that whats in a preamp section of an AVR, and what they "design" them with? I keep hearing about direct/pure audio mode, and I understand that the amp section should be linear in response, but what about the days before PD mode. I listened to AVRs in stores that you could A/B with the same speakers, and heard distinct differences.(careful to make sure volume/bass/treb were the same levels on each, both in "stereo) This was before direct/PA, so...?
Keep in mind the tone of my post is inquisitive, so no rampaging please. In the meantime, I'm goin to take a snake oil bath. Sub_crazy, I have extra if you want some. I'll ship it free!


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> Keep in mind the tone of my post is inquisitive, so no rampaging please.




(Sorry, no rampaging and the elephants have to go.)


----------



## TheHammer

sub_crazy said:


> To quote the article you linked:
> 
> _*Fact: Placebo Has An Evil Twin Named “Nocebo”.*
> 
> Just as our expectations of a drug’s effectiveness can influence our reaction to a placebo, an expectation of side effects can cause us to experience them as well. This has manifested itself in a multitude of very extreme ways and has come to be known by the extremely sinister sounding “Nocebo.”
> 
> One notable study documenting the effects of Nocebo took place in Italy where both people with and without lactose intolerance took what they thought was lactose (it wasn’t). Sure enough forty-four percent of those with intolerance and a staggering twenty-six percent without it developed symptoms of gastrointestinal discomfort.
> 
> As if tricking yourself into diarrhea and stomach cramps weren’t bad enough, imagine losing faith in your working because of what your doctor told you. “Nocebo” effect regrettably works on those taking real pharmaceuticals as well, as revealed by a study conducted on men taking Finasteride for their enlarged prostates. Half were told by the doctor that erectile disfunction was a possible side effect and the other half were not. Of the group told about the side effect, forty-four percent reported erectile dysfunction compared to only fifteen percent of the group that had not been told.
> 
> One patient participating in a trial for antidepressant medication swallowed twenty-six of the placebo pills in a suicide attempt. Even though they were completely harmless, his blood pressure somehow dropped dangerously low.
> _
> 
> Placebo or Nocebo I enjoy this hobby and trying new products. Whether someone hears the same or different than myself I take solace in the fact that there can be a difference. Life would be boring if everything was the same so hear what you would like and I will do the same, blindfold or not.


Isn't that a wonderful quote from that website! I admit I am puzzled why you selected it as it supports the idea that we are capable of talking ourselves into believing anything to the point where it can actually harm us, even though no difference exists.

I, too, enjoy trying new products - when my budget allows me to do so. But when I spend my money, I want to put it where it could make a difference. BTW I just purchased a new A/V receiver.

"I take solace in the fact that there can be a difference." Of course there 'could be'. But if there is, why can't it be reproduced in a double blind situation? 

"Life would be boring if everything was the same". Life is crazy exciting, without us spending time on something that apparently does not exist.

I know I will never convince you otherwise. I post in forums like this, partially out of stubbornness, my refusal to believe that 'you can fool some of the people all of the time'. And because there are a lot of people out there who read these forums and use them to make up their mind as to what to purchase. I would like to try to warn them that they are wasting their money chasing the 'perfect' receiver. The only differences are:

1) Features - it is tough to compare all those features and which are important. The answer is different for every person.
2) Reliability - based on the history of the product line and mostly anecdotal. Warranty. 
3) GUI - or really the way we as humans interact with the receiver. Is it easy to use and does it do what we want it to do?
4) Looks - they are pretty much all just black boxes these days

Notice I left out power. When comparing receivers, convert the power differences to db and you will see the difference is pretty small. While the difference between a 100W amp and a 125W amp sounds like a lot, it is really just a difference of 0.97db which is not audible. It takes about twice the power for it to make a significant difference. 

There are things that make amps sound different. I put those under features. They include the type of system used for equalization (Audyssey, YPAO, etc.) - and I have yet to find a quantitative comparison of those systems. I would also include sensitivity (level of each input), action of the volume control (linear vs. log) and others.

But until someone can sit down and hear the difference between (direct) amps in a controlled, properly adjusted setup, I am afraid that I will have to assign the difference you hear to the placebo effect. Or that the conditions are so dissimilar that they do actually sound different (speakers, volumes, room, source, sensitivity, etc.).


----------



## sub_crazy

willis7469 said:


> In the meantime, I'm goin to take a snake oil bath. Sub_crazy, I have extra if you want some. I'll ship it free!


Yes please  I have always wanted to take a bath in it so I can grow a beautiful layer of reptilian like skin :yes: :bigsmile:


----------



## sub_crazy

Wow, you really brought "TheHammer" 

Under ideal circumstances all receivers will sound the same, I am not arguing that. I am talking about real world tests though which can be far from ideal and the world which we all also live. In your scenario we are talking about a lab type environment, in my scenario I am talking about someones home. This is Home Theater Shack, not Lab Shack and I don't own a lab coat which I am sure you guessed anyway.

I know I will never convince you as well and I am fine with that, I have nothing to gain by doing so. I do respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine, I have a feeling you're shaking your head though. 

I will admit that some of the speakers I did hear a difference with receivers were difficult loads to drive. In particular were the Aerial 9 and Thiel CS2.3 whose impedance can drop at some frequencies putting a strain on amps at higher volumes. Going by the mfg's specs I try to keep the comparisons close and with separate quality amps there isn't much of a difference. I did compare some receivers though with both of those speakers from quality mfg's like Arcam, Denon, Pioneer Elite and probably a few others (I did mention before in this thread I used to be a dealer) and with a few there were sound differences and more likely it was the receiver having a hard time driving these difficult loads. I also did hear some differences using the receivers as preamps into my separate amplifier but this was more likely due to the DAC's since there was not much difference using the analog inputs. 

Your position is that under ideal circumstances there is no difference, that I agree with. Were not in Heaven though so don't count on ideal circumstances which would then leave the door open for differences.


----------



## chashint

Well if you truly believe there are audible differences the placebo / nocebo article would lead to the conclusion that in scientifically conducted blind testing at least one person would have been able to hear and identify "A" / "B" in spite of there being no differences LOL.


----------



## sub_crazy

chashint said:


> Well if you truly believe there are audible differences the placebo / nocebo article would lead to the conclusion that in scientifically conducted blind testing at least one person would have been able to hear and identify "A" / "B" in spite of there being no differences LOL.


:bigsmile:


----------



## BeeMan458

sub_crazy said:


> .....(I did mention before in this thread I used to be a dealer) and with a few there were sound differences and more likely it was the receiver having a hard time driving these difficult loads.


We recently upgraded from a Marantz SR5007 that suffered as you describe above. As the action sound track ramped up, I could hear the speakers fade to the background as they were being overrun by the subwoofers.

The solution was to upgrade to a flagship AVR with a 4ohm capability and the problem went away. :sn:


----------



## willis7469

BeeMan458 said:


> We recently upgraded from a Marantz SR5007 that suffered as you describe above. As the action sound track ramped up, I could hear the speakers fade to the background as they were being overrun by the subwoofers. The solution was to upgrade to a flagship AVR with a 4ohm capability and the problem went away.  :sn:


I had a similar experience to Beeman here. This is also where I have to mention Thehammers quote:
"Notice I left out power. When comparing receivers, convert the power differences to db and you will see the difference is pretty small. While the difference between a 100W amp and a 125W amp sounds like a lot, it is really just a difference of 0.97db which is not audible. It takes about twice the power for it to make a significant difference"
In my example, I had a 120x7 pioneer(1019 ahk), and switched to an onkyo txnr-808. 135x7. Both very competent, but when approaching reference, the audible difference is quite surprising. The onkyo crushes the pioneer in clean, and clear output. I know this is more complicated than published numbers, but thought I'd drop this in.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

sub_crazy said:


> Wow, you really brought "TheHammer"
> 
> Under ideal circumstances all receivers will sound the same, I am not arguing that. I am talking about real world tests though which can be far from ideal and the world which we all also live. In your scenario we are talking about a lab type environment, in my scenario I am talking about someones home. This is Home Theater Shack, not Lab Shack and I don't own a lab coat which I am sure you guessed anyway.


You should get one.... and forget to wear anything underneath .. :rofl2:

Seriously though, these conditions aren't necessarily lab conditions. There are tons of speakers with a fairly high sensitivity and whose impedance doesn't drop below 4 ohms. This is still a real world setting. 



sub_crazy said:


> I know I will never convince you as well and I am fine with that, I have nothing to gain by doing so. I do respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine, I have a feeling you're shaking your head though.


Just a nervous twitch... don't take it personally  



sub_crazy said:


> I will admit that some of the speakers I did hear a difference with receivers were difficult loads to drive. In particular were the Aerial 9 and Thiel CS2.3 whose impedance can drop at some frequencies putting a strain on amps at higher volumes. Going by the mfg's specs I try to keep the comparisons close and with separate quality amps there isn't much of a difference. I did compare some receivers though with both of those speakers from quality mfg's like Arcam, Denon, Pioneer Elite and probably a few others (I did mention before in this thread I used to be a dealer) and with a few there were sound differences and more likely it was the receiver having a hard time driving these difficult loads. I also did hear some differences using the receivers as preamps into my separate amplifier but this was more likely due to the DAC's since there was not much difference using the analog inputs.
> 
> Your position is that under ideal circumstances there is no difference, that I agree with. Were not in Heaven though so don't count on ideal circumstances which would then leave the door open for differences.


I fully suspect AVRs to start sounding differently into difficult loads espcially when they are being pushed beyond their design limits. I agree with you


----------



## 3dbinCanada

willis7469 said:


> I had a similar experience to Beeman here. This is also where I have to mention Thehammers quote:
> "Notice I left out power. When comparing receivers, convert the power differences to db and you will see the difference is pretty small. While the difference between a 100W amp and a 125W amp sounds like a lot, it is really just a difference of 0.97db which is not audible. It takes about twice the power for it to make a significant difference"
> In my example, I had a 120x7 pioneer(1019 ahk), and switched to an onkyo txnr-808. 135x7. Both very competent, but when approaching reference, the audible difference is quite surprising. The onkyo crushes the pioneer in clean, and clear output. I know this is more complicated than published numbers, but thought I'd drop this in.


This tells me that the Onkyo has more power reserve on tap and isn't being pushed into its limits compared to the Pioneer. It also tells me that Pioneer is also optimistic in their power rating estimates compared to Onkyo.


----------



## willis7469

3dbinCanada said:


> This tells me that the Onkyo has more power reserve on tap and isn't being pushed into its limits compared to the Pioneer. It also tells me that Pioneer is also optimistic in their power rating estimates compared to Onkyo.


I agree totally. I've seen test bench results of both, and the onkyo was much closer to published. That's kinda why I thought it necessary to mention. The onkyo also weighs more than double. (No I'm not opening this thread to that whole thing lol, although I do believe it's a contributor)


----------



## eyecatcher127

I'd really love to see a subjective non direct mode listening test for the sound quality and the room correction of these units listed 2 ch and just 5.1 channel all other features aside. Perhaps all using the same speakers, room, sound level, and even outboard amps. Because I'd love to perform it myself, I just don't have the budget to buy all of them to evaluate.


----------



## sub_crazy

3dbinCanada said:


> You should get one.... and forget to wear anything underneath .. :rofl2:
> 
> Seriously though, these conditions aren't necessarily lab conditions. There are tons of speakers with a fairly high sensitivity and whose impedance doesn't drop below 4 ohms. This is still a real world setting.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a nervous twitch... don't take it personally
> 
> 
> 
> I fully suspect AVRs to start sounding differently into difficult loads espcially when they are being pushed beyond their design limits. I agree with you


I wasn't responding to you, but instead TheHammer which is why I referred to him in the first sentence.

I think you're taking this thread in a disturbing direction if you want me to get a lab coat and forget to wear anything underneath :nono: I have to at least throw some tidy whities on :neener:


----------



## magic

sub_crazy said:


> I wasn't responding to you, but instead TheHammer which is why I referred to him in the first sentence.
> 
> I think you're taking this thread in a disturbing direction if you want me to get a lab coat and forget to wear anything underneath :nono: I have to at least throw some tidy whities on :neener:


Just wrong.....Just wrong 


I wear speedos they are better fitting 
...... 

Actually I don't so don't get the wrong idea haha


----------



## chashint

Nowhere for this thread to go from here.


----------



## Savjac

Sure there is, I am now pronouncing the best flagship receiver of any brand, is the one we own, is paid for and is now residing in our systems. :T


----------



## willis7469

I 2nd that!


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Put me in for 3rd.


----------



## sub_crazy

4th


----------



## plcamp

Hi Folks,

I am considering a Yamaha RX-A3030 or -A3020 to modernize me into HDMI receivers. 

But I have a very significant problem with all AV receivers...

Can these be set up so that with a single button-press you can watch TV while listening to PC, or watch PC while listening to TV?

It appears to me that the Yamaha Aventage receivers - using the 'scenario' buttons - could do this.

a) Connect HDMI from PC and TV Box to their respective receiver HDMI ports
b) Also connect the TVBox toslink - but to the toslink input for the PC, and connect the PC toslink to the toslink input for the TVBox

Once a) and b) done, you could program scenario 1 button to use the TVBox video and the toslink audio - yielding a TV picture with PC sound.

So...I think that works...but before I go out and drop the substantial cash to buy an Aventage, can anyone here confirm my suspicions are true?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

plcamp said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I am considering a Yamaha RX-A3030 or -A3020 to modernize me into HDMI receivers.
> 
> But I have a very significant problem with all AV receivers...
> 
> Can these be set up so that with a single button-press you can watch TV while listening to PC, or watch PC while listening to TV?
> 
> It appears to me that the Yamaha Aventage receivers - using the 'scenario' buttons - could do this.
> 
> a) Connect HDMI from PC and TV Box to their respective receiver HDMI ports
> b) Also connect the TVBox toslink - but to the toslink input for the PC, and connect the PC toslink to the toslink input for the TVBox
> 
> Once a) and b) done, you could program scenario 1 button to use the TVBox video and the toslink audio - yielding a TV picture with PC sound.
> 
> So...I think that works...but before I go out and drop the substantial cash to buy an Aventage, can anyone here confirm my suspicions are true?


I'm not sure of your set up ..That being said, a good programmable remote from companies such as Logitech goes a long way of simplifying operation. Its been my experience that when programming these devices that you return the finicky components in a system back to a known default state. As an example, when I press listening to Digital Music button on the logitech, it turns on only the TV, the Western Digital player and AVR. The TV input gets switched to HDMI, the AVR input is switched to the Western Digital input connection, memory setting #3 is loaded ( which is stereo mode with towers running full range and no room correction employed). When I hit the power off button, the TV input is always set back to the "defaullt value of component1 video input before it gets powered off. The AVR and the Western Digital aren't as finicky and don;t require to be set back to a default state.


----------



## plcamp

Ya, I do have a logitech remote...however I would need to know if a remote command can be explicitly sent (as opposed to a toggle function) to cause a given input to use toslink instead of HDMI...if it can, then this also solves the issue with the connections I described above.

Right now I have an old non-HDMI Yamaha, and I simply route the video to the TV for switching independent of audio. If I am laying out cash for an Aventage, I sure hope this can be simplified as I described in my post.

Hopefully someone in here has an Aventage and knows the problem i am trying to solve.


----------



## chashint

If the AVR supports all of the signal routing you need and can map it to unique inputs then a Logitech Harmony One remote would support an activity for each particular functionality.
So yes, one button could get you there.
If the AVR cannot be permanently mapped to support all the different functions by selecting a specific input for each scenario I doubt a macro could be written that would get you there every time you ran it.

The manual may be your best resource to verify what can be mapped.


----------



## plcamp

Yes, the key question being is there or isn't there a specific and deterministic code to tell the receiver to specifically use SPDIF for sound. I am trying to find out and will look at the codes list for the Aventage receivers to see if that's the case.

This is so fundamental, yet uncovered by all AVR makers.


----------



## NBPk402

plcamp said:


> Yes, the key question being is there or isn't there a specific and deterministic code to tell the receiver to specifically use SPDIF for sound. I am trying to find out and will look at the codes list for the Aventage receivers to see if that's the case.
> 
> This is so fundamental, yet uncovered by all AVR makers.


Are you saying you want to switch from SPDIF or HDMI on the fly with a remote... Or are you saying you need a AVR that has the capability of you selecting one or the other? If you just want to be able to select one or the other I would say most of the AVRs will do that. :T


----------



## chashint

ellisr63 said:


> Are you saying you want to switch from SPDIF or HDMI on the fly with a remote... Or are you saying you need a AVR that has the capability of you selecting one or the other? If you just want to be able to select one or the other I would say most of the AVRs will do that. :T


I think this is the right question.


----------



## plcamp

It is complicated to a degree...

What I am wondering, on the Aventage 3030 receiver is as follows...

- For sure you can use the remote to force any given input to select that audio stream from HDMI, or L/R analog, or SPDIF. BUT is that a discrete and direct command (ie select SPDIF on AV3) or is the remote command a 'toggle' command that scrolls through the selections instead of directly selecting the one you want?

If it is the latter, then I don't think I can do what I want, if the former then maybe I can.

In summary...I am trying to discover if there is or isn't any way on an Aventage 3030 to have a single button cause the unit to select a video stream from one input, with the audio coming from another.

To do this I was thinking that...

a) Connect the HDMI outs of my PC and Cable box to HDMI ins on the receiver.
b) Cross wire the SPDIF from the PC to the SPDIF-in of the Cable box, and connect the SPDIF from the Cable box to the SPDIF-in for the PC.
So...if AV3 was the PC, it would have an HDMI-in from the PC plus an SPDIF-in from the cable box.
c) Then I could program the Aventage 3030 scene buttons to select the Cablebox input but use the SPDIF audio...which would yield cablebox video with PC audio.

The problem with my little scheme above is that I don't believe Windows allows two different audio drivers (HDMI and SPDIF) to be both active at the same time. I am still researching that.


----------



## magic

plcamp said:


> It is complicated to a degree...
> 
> What I am wondering, on the Aventage 3030 receiver is as follows...
> 
> - For sure you can use the remote to force any given input to select that audio stream from HDMI, or L/R analog, or SPDIF. BUT is that a discrete and direct command (ie select SPDIF on AV3) or is the remote command a 'toggle' command that scrolls through the selections instead of directly selecting the one you want?
> 
> If it is the latter, then I don't think I can do what I want, if the former then maybe I can.
> 
> In summary...I am trying to discover if there is or isn't any way on an Aventage 3030 to have a single button cause the unit to select a video stream from one input, with the audio coming from another.
> 
> To do this I was thinking that...
> 
> a) Connect the HDMI outs of my PC and Cable box to HDMI ins on the receiver.
> b) Cross wire the SPDIF from the PC to the SPDIF-in of the Cable box, and connect the SPDIF from the Cable box to the SPDIF-in for the PC.
> So...if AV3 was the PC, it would have an HDMI-in from the PC plus an SPDIF-in from the cable box.
> c) Then I could program the Aventage 3030 scene buttons to select the Cablebox input but use the SPDIF audio...which would yield cablebox video with PC audio.
> 
> The problem with my little scheme above is that I don't believe Windows allows two different audio drivers (HDMI and SPDIF) to be both active at the same time. I am still researching that.


OK let me see if I can simply it. Are you asking if you can have the hdmi go in the receiver....and say play video but have audio from another source playing ?


----------



## plcamp

Ya (and without 12 button presses to get there.)


----------



## magic

Then the answer is no it can't. None of the receivers with hdmi can do this due to the hdmi standard prevents this. 

Hdmi only let's you use one source and then that's it unless you have a second hdmi out from the same source then you can select it . I hope I make sense.

( others may correct me but the only way to get around it would be to do the following.) 

if you have a blue ray player and it had 2 hdmi outs. The first one you set to av1 and all audio would go to the receiver via the hdmi. The second hdmi is the video and you use a different input av2 to give video and audio comes from something else. That is the only way you would be able to do it. But note that requires 2 hdmi outs from the player/or source device.

I don't want to to give you any incorrect info so just wait for a few others to verify this. As I have tried this on several receivers about a year and a half ago and it hasn't changed. My latest avr onkyo 818 doesn't allow me to do it either by the way.


----------



## plcamp

Ya I agree...and also I have confirmed that HTPC's on Windows cannot output on both the SPDIF and HDMI sound at same time (although there are pieces of aftermarket payware that apparently allow this).

Fortunately both my PC and cablebox have dual video outputs - so I'll run one (HDMI) to new receiver, and second video output direct to TV...just use the TV to switch video when I want one video and different audio - that's gotta work.

Gonna go buy the Aventage 3030 today. Huge price drop - there must be new models about to arrive?


----------



## GCG

Or you could send your 2nd HDMI out to the TV (if you're not planning to use it already for a second zone) and play the video component on that output with the TV volume off. It would reduce the additional cabling down to one (HDMI 2) vs. the two from the two sources and it'll be HDMI.


----------



## BeeMan458

...dbl post.


----------



## BeeMan458

plcamp said:


> Gonna go buy the Aventage 3030 today. Huge price drop - there must be new models about to arrive?


There's nothing I've read that says anything bad about the A3030 and everything I've read says nothing but good.

(Disclosure: We have the Denon AVR-4520CI and I'm a fanboy of Denon/Marantz gear)


----------



## plcamp

I was leaning towards the Anthem MX710...but two different audio shops that I trust both warned of reliability problems (with the previous generation Anthems)...I am certain the 3030 will be a gigantic upgrade in every way to my existing Yammy RX-V657, that and an even older yammy HTR5150 have both been completely reliable for me so I am reluctant to switch to Anthem, even if reviews are glowing on its audio quality.

My main concern is 2-ch audio quality onto Paradigm Studio100v5's - within a 7.1 ch HT setup for movies. I am trusting the 3030 biamping will have more than enough juice for these.


----------



## magic

plcamp said:


> I was leaning towards the Anthem MX710...but two different audio shops that I trust both warned of reliability problems (with the previous generation Anthems)...I am certain the 3030 will be a gigantic upgrade in every way to my existing Yammy RX-V657, that and an even older yammy HTR5150 have both been completely reliable for me so I am reluctant to switch to Anthem, even if reviews are glowing on its audio quality.
> 
> My main concern is 2-ch audio quality onto Paradigm Studio100v5's - within a 7.1 ch HT setup for movies. I am trusting the 3030 biamping will have more than enough juice for these.


Do they sell anthem as well as Yamaha?


----------



## tonyvdb

plcamp said:


> I am trusting the 3030 biamping will have more than enough juice for these.


Bi-amping gives no advantage as far as splitting up the power is concerned. The best is to have a decent subwoofer and take the load off the mains by sending everything below 80Hz to the sub.


----------



## plcamp

The three that they sell and that they recommended for the Paradigms were...

Yammy 3030
Yammy 2030
Integra 50.5 <-- interestign machine with bluetooth and wireless built in.

They do also sell the Anthem, but said they have a dozen or so of the new units out for trials, but after last year's experience don't want to commit to Anthem until they get feedback...don't really know the exact nature of their concerns except that it was reliability related.


----------



## Dougme57

I have had 3 Denon's, still have one in my den. But for my main rig in the basement i went with Onkyo; not flagship just a 708 but it had the features I needed and I love it. 

Dependability was a concern after everything I had read but it has been perfect for 2 years. I keep it on top of an open rack and it is cool in my basement too. Never had a problem from any Denon either. I do like the sound and power of my Onkyo.


----------



## plcamp

tonyvdb said:


> Bi-amping gives no advantage as far as splitting up the power is concerned. The best is to have a decent subwoofer and take the load off the mains by sending everything below 80Hz to the sub.


Ya, I got a good 15" Paradigm sub.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

plcamp said:


> I was leaning towards the Anthem MX710...but two different audio shops that I trust both warned of reliability problems (with the previous generation Anthems)...I am certain the 3030 will be a gigantic upgrade in every way to my existing Yammy RX-V657, that and an even older yammy HTR5150 have both been completely reliable for me so I am reluctant to switch to Anthem, even if reviews are glowing on its audio quality.
> 
> My main concern is 2-ch audio quality onto Paradigm Studio100v5's - within a 7.1 ch HT setup for movies. I am trusting the 3030 biamping will have more than enough juice for these.


I would not worry about the power delievery capabilities of the RXA 3030 driving your Paradigns full range. This receiver has a beast of an amplifiier and power supply in it... check the review of its older sibling the RX-A3000 

From http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont

The Yamaha RX-A3000 handedly exceeded its 140wpc power rating continuously with two channels driven and stomped out an impressive 236wpc both channels driven into 4 ohms; and that’s a full power bandwidth measurement (20Hz to 20kHz at 0.1% THD + N). It proved to be every bit as powerful as their more expensive RX-Z7 mode. You can see the protection circuit kick on during our ACD tests, purposely limiting power to 65wpc. In short time, there is no doubt in my mind forum lurkers seeing this will pop up on our site or AVS Forum bashing Yamaha, not realizing the design purpose of power limiting a multi channel amplifier in a compact chassis, or the reality that real world program material will never trip this limiter circuitry. Thus we conducted dynamic burst power measurements simulating real world program content. Interestingly enough the RX-A3000 delivered similar dynamic power output ACD into 8 ohm loads and slightly more power two channels driven into 4 ohm loads than the Emotiva UPA-7 dedicated multi-channel power amplifier that is designed to deliver rated power continuously into all channels as can be seen in the comparison table below.


----------



## plcamp

Thanks 3db...that is comforting!


----------



## BeeMan458

Go with the unit that makes you feel warm and fuzzy at night. These are all top dog flagship AVRs and guaranteed, if you buy outside your comfort zone, you'll always wonder. We stayed within our comfort zone and wonder for nothing. 

We could step up to Emotiva separates but our we getting better or our we just spending more money? The point of the question, today's flagship AVRs are so good, stepping up to more expensive separates, is arguably the better way to go.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada;757890... check the review of its older sibling the RX-A3000[/QUOTE said:


> Or the RX-A3020.
> 
> Discontinued, refurbished, RX-A3020 @ accessories4less.
> 
> Sound And Vision review w/bench test: see page 4.
> 
> Personally, I read the above information as telling the reader that the A3020 has a very anemic amplification section.
> 
> I can't find any bench tests of the Anthem MRX 710. Reviews yes. Bench tests, no.
> 
> Bench tests for the 4520CI.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Or the RX-A3020.
> 
> Discontinued, refurbished, RX-A3020 @ accessories4less.
> 
> Sound And Vision review w/bench test: see page 4.
> 
> Personally, I read the above information as telling the reader that the A3020 has a very anemic amplification section.
> 
> I can't find any bench tests of the Anthem MRX 710. Reviews yes. Bench tests, no.
> 
> Bench tests for the 4520CI.


Read the quoted section again and then the whole Audioholics review. It beat an Emotiva dedicated power amp into 4 ohms, two channels driven. Audioholics tests are far more thorough then Home Theater/Sound and Vision Magazine. Audioholics even stated that the Yamaha purposely limit the ACD performance for heat dissipation issues. The ACD test is an invalid test IHO as it does not reflect real world scenarios. The two channel test running full bandwidth is a much better indicator of power.

I also see that the test results published for the Yamaha/Denon by Sound and Vision are different in format which I can conclude as to improper testing on S & V's part. If one is to compare apples to apples, the data needs to reflect this.


----------



## plcamp

The 3030 is sitting on my desk at work now, can't wait to get home and hook it up.

Got it for 36% off list...not bad.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

plcamp said:


> The 3030 is sitting on my desk at work now, can't wait to get home and hook it up.
> 
> Got it for 36% off list...not bad.


Congradulations.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Read the quoted section again and then the whole Audioholics review. It beat an Emotiva dedicated power amp into 4 ohms, two channels driven. Audioholics tests are far more thorough then Home Theater/Sound and Vision Magazine. Audioholics even stated that the Yamaha purposely limit the ACD performance for heat dissipation issues. The ACD test is an invalid test IHO as it does not reflect real world scenarios. The two channel test running full bandwidth is a much better indicator of power.


I'm an ACD kinda guy as reference level playback demands that's how I see. I'm not arguing, just saying, I do look at ACD as I never use two channel, and heat issues during continuous playback is important to me.



> I also see that the test results published for the Yamaha/Denon by Sound and Vision are different in format which I can conclude as to improper testing on S & V's part. If one is to compare apples to apples, the data needs to reflect this.


I was kinda "hoping" your (or others) eagle eye would miss this point. 

I went with, testers use different formats at different times and point in their testing life. As reviewers improve, as they age, hopefully, so do their testing methods. Sometimes, even comparing apples to apples can be difficult if you're comparing different types of apples. The point, being that we're dependent on what reviewers have to offer, people on this side of the fence do the best we can with what we're presented. Think of it like whiskey. Whiskey is whiskey unless you're from Canada or you're drinking Bourbon. 



plcamp said:


> The 3030 is sitting on my desk at work now, can't wait to get home and hook it up.
> 
> Got it for 36% off list...not bad.


...:clap:

Congratulations as that reads like a crazy good deal. IMO, anything better than -20% is a crazy good deal. And of course, we're all looking forward to your posted first impressions.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> I'm an ACD kinda guy as reference level playback demands that's how I see. I'm not arguing, just saying, I do look at ACD as I never use two channel, and heat issues during continuous playback is important to me.


Unless you are running ACD with all speakers set to large, my edumacated guess is that the RX-A3020 will do reference levels. 





BeeMan458 said:


> I was kinda "hoping" your (or others) eagle eye would miss this point.
> 
> I went with, testers use different formats at different times and point in their testing life. As reviewers improve, as they age, hopefully, so do their testing methods. Sometimes, even comparing apples to apples can be difficult if you're comparing different types of apples. The point, being that we're dependent on what reviewers have to offer, people on this side of the fence do the best we can with what we're presented. Think of it like whiskey. Whiskey is whiskey unless you're from Canada or you're drinking Bourbon.


Sorry


----------



## BeeMan458

...:nerd:

I try.


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> Read the quoted section again and then the whole Audioholics review. It beat an Emotiva dedicated power amp into 4 ohms, two channels driven. Audioholics tests are far more thorough then Home Theater/Sound and Vision Magazine. Audioholics even stated that the Yamaha purposely limit the ACD performance for heat dissipation issues. The ACD test is an invalid test IHO as it does not reflect real world scenarios. The two channel test running full bandwidth is a much better indicator of power.


Personally I Love Yamaha products, have had many and would not be disinclined from owning more. I think the 3030 is loaded with power and goodness and will serve the new owner very well for many years.

Having said that to go to the quote above, now I must say this is kind of funny to me, the Yamaha which is listed as 140 wpc into 2 channels seems to provide more power than an Emotiva which is rated at 125 wpc into 7 channels. Lets use the 2 channel comparison though, we are as one says, comparing apples to apples so we should not really compare a 140 wpc product against a 125 wpc product unless the review meets a certain need of course. So lets now compare what the products should do, irrespective of heat issues blah blah, the Emo will keep the 125 wpc while the AVR will drop into the 60's wpc. So that seems more apples to apples. 

Buy the Yamaha it will keep most any of us happy and it will not have issues with driving a home theater to most any level one needs.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> Having said that to go to the quote above, now I must say this is kind of funny to me, the Yamaha which is listed as 140 wpc into 2 channels seems to provide more power than an Emotiva which is rated at 125 wpc into 7 channels. Lets use the 2 channel comparison though, we are as one says, comparing apples to apples so we should not really compare a 140 wpc product against a 125 wpc product unless the review meets a certain need of course. So lets now compare what the products should do, irrespective of heat issues blah blah, the Emo will keep the 125 wpc while the AVR will drop into the 60's wpc. So that seems more apples to apples.


The apples to apples comparison was made in reference to the inconsistent test data provided by S&V magazine and not the comparison between the Denon and the Yamaha per say. One cannot reach meaningful conclusions when test data does not report the same things.

Getting to your comparison with the Emotiva and Yammy... I want to make several points;
1.) Audioholics has a more srtingent and consistent test methodology compared to that S&V. As an EE and having read the testing methods, I can vouch for Audioholic's approach as the more accurate test and report methodology.
2.) The Yamaha doesn't seemingly beat the Emotiva, it does produce more power into 2 channels. 
3.) The fact is that Yamaha is very conservative in their protection mechanism as noted as such by Audioholics and other review sources such as Home Theater magazine. Yamaha's protection mechanism is a design choice and has been made overly aggressive based on thermal loading and stuffing all that power into a rather smallish chassis. The only meaningful comparison is the two channel test as no protection circuits are employed from the various AVR manufacturers.
4.) Full bandwidth ACD driven test does not reflect real world conditions. All ACD reveals is when the protection mechanism is employed, nothing more.

We do agree on the fact that the 3030 will provide ample power, connections and features .


----------



## plcamp

Got the 3030 going (at least partly) last night...have yet to connect/setup LAN etc, but have surround up and calibrated.

Less than a month ago I was using Paradigm 11se MkIII mains with a Yamaha RX-V657 AV receiver, Now its Paradigm Studio 100 v5's with the RX-A3030 in bi-amp mode. That's a biiiig change.

I am extremely happy...My reference test for 2-ch is the track "The Man's Too Strong" from Dire Straits Brothers In Arms (flac rip). Not many systems I've heard can handle the crash of drums/bass/guitar in that track and avoid muddiness. That muddiness was largely gone with the new speakers, it is utterly gone with this new receiver. Another astoundingly great track is theme song from Titanic by Celine Dion...vocals there are thrilling, raising the hairs on your neck.The other big differences overall are the sustain on notes dropping off smoothly with zero loss of detail, and the complete loss of coarseness at the high end...it is a freakingly better experience I hoped for but didn't really expect.

By the way, I would love to hear what others in here use as reference tracks to reveal system quality

Now I have yet to get my Blu-Ray player going, but I did try out my DTS rip of the intro Normandy landing from "Saving Private Ryan". Just WOW. Bullets screaming over your head, snappy then thundering explosions...a sense of realism that's hard to believe. Then I turned on the video enhanced...made quiet a noticeable improvement on my 58" Panny plasma (I'm unsure what this does, why the improvement).

First thing I'll try when I get blu-ray going will be the chase-scene from Terminator 3.

So its early, but initial impressions are quite a bit better than I expected.

Will get the balance of the 3030 setup tonight, going to be a lot of media watching/listening on the weekend!


----------



## chashint

Excellent to hear you are pleased.


----------



## BeeMan458

plcamp said:


> By the way, I would love to hear what others in here use as reference tracks to reveal system quality


The last twenty minutes or so from "The Island." The scenes from "Flight of the Phoenix"; "The Two Bills" to the end of the crash scene. The insertion and hot extraction scene from "Act of Valor." The last grenade explosion in "World War Z". All of the action scenes in "Battle Los Angeles." All played at +/-0dBFS.


----------



## JBrax

For your first Blu-ray experience Transformers Dark of Moon is pretty hard to beat. Another lesser known that isn't suggested near enough is The Art of Flight. The Art of Flight also mesmerizes with the beautiful video.


----------



## GCG

plcamp said:


> I am extremely happy...My reference test for 2-ch is the track "The Man's Too Strong" from Dire Straits Brothers In Arms (flac rip). Not many systems I've heard can handle the crash of drums/bass/guitar in that track and avoid muddiness. That muddiness was largely gone with the new speakers, it is utterly gone with this new receiver.


I'd attribute that to a power supply that can push enough current to to hold their 2Ω Dynamic Power spec
[Dynamic Power per Channel (8/6/4/2 ohms) - 175 / 220 / 295 / 410 W]. >14 amps even in bursts is no easy trick. 

I wish Pioneer would publish that for my SC-71. It'd just be nice to know.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

I'm happy to hear you are impressed with the unit. I told you this beast has gobs of power.


----------



## Savjac

plcamp said:


> Got the 3030 going (at least partly) last night...have yet to connect/setup LAN etc, but have surround up and calibrated. Less than a month ago I was using Paradigm 11se MkIII mains with a Yamaha RX-V657 AV receiver, Now its Paradigm Studio 100 v5's with the RX-A3030 in bi-amp mode. That's a biiiig change. I am extremely happy...My reference test for 2-ch is the track "The Man's Too Strong" from Dire Straits Brothers In Arms (flac rip). Not many systems I've heard can handle the crash of drums/bass/guitar in that track and avoid muddiness. That muddiness was largely gone with the new speakers, it is utterly gone with this new receiver. Another astoundingly great track is theme song from Titanic by Celine Dion...vocals there are thrilling, raising the hairs on your neck.The other big differences overall are the sustain on notes dropping off smoothly with zero loss of detail, and the complete loss of coarseness at the high end...it is a freakingly better experience I hoped for but didn't really expect. By the way, I would love to hear what others in here use as reference tracks to reveal system quality Now I have yet to get my Blu-Ray player going, but I did try out my DTS rip of the intro Normandy landing from "Saving Private Ryan". Just WOW. Bullets screaming over your head, snappy then thundering explosions...a sense of realism that's hard to believe. Then I turned on the video enhanced...made quiet a noticeable improvement on my 58" Panny plasma (I'm unsure what this does, why the improvement). First thing I'll try when I get blu-ray going will be the chase-scene from Terminator 3. So its early, but initial impressions are quite a bit better than I expected. Will get the balance of the 3030 setup tonight, going to be a lot of media watching/listening on the weekend!


Excellent and I am glad you are happy. 

Go back to the Dire Straits cut and listen when you are rested. Much of the power in that cut is a keyboard, check it out

But most of all enjoy.


----------



## chashint

A movie that has a lot going on in the sound track is I Robot.
Throughout the movie there's a lot of subtle sounds that can be heard if the speakers have enough definition.
The scene where the robot is destroying the house and the floor collapses....there is a lot of small rubble sliding down ... we were very impressed that the soundfield revealed many unique sounds vs a smeared indistinguishable collage of sound.
Other things like the cat's meows or the creaking floorboard and spring in the chair.

Albums / CDs
Hotel California-Eagles
Welcome To The Machine - Pink Floyd
Crime Of The Century - Supertramp
Turn Of A Friendly Card - Alan Parsons Project
Greatest Hits - America
Led Zeppelin IV


----------



## 3dbinCanada

I would like to add U-571 and Master & Commander to that list of films that make realalistic use of the surrounds. Realistic meaning accurtaley reproducing the soundfield.. Anyone who's ever been in an old tall ship hold will hear the creaking and groaning of shifting wood as its portrayed in MAster & Commander.


----------



## onedayiwillbedone

Plus 1 for U571 and also The Incredibles, Inception and Swordfish for testing the capability for your front stage as well as surrounds. The front height speakers really made a presence in these with my Onkyo 3010.


----------



## willis7469

onedayiwillbedone said:


> Plus 1 for U571 and also The Incredibles, Inception and Swordfish for testing the capability for your front stage as well as surrounds. The front height speakers really made a presence in these with my Onkyo 3010.


+1 on swordfish. I love the opening explosion. Lots of stuff flying by. Love the incredibles also. Superb all the way around. ...still waiting for a sequel :-(
I didn't see avatar yet so I'll throw it in. Lots of subtleties everywhere. (And not so subtleties)


----------



## magic

3dbinCanada said:


> I would like to add U-571 and Master & Commander to that list of films that make realalistic use of the surrounds. Realistic meaning accurtaley reproducing the soundfield.. Anyone who's ever been in an old tall ship hold will hear the creaking and groaning of shifting wood as its portrayed in MAster & Commander.


Doesn't that mean more power in the channels being used? As in all channels driven used to create the sound?


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> Doesn't that mean more power in the channels being used? As in all channels driven used to create the sound?


Just asking, if one has a capable system, why is the above a consideration?


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> Just asking, if one has a capable system, why is the above a consideration?


I'm just bring it up as a question as to what people say as the ACD test not being important because we don't ever run all channels at the same time..... 
It seems that in these examples of movies we are doing that.. I could be wrong but...


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> I'm just bring it up as a question as to what people say as the ACD test not being important because we don't ever run all channels at the same time.....
> It seems that in these examples of movies we are doing that.. I could be wrong but...


Okay. I realize that sometimes, we're being recorded by hidden cameras but I haven't a clue when running our Home Theater, we're not running ACD.

What am I missing regarding the invalidity of ACD? I'm not even sure what direction this thread has shifted to. If one has a "MORE" than capable system coupled with more than capable speakers and subwoofers, in my view, everything else is moot.

"U-571" is much better when the wife isn't watching.....


----------



## magic

I was asking myself the same question ? And also thinking the topic has changed to movies. 

So I thought if we take it back to the original question..and I tried to tie it in to the power handling... or ACD I particular I might bring it back on topic 

All or most of these movies that are talked about use a good deal of surround channels and not In an ambient way. Some of them bottomed out my sub 
More than 10 times ( ok I loved learning the bottom end of my sub. I had to make sure and show friends and family)

"Finding Nemo"( the tapping on the fish tank scene) at full reference power.


----------



## chashint

The original proposition of the thread has run it's course.

Everyone is free to pick what is important to themselves when choosing their systems so if ACD makes a person feel good about their choice there is nothing wrong with that.

As far as ACD power having a great impact with real world material ... Very seldom (maybe never) do the front three channels all get driven with the same sound at the same amplitude much less the surround speakers.
Even in the movies listed the load on the surround speakers is much less than the front three.
Name a single movie that has equal distribution of sound in all channels.
Can't think of a single one can you ?

While some home theater enthusiasts have all speakers matched the norm is the surround speakers are less capable compared to the front LCR speakers in frequency response, max SPL, and power handling.
Even in commercial venues where there is ample space and cosmetics are not a consideration the surround speakers are smaller than those used in the front stage.

I do not completely discount all channels driven stress testing, but it does not reflect real world conditions at all.
Check out this calculator http://www.hometheatrebasics.com/home-theatre-tools/spl-calculator/ 
If you believe all channels driven is really important throw 5 or more relatively efficient speakers in the calculator and see for yourself how little power it takes to achieve ear bleed volume levels.


----------



## Savjac

That is an interesting calculator, thank you.

I believe as a guideline it is good, and an excellent place to start for anyone getting in to this hobby as most folks will not be looking to nit pick like some of us (yes me) do when setting things up or listening.

I will agree that it is not often that all, or even 3 that are running full out for very long when it comes to movies, most of those segments are for special effects, explosions and the like. Further, I would imagine that 90% of the time most well built receivers will fly though most movies without any issues, or, most users would not even know any issues are present. So reaching the sound pressure levels mentioned in the chart should be no issue whatsoever, except for those 10% of the times that could cause the receiver to go into overload causing someone's cherished speakers to turn into umbrellas. 
To this point I think I have to say that we really do need accurate information as to what a receiver will be able to provide in all channels to be used by the owner. As we see from the reports and tests, I know they are somewhat different, but they do all show that "Most" AVR's loose power when more than one or two channels are popping. By providing that information, good or bad, we can really put together a good system that should be ready for anything now and in the future. I really am baffled at why we cannot get real wattage information in our stuff rather than getting big numbers to make us fall for something less than we expect. When I am buying a power delivery system, I want to know real world what it will do, good or bad, just tell me so I can make a proper choice. 

Lastly, I will once again agree that there are but a few movies, "Today" that will upset a receiver, but as we have seen, things are improving on disc all the time, and dynamics can be huge which will cause the lesser amps to choke and empty those capacitors quickly and if they cannot recharge, well it cant be pretty. I like a big external amp, I can detect when things might go south in my avr's of the past, but now, nope, not gonna happen. Wanna listen to a couple channels being drained of power, put on the Gladiator sound track, start with cut two and turn it up all the way through cut three. You will use every ounce of juice your amp can provide.
:help:


----------



## Savjac

BeeMan458 said:


> Okay. I realize that sometimes, we're being recorded by hidden cameras but I haven't a clue when running our Home Theater, we're not running ACD.
> 
> What am I missing regarding the invalidity of ACD? I'm not even sure what direction this thread has shifted to. If one has a "MORE" than capable system coupled with more than capable speakers and subwoofers, in my view, everything else is moot.
> 
> "U-571" is much better when the wife isn't watching.....


U-571 is such a blast with the big home theater going full tilt. In the chapters wherein the depth charges are going strong there is such unbelievable distance information that it actually makes me, the viewer, dread the approach of the explosives as well. The first time I heard this was on a huge set up in a show room using Martin Logans best speakers, Krell subs and electronics. I could not believe how I could hear the depth into the screen of explosions, the first one several hundred yards off, the next one closer and on and on till we are back in the sub and everything is breaking loose. Dang if you have not experienced this movie, you must. But please know that if you are not careful, this is one group of fake noises that can break stuff. :hsd:


----------



## BeeMan458

Agreed, U-571 is a movie when run at +/-0dBFS, the viewer is quite literally, sucked into the screen.

...:yikes:...:help:



Savjac said:


> Lastly, I will once again agree that there are but a few movies, "Today" that will upset a receiver, but as we have seen, things are improving on disc all the time, and dynamics can be huge which will cause the lesser amps to choke and empty those capacitors quickly and if they cannot recharge, well it cant be pretty.


Another point above I've experienced. The Marantz SR5007 is an excellent unit.....for day-to-day listening but when the action scenes ramped up, the experienced viewer can hear the capacitors get sucked dry as the speakers move to the background behind the amplifiers of the subwoofers......enters the Denon 4520CI, problem solved.


----------



## tonyvdb

The ACD test is very relevant particularly for those who like to use their receiver in "all channel stereo" I don't like it but I know many who do when listening to music. All channels are sent the same amount of information and surly at decent levels push a receivers amps into distress if they can't handle it.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

magic said:


> Doesn't that mean more power in the channels being used? As in all channels driven used to create the sound?


There may be all channels driven but not with the same frequency and amplitude content. Surround volumes are very subtle compared main fronts and center.


----------



## sub_crazy

Wow, take a few days off this thread and it is all about ACD now 

As far as demo material I like to use for music:

Sarah McLachlan (CD): "Angel" Just because when everything is set up right the soundstage should be huge with this track.

Alison Krauss (SACD): "Ghost in this house" A really well recorded track and when Alison hits those high notes it will make me wince if I detect any harshness. It also has a big soundstage and great instrument separation. I really like when the male vocal is introduced as well. 

Shelby Lynne (SACD): "Anyone who had a Heart" There is a brush or reed that is drawn over the drum top and I never really noticed it until I heard it clearly on my friends system. I can hear it on my system but on my friends it is so much more distinctive and articulate that I now know of a deficiency somewhere in my system. The "Just a little lovin" CD from Shelby Lynne is phenomenally recorded, try to get it on SACD if you can.

Livingston Taylor (SACD): "Isn't she Lovely" When he starts to whistle it is either great or irritating.

Gabriela Anders (CD): "The Girl from Ipanema" Great bass line on this song and I can immediately tell if it's right or not.

Alison Krauss is my favorite even though I am not a big country music fan. I was lucky enough to find out about her when her music was still available on SACD new, now some of her SACD's fetch over $100 used. Her music is so well recorded which is why I like it so much and helps in evaluating new additions to the system.

For movies:

The barrel row scene from Flight of the Phoenix is a great intense bass scene.

War of the Worlds "Pod Emergence" is always a go to for bass.

Gatling gun scene from "The Book of Eli" If you have your surrounds placed correctly the sound from the gatling gun will encircle the room, very cool.

Chapter 7 from Metallica "Through the Never" which starts out with explosions, gun shots, a helicopter encircling you and an all around sonic explosion.

The Grenade explosion from World War Z left me slack jawed as I wasn't expecting that based on the rest of the soundtrack. 

I have others but this is all that comes to mind right now.

I use mostly music when evaluating new gear and the movie clips are mostly for bass and dynamics testing.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tonyvdb said:


> The ACD test is very relevant particularly for those who like to use their receiver in "all channel stereo" I don't like it but I know many who do when listening to music. All channels are sent the same amount of information and surly at decent levels push a receivers amps into distress if they can't handle it.


All channels stereo doesn't make the CD test relevant at all. Like I said, all the ACD test only tests the AVR's protection mechanism, nothing else. Chew on that last statement for a while and try to understand where I'm coming from.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Like I said, all the ACD test only tests the AVR's protection mechanism, nothing else. Chew on that last statement for a while and try to understand where I'm coming from.


I'm trying and failing miserably.

All Channels Driven (ACD) tells me the consumer, what I can realistically expect out of the amplifier system, as opposed to the numbers put out by the manufacture.

As a consumer, I don't care about protection mechanisms but I do care about the real capabilities of an amplifier, based on max output at 0.1% and 1.0% distortion. From this information, coupled with realistically tested sensitivity ratings of a speaker system, the consumer is able to tell at what level they'll achieve reference level play, at what expected distortion levels. And in doing this, can tell if the amplifier section is being challenged or not which tells the consumer about real world distortion potential. I see this information in the same way a contractor looks at the amperage capability of a half inch drill motor or the run rating of a generator.

What am I missing?


----------



## magic

3dbinCanada said:


> All channels stereo doesn't make the CD test relevant at all. Like I said, all the ACD test only tests the AVR's protection mechanism, nothing else. Chew on that last statement for a while and try to understand where I'm coming from.


I know you may understand this more than I do. I do understand that the company is looking at overheating in an avr as to why the limit the avr causing it to go into protection 

But , why do this. The capacitors are still small so it's not as if the receiver has reserves in it to compensate. 

What am I missing 
I believe both are relevant by the way.


----------



## tonyvdb

3dbinCanada said:


> All channels stereo doesn't make the CD test relevant at all. Like I said, all the ACD test only tests the AVR's protection mechanism, nothing else. Chew on that last statement for a while and try to understand where I'm coming from.


So what your saying is that a receiver that will do 120watts of actual 20-20kHz output into 7channels at 8ohms like my Onkyo 805 was bench tested to do is irrelevant?
That test can be very revealing in many cases.

The Marantz SR6006 for example only managed to squeeze 76watts all 7 channels driven at 8ohms in the same test. And is in the same class of receiver as the 805.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tonyvdb said:


> So what your saying is that a receiver that will do 120watts of actual 20-20kHz output into 7channels at 8ohms like my Onkyo 805 was bench tested to do is irrelevant?
> That test can be very revealing in many cases.
> 
> The Marantz SR6006 for example only managed to squeeze 76watts all 7 channels driven at 8ohms in the same test. And is in the same class of receiver as the 805.


Have you considered why the Marantz can only squeeze out those few watts?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

magic said:


> I know you may understand this more than I do. I do understand that the company is looking at overheating in an avr as to why the limit the avr causing it to go into protection
> 
> But , why do this. The capacitors are still small so it's not as if the receiver has reserves in it to compensate.
> 
> What am I missing
> I believe both are relevant by the way.


If you look back in this thread, I posted the Audioholics review of the 2 channel power outputs of the RX-A3030 which delivered more power inot 8 and 4ohms than a dedicated Emotiva 125w x 7 dedicated power amp. Yet the same beast RX-A3030 barely put out decent ACD numbers because of its overly aggressive protection circuit. People reading the ACD tests will conclude that it doesn't have the stones to achieve reference levels for home theater applications. However, this conclusion is incorrect because no movie I know of, own, or yet to buy will ever run all 7 channels full bandwidth at full reference volume (matching the fronts and center channel in volume) at the same time. Bass is off loaded to the sub or multiple subs. The only value I see is if you planning on running 7 channel stereo full bandwidth which is an oddity. I certainly would not consider this the norm.


----------



## lcaillo

3dbinCanada said:


> Have you considered why the Marantz can only squeeze out those few watts?


76 watts into 7 channels requires the same power supply that a stereo amp at 265 watts per channel would.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Have you considered why the Marantz can only squeeze out those few watts?


Being positive in my comment, having just recently upgraded from a Marantz SR5007, I can say from personal experience, it's because it has a terribly undervalued amplifier section.

I'm sure that some will want to mention about protection circuitry and I'm sure they're correct, if looking at it from an engineering level. I guess one could call a governor on a carburetor to be protection circuitry. That being said, why don't any bench test articles mention protection circuitry when it's so relevant?

Could you address consumer concerns regarding ACD output into 0.1% distortion.










Below is the consumer information I care about and is part of what was paid for when I chose this particular unit.

"Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 172.6 watts
1% distortion at 190.7 watts"

I don't use stereo and don't drive our unit into thermal shutdown. 

"Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 121.8 watts
1% distortion at 145.3 watts"

With this type of real world output, pretty much, there's zero chance of experiencing shutdown unless there's a breakdown and then this point become moot as it's off to the AVR emergency room for repairs. 

The unit is rated by Denon at 150wpc which it easily does.....if listening in stereo. I'm curious, if protection mode is never triggered, how is this a test of the protection circuit as one has to trip the circuit to know if it works or not.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Being positive in my comment, having just recently upgraded from a Marantz SR5007, I can say from personal experience, it's because it has a terribly undervalued amplifier section.
> 
> I'm sure that some will want to mention about protection circuitry and I'm sure they're correct, if looking at it from an engineering level. I guess one could call a governor on a carburetor to be protection circuitry. That being said, why don't any bench test articles mention protection circuitry when it's so relevant?
> 
> Could you address consumer concerns regarding ACD output into 0.1% distortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is the consumer information I care about and is part of what was paid for when I chose this particular unit.
> 
> "Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
> 0.1% distortion at 172.6 watts
> 1% distortion at 190.7 watts"
> 
> I don't use stereo and don't drive our unit into thermal shutdown.
> 
> "Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
> 0.1% distortion at 121.8 watts
> 1% distortion at 145.3 watts"
> 
> With this type of real world output, pretty much, there's zero chance of experiencing shutdown unless there's a breakdown and then this point become moot as it's off to the AVR emergency room for repairs.
> 
> The unit is rated by Denon at 150wpc which it easily does.....if listening in stereo. I'm curious, if protection mode is never triggered, how is this a test of the protection circuit as one has to trip the circuit to know if it works or not.


At what bandwidth are these numbers published? Full or at 1KHz? They look like S&V/Home Theater Magazine numbers... :neener:

The protection circuits are never triggered at 2 channel testing; only at multichannel and the number of channels that trigger the protection circuit is determined by the manufacturer's design of the protection circuit. Some like Yamaha are overly agressive, some like Onkyo are not. Perhaps Onkyo should be more protective considering their past failure rates based on heat disipation problems.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> They look like S&V/Home Theater Magazine numbers... :neener:


Okay, that made my day.

...

4520ci-av-receiver-test-bench

Based on the above, you'll have to tell me but the point again, I care about overall output and if the amplifier system will drive our system in the way I'm expecting. If protection circuitry is so important, how come there's a lack of discussing in bench test reviews? Do you have better bench test reviews that does discuss the importance of protection based circuitry? And if you'd be so kind as to address my ignorance as opposed to finding new ways to expose more of my ignorances? By the time you get done with not responding to my questions, I'm going be officially tagged with being an ignoramus. I was hoping to get through life without anybody making note of this point. 

(i've looked and looked, nothing on protection circuits pertinent to AVRs)

But I can find a boatload of bench test information and if this is representative of failing to trigger protection circuits, I and most consumers are going be good with this point.

(are there bears in the woods? Are there any bears chasing me? i'm good)

Just curious, are you pulling my chain? I can't find bupkis regarding protection circuitry on AVRs. I know they're there as part of the design standard so they're not over driven but nothing a ignorant can hang a hat on.


----------



## tonyvdb

3dbinCanada said:


> The only value I see is if you planning on running 7 channel stereo full bandwidth which is an oddity. I certainly would not consider this the norm.


And I will point out that a month or so ago I linked to an article that had done a test that showed on speakers that were 89db efficient a simple snare drum "thwack" at reference level drew 250watts each channel two channels driven. Those frequencies are hardly in the subwoofers range.


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> Being positive in my comment, having just recently upgraded from a Marantz SR5007, I can say from personal experience, it's because it has a terribly undervalued amplifier section.
> 
> I'm sure that some will want to mention about protection circuitry and I'm sure they're correct, if looking at it from an engineering level. I guess one could call a governor on a carburetor to be protection circuitry. That being said, why don't any bench test articles mention protection circuitry when it's so relevant?
> 
> Could you address consumer concerns regarding ACD output into 0.1% distortion.
> 
> Below is the consumer information I care about and is part of what was paid for when I chose this particular unit.
> 
> "Two channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
> 0.1% distortion at 172.6 watts
> 1% distortion at 190.7 watts"
> 
> I don't use stereo and don't drive our unit into thermal shutdown.
> 
> "Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
> 0.1% distortion at 121.8 watts
> 1% distortion at 145.3 watts"
> 
> With this type of real world output, pretty much, there's zero chance of experiencing shutdown unless there's a breakdown and then this point become moot as it's off to the AVR emergency room for repairs.
> 
> The unit is rated by Denon at 150wpc which it easily does.....if listening in stereo. I'm curious, if protection mode is never triggered, how is this a test of the protection circuit as one has to trip the circuit to know if it works or not.


I look at how flat that line stays and the low distortion number as my indicators.
I really like that graph


----------



## magic

3dbinCanada said:


> If you look back in this thread, I posted the Audioholics review of the 2 channel power outputs of the RX-A3030 which delivered more power inot 8 and 4ohms than a dedicated Emotiva 125w x 7 dedicated power amp. Yet the same beast RX-A3030 barely put out decent ACD numbers because of its overly aggressive protection circuit. People reading the ACD tests will conclude that it doesn't have the stones to achieve reference levels for home theater applications. However, this conclusion is incorrect because no movie I know of, own, or yet to buy will ever run all 7 channels full bandwidth at full reference volume (matching the fronts and center channel in volume) at the same time. Bass is off loaded to the sub or multiple subs. The only value I see is if you planning on running 7 channel stereo full bandwidth which is an oddity. I certainly would not consider this the norm.


OK I see were you are coming from.


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> I look at how flat that line stays and the low distortion number as my indicators.
> I really like that graph


My understanding, anything below 0.08% is below the threshold of most human hearing.


----------



## tonyvdb

even at 0.1 it is unlikely anyone can hear it, above that is where it becomes a concern.


----------



## lcaillo

I would be willing to bet that some types of distortion can be audible at those levels, and some won't. Our understanding of what is and is not audible is poor. I would like to see some modelling with blind testing to determine what we are sensitive to and less so.


----------



## plcamp

3dbinCanada said:


> There may be all channels driven but not with the same frequency and amplitude content. Surround volumes are very subtle compared main fronts and center.


Seems to me the ACD test is simply a measure of the receivers ability to deliver heat to several loads. Doesnt have any more relevance to me that does the weight of the unit...dominated by its transformer (also a good measure for heat). 

What really matters is headroom, which to me is best measured with 2 chanels driven.

I used to design power supplies. What mattered to me was Fourier-domain transient response - the ability ofvthe power suply to maintain output vltage control in the face if high slewrate curent demand. Rms measurements dont matter for that. And power supplies are essentially amps.

If it is heavier it is better? Lol!


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Okay, that made my day.
> 
> ...
> 
> 4520ci-av-receiver-test-bench
> 
> Based on the above, you'll have to tell me but the point again, I care about overall output and if the amplifier system will drive our system in the way I'm expecting. If protection circuitry is so important, how come there's a lack of discussing in bench test reviews? Do you have better bench test reviews that does discuss the importance of protection based circuitry? And if you'd be so kind as to address my ignorance as opposed to finding new ways to expose more of my ignorances? By the time you get done with not responding to my questions, I'm going be officially tagged with being an ignoramus. I was hoping to get through life without anybody making note of this point.
> 
> 
> (i've looked and looked, nothing on protection circuits pertinent to AVRs)
> 
> But I can find a boatload of bench test information and if this is representative of failing to trigger protection circuits, I and most consumers are going be good with this point.
> 
> (are there bears in the woods? Are there any bears chasing me? i'm good)
> 
> Just curious, are you pulling my chain? I can't find bupkis regarding protection circuitry on AVRs. I know they're there as part of the design standard so they're not over driven but nothing a ignorant can hang a hat on.



Its up to the AVR manufacturer to determine where they draw the threshold in triggering the protection mechanism. If one looks at all the AVR reviews and their lab results, it can be seen that the protection mechanism is always triggered beyond the 2 channels driven (usually starting at 5 channels driven). Its never triggered at the 2 channel tests unless there is a dead short in one of those two channels. That's not a good thing and happened to me when I rewired my system. I did not see a whisker (single strand of wire) shorting the + and - terminals together. :doh: The Yammy displayed short circuit on the panel and shut itself off. If you over drive the AVR in two channel mode, it clips the signal which could possibly damage the speaker but not the amp. Driving an amp into clipping in 2 channel mode is different than triggering the protection circuit that limits all channel output, which is different yet again from protecting the AVR from a short circuit. I hope this helps clarify things.


----------



## Savjac

plcamp said:


> Seems to me the ACD test is simply a measure of the receivers ability to deliver heat to several loads. Doesnt have any more relevance to me that does the weight of the unit...dominated by its transformer (also a good measure for heat).
> 
> What really matters is headroom, which to me is best measured with 2 chanels driven.
> 
> I used to design power supplies. What mattered to me was Fourier-domain transient response - the ability ofvthe power suply to maintain output vltage control in the face if high slewrate curent demand. Rms measurements dont matter for that. And power supplies are essentially amps.
> 
> If it is heavier it is better? Lol!



Huh ?? What did i miss ?


----------



## Savjac

If a receiver is running too hot and shutting down during playback it is not the right avr for your system, or it needs more air flow.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> I hope this helps clarify things.


Not a chance. All I could take away from your above, over driving the amplifier (crossing the streams) is not a good thing. A point I agree with as I'm looking at bench testing, the validity of ACD tests and the common consumer of Home Theater gear. As a common consumer of Home Theater gear, all I care about is how the system sounds when a sound track is being reproduced.


----------



## magic

3dbinCanada said:


> If you over drive the AVR in two channel mode, it clips the signal which could possibly damage the speaker but not the amp. Driving an amp into clipping in 2 channel mode is different than triggering the protection circuit that limits all channel output, which is different yet again from protecting the AVR from a short circuit. I hope this helps clarify things.


So how do you tell? From what your saying some might belive that the clipping was because the unit was not producing enough power because it went in protection mode... but it might not have clipped if it was producing the power it should have been able to do. ( I'm referring to more than 2 channels let's say it happened in 5.1 system


----------



## 3dbinCanada

magic said:


> So how do you tell? From what your saying some might belive that the clipping was because the unit was not producing enough power because it went in protection mode... but it might not have clipped if it was producing the power it should have been able to do. ( I'm referring to more than 2 channels let's say it happened in 5.1 system


Every amp/AVR will clip in 2 channel mode if driven to hard. The multichannel protection scheme is a totally different beast then clipping. I believe the protection circuit monitors the current draw and the voltage levels across the channels and if too much current is drawn, it purposely limits the current to prevent clipping from happening. The limiting of current is not clipping unlike over driving an amp in 2 channel mode. The best analogy of protection circuitry I can come up with traction control on a car. Power is purposely held back to the wheel that slips. In clipping, the only anaolgy Ican come up with is disbaling the rev limiter on an engine so that its revs past its redline..


----------



## chashint

tonyvdb said:


> And I will point out that a month or so ago I linked to an article that had done a test that showed on speakers that were 89db efficient a simple snare drum "thwack" at reference level drew 250watts each channel two channels driven. Those frequencies are hardly in the subwoofers range.


I don't recall any supporting data in that link.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Not a chance. All I could take away from your above, over driving the amplifier (crossing the streams) is not a good thing. A point I agree with as I'm looking at bench testing, the validity of ACD tests and the common consumer of Home Theater gear. As a common consumer of Home Theater gear, all I care about is how the system sounds when a sound track is being reproduced.


Now it's me that doesn't understand your point. lddude:


----------



## lcaillo

I think ACD tests with stationary signals into test loads are clearly recognized as hard to generalize to real world conditions, but can someone suggest something better? Suppose we were to come up with a better testing protocol. What would it be?


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Now it's me that doesn't understand your point. lddude:


The point I failed to make, regular laypeople, don't care about enigmatic protection circuitry. What do most care about? Distortion figures and how much wattage their system can produce, before published distortion figures are exceeded.

Before protection circuitry kicks in, all I care about is how the amplifier system sounds.



lcaillo said:


> ...but can someone suggest something better? Suppose we were to come up with a better testing protocol. What would it be?


In my opinion, if a manufacture publishes the amplifier in their unit will do such and such wattage at such and such distortion, then that's the minimum that should be tested for. Second, to most ignorants like me, I care about what level of play (performance), I the consumer, can get out of an AVR's amplifier system.

If 0.08%, 20Hz to 20kHz, ACD @ xohm is the accepted minimum stand for an amplifier section, then that's what I want to see. If a manufacture says a particular amplifier unit is capable of X watts, then I want to see tested distortion levels at that output level.

Our AVR manufacture claims that our unit is capable of 150wpc, five channel driven @ 8ohm. But when 0.1% distortion is included, it drops to 122wpc.

From these bench test results, I see that somebody at Denon is not telling me the consumer, the truth.


----------



## chashint

It's interesting that some acknowledge not knowing what they are talking about and yet continue to argue with an identified electrical engineer (3dB) which has tried to 'splain it in layman's language.

There's lots of amplifier tests that are considered industry standard that more accurately characterize an amplifier than the static sine static load test.
They require real test equipment and some knowledge of what the measurements are.

Same for power supplies.
There's lots of industry standard tests but again it takes real test equipment and some knowledge of what you are doing.

Chances are all of the manufacturers have fully characterized their equipment .... getting those test report is what we need.


----------



## BeeMan458

Let's see what I responded to: "Now it's me that doesn't understand your point."


----------



## theJman

Let's slow down a bit here everybody, before this thread veers off into the wrong direction.


----------



## magic

chashint said:


> It's interesting that some acknowledge not knowing what they are talking about and yet continue to argue with an identified electrical engineer (3dB) which has tried to 'splain it in layman's language.
> 
> There's lots of amplifier tests that are considered industry standard that more accurately characterize an amplifier than the static sine static load test.
> They require real test equipment and some knowledge of what the measurements are.
> 
> Same for power supplies.
> There's lots of industry standard tests but again it takes real test equipment and some knowledge of what you are doing.
> 
> Chances are all of the manufacturers have fully characterized their equipment .... getting those test report is what we need.


Any idea of how they are doing it ... leaked documents would be greatly apreciated.

Come on were is the WikiLeaks ツ


----------



## willis7469

magic said:


> We are all taking the info in. At least i am We arent fighting its a civil discussion


Seems like it to me. 
Why can't they just publish two sets. Ie:75watts x7 and 200wx2. Or something similar. I think what Beeman is saying is it feels like a screw. "I payed for 12,000 watts x 11, so what do you mean that's only if I run one channel"? This is a little like measuring a cars HP. For a long time, they measured without any accessories((AC, alternator, etc), and optimal ignition timing, etc. When you put the engine in a car, with crummy gas, AC on, driveline loss, what ppl got was a pooch, despite what the published HP number was. Nowadays, 750rwhp (rear wheel horsepower) is exactly that. That's how I'd like my watts measured. Even if it's only 75 wpc, at least I know! 
It's not that the test bench results don't mean anything, it's that ppl aren't sold products on bench results. If your not equipped to find the real answer, then you get what the manufacturer says. ...or not.


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> I think what Beeman is saying is it feels like a screw.


Thanks! I didn't realize it was such a hidden concept. 

What seems to be ignored by some, us laypeople aren't educated so we have to go by what we're told. We don't care about protection circuitry. After thirty years of playing with this stuff, this thread is the first I've read of an ACD test, being used to test the protection circuitry as I've never read a single comment about protection circuitry kicking in until this thread.

Absolutely it's a screw. If a manufacture says it's got 150wpc, I expect 150wpc, not a 122wpc.

Denon AVR-4520CI

"Offering nine discrete 150-watt channels along with a dual subwoofer, the AVR-4520CI receiver lets you experience superior surround sound."

I don't mind a few watts either way but I expect to get what is being sold. This is what Denon is selling.

*Power Output Per Channel(20Hz-20kHz, 0.08%[email protected])	150 Watts (.05%THD)*

Now don't misunderstand, I do know that ya get what is bench-tested for and that's just the way it is. My point, laypeople don't know nothing about ACD testing being intended to test protection circuitry but we do know, output is what we're suppose to expect, when cranking a Home Theater sound track.

Just saying, sometimes people with lots of education, forget what's important to us ignorants.


----------



## magic

willis7469 said:


> Seems like it to me.
> Why can't they just publish two sets. Ie:75watts x7 and 200wx2. Or something similar. I think what Beeman is saying is it feels like a screw. "I payed for 12,000 watts x 11, so what do you mean that's only if I run one channel"? This is a little like measuring a cars HP. For a long time, they measured without any accessories((AC, alternator, etc), and optimal ignition timing, etc. When you put the engine in a car, with crummy gas, AC on, driveline loss, what ppl got was a pooch, despite what the published HP number was. Nowadays, 750rwhp (rear wheel horsepower) is exactly that. That's how I'd like my watts measured. Even if it's only 75 wpc, at least I know!
> It's not that the test bench results don't mean anything, it's that ppl aren't sold products on bench results. If your not equipped to find the real answer, then you get what the manufacturer says. ...or not.


They have been doing this for 30 +years or more.... and unless their is a class action lawsuit , they will keep doing it this way. 
Sad but, what do you do in the mean time 
You still need an avr.


----------



## BeeMan458

magic said:


> Sad but, what do you do in the mean time
> You still need an avr.


Hope to find quality bench tests, say thank-you and enjoy.

...:sarcastic:


----------



## NBPk402

Does anyone remember how they used to rate car stereos years ago... 100 wpc at 1 frequency... You ended up with a 5 wpc amp from 20-20000.


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> Hope to find quality bench tests, say thank-you and enjoy.
> 
> ...:sarcastic:


Or you can get a separate 5 channel amp that is good and never have to think about that again. Now you only have to think about the options and preamp portions that you want. 


I know it doesn't fix the fact that you wanted and paid for something your not getting but I have yet to hear of any lawsuit against a manufacturer for this.
I think if this had happened all if not most would have added our names to the list.





Your better off starting a new thread on this one as it is really a heated discussion for a lot of people.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Thanks! I didn't realize it was such a hidden concept.
> 
> What seems to be ignored by some, us laypeople aren't educated so we have to go by what we're told. We don't care about protection circuitry. After thirty years of playing with this stuff, this thread is the first I've read of an ACD test, being used to test the protection circuitry as I've never read a single comment about protection circuitry kicking in until this thread.
> 
> Absolutely it's a screw. If a manufacture says it's got 150wpc, I expect 150wpc, not a 122wpc.
> 
> Denon AVR-4520CI
> 
> "Offering nine discrete 150-watt channels along with a dual subwoofer, the AVR-4520CI receiver lets you experience superior surround sound."
> 
> I don't mind a few watts either way but I expect to get what is being sold. This is what Denon is selling.
> 
> *Power Output Per Channel(20Hz-20kHz, 0.08%[email protected])	150 Watts (.05%THD)*
> 
> Now don't misunderstand, I do know that ya get what is bench-tested for and that's just the way it is. My point, laypeople don't know nothing about ACD testing being intended to test protection circuitry but we do know, output is what we're suppose to expect, when cranking a Home Theater sound track.
> 
> Just saying, sometimes people with lots of education, forget what's important to us ignorants.


That's the rub. There is no standardization among manufacturers on their advertised power specs. There's also no standardization on when protection circuits engage which makes comparing AVR/amp power delivery all the more challenging. That's why rely on 3rdparty test and even those can be sketchy. Some use a variac to keep the source voltage constant (at the outlet to which teh AVR/amp is plugged into) at 120V to prevent voltage sag which is totally wrong because it doesn't reflect real life conditions at the outlet, especially when it comes to ACD. Shoring up the line voltage helps the AVR/amp in its power delivery.

I pay far more attention to the 2 channel test because 3rdparty testers have somewhat of a testing standard which makes comparison a little more like comparing apples to apples. If the 2 channel test such as what is shown for the Yammy RX-A3000 are prodigous in output but drop off substantially in the ACD tests, then it tells me that the protection circuit is being overly aggressive and can the ACD tests can be discarded. The ACD does not reflect real word conditions to 99.9 percent of us.


----------



## ajinfla

chashint said:


> I don't recall any supporting data in that link.


Not sure what link Tony posted, but I linked the summary he's referencing a while back. Not sure what "supporting data" you're looking for. The full article itself was published in AudioXpress back in '07 iirc. No longer possess it.
The context was to show "audiophiles" (the HE is "High End" show) that their lower power magic amps could be woefully inadequate to deliver linear audio. But it is also applicable to to these AVR discussions, as it highlights the difference between (possible) real dynamic signals (music) demands vs continuous (RMS) type test signals.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

magic said:


> Or you can get a separate 5 channel amp


Most upper tier receivers still have pre-outs, although even very modestly priced ones, like my old Pioneer VSX-815 (around $200-250 street iirc) use to.
Which means you can sometimes get away with using even 2 or 3 ch external amps (generally less $ than 5) and offload the power supply demands of the AVR. Tasked with driving only 2-3 channels (in a 5ch system), they should be able to deliver dynamically (peak), near or above rated RMS power. Very helpful if you want your sound to remain linear, without dropping a bundle.
To me, the wise utilization of funds is to spend $700-1k ish on a pre-out AVR, with all the features you need, plus a wisely picked $700-1.3k ish 2-3ch amp, than a $2-3k "flagship" AVR or separates. YMMV.

cheers


----------



## 3dbinCanada

ajinfla said:


> Not sure what link Tony posted, but I linked the summary he's referencing a while back. Not sure what "supporting data" you're looking for. The full article itself was published in AudioXpress back in '07 iirc. No longer possess it.
> The context was to show "audiophiles" (the HE is "High End" show) that their lower power magic amps could be woefully inadequate to deliver linear audio. But it is also applicable to to these AVR discussions, as it highlights the difference between (possible) real dynamic signals (music) demands vs continuous (RMS) type test signals.
> 
> cheers


That's another reason why I don't put much stock into ACD test. They use continous RMS instead of dynamic signal testing. I listen to music/movier soundtracks, not test tones.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

ajinfla said:


> Most upper tier receivers still have pre-outs, although even very modestly priced ones, like my old Pioneer VXS-815 (around $200-250 street iirc) use to.
> Which means you can sometimes get away with using even 2 or 3 ch external amps (generally less $ than 5) and offload the power supply demands of the AVR. Tasked with driving only 2-3 channels (in a 5ch system), they should be able to deliver dynamically (peak), near or above rated RMS power. Very helpful if you want your sound to remain linear, without dropping a bundle.
> To me, the wise utilization of funds is to spend $700-1k ish on a pre-out AVR, with all the features you need, plus a wisely picked $700-1.3k ish 2-3ch amp, than a $2-3k "flagship" AVR or separates. YMMV.
> 
> cheers


I would like to add the caveat of depending on room size,speaker sensitivity, and desired SPL levels. Seperate amps in my situation will not offer me any performance advantage what so ever as I get more than loud enough with my AVR and remains crystal clear.


----------



## plcamp

I'm just talking below from my eng'g experience...

Speaker loads aren't resistors, they are dynamic impedances with reactive components, which I would expect are loads that might sometimes even present momentary negative impedances to the connected amp. Yes, that would mean the instantaneous speaker impedance might be negative ohms. (If a driver has physical momentum in the +ve direction while the amp is trying to drive it in the -ve direction, then the speaker would be momentarily sourcing power to the amp!)

Now I am not confident speakers actually do have their impedance instantaneously reach all the way to -ve, but I am sure that speaker cone momentum will turn the speaker impedance to be momentarily reactive (called 'back emf' in some circles). RMS capability doesn't matter to cope with that, peak current capability and rapid amp feedback response is what matters there.

For this reason I think RMS measurements into resistive loads are at best an indicator of which amp is better, all other things being equal....but RMS measurements are not in an of themselves adequate to judge.

So I think RMS is one factor of merit to consider...it isn't definitive in and of itself.

I'd like to compare two amps by setting up a real speaker load, then input a dithered 1kHz squarewave input (which would contain harmonics up to and past 20KHz).. I suspect the better the amp, the more closely the amp output will resemble the input squarewave...and the amp's ability to do that will not necessarily have dominant correlation to the amp's RMS output capability.


----------



## tonyvdb

3dbinCanada said:


> That's another reason why I don't put much stock into ACD test. They use continous RMS instead of dynamic signal testing. I listen to music/movier soundtracks, not test tones.


And those dynamic swings can be even more demanding on the receivers amps because we all know that dynamics can give peaks much higher than a constant ACD test will show. An amp rated for 100watts can produce momentary outputs three times that for a very short time and depending on the size and quality of the transformer and capacitors this length will be lessened or prolonged. 
Those dynamics will also swing the resistive loads of the speakers as Plcamp mentioned into very difficult ranges.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tonyvdb said:


> And those dynamic swings can be even more demanding on the receivers amps because we all know that dynamics can give peaks much higher than a constant ACD test will show. An amp rated for 100watts can produce momentary outputs three times that for a very short time and depending on the size and quality of the transformer and capacitors this length will be lessened or prolonged.
> Those dynamics will also swing the resistive loads of the speakers as Plcamp mentioned into very difficult ranges.


:T

That's why I'm so impressed with the Yamaha RX-A3xxx series AVRs. They really have the stones to deliver the goods at reference levels despite what the ACD tests may report.


----------



## plcamp

tonyvdb said:


> And those dynamic swings can be even more demanding on the receivers amps because we all know that dynamics can give peaks much higher than a constant ACD test will show. An amp rated for 100watts can produce momentary outputs three times that for a very short time and depending on the size and quality of the transformer and capacitors this length will be lessened or prolonged.
> Those dynamics will also swing the resistive loads of the speakers as Plcamp mentioned into very difficult ranges.


Thinking further, this discussion also has impact on speaker figures of merit. A speaker exhibiting less impedance swing under real driving conditions will be more easily driven by any amp. I would suspect true horn loaded speakers like klipschorns with their great electro acoustic coupling...likely also present a more stable impedance variation that is less reactive...reducing peak current demand. They sound great with a 3 watt Rms class a amp.

Its surely a balance to strike. I feared dissapointment so I went for the 3030. It works great and even with 5.1 dts at +5db on Bladerunner DVD its clean, tight and effortless. That's what matters. Headroom to the peaks.


----------



## tonyvdb

Thats why I love my EVs, they may not be new but they are designed to be accurate and are time coherent. It would be very hard to replace with anything that would be comparable. 
Specifications here if your interested.


----------



## chashint

I remember that article/summary.

From the article some approximate numbers can be derived with a little dose of SWAG.
What we know is:
Two speakers estimated 89dB sensitivity (they used SWAG in the article so it's ok for me to use it too).
Measured amplifier output power static/average 2 watts, peak 250 watts.

Working that backwards using nominal 8/4 ohm speaker impedance.
Average power 2 watts, if speakers nominally 8 ohms, amplifier output 4 volts @ 0.5A, snare drum whack 250 watts peak, amplifier output 45 volts @ 5.6A.
Average power 2 watts, if speakers nominally 4 ohms, amplifier output 2.8 volts @ 0.7A, snare drum whack 250 watts peak, amplifier output 32 volts @ 8A.
Not knowing anything other than estimated sensitivity let's say both the 8 and 4 ohm scenarios are 89dB sensitivity @ 1 watt and at 10 feet listening position the nominal SPL will be 85dB with peak SPL 106dB.
I know some of y'all like it loud so this should be right up your alley.

Ok by now if anyone is still awake y'all must think ol' chashint has completely lost it, and maybe I have, but in the discussion of amplifier power you have to have an idea of what is actually going to the speakers.

What actually determines an amplifiers output power capacity?
It starts with a budget, design specifications, and a schedule.
In all design processes this drives everything from component selection, how robust the circuit design is, the amount of design verification testing that is done, and where it is built.
Budget and schedule also drive the compromises.
It's not about making the best machine you can possibly make, it's about making the most profit possible.
That's not a negative, profit is the only reason to operate a business.

Since I started with the article AJ linked to let's stick with the 250 peak thought.
If the design goal is to be able to achieve 250 watts peak the output stage amplifiers have to be rated for more than 45V and the power supply has to supply that voltage and source at least 8A for each channel.
If either of these conditions are not met 250 watts peak cannot be achieved into both 8 and 4 ohms impedance.

What is the role of output capacitors?
In the simplest terms they are point of use energy storage, that can supplement the power supply rail for transient requirements.
They do not increase the value of available voltage, that is set by the power supply rail.
If a peak like the whack on a snare drum or simply jacking up the volume tries to drive the output voltage of the amplifier above the voltage rail there is nothing the caps can do to help, once the maximum voltage is reached even for a microsecond there is no more to be had.
As long as the maximum power supply rail voltage is not surpassed the caps provide an instant current reserve to support the amplifier output voltage.

So in the example the amp is chugging along at a couple watts output and let's say there are frequencies that occur in a speaker impedance dip down to 2 ohms. The caps will help supply the additional current required to keep the amplifier output voltage at the intended 3-4V level.
This can actually be sustained for significant periods because the rail voltage is very high compared to the output voltage to the speakers so nothing is being stressed.
Now if the frequency of the snare drum whack falls in the impedance dip you are in trouble.

Pretty much all amplifiers and AVRs have 0.0x% THD+N at their rated output power.
Most manufacturers use a 1kHz sine for these measurements into a static resistive load.
That is all well and good, except that's not how we use the product.
Don't get me wrong, in general I think what we have now are very good products.
It would be nice if more test data was made available though.
In the real world the program material is very dynamic.
There is always multiple signals present at different amplitudes, many intentionally distorted by the artist, in this scenario inter modulation products are generated.
This is especially prominent when nonlinear signals are present like the snare drum whack. Maybe your system can reproduce that linearly but chances are no.
Channel to channel isolation (crosstalk) would be good to have as well as input to input isolation.

Since ACD has dominated the thread of late and the Yamaha RXA-3000 has been the bone to pick let's back out some numbers on it.
http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont 
Ok fellas this is the first time I have looked at this,
This AVR is an absolute beast among beasts.
If the ACD test runs you off this AVR that's fine by me, I have no horse in the race.
But the savvy home theater enthusiast should pay attention to this review and if Yamaha is not your cup of tea, look for something that is similar.

Full bandwidth 2ch driven 8 ohms 155 watts, 
Full bandwidth 2ch driven 4 ohms 236 watts.
1kHz 2ch driven 8 ohms 168 watts, 36.7 volts @ 4.6A/ch
1kHz 2ch driven 4 ohms 251 watts. 31.7 volts @ 7.9A/ch
Dynamic power 1ch 8 ohms 217 watts, 41.7 volts @ 5.2A
Dynamic power 1ch 4 ohms 386 watts. 39.3 volts @ 9.8A
Dynamic power 7ch 8 ohms 153 watts
ACD 1kHz power sweep 65 watts


----------



## 3dbinCanada

chashint said:


> Since ACD has dominated the thread of late and the Yamaha RXA-3000 has been the bone to pick let's back out some numbers on it.
> http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont
> Ok fellas this is the first time I have looked at this,
> This AVR is an absolute beast among beasts.
> If the ACD test runs you off this AVR that's fine by me, I have no horse in the race.
> But the savvy home theater enthusiast should pay attention to this review and if Yamaha is not your cup of tea, look for something that is similar.
> 
> Full bandwidth 2ch driven 8 ohms 155 watts,
> Full bandwidth 2ch driven 4 ohms 236 watts.
> 1kHz 2ch driven 8 ohms 168 watts, 36.7 volts @ 4.6A/ch
> 1kHz 2ch driven 4 ohms 251 watts. 31.7 volts @ 7.9A/ch
> Dynamic power 1ch 8 ohms 217 watts, 41.7 volts @ 5.2A
> Dynamic power 1ch 4 ohms 386 watts. 39.3 volts @ 9.8A
> Dynamic power 7ch 8 ohms 153 watts
> ACD 1kHz power sweep 65 watts


:doh: You let the secret out of the bag. This Yammy is a beast. You would not need to augment this with power amps with even low senstivity speakers for the average HT room.


----------



## willis7469

Chashint, that was very interesting. Good read.


----------



## plcamp

tonyvdb said:


> Thats why I love my EVs, they may not be new but they are designed to be accurate and are time coherent. It would be very hard to replace with anything that would be comparable.
> Specifications here if your interested.


Cool, those are highly efficient. I considered a buy of a pristine pr of Altec Model 19's ($2.5k asking price) in Toronto, but decided in favor of Paradigms for aesthetic reasons (the Model 19's are gigantic and my room isn't right for that).


----------



## BeeMan458

> (the Model 19's are gigantic and my room isn't right for that).


Are you trying to say.........they might be noticed?


----------



## theJman

chashint said:


> Since ACD has dominated the thread of late and the Yamaha RXA-3000 has been the bone to pick let's back out some numbers on it.
> http://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/rx-a3000/rx-a3000-measurements-cont
> Ok fellas this is the first time I have looked at this,
> This AVR is an absolute beast among beasts.
> If the ACD test runs you off this AVR that's fine by me, I have no horse in the race.
> But the savvy home theater enthusiast should pay attention to this review and if Yamaha is not your cup of tea, look for something that is similar.
> 
> Full bandwidth 2ch driven 8 ohms 155 watts,
> Full bandwidth 2ch driven 4 ohms 236 watts.
> 1kHz 2ch driven 8 ohms 168 watts, 36.7 volts @ 4.6A/ch
> 1kHz 2ch driven 4 ohms 251 watts. 31.7 volts @ 7.9A/ch
> Dynamic power 1ch 8 ohms 217 watts, 41.7 volts @ 5.2A
> Dynamic power 1ch 4 ohms 386 watts. 39.3 volts @ 9.8A
> Dynamic power 7ch 8 ohms 153 watts
> ACD 1kHz power sweep 65 watts


Excellent info. Very informative post. :T


----------



## 3dbinCanada

I didn't do the number crunching because I'm a lil lazy. Thank you chashint for this. However, I full understood the test results provided by Audioholics and have maintained since the onset of this thread that this unit has an extremely robust power supply and amp section despite what the ACD tests show.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> ... despite what the ACD tests show.


I shouldn't ask this question. I shouldn't ask this question. I shouldn't ask this question.

Where can I find out more about ACD protection circuit tests as opposed to simple 0.1%/1.0% amplifier output tests so I can better understand how protection circuit tests play into things?

I'm doing a Google search. I cannot not finding anything which would qualify as insightful. I'll keep trying.

(so far, what I've come up with, don't go near the water and you won't drown. this meaning, don't overdrive the amplifier and it expectedly won't blow up)

My laypersons understanding, as long as we use a speaker system with high sensitivity ratings and the amplifier section isn't overdriven, we're golden. In construction, I had an 80% rule to guide purchases. The philosophy was, if the best I can throw at a piece of gear exceeds 80% of it's capacity, it wasn't the tool for me and I needed to step up to a more robust tool that could handle what I was going throw at it. I'm seeing this rule applies here because a doubling of power only gives one a miserly +3dB increase. And we all know about amplifier issues and distortion.

Because of distortion, SPL and and an AVR's output capability, IMO, the construction related rule needs to be increased to no more than 50% - 60% of the AVR's tested capacity. Going from 50% of output to a 100% of output is only going give one a +3dB increase in volume. Because of this minimal increase in top end output, in advance to being used, one needs to accurately determine what their expected maximum output is going be. Now enters the lying dog specifications offered by manufactures vs real world, ACD bench tests which I see in a separate light from protection circuit testing data.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Try reading this.. I don't know if its too technical... There's not much out on the web.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test


----------



## plcamp

3dbinCanada said:


> Try reading this.. I don't know if its too technical... There's not much out on the web.
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-all-channels-driven-acd-amplifier-test


Great article, I understand it thoroughly. Lol at the comments proving you cant get ACD claimed power levels out of the 15 A wall plug.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Try reading this.. I don't know if its too technical...


Not at all. If I take a nap every fifteen or twenty-five seconds, I should be through the article in no time. 

(okay, as I post, I feel nap number one coming on)

FWIW, we had hospital grade, 20A outlets installed.


----------



## plcamp

BeeMan458 said:


> Are you trying to say.........they might be noticed?


Ya, My grandkids would probably play hide - n - seek inside them!


----------



## BeeMan458

...


----------



## chashint

For more measurement info http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/basic-amplifier-measurement-techniques 
Pretty nice write up with pictures of waveforms.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> Not at all. If I take a nap every fifteen or twenty-five seconds, I should be through the article in no time.


:rofl2:


----------



## Savjac

Interesting articles although the first one seems more of an advertisement for a power supply company, but considering the publication, that makes sense.
I do understand the thoughts and science behind what Gene and others there are saying and i agree it is highly unlikely that we will ever experience all channels batting 100% at once for more than a millisecond.
Never the less, I think some of his numbers are a bit weird if we consider the draw some of our household appliances use.

Product Start Up Running

Microwave (1000 watt) 1500 1500
Washer 1200 1200
1/2 Sump 2150 1050
window a/c (10000 btu) 2200 1500
hair dryer (1600 watts) 1900 1800
10" Table Saw 4500 1800

Interesting how some of those numbers are listed by the article as not being capable at the outlet.


----------



## BeeMan458

Savjac said:


> Interesting how some of those numbers are listed by the article as not being capable at the outlet.


Maybe this link will show the why of and where of the misunderstanding in the article lies. It made no sense to me either.

Note: using the minimum line on the graph, their 15A breaker will hold fifty amps for six seconds. You could spot weld with their 15A breaker. Today's (California) housing uses upgraded wiring, 12 AWG and 20A breakers.

12awg wire is spec'd between 20A and 41A continuous and some as low as 9.3A. I don't understand the why of such a wide specification. So at 15A or 20A, one is well within specifications.

Below, see bottom of linked page.

Current (Ampacity)
The current ratings shown in the table are for power transmission and have been determined using the rule of 1 amp per 700 circular mils, which is a very conservative rating. For reference, the National Electrical Code (NEC) notes the following ampacity for copper wire at 30 Celsius:
14 AWG - maximum of 20 Amps in free air, maximum of 15 Amps as part of a 3 conductor cable;
12 AWG - maximum of 25 Amps in free air, maximum of 20 Amps as part of a 3 conductor cable;
10 AWG - maximum of 40 Amps in free air, maximum of 30 Amps as part of a 3 conductor cable.


----------



## Savjac

Here is my take, if I turn it up and nothing melts, burns or blows up, it must be working. 
Yes very small minded, but electricity is magic and my brain does not understand magic very well. Computers are magic too, so there you have it. I have to listen and try things out so with some basic knowledge in hand, especially in the mechanical world, I make some pretty good decisions and have only blown two tweeters and no other electronic components....as long as burning toast, grilled cheese and such does not count.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> Interesting articles although the first one seems more of an advertisement for a power supply company, but considering the publication, that makes sense.
> I do understand the thoughts and science behind what Gene and others there are saying and i agree it is highly unlikely that we will ever experience all channels batting 100% at once for more than a millisecond.
> Never the less, I think some of his numbers are a bit weird if we consider the draw some of our household appliances use.
> 
> Product Start Up Running
> 
> Microwave (1000 watt) 1500 1500
> Washer 1200 1200
> 1/2 Sump 2150 1050
> window a/c (10000 btu) 2200 1500
> hair dryer (1600 watts) 1900 1800
> 10" Table Saw 4500 1800
> 
> Interesting how some of those numbers are listed by the article as not being capable at the outlet.


Your analysis fails to take into account the efficiency of the device running. I also fail to understand how a 1600 Watt hair dryer can consume 1800 watts even if it were a 100% efficient. That must be a typo on your part.  .

Taking a typical 1120V 15amp circuit giving us 1800 watts availability; Looking back at the ACD test, assuming a class A/B topology of the amp which most of them are, the efficiency is rated at 45-50% . Assuming is a generous 50% efficiency, we're down to 900 watts of power available to all channels. 

900watts/5 channels = 180 watts/channel. 

900Watts/7 channels = 129 watts/channel.

Looking at an AVR, these would be ideal numbers as this does not take into account other power losses from the 900 watts such as DSP circuitry, etc.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Looking back at the ACD test, assuming a class A/B topology of the amp which most of them are, the efficiency is rated at 45-50% . Assuming is a generous 50% efficiency, we're down to 900 watts of power available to all channels.


I was under the impression that most our AVR amplifiers were D topology which is 90%.

(if i'm wrong on this point, i'm wrong but it's my understanding)

From what Denon reports compared to what Sound and Vision reports, for five channels driven, we're running a rounded 80% efficiency.


----------



## plcamp

My conclusion after all these posts is that the ACD test is no more indicative of amp capability than is the weight of the unit (which is dominated by transformer size).

I really believe the 2 channels driven test is the best (available) indicator...simply because its the mains and center that are the ones taking significant power from the amp, and this test quantifies how a couple of channels can obtain headroom from the overall power supply capability of the unit.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> I was under the impression that most our AVR amplifiers were D topology which is 90%.
> 
> (if i'm wrong on this point, i'm wrong but it's my understanding)
> 
> From what Denon reports compared to what Sound and Vision reports, for five channels driven, we're running a rounded 80% efficiency.


Which Denon model is that Beeman? Maybe I can dig up the specs/owners model of the unit mentioned.


----------



## Savjac

BeeMan458 said:


> I was under the impression that most our AVR amplifiers were D topology which is 90%.
> 
> (if i'm wrong on this point, i'm wrong but it's my understanding)
> 
> From what Denon reports compared to what Sound and Vision reports, for five channels driven, we're running a rounded 80% efficiency.


No most of the receivers are class A/B or some derivation thereof.
The Pioneer used class D and there are many saying that it sounds a bit different and really provides no additional power, but does run cooler as less juice is pushed off as heat.


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Which Denon model is that Beeman? Maybe I can dig up the specs/owners model of the unit mentioned.


The 4520CI.

And from the article you linked to, I should use the 0.1% distortion vs the 1.0% which expectedly introduces a boatload of harmonic distortion. My understanding, 0.08% is the hearing threshold level. We're driving five channels and at +/-0dBFS, we're using about 68wpc. We listen at -17.5dBFS with both subwoofer channels cranked +10dB and the CC cranked +7dB all the rest are held at the recommended setting by Audyssey XT32.

The point, we're not even close to overdriving the amplifier section and for it, the top of the AVR case is hand warm as opposed to hand hot vs the Marantz SR5007 we recently retired to backup duty.



Savjac said:


> The Pioneer used class D and there are many saying that it sounds a bit different and really provides no additional power, but does run cooler as less juice is pushed off as heat.


Not arguing, just guessing, that may be why the 4520 is so cool running.

(i'm seeing if Google will give me a clue)

No clue on Google so I called Denon customer support and as you guys correctly pointed out, it's class A/B topology.


----------



## magic

BeeMan458 said:


> The 4520CI.
> 
> And from the article you linked to, I should use the 0.1% distortion vs the 1.0% which expectedly introduces a boatload of harmonic distortion. My understanding, 0.08% is the hearing threshold level. We're driving five channels and at +/-0dBFS, we're using about 68wpc. We listen at -17.5dBFS with both subwoofer channels cranked +10dB and the CC cranked +7dB all the rest are held at the recommended setting by Audyssey XT32.
> 
> The point, we're not even close to overdriving the amplifier section and for it, the top of the AVR case is hand warm as opposed to hand hot vs the Marantz SR5007 we recently retired to backup duty.
> 
> Not arguing, just guessing, that may be why the 4520 is so cool running.
> 
> (i'm seeing if Google will give me a clue)
> 
> No clue on Google so I called Denon customer support and as you guys correctly pointed out, it's class A/B topology.


Don't forget about dynamic peeks in music and movies. How much the amplifier can give you with those swings.


----------



## TheHammer

sub_crazy said:


> Under ideal circumstances all receivers will sound the same, I am not arguing that. I am talking about real world tests though which can be far from ideal and the world which we all also live. In your scenario we are talking about a lab type environment, in my scenario I am talking about someones home. This is Home Theater Shack, not Lab Shack and I don't own a lab coat which I am sure you guessed anyway.


No, I do not restrict my opinion to lab environments only. I agree with you that the real test is in a home environment. And it is possible to set up a test in a home environment - it has been done! What I think you are referring to is an uncontrolled environment. That would be one in which levels are not matched. Or more typically, when one lives with an amp for a while, then removes that amp and slaps another one in and thinks they hear a difference. It has been established that those perceived differences cannot be detected when the amps are tested side by side with the levels carefully matched.


----------



## lcaillo

Rather than making sweeping statements, how about pointing to some actual research that supports your statement.


----------



## TheHammer

willis7469 said:


> I had a similar experience to Beeman here. This is also where I have to mention Thehammers quote: "Notice I left out power. When comparing receivers, convert the power differences to db and you will see the difference is pretty small. While the difference between a 100W amp and a 125W amp sounds like a lot, it is really just a difference of 0.97db which is not audible. It takes about twice the power for it to make a significant difference" In my example, I had a 120x7 pioneer(1019 ahk), and switched to an onkyo txnr-808. 135x7. Both very competent, but when approaching reference, the audible difference is quite surprising. The onkyo crushes the pioneer in clean, and clear output. I know this is more complicated than published numbers, but thought I'd drop this in.


It is quite possible to run one amp into a non-linear situation with esoteric impedances that another would not suffer. I do not have knowledge of how Pioneer and Onkyo rate their power into a variety of loads. Such a difference should be rather easy to see on an oscilloscope and any competent testing lab should detect it. And more important, it would be widely reported causing a company to change their amplifier design or go out of business.

That said, most 'real world living room' listening is done using only a few watts and are unlikely to stress any reasonably designed amp. It would be fun to see if you could detect the difference in a controlled blind test.

In reading reviews of Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon, Yamaha...... amps, there seems to be no consistent opinion of which one is more 'musical'. If the 'audible difference [were] quite surprising', wouldn't we expect a universal condemnation of one amp and a coronation of another?


----------



## TheHammer

Savjac said:


> Sure there is, I am now pronouncing the best flagship receiver of any brand, is the one we own, is paid for and is now residing in our systems. :T


Best comment ever.


----------



## TheHammer

lcaillo said:


> Rather than making sweeping statements, how about pointing to some actual research that supports your statement.


 http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

"The test took place in the home of the local Linn distributor,"

These test are performed in many different locations. Most are done in areas where a large number of people can participate.

I thought it was a disappointing that the poster dismissed test results because they were controlled, hence the "lab coat" comment. In reality, it should not matter if the test is done in an auditorium, a class room, a living room, a home theater, a movie theater, a bedroom...... The point is that one test is set up to carefully control variables (blind) while the other is not. The poster dismissed the findings of the controlled environment.


----------



## willis7469

TheHammer said:


> It is quite possible to run one amp into a non-linear situation with esoteric impedances that another would not suffer. I do not have knowledge of how Pioneer and Onkyo rate their power into a variety of loads. Such a difference should be rather easy to see on an oscilloscope and any competent testing lab should detect it. And more important, it would be widely reported causing a company to change their amplifier design or go out of business. That said, most 'real world living room' listening is done using only a few watts and are unlikely to stress any reasonably designed amp. It would be fun to see if you could detect the difference in a controlled blind test. In reading reviews of Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon, Yamaha...... amps, there seems to be no consistent opinion of which one is more 'musical'. If the 'audible difference [were] quite surprising', wouldn't we expect a universal condemnation of one amp and a coronation of another?


Yes I surely agree if such audible differences were quite surprising, we'd have an exile list, and a winner and crowning as such. Yes it would be "fun to see", if I could detect the difference.(yes I almost did the oxymoron joke(hear difference). I'll make no claim to golden ears and such. In my statement above, the differences I referred to were in the case of dynamics, and punch. The "amps", as it were probably "sound" exactly the same, but "sound" differences in this case revolve around audyssey vs mcacc. (For me mcacc loses this fight). Mcacc treats my room differently, and I don't care for it. This aside, my space is roughly 7200cuft, (not including foyer and hallway) so when I say I'm pushing it, and can hear it going away, it should be clear that this is a fairly large space, and sensitive to shortcomings. An amp has to have beef to keep up here, and IME, the pio doesn't have it, and this manifests with lack of dynamics, and eventually distortion. Don't misunderstand this as I "beat" my system. Another note, this system is used every single day, with sources ranging from concert BD to Cartoon Network, so I do have plenty of time into listening. And listen I do!


----------



## chashint

willis7469 said:


> An amp has to have beef to keep up here, and IME, the pio doesn't have it, and this manifests with lack of dynamics, and eventually distortion.


Which Pioneer ?


----------



## Savjac

TheHammer said:


> No, I do not restrict my opinion to lab environments only. I agree with you that the real test is in a home environment. And it is possible to set up a test in a home environment - it has been done! What I think you are referring to is an uncontrolled environment. That would be one in which levels are not matched. Or more typically, when one lives with an amp for a while, then removes that amp and slaps another one in and thinks they hear a difference. It has been established that those perceived differences cannot be detected when the amps are tested side by side with the levels carefully matched.


....and "Thinks" they hear a difference seems to be unrealistically definitive with no more evidence than those that "Think" there is no difference. Even the random sampling on this website is pretty much 50/50 and it would be rude at best to utterly discount either side. Actually winning 50% of the American populations vote would be overwhelming but in these instances it is merely....expected. It has never been established that there are no differences when the amps are tested side by side and carefully matched. Please do not go there. I has only been shown is a couple of instances that one may not be able to hear differences in a blind test. It is therefore my opinion, and has been for some time, that blind tests do not work, as I am millions of others Can hear differences. I actually feel bad for those the do not either by choice or by some other malady such as hearing loss.

Look, we are analog beings, no doubt about it and yes we can be fooled into many a thing, but usually we cannot be fooled over a long period of time. Most details masked on an initial visiting will become known as time moves on. Millions of products, millions of people, millions of buyers all looking to different things, how in the world can we make a claim, against any and all odds, that all amps sound the same ? Are we to think that the manufacturers, the buyers, the reviewers and on and on are all idiots ? Or, could it be that we do perceive differences, that differences are out there and careful listening in ones own home, over a period of time will allow us to zone in on those differences ? Are amplifiers the only thing in the electronics world that does not benefit from better internal/external components, changes in those components or updating surrounding electronics to get more out of our amps ? Is all gas the same ? Are all cars the same ? Do all Taco Bell restaurants present the exact same end product ? Ahhh no would be the answer. We just have not found an electronic test that can measure some differences we have heard....yet. 

The most important test that cannot be measured is will I, the buyer like the product. Most folks buy based on looks, features and ratings with a few reviews that kind of repeat what a buyer wants to hear thrown in. How many negative reviews will a magazine throw out there while still needing advertisement money ? Even the measurement people cannot seem to agree on whose measurements are correct. I saw one today from another online reviewer that was bragging on a particular brand that had an extra support foot under the receiver and saying it was very important as it allowed the receiver to have more chocolate mids. Really...they further went on to defend the avr from shutting down when the going got rough so it would not break...again...really ?
I would refuse to purchase something that kept shutting down if it could not perform as advertised, that is not a safe guard, that is false advertising. 

So what am I saying here, give up on the blind tests from 1984. Ivor did develop the wonderful LP12 and has been known to have some strong opinions on some weird things, but he does know marketing. The other guys just were looking to make someone look stupid and they did, themselves.


----------



## BeeMan458

Savjac said:


> Actually winning 50% of the American populations vote would be overwhelming...


Yet we all know that half the voters out there are clueless.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> Which Pioneer ?


1019-ahk
Very nice AVR. I bought it as a "top pick", after great reviews, and feedback. Moved it to my bedroom. ...my wife doesn't like geddy lees voice, or mr. pearts drums at MV-5 so it's safe. I still love it, and have found its home!


----------



## chashint

willis7469 said:


> 1019-ahk
> Very nice AVR. I bought it as a "top pick", after great reviews, and feedback. Moved it to my bedroom. ...my wife doesn't like geddy lees voice, or mr. pearts drums at MV-5 so it's safe. I still love it, and have found its home!


LOL
I would certainly hope the Onk 808 ($1099) would spank a Pio 1019-ahk ($499) in output capability.

My wife is pretty good about putting up with my music, but she does not like Zappa, Rush, Dylan, Jefferson Airplane...humm, now that I started writing down the ones she really doesn't like I think I might be able to fill the page.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> LOL I would certainly hope the Onk 808 ($1099) would spank a Pio 1019-ahk ($499) in output capability. My wife is pretty good about putting up with my music, but she does not like Zappa, Rush, Dylan, Jefferson Airplane...humm, now that I started writing down the ones she really doesn't like I think I might be able to fill the page.


Lol, and spank it does! Not an 805, but...The reason I thought it relevant was the hammer posted about power ratings and how little they really meant to overall output. (Sorry hammer for the paraphrase) My experience felt like otherwise, despite a (what I understood him to say) small 15wpc difference. 
Nice list! My wife(like yours I suspect), could save time and make a much shorter list of my music she actually does like!


----------



## BeeMan458

Not bagging on anybody's comments. Just saying, in the case of the flagship AVRs in the poll, flagship AVRs may be another flagship AVR's peer but you're not going find flagship AVRs that can spank other flagship AVRs.

In my opinion, if anybody wants better than the AVRs in the poll, they're going have to up their budget and go with separates and even then, for near the price of a flagship AVR, it's arguable they're going do noticeably better.

(i'm happy with our flagship AVR but I'm very unhappy with downloads from Comcast)


----------



## willis7469

BeeMan458 said:


> Just saying, in the case of the flagship AVRs in the poll, flagship AVRs may be another flagship AVR's peer but you're not going find flagship AVRs that can spank other flagship AVRs. In my opinion, if anybody wants better than the AVRs in the poll, they're going have to up their budget and go with separates and even then, for near the price of a flagship AVR, it's arguable they're going do noticeably better. (i'm happy with our flagship AVR but I'm very unhappy with downloads from Comcast)


Hey bee, my onkyo was not now or when I bought it their flagship. Nor are either of these in the poll. The only reason I even dropped in was we both had similar experiences, and I thought it relevant when responding to thehammer. Something else funny is that my 808 never was "flagship", but the pioneer was the top tier (before elite) when I got it.


----------



## willis7469

Btw Bee, I agree with your above.


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> Hey bee, my onkyo was not now or when I bought it their flagship.


Let me correct my post and I'll be right back. Okay, edit (correction) made.

I was not bagging on your comments. The comments about one unit spanking another unit, unintentionally made the point which was, flagship AVRs, do not get spanked because they're the AVRs that do the spanking; peers ...And if one AVR can spank another, then the one getting spanked, isn't a flagship AVR. And if it is, the buyer needs to be looking elsewhere.



> Btw Bee, I agree with your above.


..:T


----------



## chashint

In 2009 the SC-27 @ $2200 MSRP was the flagship Pioneer AVR.
The 1019 was $500 MSRP, I am sure it competed well in its segment but it cannot compete against $1k AVRs much less the top models.

Fifteen watts is not a lot of power if talking about differences between equivalent AVRs but they do have to be equivalent.


----------



## BeeMan458

chashint said:


> Fifteen watts is not a lot of power if talking about differences between equivalent AVRs but they do have to be equivalent.


I'm a bit confused with your above as Flagship AVRs are being compared, not their output.


----------



## chashint

Confusion is only a state of mind, if it doesn't clear up by itself review the thread starting at #335.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> In 2009 the SC-27 @ $2200 MSRP was the flagship Pioneer AVR. The 1019 was $500 MSRP, I am sure it competed well in its segment but it cannot compete against $1k AVRs much less the top models. Fifteen watts is not a lot of power if talking about differences between equivalent AVRs but they do have to be equivalent.


So my question is, what's 15 watts between friends? Lol J/K. 
Isn't 15 watts, 15watts though? If it IS, then why must they be equivalent to compare? If not, then that goes to not getting what I paid for. Is a watt more powerful in a more expensive rcvr?


----------



## chashint

Your Pioneer 1019 (120 watts) vs your Onk 808 (135 watts).
You are comparing a $500 AVR to a $1k AVR, the extra 15 watts in this instance is going to mean more than it would if you were comparing the 1019 to another $500 AVR.
The Onk 808 also happens to be one of the best measured AVRs in the $1k group but setting that aside any $1k AVR would put out more power on more channels than a $500 AVR even if both are rated at the same power.
It's not a great situation where consumers cannot directly compare manufacturer's power rating in a meaningful manner across product lines.


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> Your Pioneer 1019 (120 watts) vs your Onk 808 (135 watts). You are comparing a $500 AVR to a $1k AVR, the extra 15 watts in this instance is going to mean more than it would if you were comparing the 1019 to another $500 AVR. The Onk 808 also happens to be one of the best measured AVRs in the $1k group but setting that aside any $1k AVR would put out more power on more channels than a $500 AVR even if both are rated at the same power. It's not a great situation where consumers cannot directly compare manufacturer's power rating in a meaningful manner across product lines.


I do realize this is apples to oranges(to a point, and I fear I've contributed to a derailment) but that's where my consumer brain is confused. If "even both are rated at the same power", why then don't they both have to deliver the same power? My question is why does it "mean more"? 150wpc x 7 x $1,000.00 should equal the same as 150wpc x 7 x $500.00 right?
And you are definitely right about direct comparisons in the marketplace. It makes me feel like all the numbers are arbitrary, and me a fool to value them.(I did read bench results before buying the 808, and agree, impressive) I think it was savjac who claimed "false advertisement". That's what I feel like too.


----------



## chashint

If you see an AVR claim 150 watts x7 channels on the box and it costs $300 do you believe it ?
I think the majority here would question that claim if the AVR cost $2k.
I am not saying I think it's ok that consumers have to be skeptical of output power claims, but in general many that frequent these forums want to see some 3rd party testing to verify the accuracy of the published specs.

Since the thread starter bailed at post #52, don't worry about any derailing.


----------



## chashint

What is 15 watts between friends ?
After pondering this a little bit it is a more interesting question than I initially thought.
Assuming a speaker 88dB sensitivity (1watt).
Here is the watts vs SPL output table.
1w/88dB
2w/91dB
4w/94dB
8w/97dB
16w/100dB
32w/103dB
64w/106dB
128w/109dB
256w/112dB

If we are talking about the first 15 watts we get a 12dB increase in SPL, if we are talking about the last 15 watts between 120/135 it seems like they are hardly worth having at all.


----------



## GCG

chashint said:


> What is 15 watts between friends ?
> After pondering this a little bit it is a more interesting question than I initially thought.
> Assuming a speaker 88dB sensitivity (1watt).
> Here is the watts vs SPL output table.
> 1w/88dB
> 2w/91dB
> 4w/94dB
> 8w/97dB
> 16w/100dB
> 32w/103dB
> 64w/106dB
> 128w/109dB
> 256w/112dB
> 
> If we are talking about the first 15 watts we get a 12dB increase in SPL, if we are talking about the last 15 watts between 120/135 it seems like they are hardly worth having at all.


Since most of us listen at AVERAGE SPLs of around or less than 80-85dB the issue is still in the instantaneous transients (snare drum hits, gun shots, etc). That's where the upper end power ratings apply. In regard to normal listening levels I tend to pay more attention to the quality specs; SNR, THD, and such.


----------



## BeeMan458

GCG said:


> In regard to normal listening levels I tend to pay more attention to the quality specs; SNR, THD, and such.


That's the beauty of a flagship unit, coupled with sensitive speakers. The individual doesn't have to worry about these things because when one couples a flagship AVR with sensitive speakers, the individual gets all the SPL they can handle, without worry of going above 0.1%. More than likely, the individual will be well below 0.1 as I'm of the understanding, the person putting the rig together wants to stay under 0.08%, which is easily obtainable.

My takeaway from all I've read, one should first worry about the sensitivity ratings of their speaker system before worrying about the output ratings of a flagship AVR. In my opinion, if like me, one worries about distortion issues, the speaker should be hitting reference level at about 68dB which gives plenty of headroom and keeps one out of harmonic distortion trouble.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

GCG said:


> Since most of us listen at AVERAGE SPLs of around or less than 80-85dB the issue is still in the instantaneous transients (snare drum hits, gun shots, etc). That's where the upper end power ratings apply. In regard to normal listening levels I tend to pay more attention to the quality specs; SNR, THD, and such.


Which is represented by the 2 channel tests, not the ACD test. :bigsmile:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

BeeMan458 said:


> That's the beauty of a flagship unit, coupled with sensitive speakers. The individual doesn't have to worry about these things because when one couples a flagship AVR with sensitive speakers, the individual gets all the SPL they can handle, without worry of going above 0.1%. More than likely, the individual will be well below 0.1 as I'm of the understanding, the person putting the rig together wants to stay under 0.08%, which is easily obtainable.
> 
> My takeaway from all I've read, one should first worry about the sensitivity ratings of their speaker system before worrying about the output ratings of a flagship AVR. In my opinion, if like me, one worries about distortion issues, the speaker should be hitting reference level at about 68dB which gives plenty of headroom and keeps one out of harmonic distortion trouble.


Thats correct. One must always pick out speakers and then match the amplifier/avr to the power demand of the speakers. :clap:


----------



## willis7469

chashint said:


> If you see an AVR claim 150 watts x7 channels on the box and it costs $300 do you believe it ? I think the majority here would question that claim if the AVR cost $2k. I am not saying I think it's ok that consumers have to be skeptical of output power claims, but in general many that frequent these forums want to see some 3rd party testing to verify the accuracy of the published specs. Since the thread starter bailed at post #52, don't worry about any derailing.





chashint said:


> What is 15 watts between friends ? After pondering this a little bit it is a more interesting question than I initially thought. Assuming a speaker 88dB sensitivity (1watt). Here is the watts vs SPL output table. 1w/88dB 2w/91dB 4w/94dB 8w/97dB 16w/100dB 32w/103dB 64w/106dB 128w/109dB 256w/112dB If we are talking about the first 15 watts we get a 12dB increase in SPL, if we are talking about the last 15 watts between 120/135 it seems like they are hardly worth having at all.


Ok 1st, if I saw rcvr for sale touting 150x7 for $300, I would laugh myself out of the store, right past the 5000 watt super mega cube htibs! Your also right about us who frequent here, checking 3rd party numbers. But regular people don't, and they don't even know they should, until their friends like us tell em. (Then explain for 4 hours...). I suppose ignorance is bliss. 
Nice output chart! It appears that the 15 between friends may not be worth it, BUT, AVRs never deliver their full promised power. If they did, I think I'd find less differential between my own. (Thankfully my mains are 92db)That's where 3rd party tests come in, but not everyone knows about that. Most ppl believe what the box says, cause that's how it should be. I think for most of us (here) it's not what the number IS, but that the number is truthful. ...maybe someday!


----------



## willis7469

GCG said:


> Since most of us listen at AVERAGE SPLs of around or less than 80-85dB the issue is still in the instantaneous transients (snare drum hits, gun shots, etc). That's where the upper end power ratings apply. In regard to normal listening levels I tend to pay more attention to the quality specs; SNR, THD, and such.


I agree. THD, SNR, etc, are major qualifiers, and even most of the time, were probably closer to the 85 range here too. However, the reason I (most?) bought the beefier one was so when I want to cook the tires, I can, and not worry about breaking. And will sound better, and stay composed while doing it!


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Thats correct.


...:bigsmile:


----------



## chashint

willis7469 said:


> Ok 1st, if I saw rcvr for sale touting 150x7 for $300, I would laugh myself out of the store, right past the 5000 watt super mega cube htibs!


Ha!
Speaking of flagship ...
5000 Watt super cube htibs....good one, and a good example of something being terribly wrong.

There is some kind of FCC standard for output power measurements for products sold in the US.
You can see from the discussion in this thread though that it is somewhat lacking.
I don't think I want more regulations, but at the same time it appears more is needed since the CE industry cannot regulate itself.


----------



## BeeMan458

chashint said:


> I don't think I want more regulations, but at the same time it appears more is needed since the CE industry cannot regulate itself.


This from a federal government that can't regulate itself?

...:rofl:

(sorry. couldn't resist)

In the case of more regulation, I plead guilty to openly complaining about the honesty of posted specifications by manufactures but I'd rather it be "Buyer beware" vs more intrusive government regulation that only cost jobs, complicates everybody's life, restricts economic growth and is the cause of more inflation.

(let's see which gives me the best odds. more government regulations or an asteroid falling unexpectedly from the sky? hmmmmmmm.)

...


----------



## GCG

BeeMan458 said:


> My takeaway from all I've read, one should first worry about the sensitivity ratings of their speaker system before worrying about the output ratings of a flagship AVR. In my opinion, if like me, one worries about distortion issues, the speaker should be hitting reference level at about 68dB which gives plenty of headroom and keeps one out of harmonic distortion trouble.


Within reason, I'd agree. However an uber efficient speaker with a very high output amp may tend to catch you on the low power end. Take a look at this THD graph of my SC-71 from S&V. Rated out @8Ω-120w @4Ω-180w










At the higher volumes you'd be fine but at the whisper levels you could be creeping up the back side of the curve. Granted the specs are still great but if you really want to maximize the potential of the of the system the speaker sensitivity should selected so as to tend to keep you in the in the leading edge of the low end knee during the quiet portions.


----------



## TheHammer

willis7469 said:


> The "amps", as it were probably "sound" exactly the same, but "sound" differences in this case revolve around audyssey vs mcacc. (For me mcacc loses this fight). Mcacc treats my room differently


I am in complete agreement with this statement. If are auditioning using sound processing of any type, then there may be audible differences. If these are the obvious audible differences that your heard and I missed that comment, then I apologize.

I am currently wrestling with an Audyssey x32 setup and I am not thrilled. It makes my system quite bright and kills the sub. I end up going into the coarse graphic EQ to counter much of what Audyssey did. I cannot figure out how that mic is supposed to pick up high end while pointing to the ceiling at about the height of the speaker. I have tried playing with the positioning including the height and trying to isolate the mic from floor vibrations.

I had a difficult time comparing the different systems between manufacturers. Reviews are limited. I wanted to see frequency response and phase comparisons between Yamaha, Pioneer and the different flavors of Audyssey, but could not find any. I also could not find hard specs such as the number of bands, parametric vs graphic and how they handle the subs for Yamaha and Pioneer. Yamaha did tell me that their YAPO is not the same for all models and years, but they could not or would not give me much specific information other than that the Advantage line did EQ the sub.

I just moved into a house and my main setup is in a 'great room' with a cathedral ceiling in the living room area and 9 ft ceilings in the dining and kitchen, opening into a long wide hallway. I have no idea the cu ft, but I feel your pain.


----------



## BeeMan458

GCG said:


> Within reason, I'd agree. However an uber efficient speaker with a very high output amp may tend to catch you on the low power end.


Point taken but the comment applied to flagship AVRs. 

"My takeaway from all I've read, one should first worry about the sensitivity ratings of their speaker system before worrying about the output ratings of a flagship AVR."

What am I missing as your above point reflects on the AVR, not the speakers? My view, most are worried about distortion during peak play as opposed to absolute minimum play or the first half watt.


----------



## BeeMan458

TheHammer said:


> I am currently wrestling with an Audyssey x32 setup and I am not thrilled. It makes my system quite bright and kills the sub.


What are you using for room measuring software?


----------



## TheHammer

Savjac said:


> ....and "Thinks" they hear a difference seems to be unrealistically definitive with no more evidence than those that "Think" there is no difference. Even the random sampling on this website is pretty much 50/50 and it would be rude at best to utterly discount either side.


I believe it is not rude to point out that professional 'golden ears' who claim that they hear differences were unable to do so in ABX testing. I believe the quote I have at the end of this post applies here. 




Savjac said:


> I has only been shown is a couple of instances that one may not be able to hear differences in a blind test. It is therefore my opinion, and has been for some time, that blind tests do not work, as I am millions of others Can hear differences. I actually feel bad for those the do not either by choice or by some other malady such as hearing loss.


A couple of instances? - please see the link below.

I would love to have it proven that there are audible difference. Please don't feel bad for me. 



Savjac said:


> Look, we are analog beings,


It could be argued that we are digital beings as our brain is made of synapses that are either on or off, the equivalent of 'ones' and 'zeros'. 



Savjac said:


> but usually we cannot be fooled over a long period of time.


Abraham Lincoln would disagree.



Savjac said:


> Is all gas the same ? Are all cars the same ?


Of course not. And the differences can be easily measured through analysis.



Savjac said:


> We just have not found an electronic test that can measure some differences we have heard....yet.


Actually, I think we have. It is called the null test. While my memory of how this is set up is a little sketchy, the output of one amp is applied to the "+" of a speaker and the output of another is applied to the "-". The only way a sound is heard is if there is a difference between the amplifiers. The only thing an amp is providing a speaker is electricity - nothing else - and if there is no electrical flow, there is no sound and no difference. 

An amp suffering from a distortion (such as crossover distortion) is easily detected. This setup can be used with input on one side of the speaker and output from the amp on the other, which absolutely detects any difference between the input of an amp and the output.

Of course, using a tool like an oscilloscope is more sensitive than a speaker and our ear, but using the speaker is more demonstrative. 

The challenge, when there was a difference, was identifying what caused the difference, what was the difference (type of distortion), how to measure the difference in a test, and then remove the distortion. 



Savjac said:


> Most folks buy based on looks, features and ratings with a few reviews that kind of repeat what a buyer wants to hear thrown in. How many negative reviews will a magazine throw out there while still needing advertisement money ?


Agreed.



Savjac said:


> Even the measurement people cannot seem to agree on whose measurements are correct.


Can you give examples of measurement that are controversial?




Savjac said:


> I saw one today from another online reviewer that was bragging on a particular brand that had an extra support foot under the receiver and saying it was very important as it allowed the receiver to have more chocolate mids. Really...they further went on to defend the avr from shutting down when the going got rough so it would not break...again...really ?
> I would refuse to purchase something that kept shutting down if it could not perform as advertised, that is not a safe guard, that is false advertising.


Agreed. That extra foot is a modern snake oil. But this is not a measurement based test. 



Savjac said:


> So what am I saying here, give up on the blind tests from 1984. Ivor did develop the wonderful LP12 and has been known to have some strong opinions on some weird things, but he does know marketing. The other guys just were looking to make someone look stupid and they did, themselves.


Do you actually think that testing has not occurred since 1984? And it has not been refined?

A quick search of the web would prove otherwise.

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777

And there is other testing (that I am less than familiar with), such as PEAQ.

From: http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm

Floyd Toole presented a paper at the 97th convention of the Audio Engineering Society, November, 1994 titled Hearing is Believing vs. Believing: Blind vs. Sighted Listening Tests, and Other Interesting Things. Floyd concludes: “Overall, though, it was clear that the psychological factor of simply revealing the identities of the products altered the preference ratings by amounts that were comparable with any physical factor examined in these tests, including the differences between the products themselves. That an effect of this kind should be observed is not remarkable, nor is it unexpected. What is surprising is that the effect is so strong, and that it applies about equally to experienced and inexperienced listeners.

Since all of this is independent of the sounds arriving at the listeners’ ears, we are led to conclude that, under the circumstances, believing is hearing, The bottom line: if you want to know how a loudspeaker truly sounds, you would be well advised to do the listening tests “blind.”


----------



## TheHammer

BeeMan458 said:


> What are you using for room measuring software?


I am not certain that I understand the question. 

I run the Audyssey setup. I look at the results from the receiver. It indicates graphically that the high end is boosted and the sub is cut, both by about 10db - which is huge! I listen. It sounds bright to me to the point where it is annoying. And when playing music or watching a film, there is almost no output from the sub.

I admit that my reference is what I am used to hearing. But with my former system, I had someone come over with a graphic analyzer and set up as best could be accomplished a flat response. Most people find a flat response to be overly bright. I did bring down the upper few bands by a few db - as I recall. It would be great to have access to that sort of analysis again, but I do not.

Suggestions?


----------



## chashint

The S&V distortion graph looks odd at the low end.
Just to check sanity I pulled the Denon 4520 graph http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s-amps/75330-best-flagship-v-receiver-12.html and the same thing shows up there so it is not an artifact of the class D amplification.
I can't find any other review sites that plot distortion vs power out from zero to max.
Watts 1 - 4 of output being pristine are probably more critical to the system sounding good than the 50 - 100 watt output region.


----------



## BeeMan458

TheHammer said:


> Suggestions?


Download and get a freeware copy of REW up and running. In doing so, you'll be able to see the acoustical response of your room in realtime, make and measure any changes so you're able to see what's going on with the acoustics in your listening space.



> It indicates graphically that the high end is boosted and the sub is cut, both by about 10db - which is huge!


It reads like you're dealing with null issues as agreed, -10dB is half as loud and yes, that's huge.


----------



## chashint

Just when I thought Savjac's post had slipped under the radar without igniting the A/B, DB A/B, DB ABX dealio........... "TheHammer" strikes !


----------



## BeeMan458

chashint said:


> Just to check sanity I pulled the Denon 4520 graph http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...s-amps/75330-best-flagship-v-receiver-12.html and the same thing shows up there so it is not an artifact of the class D amplification.


I checked with Denon customer service yesterday and they said that the amplifier for the 4520 was an A/B amplifier. The 4520 hugs the wall during the first half watt. The my opinion, in all respects, the 4520 is a flagship AVR and this is reflected in third party bench tests. Did I ever mention how much I love our 4520? :bigsmile:


----------



## primetimeguy

TheHammer said:


> I am not certain that I understand the question.
> 
> I run the Audyssey setup. I look at the results from the receiver. It indicates graphically that the high end is boosted and the sub is cut, both by about 10db - which is huge! I listen. It sounds bright to me to the point where it is annoying. And when playing music or watching a film, there is almost no output from the sub.
> 
> I admit that my reference is what I am used to hearing. But with my former system, I had someone come over with a graphic analyzer and set up as best could be accomplished a flat response. Most people find a flat response to be overly bright. I did bring down the upper few bands by a few db - as I recall. It would be great to have access to that sort of analysis again, but I do not.
> 
> Suggestions?


Try a new mic maybe?


----------



## chashint

You may have mentioned you like the 4520 one or two times and you may have mentioned it is a flagship AVR a time or two too :surrender:
No doubt it's a great AVR and its stellar performance is reflected in the $2500 MSRP.
At $1k the SC-71 is pretty stout in its own right and while not the flagship model is certainly nothng to sneeze at.

Time will tell how Pioneer's exit from the home audio segment affects the audio marketplace, even if Pioneer is not your brand of choice it's never good to see a competitor leave the market.
Maybe in a couple of years we will all be buying Denon AVRs.


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> I am not certain that I understand the question.
> 
> I run the Audyssey setup. I look at the results from the receiver. It indicates graphically that the high end is boosted and the sub is cut, both by about 10db - which is huge! I listen. It sounds bright to me to the point where it is annoying. And when playing music or watching a film, there is almost no output from the sub.
> 
> I admit that my reference is what I am used to hearing. But with my former system, I had someone come over with a graphic analyzer and set up as best could be accomplished a flat response. Most people find a flat response to be overly bright. I did bring down the upper few bands by a few db - as I recall. It would be great to have access to that sort of analysis again, but I do not.
> 
> Suggestions?


What is boosted the highs for all the channels or just certain ones and wht is lowered the same ones... more details please  

Just curious with out room correction on do the highs sound ok when you turn it up ( possible damages tweeters ?!? )


----------



## TheHammer

BeeMan458 said:


> Download and get a freeware copy of REW up and running. In doing so, you'll be able to see the acoustical response of your room in realtime, make and measure any changes so you're able to see what's going on with the acoustics in your listening space.
> 
> It reads like you're dealing with null issues as agreed, -10dB is half as loud and yes, that's huge.


Thanks for the suggestion. I glanced at it. Doesn't it require some sort of calibrated microphone?

The null issue makes sense, but usually nulls cover a point in a room. I have moved the mic into several different locations with little or no effect. What I did out of desperation was to point the mic directly at each speaker as the tone occurred. This, of course, is not following procedure, but it actually gave me a sound I liked better.

It also does not explain the cut in the sub. I do not understand how it calibrates the sub - beyond the overall level. The graph indicates a frequency response for each channel, even below the crossover. I also manually adjusted the crossover higher as I do not believe my main speakers should have a crossover at 60 Hz.


----------



## TheHammer

3dbinCanada said:


> Thats correct. One must always pick out speakers and then match the amplifier/avr to the power demand of the speakers. :clap:


True, at least in theory. Here is a good discussion.

http://www.psbspeakers.com/articles/Guide-to-Speaker-Specifications

At one point, I had speakers that were rated at 89 db sensitivity, while my brother's were around 85 db. If for simplicity sake, we use 86 db, the difference between the two is 3 db. That means, the one at 86 db would require twice the power to sound as loud.

If using a nominal 100 W per channel amp with a speaker sensitivity of 89 db, then one would need a 200 watt amp to sound as loud @ 86 db sensitivity. Good luck finding that in a A/V receiver. 

And even more important, that 3 db, which requires twice the power, is just barely noticeable to a listener. To really make a difference, you would need 10 times the power. You would need more than good luck to find that.

When I was a kid, I had a little 10 W per channel high quality (for the time) amp. I traded that in for a 40 watt amp and did not notice a difference. Then I went to 350 watts / channel and that I noticed. I could make people's ears bleed. But I never listened to it that loud. It was sort of like having a muscle car and squealing the wheels once in a while.

When A/V got big, I traded that 350 watt amp for a 80 watt per channel (with two driven) and never noticed the difference. I just could not 'make the wheels squeal' anymore. :doh:

So, in practice, the sensitivity of the speakers will make some difference as to how loud your amp will get. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to get enough power out of an A/V receiver to make up for the difference. And in most (all?) real world listening in a home environment, you will never turn up the amp far enough to notice the difference between the sensitivities of the speakers. * **

* This is especially true if using a powered subwoofer.

**OK, compare a Klipsch horn loaded in the corner of a room, vs. a 'normal' speaker. And you can make people's ears bleed with only a few watts. 105 db efficiency. If that is your thing....


----------



## BeeMan458

chashint said:


> ...and you may have mentioned it is a flagship AVR a time or two too :surrender:


...:whistling:



> Time will tell how Pioneer's exit from the home audio segment affects the audio marketplace,...


First, I've read of this. Looks like they're selling to Funai Electric.

Pioneer sells AV division.


----------



## willis7469

TheHammer said:


> True, at least in theory. Here is a good discussion. http://www.psbspeakers.com/articles/Guide-to-Speaker-Specifications At one point, I had speakers that were rated at 89 db sensitivity, while my brother's were around 85 db. If for simplicity sake, we use 86 db, the difference between the two is 3 db. That means, the one at 86 db would require twice the power to sound as loud. If using a nominal 100 W per channel amp with a speaker sensitivity of 89 db, then one would need a 200 watt amp to sound as loud @ 86 db sensitivity. Good luck finding that in a A/V receiver. And even more important, that 3 db, which requires twice the power, is just barely noticeable to a listener. To really make a difference, you would need 10 times the power. You would need more than good luck to find that. When I was a kid, I had a little 10 W per channel high quality (for the time) amp. I traded that in for a 40 watt amp and did not notice a difference. Then I went to 350 watts / channel and that I noticed. I could make people's ears bleed. But I never listened to it that loud. It was sort of like having a muscle car and squealing the wheels once in a while. When A/V got big, I traded that 350 watt amp for a 80 watt per channel (with two driven) and never noticed the difference. I just could not 'make the wheels squeal' anymore. :doh: So, in practice, the sensitivity of the speakers will make some difference as to how loud your amp will get. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to get enough power out of an A/V receiver to make up for the difference. And in most (all?) real world listening in a home environment, you will never turn up the amp far enough to notice the difference between the sensitivities of the speakers. * ** * This is especially true if using a powered subwoofer. **OK, compare a Klipsch horn loaded in the corner of a room, vs. a 'normal' speaker. And you can make people's ears bleed with only a few watts. 105 db efficiency. If that is your thing....


Hammer. I don't know if you do. But I'm lucky enough to have a musclecar, and cooking the tires only once in awhile is not ok!


----------



## willis7469

Hey bee, I thought I read somewhere you were missing your marantz? :Neener: lol


----------



## TheHammer

willis7469 said:


> Hammer. I don't know if you do. But I'm lucky enough to have a musclecar, and cooking the tires only once in awhile is not ok!


LOL!


----------



## willis7469

BeeMan458 said:


> ...:whistling: First, I've read of this. Looks like they're selling to Funai Electric. Pioneer sells AV division.


First I've heard too. ...too bad.


----------



## TheHammer

magic said:


> What is boosted the highs for all the channels or just certain ones and wht is lowered the same ones... more details please  Just curious with out room correction on do the highs sound ok when you turn it up ( possible damages tweeters ?!? )


 Good questions. After EQ, levels are set to -1 db to - 3 db, except the sub to -12 db. I did set the level of the sub prior to the test. It is not spot on, but fairly close and certainly not 12 db too high. My front speakers are small, yet it set the crossovers to 40 Hz. The rears are in the ceiling and it set them to 60 Hz. I consider this to be insane. Is there any way for me to force it to run the test with the crossovers set to 80 or 100 Hz? Unfortunately, this last run is where I pointed the mic towards each speaker which is not the right way to do it, but it stopped the high end over boost. The freq above 10 kHz is moderately flat. From about 5 kHz to 10 kHz, the output is boosted about 5 db. At 2 - 3 kHz, is down about 4 db. At 100 Hz, it is down 10 db. But what is most confusing to me is that after setting my sub to -12 db, it then boosts the output from ~80 Hz on down by 7 db!? Why would it cut the sub by 12 db, then boost output in that range by 7 db? L, R, & C look similar. Surrounds from 2 kHz up are boosted by 4 db. Up about 5 db at about 250 Hz. Up about 6 db below 70 Hz. I have gone into manual and changed the crossovers to 90 Hz. In speakers / bass, I have the sub set to LFE and LPF for LFE at 100 Hz. Under Audio, I have the sub set to 0 db, which sounds pretty natural for video. Extreme low bass is a bit heavy for music. Under Audio, with the TV input, the Graphic EQ is grayed out, which is annoying as .....

The speakers always sounded great prior to purchase of this new A/V receiver. No problems with the tweeters.


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> It is therefore my opinion, and has been for some time, that blind tests do not work


Yet strangely enough, your cell phone works. Your TV. VOIP. Hearing aids. Medicine. Particle physics results analysis. More women in orchestras. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
Strange how it works for everything but audiophile beliefs. 
Regarding your argumentum ad populum:
"An estimated 2.5 million Power Balance bands have been sold worldwide - and they've already spawned imitators"
On October 28, 2010 Olympic champion gymnast Dominique Dawes, working for Yahoo Weekend News and Independent Investigations Group (IIG), tested Power Balance bracelets for their claim that they improve balance, flexibility and strength. According to IIG investigator Dave Richards "There was one 'legitimate' Power Balance bracelet, and 3 'sham' bracelets that had the hologram removed from them. The experiment was double-blinded, all bracelets were wrapped with tape so no one present knew which bracelet was real and which were fakes. Neither the participants nor the people recording the scores knew which bracelet was 'real' until after all participants had completed their runs and their scores were recorded." The results indicated that there was no benefit for those that had a real holographic bracelet compared to those who had a placebo.
Chiropractic researchers from RMIT's School of Health Sciences in 2011 reported the results of an independent, randomized and controlled trial with double blind design. They found no difference in balance between people using a real holographic wristband and those wearing a placebo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance

Oh and Jack, for the nth time, only audiophile imaginary strawmen can be quoted saying "all amps sound the same". No one else.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

chashint said:


> Watts 1 - 4 of output being pristine are probably more critical to the system sounding good than the 50 - 100 watt output region.


I would make that 0.01 watt to 4 watt...and I think those graphs are somewhat alarming, from a perception perspective. Though I'd like to see a better scale, say from 0.01-1 watt.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> Hey bee, I thought I read somewhere you were missing your marantz? :neener: lol


Sniff, sniff. :crying:

.....not a chance. :neener:


----------



## BeeMan458

TheHammer said:


> Is there any way for me to force it to run the test with the crossovers set to 80 or 100 Hz?


The way most of us do it, we run Audyssey and then set all speaker crossovers to 80Hz and set all speakers to small. The sub is set to LFE - 120Hz and the low pass filter on the sub should be set all the way up.

One wants to set their speaker crossovers to 80Hz or less so as to eliminate location issues. And one should set Dynamic EQ to on.


----------



## willis7469

Gotta say, I'm kinda bummed seeing pioneer drop A/V.


----------



## BeeMan458

willis7469 said:


> Gotta say, I'm kinda bummed seeing pioneer drop A/V.


Agreed. That's like Ford dropping the Mustang or Chevy dropping the Camaro or the SF 49ers trading Joe Montana to Kansas City......oh, wait, SF did trade Joe to Kansas City.


----------



## willis7469

BeeMan458 said:


> Agreed. That's like Ford dropping the Mustang or Chevy dropping the Camaro or the SF 49ers trading Joe Montana to Kansas City......oh, wait, SF did trade Joe to Kansas City.


:rofl:


----------



## BeeMan458

...


----------



## primetimeguy

TheHammer said:


> Good questions. After EQ, levels are set to -1 db to - 3 db, except the sub to -12 db. I did set the level of the sub prior to the test. It is not spot on, but fairly close and certainly not 12 db too high. My front speakers are small, yet it set the crossovers to 40 Hz. The rears are in the ceiling and it set them to 60 Hz. I consider this to be insane. Is there any way for me to force it to run the test with the crossovers set to 80 or 100 Hz? Unfortunately, this last run is where I pointed the mic towards each speaker which is not the right way to do it, but it stopped the high end over boost. The freq above 10 kHz is moderately flat. From about 5 kHz to 10 kHz, the output is boosted about 5 db. At 2 - 3 kHz, is down about 4 db. At 100 Hz, it is down 10 db. But what is most confusing to me is that after setting my sub to -12 db, it then boosts the output from ~80 Hz on down by 7 db!? Why would it cut the sub by 12 db, then boost output in that range by 7 db? L, R, & C look similar. Surrounds from 2 kHz up are boosted by 4 db. Up about 5 db at about 250 Hz. Up about 6 db below 70 Hz. I have gone into manual and changed the crossovers to 90 Hz. In speakers / bass, I have the sub set to LFE and LPF for LFE at 100 Hz. Under Audio, I have the sub set to 0 db, which sounds pretty natural for video. Extreme low bass is a bit heavy for music. Under Audio, with the TV input, the Graphic EQ is grayed out, which is annoying as .....
> 
> The speakers always sounded great prior to purchase of this new A/V receiver. No problems with the tweeters.


Not doubting at all what you hear, but you shouldn't put much faith in the graphs shown by the receiver as they are a very crude representation of what is going on. Unfortunately about the only thing you can do is try a different mic and see I'd the results are the same and/or use some other measurement system so actually see what is going on in your room. With some freq plots many people here could point you in the right direction.


----------



## GCG

ajinfla said:


> I would make that 0.01 watt to 4 watt...and I think those graphs are somewhat alarming, from a perception perspective. Though I'd like to see a better scale, say from 0.01-1 watt.
> 
> cheers


That'd be info you could really use for real world situations. How does the box work at the levels we normally use? All the hoopla over the upper end is for the once in a blue moon demo or show off. If you run day-to-day at those levels for long your hearing will begin to suffer. Still want the head room for the transients but that lower 1%-5% is where the real work gets done.

A guy once asked me what he need to get to impress his brother-in-law. I told him to take the money he was willing to spend on the system in fresh $100 bills, arrange them nicely on some black silk, frame them and hang it up in the room he was going to put the system. His B-I-L would walk in, go "OO-AH" once and walk out - impressed. Then the guy would still have the money if he needed it. I pick a system for what I listen to, the way I listen.

Oh - and that stuff about Pioneer getting out of AV? All I can say is I hope the buyer keeps the current staff and finally puts six channels of PEQ on each amp and the sub out(s). All they'd have to do is partner up with MINIDSP and HTS and use REW for room EQ. They'd blow the doors off the competition.


----------



## BeeMan458

GCG said:


> That'd be info you could really use for real world situations. How does the box work at the levels we normally use? All the hoopla over the upper end is for the once in a blue moon demo or show off.


Not really. One should use no more than about 68wpc or there abouts. If one is using more, they're straining the amplifier section and introducing harmonics (distortion) into the audio stream. The idea, is to get away from straining the amplifier section and that can only be done by not straining the amplifier section.

In my opinion, the above comment represents real world conditions.

One "NEEDS" a robust amplifier section that's capable of handling output demands and if the amplifier section won't handle output demands, one can hear the life get sucked out of the system during peak demands as speakers are literally heard to fall behind more capable subwoofer amplifiers.


----------



## chashint

ajinfla said:


> I would make that 0.01 watt to 4 watt...and I think those graphs are somewhat alarming, from a perception perspective. Though I'd like to see a better scale, say from 0.01-1 watt.
> cheers


Yes.

Seems odd that two very different amplifier designs would exhibit the same characteristic in what should be the most linear operating region.


----------



## GCG

BeeMan458 said:


> Not really. One should use no more than about 68wpc or there abouts. If one is using more, they're straining the amplifier section and introducing harmonics (distortion) into the audio stream. The idea, is to get away from straining the amplifier section and that can only be done by not straining the amplifier section.
> 
> In my opinion, the above comment represents real world conditions.
> 
> One "NEEDS" a robust amplifier section that's capable of handling output demands and if the amplifier section won't handle output demands, one can hear the life get sucked out of the system during peak demands as speakers are literally heard to fall behind more capable subwoofer amplifiers.


Can't disagree that upper end performance is a potential killer of the audio experience. I made sure that I had the head room when I selected the SC-71:

From the S&V review


> Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 204.3 watts and 1% distortion at 247.3 watts.


I like 4Ω speakers for some reason. Don't know why, I just seem to end up with them some how. First some RTR 240Ds then the Infinify's and now I'm building the Zaph ZA5.3t's.

It's just that I agree with AJ that not enough detail is provided in spec's or reviews on the performance where the bulk of the listening is done. All amps will show the same rapid drop of THD out of the gate. If there were more detail on just where, power wise, the THD droped below 0.1% or 0.08% we'd have a better handle on the speaker sensitivity we'd need to stay in that sweet low THD range through the entire listening range including the upper end dynamics.


----------



## ajinfla

GCG said:


> That'd be info you could really use for real world situations. How does the box work at the levels we normally use? All the hoopla over the upper end is for the once in a blue moon demo or show off. If you run day-to-day at those levels for long your hearing will begin to suffer. Still want the head room for the transients but that lower 1%-5% is where the real work gets done.


That's not quite what I'm saying. It's not the "normal use", but rather the nature of distortion perception, the lower level stuff being the most insidious. If you really want to know, search "Gedlee metrics" or slog this paper (warning, large and very technically oriented) http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/9852082/07gr1061_Thesis.pdf.
On the other end, the headroom stuff is important too. That's why I look at both. For my particular type demands for fidelity/music tastes, both are critical. YMMV. To be clear, it is highly doubtful the average user of AVRs should apply the same weighting.

cheers


----------



## GCG

ajinfla said:


> That's not quite what I'm saying. It's not the "normal use", but rather the nature of distortion perception, the lower level stuff being the most insidious. If you really want to know, search "Gedlee metrics" or slog this paper (warning, large and very technically oriented) http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/9852082/07gr1061_Thesis.pdf.
> On the other end, the headroom stuff is important too. That's why I look at both. For my particular type demands for fidelity/music tastes, both are critical. YMMV. To be clear, it is highly doubtful the average user of AVRs should apply the same weighting.
> 
> cheers


Interesting stuff and new to me, thanks. I wish it'd be widely adopted but I won't hold my breath.

The low power end is where I tend to find more character and nuance. That's where the voices of the individual instruments seem to live, in their lower power 'natural' harmonics. It just makes sense to me to keep it as clean down there as possible.


----------



## GCG

Here's a link I found useful for my technical level of understanding.

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf

Addendum: And another if you have Powerpoint. www.gedlee.com/downloads/distortion_perception.ppt


----------



## ajinfla

GCG said:


> Here's a link I found useful for my technical level of understanding.
> 
> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf
> 
> Addendum: And another if you have Powerpoint. www.gedlee.com/downloads/distortion_perception.ppt


Much better. I always forget the earlier stuff and being lazy, just pluck the latest from my saved files.
Thanks


----------



## BeeMan458

GCG said:


> It's just that I agree with AJ that not enough detail is provided in spec's or reviews on the performance where the bulk of the listening is done.


In the case of the graph AJ commented on, it wasn't a flagship AVR. As far as detail in the first two watts, in honesty, I can't comment on that as doing so would be above my paygrade but it's definitely something worthy of further discussion because the question also becomes, how revealing is a set of speakers during the first two or four watts.


----------



## BeeMan458

ajinfla said:


> TIf you really want to know, search "Gedlee metrics" or slog this paper (warning, large and very technically oriented) http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/9852082/07gr1061_Thesis.pdf.


Being an uneducated layperson, could you kindly point me to the page of pertinence? Ninety pages is a lot of slogging for us laypeople. You have to remember, some of us don't have the prerequisites for the 101 classes being presented.



THD+N. I'm still trying to find out what N or "noise" is. My understanding, now I'm forced to look at noise floors and signal-to-noise-ratio and when output or "noise" falls below an individual's hearing threshold, I'm golden.

(the below represents the Denon 4520CI)

Ex: The signal-to-noise ratio with an 8-ohm load from 10 Hz to 24 kHz with “A” weighting was –107.59 dBrA.

(my understanding of the above, being that we listen below +105dBFS, I'm not going hear any THD+N.)

Note the comment at the end of the linked article:



> Hopefully your device is more like -80 dB or .01% distortion or even -100 dB, which is .001%. A good rule of thumb is every additional 20 dB down moves the decimal one place to the left. Of course, APx calculates this for you automatically.
> 
> Keep in mind when making measurements, the analyzer has to have a significantly lower THD+N than the device under test. The THD+N of an APx525 is -112 dB (or 0.0002%), when measured with a 1 kilohertz signal at 2.5 volts rms across a 20 Hz to 20 KHz bandwidth. The 2700 Series has the lowest THD+N of any audio analyzer in the world: at the same amplitude and range, it has better than -118 dB THD+N, or 0.0001%.


The point, when distortion falls below hearing threshold, when does the rest of it become moot to us laypeople, affectionately known as consumers?

You guys get out on the flats and not all of us can keep up.

(out of breath, huffing and puffing.....go ahead, don't wait on me, I'm going take a break.....wheeze)

The point, can you guys slow it down a bit so some of us less educated idiots can keep up. The point, just saying, the thread was a question about which is the best flagship receiver.

(and at no time am I trying to be unappreciative of anybody's willingness to burrow down in the weeds for our benefit)


----------



## GCG

AJ if I understand correctly the Gedlee metric is saying that a poor THD ?response? is more audibly 'objectionable' at lower spl's. Please correct me if I've got my head on wrong.


----------



## J&D

My vote would be for the Denon. In fact I am looking at replacing my trusty 3311CI with just that model sell it and the external amplification I am currently using to free up some rack space.


----------



## BeeMan458

J&D said:


> My vote would be for the Denon. In fact I am looking at replacing my trusty 3311CI with just that model sell it and the external amplification I am currently using to free up some rack space.


The good news, the 4520 doesn't need an external amplifier.

We use a Blu-ray player and a 4520 and nothing else......well, except for a stupid cable box. Conversations or threads of this kind, tell me how "flawless" the 4520 is. Life always moves forward. In the meantime, I've found Nirvana in the form of the 4520.


----------



## GCG

While I'm waiting on AJ I'll assume I don't have to reconnect my head and proceed.

We all know the 'double/half power = 3dB spl relationship. Increase or decrease power by a factor of 2 and you get a bump in spl of 3dB.

Let's set some conditions:

Speaker impedance: 8Ω
Speaker sensitivity: 80dB (low, I know)
System noise floor (including system and room contributions) 44dB spl - below this you can't tell the output of the speaker above the noise.

At 1 watt and 1 meter that speaker is producing 80dB spl - 36dB above the noise floor. To get down to the noise floor you'd need to reduce the power by half 12 times (12 x 3 = 36). That's 1/4096 watt or .244 milliwatts before you can't tell the speaker is producing any sound. Now add 18dB to the speaker sensitivity to bring you to 98dB and the power level at the noise floor goes to 3.8 MICROWATTS. That could very easily put you on a very dicey point on the back side of the THD/power curve.

Now during that very soft passage of your favorite string concerto the violin starts to sound less and less like a violin and more and more like something else.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

TheHammer said:


> True, at least in theory. Here is a good discussion.
> 
> http://www.psbspeakers.com/articles/Guide-to-Speaker-Specifications
> 
> At one point, I had speakers that were rated at 89 db sensitivity, while my brother's were around 85 db. If for simplicity sake, we use 86 db, the difference between the two is 3 db. That means, the one at 86 db would require twice the power to sound as loud.
> 
> If using a nominal 100 W per channel amp with a speaker sensitivity of 89 db, then one would need a 200 watt amp to sound as loud @ 86 db sensitivity. Good luck finding that in a A/V receiver.
> 
> And even more important, that 3 db, which requires twice the power, is just barely noticeable to a listener. To really make a difference, you would need 10 times the power. You would need more than good luck to find that.
> 
> When I was a kid, I had a little 10 W per channel high quality (for the time) amp. I traded that in for a 40 watt amp and did not notice a difference. Then I went to 350 watts / channel and that I noticed. I could make people's ears bleed. But I never listened to it that loud. It was sort of like having a muscle car and squealing the wheels once in a while.
> 
> When A/V got big, I traded that 350 watt amp for a 80 watt per channel (with two driven) and never noticed the difference. I just could not 'make the wheels squeal' anymore. :doh:
> 
> So, in practice, the sensitivity of the speakers will make some difference as to how loud your amp will get. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to get enough power out of an A/V receiver to make up for the difference. And in most (all?) real world listening in a home environment, you will never turn up the amp far enough to notice the difference between the sensitivities of the speakers. * **
> 
> * This is especially true if using a powered subwoofer.
> 
> **OK, compare a Klipsch horn loaded in the corner of a room, vs. a 'normal' speaker. And you can make people's ears bleed with only a few watts. 105 db efficiency. If that is your thing....


The point I'm trying to make in my statement is not about loudness per say but for the ability of the AVR to handle the impedance swings and still maintain a robust loudness ( almost ear bleeding :neener: )  I whole heartedly agree with you that speaker sensitivity plays into the whole load demand equation.


----------



## ajinfla

GCG said:


> AJ if I understand correctly the Gedlee metric is saying that a poor THD ?response? is more audibly 'objectionable' at lower spl's. Please correct me if I've got my head on wrong.


"THD" is the manifestation of the non-linearities created by the (DUT) amp, but tells little of the nature of the cause and how benign or non-benign they are to the ear, the higher order harmonics being the most offensive. Yes, the ear is very sensitive to these low level non-linearities, because they will correspond to low SPL, especially with wide dynamic range music, since the ear will have very little self distortion to mask them. At higher SPL, the ear generates it's own levels of distortion and corresponding masking.
But once again, getting back to what was posted, it would be best to see the data presented as 0.001-1 or 2 watts on the x-axis.
Especially for a "Flagship" AVR. That and some burst and Powercube measurements.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458

GCG said:


> Now during that very soft passage of your favorite string concerto the violin starts to sound less and less like a violin and more and more like something else.


Just saying, this is "Home Theater Shack" not two channel (stereo) classical music shack.

Our speakers are 100dB and 99dB and most speakers are close to +88dB. The mains were created during the time when Paul Klipsch was alive and ratings were proven to be true. I find through personal measurements, most quiet passages fall to +55dB. 



 is a perfect example of the dynamics of a movie sound track.

The point, I'm trying to keep the thread on topic as opposed to getting lost in the weeds of technicality as I'm too uneducated to play in the world of the educated as is the case with most consumers who buy this stuff.

(our speakers drop to <4ohm)


----------



## ajinfla

BeeMan458 said:


> The good news, the 4520 doesn't need an external amplifier.


With your higher sensitivity, benign load(?) speakers, sure.
It certainly has plenty power capability for an AVR, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty speakers out there where you statement above wouldn't apply, for all users.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458

ajinfla said:


> It certainly has plenty power capability for an AVR, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty speakers out there where you statement above wouldn't apply, for all users.


Which is why I commented that most, with room gain, come in at about +88dB.

(too much time is being expended on the esoteric as opposed to the title of the thread)

I'm not trying to split hairs. I'm trying to keep it simple where most end users lay.


----------



## tonyvdb

BeeMan458 said:


> Which is why I commented that most, with room gain, come in about 88dB.


Room gain is more something used for subwoofers. Full range speakers can actually loose gain in a "normal" room with furnature, carpet and other treatments.


----------



## GCG

Bowing out, with apologies.


----------



## ajinfla

BeeMan458 said:


> Which is why I commented that most, with room gain, come in at about +88dB.
> 
> (too much time is being expended on the esoteric as opposed to the title of the thread)
> 
> I'm not trying to split hairs. I'm trying to keep it simple where most end users lay.


No idea where you got that figure from. Fact is, these are complex issues where generalities don't apply.
If you want to know what "flagship" AVR is best for you, look for features. As far as power vs load vs perception, many specifics are involved.
The answer to the thread topic is that there is no such thing as "Best" _

cheers,


----------



## ajinfla

BeeMan458 said:


> (AJ is a moderator who's suppose to keep a thread on topic)
> 
> This thread has gone over to contentious and is no longer a discussion about which is the best flagship AVR.


Yes, please allow the moderation team to make those decisions. If you find it uncomfortable, much like no one forces anyone to listen to AM talk radio, when you can simply change the station.
There is good information being discussed, quite related to "Flagship" AVRs. I would rather allow those interested in this discussion to continue and those not...to not decide for all others. Thanks.

cheers


----------



## BeeMan458

ajinfla said:


> No idea where you got that figure from.


I got it from looking at a huge number of manufacture specifications. These are not complex issues except folks who like to take the simple and make them complex.

As to what is the "Best" then say what you think and mean what you think.

(my complaint is that moderators are not keeping the thread on topic)

Show me reason why the 4520 is not the "Best" flagship AVR.

(Regarding the 4520, I spent a boatload of time looking for fleas)

The thread is "Best flagship A/V receiver?" I'm getting upset because moderators are not keeping to the intent of the thread.


----------



## ajinfla

GCG said:


> Bowing out, with apologies.


I didn't see anything you have to apologize for. The amplifier capabilities of a "Flagship" AVR should certainly be a topic in any "Best" thread.


----------



## J&D

My CHT SHO-10's are efficient @ 97dB sensitivity. Pretty confident that an AVR like the 4520 would have no issues driving them to reference levels for HT use - or at least to the point that my ears say "ok that's loud enough.". 

I have always used external amps but that was because most of the speakers I gravitated toward presented a very difficult load for any amp to drive let alone a typical receiver or AVR.


----------



## ajinfla

BeeMan458 said:


> Show me reason why the 4520 is not the "Best" flagship AVR.


Thank you for clarifying your position on what this is all about.

We will proceed accordingly.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

So is its safe to conclude that the ACD test is really a test of a protection circuitry rather then a good representative of an AVR's power delivery capabilities?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Can I pad the survey towards the Yamaha's favour much like the the Canadian government stacks the senate? :rofl:


----------



## BeeMan458

3dbinCanada said:


> Can I pad the survey towards the Yamaha's favour much like the the Canadian government stacks the senate? :rofl:


They'd do that?

...:bigsmile:


----------



## chashint

BeeMan458 said:


> Show me reason why the 4520 is not the "Best" flagship AVR.


So the group not declaring the 4520 as the best AVR is the reason for the constant barrage of "flagship" in every single post?

Not that the mods need me to defend them but there is nothing to criticize the mods for in regards to this thread.

There is no universal best Flagship AVR.
There has been a lot of very interesting discussion and most of it pretty much on topic or directly related to topic.


----------



## chashint

Pioneer SC-79 is the AVR I would choose.


----------



## BeeMan458

And why would you choose the SC-79 over the other AVRs mentioned in the poll? What character makes it the best?


----------



## GCG

Can't stay out.

Truth be told, the Denon looks to be a front runner on the issue I had been discussing and potentially the Gedlee metrics as well at least as I have come to understand them. The low end of the THD curve on the Denon doesn't even begin to register till below 0.2 and closer to 0.1 (Grated AJ the resolution here is problematic at best). Don't have the graph for the SC-79 so the best I could come up with is the one for the 71. The Denon would be far less prone to messing up instrument voices. Instrument voicing is important to me because I use my system for both HT -AND- music cuz I only have one.

I'm sorry if the discussion of the technical details of low power level performance is an irritant to you, Beeman, but to determine which is to be classified as BEST we need to touch all the bases.


----------



## Savjac

BeeMan458 said:


> Why is this so difficult of a concept? Please, somebody tell me why one flagship AVR is superior to the other and why? I want to read why?



Let me ask this BeeMan, why do you care ? You seem dead set on pushing the discussion in a direction that others will have to defend their beliefs or you would postulate that they are wrong or mall rats. 

In the list at the beginning of this thread as good receivers, not one of them would be considered less that high quality devices. Defining best, as AJ most correctly indicates is not possible for a group. Every individual, there is that word again, will have differing needs, wants and desires and will fall in love with equipment that suits their personal tastes, period. To say any of them is best and battle about it is actually an exercise in futility as we are not all looking for the same thing. What is best for BeeMan may not be best for MeeBan. Get that part anyway ?

I have always loved Yamaha and always will have a soft spot for their products in my audio/video heart. I have had and hear of others having trouble with Onkyo so I am not a fan although their products are very good, I am just soured. Pioneer is another product that owns my heart so ahead of the game they have always stayed. For that last several incarnations of surround AVR's I have owned Denon, the sound for me is good, not better than any of the others, but good, and I luckily have never had one break, ever. So is the Denon best ? Maybe it is to me, but that is based on a myriad of reasons, and/or just personal thoughts and preferences.

I think this has been made clear over and over that we all make decisions based on us, or at least should. None are perfect and none are the best for more than one individual, period. The thread starter chose Yamaha, and I am quite positive he will love it for as long as he chooses to keep it, end of story. Nothing about these devices is flat line perfect but as with any other hobby, is curved for the user. I am unclear why you wish to beat this dead uneducated horse and when it comes to the mods here they have been most reasonable and when they choose to step in for reasons posted in the rules, they will. AJ is very fair, very educated in this field, he is a designer after all and knows what needs to be done no education on his job is needed. If we feel things are off track, yep change the channel. Owning Klipsch and Denon does not the best system make and NO you are not THX referenced. Kind of like saying my car can go 130 miles an hour down the expressway as such it is NASCAR rated. Yeah try that at home.

Love your stuff but there is no reason to shove it down someone's throat. Oh and I own Denon and Klipsch so I know what they are capable of and yes I love it, but I bet another avr would do me well.


----------



## GCG

If I may:

Here's a chart of the harmonics for flute and a violin both playing a D (294Hz) the vertical scale is the level thay're produced and the order is the mutiple of the freq 1-588hz, 2-882hz, etc.










These are JUST the harmonics. The fundamental (the 294Hz) is the same for both, played at the same volume. Its the harmonics that tell our brains that one is a flute and the other is a violin. The harmonics that are most involved with making that determination if Gedlee is correct are the higher order (6,7,8 - maybe 5) and usually these are at low levels. If low enough they may be affected by the AVR because they land in that rising low end of the THD curve. If so the flute (based on 6, 7, and 8) and the violin (based on 6 and 8) might not sound so much like a flute and a violin.

To address the question of which AVR would be best for this parameter and why. It would be the one with the steepest drop into the lower levels <0.1 and Denon would score high.

I think this horse is dead now.


----------



## willis7469

Kain said:


> Options I am considering: Yamaha AVENTAGE RX-A3030 Anthem MRX 710 Pioneer SC-79 Onkyo TX-NR5010 Denon AVR-4520 Looking for something to drive my original (bought new in 2002) Klipsch RF-7, RC-7, and RS-7 speakers. The subwoofer is a Seaton Sound SubMersive. My room is small, about 15 feet x 11 feet x 9 feet. I need high SPL capability with excellent dynamics and excellent overall sound quality. I need to be able to hit reference level with ease. The overall sound should be smooth and not too bright as I already have speakers that lean towards the brighter side of the scale. Build quality and reliability are extremely important as well. Currently, my main home theater is still in the DVD ages with an SD plasma, DVD player, and a flagship A/V receiver from the DVD ages (2003-2004). I will be upgrading the TV to a 1080p TV, getting a Blu-ray Disc player, and a new flagship A/V receiver. I was pretty much set on the RX-A3030 until I read how good the MRX 710 sounds. Some reviews stated that it is as close as you can get to separates with an A/V receiver. Is it really that good? However, it definitely does not have all the features of the other units mentioned. While sound quality is top priority for me, there still should be some good features available that I might want to take advantage of later down the road such as Internet connectivity.


Just for the record, here's the the OPs OP. The question isn't of THE best flagship, period. It is, of these flagships, which one would command my system, the best. Fwiw, like chashint said, the OPs flagship sailed long ago, so to me that seems like an open door?


----------



## lcaillo

A number of posts have been removed. The moderators and admins have been reviewing the posts and we will decide when a post has strayed too far. Anyone who wants to comment on moderation must do it by reporting a post and not publicly.

No single user has a right to determine the direction of a thread other than the OP or moderators. I you don't like the decisions or don't like the direction or feel the discussion is too technical, one may start another thread with whatever subject and qualification desired.

No single user can expect others to accept his/her own opinion (and yes, all determinations of what is the best choice in a product is mostly opinion).

Keep it civil, keep it pleasant, or leave the thread. Users have been warned and no more violations of the rules will be tolerated. So those of you who have been frustrated, the rancor will stop. For those of you who have issues following the rules, you will receive no more warnings.

Now lets get back to the discussion in a positive way that helps all of us to better understand a variety of views and share knowledge, even if it is technical.


----------



## Savjac

ajinfla said:


> Yet strangely enough, your cell phone works. Your TV. VOIP. Hearing aids. Medicine. Particle physics results analysis. More women in orchestras. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
> Strange how it works for everything but audiophile beliefs.
> Regarding your argumentum ad populum:
> "An estimated 2.5 million Power Balance bands have been sold worldwide - and they've already spawned imitators"
> On October 28, 2010 Olympic champion gymnast Dominique Dawes, working for Yahoo Weekend News and Independent Investigations Group (IIG), tested Power Balance bracelets for their claim that they improve balance, flexibility and strength. According to IIG investigator Dave Richards "There was one 'legitimate' Power Balance bracelet, and 3 'sham' bracelets that had the hologram removed from them. The experiment was double-blinded, all bracelets were wrapped with tape so no one present knew which bracelet was real and which were fakes. Neither the participants nor the people recording the scores knew which bracelet was 'real' until after all participants had completed their runs and their scores were recorded." The results indicated that there was no benefit for those that had a real holographic bracelet compared to those who had a placebo.
> Chiropractic researchers from RMIT's School of Health Sciences in 2011 reported the results of an independent, randomized and controlled trial with double blind design. They found no difference in balance between people using a real holographic wristband and those wearing a placebo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance
> 
> Oh and Jack, for the nth time, only audiophile imaginary strawmen can be quoted saying "all amps sound the same". No one else.
> 
> cheers


Thanks AJ, I may be imaginary but a strawman I am not, but I realize you are not speaking to me about that. I do understand the placebo effect, especially in medicine, trust me, but for reasons not clear to me, I still believe that with some time, we can maybe mix with the universal knowledge database and come up with really good stuff regarding our present hobby. I am learning that it is most "Probable" that there is a ton of mis-beliefs in this hobby so I stay away from those because even I cannot believe that this "Stuff" does anything more than make someone money and surely would do nothing for my old ears. I guess we all move on our beliefs and oft times those beliefs are based on less that great science. Not me of course, although I just learned that orange soda pop and my keyboard don't mix well. :blink:

See I learn new things all the time. :innocent:


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> I still believe that with some time, we can maybe mix with the universal knowledge database and come up with really good stuff regarding our present hobby.


Hah. If you read carefully what I wrote, I'm giving you ammunition for why all amps _don't_ sound the same, despite being perceived as a "All amps sound the same" camp type!!

There is very strong evidence pointing to linearly operated SS amps being indistinguishable to human ears listening to dynamic signals. Take my XAVR "sounds much better" than YAVR, with a grain of salt.
For this reason, the average reader should be far more worried about features/price etc when selecting _their_ "best" AVR.
But there certainly are ways for differences to manifest themselves in the real world of usage...and yes, it does indeed get quite technical. Things are a bit more complicated that "All" and "Best":duh:

cheers


----------



## Savjac

ajinfla said:


> Hah. If you read carefully what I wrote, I'm giving you ammunition for why all amps _don't_ sound the same, despite being perceived as a "All amps sound the same" camp type!!
> 
> There is very strong evidence pointing to linearly operated SS amps being indistinguishable to human ears listening to dynamic signals. Take my XAVR "sounds much better" than YAVR, with a grain of salt.
> For this reason, the average reader should be far more worried about features/price etc when selecting _their_ "best" AVR.
> But there certainly are ways for differences to manifest themselves in the real world of usage...and yes, it does indeed get quite technical. Things are a bit more complicated that "All" and "Best":duh:
> 
> cheers



Yes indeed my friend, I understand your posts, but I am just being difficult. In relation to this latest post, all I care to say is ABSOLUTELY.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

GCG said:


> Can't stay out.
> 
> Truth be told, the Denon looks to be a front runner on the issue I had been discussing and potentially the Gedlee metrics as well at least as I have come to understand them. The low end of the THD curve on the Denon doesn't even begin to register till below 0.2 and closer to 0.1 (Grated AJ the resolution here is problematic at best). Don't have the graph for the SC-79 so the best I could come up with is the one for the 71. The Denon would be far less prone to messing up instrument voices. Instrument voicing is important to me because I use my system for both HT -AND- music cuz I only have one.
> 
> I'm sorry if the discussion of the technical details of low power level performance is an irritant to you, Beeman, but to determine which is to be classified as BEST we need to touch all the bases.


Over the Yamaha?


----------



## GCG

Don't tell anyone but I think it's the only one on the list you can find the graph on so it's in the lead by default.


----------



## chashint

LOL, yes that does put it as the front runner.

I took a look at a bunch of the Sound & Vision plots in the AVR reviews to see if anything stood out.
While the scale near zero output is very 'compressed' (for lack of a better word) Denon and Marantz both looked like the response is better verses the other AVRs tested.
Even the lower models exhibited a curve that looks sharper with a harder knee than the other brands.
Some of the curves were noticeably softer taking more than 5 watts output to hit their lowest values.


----------



## chashint

Edit after posted for a little while, sorry

Sound and Vision uses an Audio Precision analyzer to measure AVRs and amps.
I am interested in looking at the user manual.

Does anyone have one of the audio precision audio analyzer user manuals in PDF format?

I don't really want to register at their website to see one of them.
I would like to see how the machine measures the THD+N and the recommended test setup.


----------



## magic

chashint said:


> LOL, yes that does put it as the front runner.
> 
> I took a look at a bunch of the Sound & Vision plots in the AVR reviews to see if anything stood out.
> While the scale near zero output is very 'compressed' (for lack of a better word) Denon and Marantz both looked like the response is better verses the other AVRs tested.
> Even the lower models exhibited a curve that looks sharper with a harder knee than the other brands.
> Some of the curves were noticeably softer taking more than 5 watts output to hit their lowest values.



Sorry I might have missed it but we're are you looking or what are you looking at 
Thanks


----------



## chashint

My bad.
I was looking at the THD+N plots S&V posts when they review an AVR.
It's still bugging me that the plot starts higher at zero watts output power. (High being comparatively speaking) and as the output power increases the measurement improves up to about 3 - 5 watts output where it achieves the lowest values until the distortion begins to increase due to the output getting high enough to create distortion.
A lot of the time most people play their systems with under 4 watts output power so this region of operation is very critical.
It is counter intuitive that THD+N would be higher at 0.1 watt output than it would be at 10.0 watts output.


----------



## magic

Ok I got it now.

I also look at how the plot rises... if it goes up real fast or slowly after a long flat line.


----------



## GCG

chashint said:


> It's still bugging me that the plot starts higher at zero watts output power. (High being comparatively speaking) and as the output power increases the measurement improves up to about 3 - 5 watts ...
> 
> It is counter intuitive that THD+N would be higher at 0.1 watt output than it would be at 10.0 watts output.


Just the nature of the electronics. Like anything else it's tough getting those electrons motivated enough to get moving so they tend to fight a little coming out of the gate. For the more technically minded it has to do with instabilities at low levels of conduction in the biasing circuits.


----------



## ajinfla

GCG said:


> Don't tell anyone but I think it's the only one on the list you can find the graph on so it's in the lead by default.


Well, that's the crux of the matter. There simply isn't enough (or any) data for all the choices, including the ones in the poll. They would all have to be tested under the same regime. That does not exist, nor is it likely to anytime soon. Even if it did, interpretation of things like the low level linearity data would be tricky at best, when it comes down to actual correlation to perception.
So again, I stress, the "best" choice for an individual shopping for an AVR should come down to feature set/price/remote ergonomics, etc. etc.
Speaker type/parameters, content preferences, etc. being equally critical in the weighting scheme.

cheers


----------



## GCG

chashint said:


> It's still bugging me that the plot starts higher at zero watts output power. (High being comparatively speaking) and as the output power increases the measurement improves up to about 3 - 5 watts ...
> 
> It is counter intuitive that THD+N would be higher at 0.1 watt output than it would be at 10.0 watts output.


Just the nature of the electronics. Like anything else it's tough getting those electrons motivated enough to get moving so they tend to fight a little coming out of the gate. For the more technically minded it has to do with instabilities at low levels of conduction in the biasing circuits. Beyond the start-up there's a stage where the amplifier is reaching its ideal operating point (in terms of distortion that would be the lowest point in the curve). After that there's the relatively slow rise as the amplifier progresses through its normal operating region then the more rapid cascade upward as it approaches it operating limits.

Edit:I got interupted in the previous post and acidently posted before I was done, sorry.


----------



## ajinfla

chashint said:


> It is counter intuitive that THD+N would be higher at 0.1 watt output than it would be at 10.0 watts output.


That's generally how feedback schemes work, becoming more effective as power rises to a point, plus as you point out, the lower level stuff includes noise (+N).
I don't want to drag this too far down and start talking about zero crossings and four quadrant performance, etc. because we're already way past the scope of what the average member is looking for information wise. Plus like I said, that kind of data does not exist.
If someone wants to start a thread about AVR amplifiers in general, what matters....feel free. 
This one has sort of run its course.

cheers


----------



## GCG

ajinfla said:


> Well, that's the crux of the matter. There simply isn't enough (or any) data for all the choices, including the ones in the poll. They would all have to be tested under the same regime. That does not exist, nor is it likely to anytime soon. Even if it did, interpretation of things like the low level linearity data would be tricky at best, when it comes down to actual correlation to perception.
> So again, I stress, the "best" choice for an individual shopping for an AVR should come down to feature set/price/remote ergonomics, etc. etc.
> Speaker type/parameters, content preferences, etc. being equally critical in the weighting scheme.
> 
> cheers


I do think if the plot were expanded at the low end or perhaps plotted on a logarithmic scale - staring at say .001 watt - it would help in determining speaker sensitivities that best matched a particular amp. Knowing just where (power wise) that the curve drops below .1 or .08 would be helpful, too. That spec could easily be part of an existing review regime if the test equipment is currently capable. Then it would be easy to determine a maximum speaker sensitivity for a given noise floor.


----------



## GCG

ajinfla said:


> That's generally how feedback schemes work, becoming more effective as power rises to a point, plus as you point out, the lower level stuff includes noise (+N).
> I don't want to drag this to far down and start talking about zero crossings and four quadrant performance, etc. because we're already way past the scope of what the average member is looking for information wise. Plus like I said, that kind of data does not exist.
> If someone wants to start a thread about AVR amplifiers in general, what matters....feel free.
> This one has sort of run its course.
> 
> cheers


Sorry AJ ninja'd me there. Interesting conversation though. If anyone else is game, I'd sure join a new thread.


----------



## Savjac

The only last thing I wish to add or ask is how many folks actually ask any of the questions posted in these pages beyond how much power and how much does it cost. I have never gone with a friend or family member that kept asking about thd, slew rates, overshoot, I dunno, just making up names. It all went down to does it look good, can I afford it and will it work.


----------



## GCG

A lot of people buy a car to be seen in it, not so much to drive it. Many just need basic transportation with a few choice bells and whistles. Very few really care about the suspension, acceleration, breaking, etc. that would catch the attention of an enthusiast. Same type of thing with audio. The number of actual enthusiasts in any field is probably a small minority at best. I like my music and my movie experiences and want to squeeze out all I can.


----------



## chashint

You are all right.
I had never paid much attention to the low power numbers until the plot caught my eye in the discussions going on in this thread.
I am probably looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Y'all have a good day and crank it up to 11.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

GCG said:


> Don't tell anyone but I think it's the only one on the list you can find the graph on so it's in the lead by default.


:rofl:


----------



## 3dbinCanada

ajinfla said:


> Hah. If you read carefully what I wrote, I'm giving you ammunition for why all amps _don't_ sound the same, despite being perceived as a "All amps sound the same" camp type!!


Amps would sound different at the two extremes, clipping and at very low level. Bring them up to a nominal loudness level, say between 70 and 80 db and that difference would disappear.


----------



## chashint

OK, I know y'all have been suffering my pondering about the S&V THD+N plot and I promise this is the last post on it.

Output noise of a device is typically constant.
In the measurement the THD+N is expressed as a percentage of output.
With no output signal the wideband noise dominates the measurement.
As the signal amplitude increases the constant output noise represents a decreasing percentage of the total output.
The THD+N curve should fall throughout the noise-limited portion of operation.

Sorry if it was a beat down, it was bugging me though.


----------



## magic

Thought you might all find this interesting as we are the topic of amplifiers and measurements 


Watch "How To Properly Measure An Audio Amplifier?" on YouTube
How To Properly Measure An Audio Amplifier?: http://youtu.be/nokHMIDeVlM


----------



## chashint

The company that makes the audio analyzer, Precision Audio, has an excellent PDF "Audio Measurement Handbook" http://www.ap.com 
http://www.ap.com/download/file/24 
You have to register on the website to view the downloads.
This is a very good read.

Holy guacamole it's $35 used on amazon.


----------



## TheHammer

BeeMan458 said:


> The way most of us do it, we run Audyssey and then set all speaker crossovers to 80Hz and set all speakers to small. The sub is set to LFE - 120Hz and the low pass filter on the sub should be set all the way up.
> 
> One wants to set their speaker crossovers to 80Hz or less so as to eliminate location issues. And one should set Dynamic EQ to on.


Thanks. I have manually changed the crossover after the test.

I guess Audyssey not let us force the crossover prior to running the eq. That would seem much more logical.

I suspect this line of questioning should be in its own topic. I will move it there.

I appreciate you patience.


----------



## TheHammer

3dbinCanada said:


> The point I'm trying to make in my statement is not about loudness per say but for the ability of the AVR to handle the impedance swings and still maintain a robust loudness ( almost ear bleeding :neener: )  I whole heartedly agree with you that speaker sensitivity plays into the whole load demand equation.


Thanks for the clarification.

Are you aware of any instances where an amp cannot handle the impedance swings?

I have seen published tests of impedance vs. frequency for many speakers. It reveals that the single number impedance rating of a speaker is totally misleading. But even though some speakers may have quite a dip in impedance at a certain frequency, I am not aware of impedance / amp mismatches being a significant problem.

I realize that there are speakers that have lower rated impedance. And that some speakers could be nominally rated at 4 ohms and this could cause an issue with some amps - I would guess most A/V receivers might have issues at higher power.

I think what you might be pointing out is two different speakers nominally rated 8 ohms might might not work with one amp because of significant swings in the impedance vs. frequency curve. Is that what you are saying?

Are you aware of any instances? If so, what happens?


----------



## lcaillo

Actually, I think varying impedance affects different amps differently. Some amps are likely to not be linear in response over a wide impedance swing in the load. This is why I have been interested in linearity characteristics into real loads, not just test resistors, which virtually all testing on amps use. In fact, to be consistent, the loads are expected to have very low non resistive components.

The problem is what do you do to characterize an amps ability to drive somplex loads? We could make response linearity measures for a given combination of speaker and amp, but how would that transfer without some reference points. I don't think we would know until we have some empirical data on real systems. Then maybe we could create models that might be useful.


----------



## TheHammer

ajinfla said:


> There is very strong evidence pointing to linearly operated SS amps being indistinguishable to human ears listening to dynamic signals. Take my XAVR "sounds much better" than YAVR, with a grain of salt.
> For this reason, the average reader should be far more worried about features/price etc when selecting _their_ "best" AVR.
> But there certainly are ways for differences to manifest themselves in the real world of usage...and yes, it does indeed get quite technical. Things are a bit more complicated that "All" and "Best":duh:
> 
> cheers


Perhaps the most confusing post I have read. :dontknow:

"But there certainly are ways for differences to manifest themselves in the real world of usage"

Please explain.


----------



## TheHammer

3dbinCanada said:


> Amps would sound different at the two extremes, clipping and at very low level. Bring them up to a nominal loudness level, say between 70 and 80 db and that difference would disappear.


It would be easy to set up a test (dare I say ABX - double blind) to see if it were true. I do not know if a ABX test has been performed with amps set to an extremely low volume. That would be fun.


----------



## TheHammer

lcaillo said:


> Actually, I think varying impedance affects different amps differently.


Have there been any studies to support that?



lcaillo said:


> Some amps are likely to not be linear in response over a wide impedance swing in the load. This is why I have been interested in linearity characteristics into real loads, not just test resistors, which virtually all testing on amps use. In fact, to be consistent, the loads are expected to have very low non resistive components.


I suspect that one of the problems that test companies run into is what is a 'typical' impedance for a speaker. Certainly it is possible that amps could react to complex impedance curves (impedance vs. frequency) differently. If that is true, one could select a speaker that represents a challenging load and use it to compare two amps. The test could be either using test equipment or (blind) listening to detect any differences.


----------



## lcaillo

OK, so let's say we decide to use something like the old Kappa series from Infinity. They dropped below two ohms at some frequencies. Some amps struggled with them at higher levels. But not everyone uses a speaker that has those characteristics...

I think the only solution is to test real amps into real speakers with some consistent protocol and try to identify what speaker characteristics produce what effects in a variety of amps. Perhaps there will be some patterns.


----------



## ajinfla

3dbinCanada said:


> Amps would sound different at the two extremes, clipping and at very low level. Bring them up to a nominal loudness level, say between 70 and 80 db and that difference would disappear.


Nope, not with wide dynamic range music, exactly as explained in the link provided by GCG earlier.
If you're listening to wideband noise, or compressed music that resembles that, you probably aren't going to be hearing differences anyway.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

TheHammer said:


> Perhaps the most confusing post I have read. :dontknow:
> 
> "But there certainly are ways for differences to manifest themselves in the real world of usage"
> 
> Please explain.


Just because an amp _can_ be driven into non-linear behavior, doesn't mean that it is when driving the vast majority of speaker loads on the marketplace.
And just because we can measure that non-linearity, doesn't mean that the ear can detect it.
So I take these anecdotes about "hearing" differences with a large grain of salt. Yes, it's possibly a system issue...but what (incorrectly) self described "subjectivists" always conveniently ignore, is that is could just as easily (and to a much higher probability) be their "test" conditions. Which leads to a large amount of oversight, to put things mildly.
It's also easy to cherry pick outlier conditions, like a $5k ML with a low impedance and challenging phase angles, driven by a $200 AVR, observe non-linear behavior and declare victory...:sarcastic:.
The average $300-800 tower box speaker on the market rarely (if ever) presents such an extreme load....and the person shelling out for the ML ought to be able to spring for a more robust amp.

ALL of the above is quite easily verified by controlled (blind) testing. Blind tests are the defacto standard for finding real differences, but they are poor for the imaginary ones. For that we have fMRI.

cheers


----------



## lcaillo

I don't think there was ever a study, but more like speculation because it can increase output impedance of an amplifier and transient intermodulation distorion. The degree to which this creates audible effects is the question. I wonder if any studies have been done on that.


----------



## Savjac

I now realize my brain is not wired correctly and for reasons unknown to me, I find the idea that all (I Know) amps sound the same as unrealistic as saying that all guitars or speakers or cymbals or humans sound the same, in controlled conditions. If i go to the local ginormous mart and pick up a receiver that is rated at 100wpc for 2 channels, weighs about 15 pounds and has very little inside but a couple circuit boards and other related items, I would never expect it to sound like a super well built and designed monster integrated amp also rated at 100wpc driving an average set of speakers. The very fact that internally there is on the left not much of anything to store power or to work with the speaker in sound reproduction whereas on the right is an amp filled with the best high grade hand picked products that money can buy, has to mean some differences apply. 

What if we grabbed a couple of speakers of similar design, specifications and quality internal and external components of different make and quality, would we expect them to sound the same under blind listening tests ? Why or why not. (Oh and there is no political reference above.)

If we change out components in one speaker or the other such as capacitors, wire, transducers etc, they may "Measure" the same but will most probably sound different. I think i need some shock therapy to help me here


----------



## lcaillo

I tend to agree, but I also think that the audible differences are far, far less than many believe. 

So back to the original question. After all of this debate, has anyone changed their mind about their choice?

I have not. But my choice was based on my opinion that any AVR that I would buy would have to have Audyssey, which narrows the field. Beyond that the Denon has the best record for reliability of these. I really don't think, with no processing applied and not driving the units to clipping, that there would be much audible difference.


----------



## Tonto

Agreed, all are good AVR's, Audyssey + reliability is the game changer.


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> I find the idea that all (I Know) amps sound the same as unrealistic


Me too. 
I wonder who would say or believe such a silly thing?



Savjac said:


> If i go to the local ginormous mart and pick up a receiver that is rated at 100wpc for 2 channels, weighs about 15 pounds and has very little inside but a couple circuit boards and other related items, I would never expect it to sound like a super well built and designed monster integrated amp also rated at 100wpc driving an average set of speakers.


It's entirely possible they could sound indistinguishable to human ears and almost 100% guaranteed they wouldn't to human eyes/memory etc brains.
It's also entirely possible they could sound quite distinguishable to human ears, for some well and some not so well known reasons. Like non-linear behavior (clipping) and low level linearity, etc., which would be quite program and to some extent, listener dependent.
The more demanding a speaker load and more dynamic the track, the easier they would be to distinguish _if_ they have the real, relevant type electrical differences.



Savjac said:


> The very fact that internally there is on the left not much of anything to store power or to work with the speaker in sound reproduction whereas on the right is an amp filled with the best high grade hand picked products that money can buy, has to mean some differences apply.


Dynamic drive capability would certainly affect the outcome (oh wait, I forgot you believe all blind tests result in nulls, so skip this link) like it did here, but boutique hand woven magic parts matter scant as shown here.



Savjac said:


> What if we grabbed a couple of speakers...


You would have transducers (look up meaning), not amplifiers...and thus a Red Herring.

Btw, I notice you chose an external amp, not a "flagship" AVR like the 5 choices here. Seems to have nice performance on both ends, though some data is still lacking. Not a bad choice, but you know there are far heavier and pricier products available, yes? 

cheers


----------



## Savjac

Aj you silly man you, transducers, of course we would. I guess I was just airing out my thoughts as usual. 
In deference to your expertise in the area of speaker design I was kind of hoping you would pop in and share. Thanks.

I agree, differences are more often than not, minor to moderate at best assuming everything is working. Second, I also agree any of the AVR's (See what i did there ?) would excel in a home theater system. The only question I would have is about the amplifier section of the Pioneer as it is based on class D technology and that may or may not have a unique sound on to its own. I cannot say for sure as i have not heard any of Pioneers new products. 

I think the Yamaha was chosen and without any reservations, that unit should make the owner quite happy, I most probably would be as well.


----------



## TheHammer

At the risk of getting kicked off this thread.....

I would ask the related question: Are the flagship receivers worth the extra money?

I recently purchased a new receiver. I was willing to jump for the flagship, but I always want to justify my expenditures. I spent a long time comparing product lines. I have an affinity for Yamaha if only because my experience has been positive. But I decided I wanted Audyssey, I think, because it is a safe choice.

So I went with Denon. 

In comparing the top two (from their website):

AVR-X4000 

7 Channel Amplification with 9.2 channel processing
125 watts, 7 channel power (8 ohms, 20Hz - 20kHz, THD 0.05%, 2 channel driven)

MSRP: $1,299.00

AVR-4520CI 

9-channel
150 watts per channel7 HDMI Inputs
3 HDMI Outputs 4K Video Scaling
Pass-through and GUI Overlay AirPlay
DLNA 1.5 11.2 Channel Processing
dts Neo:X
Audyssey DSX Ethernet Hub (4 Ports) 4 Source/4 Zone

MSRP: $2,499.00

That is a huge jump in cost. The difference seems to be 2 more channels and 25 more watts per. 
I have several old amps around that are perfect for powering my zone 3 speakers on the deck. So I figured that I saved a grand+ on the X4000.

Please tell me why that 'flagship' is worth that much more money? 2 channels and a built in Ethernet hub?


----------



## Savjac

This answer is somewhat more of a simple matter of economics and consumers ability to spend money. The product is worth whatever a consumer will pay for it. 

Is a Rolls worth 10 times more than an Impala ? Not to me because I cannot afford the Rolls, but those that can afford either, may often chose the Rolls.


----------



## chashint

TheHammer said:


> At the risk of getting kicked off this thread.....
> I would ask the related question: Are the flagship receivers worth the extra money?
> AVR-X4000
> MSRP: $1,299.00
> 
> AVR-4520CI
> MSRP: $2,499.00
> 
> Please tell me why that 'flagship' is worth that much more money? 2 channels and a built in Ethernet hub?


Tough question and no easy answer.
If I were to suddenly find myself shopping for a new AVR even though I would want the top model I would initially be inclined to purchase in the $1k - $1.5k range, and maybe even lower.
It is hard know what going through my rationalization process for real might push me to though.
It's hard to imagine the X4000 (or similar model) not meeting all of my needs.
If I went for the top model it would probably just be for vanity satisfaction.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

lcaillo said:


> Beyond that the Denon has the best record for reliability of these. I really don't think, with no processing applied and not driving the units to clipping, that there would be much audible difference.


Do you have numbers to support this assertion about Denon's reliability? IHO, and from the various forums that I'm a member of, and from what I've gleaned from the web, I would say that Yamaha leads Denon in QC and in customer satisfaction. They are close but Yamaha does lead Denon in QC.

I would lik e to see a test among the different RC facilities to see how well they fare against one another. As far as I know, this has never been done.


----------



## J&D

Savjac said:


> This answer is somewhat more of a simple matter of economics and consumers ability to spend money. The product is worth whatever a consumer will pay for it.
> 
> Is a Rolls worth 10 times more than an Impala ? Not to me because I cannot afford the Rolls, but those that can afford either, may often chose the Rolls.


Except comparing the Denon X4000 to the 4520CI is not comparing a Rolls to an Impala - but just to qualify I hate car analogies in the world of audio anyway as they never directly apply.

I have to agree that most AVR's in the $1K range deliver the best price/performance. I would go for the X4000 all day long and keep my external multi-channel amp to drive my speakers as it cost less than the difference between the two AVR's. I would also question for most HT setups, if one was using the internal amps, if there would be any real difference between the two driving even moderately efficient speakers. The price of good external amplification has come down dramatically. There are some really good options out there for the enthusiast that wants a bit more power in their system - even though many are not using it, myself included.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Denon versus Yamaha quality 

http://forums.audioholics.com/forum...maha-denon-build-quality-audio-quality-8.html


----------



## J&D

3dbinCanada said:


> Denon versus Yamaha quality
> 
> http://forums.audioholics.com/forum...maha-denon-build-quality-audio-quality-8.html


Except the quote you linked to is from a dealer that seems pretty miffed at Denon for their distribution policies and not protecting dealer markups. Pretty good incentive to then trash their reliability. My own experience is completely different and I have owned and still have several AVR's from Onkyo, Denon and Yamaha in my home. An old Yammy is powering my pool speakers alongside an old Onkyo. I have an Onkyo in the great room and another in the master bedroom. I have a Denon in the HT, game room and my son uses one in his bedroom.

The reliability on each and every one of these AVR's has been excellent and I have yet to have experienced a single issue or failure regardless of the brand. Either I take really good care of my stuff and it never breaks or this is a complete anomaly. Of course there will be no definitive way of calculating the failure rate percentages for any given manufacturer but my guess is they would be so close its not worth factoring into a purchasing decision. 

Personally I am with others that would not even look at a modern AVR without at a minimum Audyssey XT32 for HT use. 

JD


----------



## 3dbinCanada

J&D said:


> Except the quote you linked to is from a dealer that seems pretty miffed at Denon for their distribution policies and not protecting dealer markups. Pretty good incentive to then trash their reliability. My own experience is completely different and I have owned and still have several AVR's from Onkyo, Denon and Yamaha in my home. An old Yammy is powering my pool speakers alongside an old Onkyo. I have an Onkyo in the great room and another in the master bedroom. I have a Denon in the HT, game room and my son uses one in his bedroom.
> 
> The reliability on each and every one of these AVR's has been excellent and I have yet to have experienced a single issue or failure regardless of the brand. Either I take really good care of my stuff and it never breaks or this is a complete anomaly. Of course there will be no definitive way of calculating the failure rate percentages for any given manufacturer but my guess is they would be so close its not worth factoring into a purchasing decision.
> 
> Personally I am with others that would not even look at a modern AVR without at a minimum Audyssey XT32 for HT use.
> 
> JD


I was responding to one of the mods response where it s was touted that the reliability of Denon is better than that of Yamaha which simply is not true. The same dealer that I quoted prefers Yamaha because of their quality.

I'm happy for you that you have had no equipment failures. I have an old Technics 5.1 reciever going past 10 years old now that still cranks the sound. 

Personnally, I would not eliminate a receiver because it doesn't have Audyssey X32. From the reports I've read, Trinnov found in Sherwoods is a much better than Audyssey. What I would like to see is a controlled test of the various RC facilities and get a detailed report, not a subjective test where only opinions are tossed around .


----------



## lcaillo

I can't speak to the past couple of years but having sold and serviced all of them over about 30 years, I would rate Denon slightly behind Yamaha in reliability, but not much. Onkyo would be farther behind both. I have owned all three and currently own Yamaha and Onkyo AVRs. One difference with Yamaha is that their support and parts availability has been easily the best over decades.


----------



## Reefdvr27

One thing I like about Denon is that they are HQ in my state.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Reefdvr27 said:


> One thing I like about Denon is that they are HQ in my state.


:T Whats it look like for scoring factory 2nds?


----------



## Basshead81

I voted Yamaha 3030...rock solid AVR that has the most advanced version of Ypao. I believe it has sub eq for 2 subwoofers and a host of other features. I thought about upgrading to one myself.


----------



## TheHammer

Sonnie said:


> I would get one with Audyssey XT32, as it does the best job with equalizing the subwoofer. Only a couple of the newer Pioneer models are using any filters on the subwoofer. Yamaha's YPAO does not equalize subs (not sure on their reasoning to exclude it).


Are you sure about this? I asked Yamaha that question and they told me that the Aventage line does EQ the sub.


----------



## TheHammer

3dbinCanada said:


> :T Whats it look like for scoring factory 2nds?


I am quite happy with my Denon refurb. The only downside of the Denon refurb is that it comes with a 1 yr warranty, instead of 3 yr. I figured with the savings, I can be self-insured. Plus I paid (via PayPal) with my AMEX, so it should (I hope) add a second year of warranty. I am not certain if AMEX will honor that since I did not pay the company directly with the AMEX but went through PayPal.

I tend to buy refurbs whenever possible. The only bad experience I had was with a TV through Walmart. It was poorly packaged and arrived smashed. But I took it back to the store and got a full refund.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

TheHammer said:


> Are you sure about this? I asked Yamaha that question and they told me that the Aventage line does EQ the sub.


Even my old RX-V1800 eq'd the sub as shown


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> I am quite happy with my Denon refurb. The only downside of the Denon refurb is that it comes with a 1 yr warranty, instead of 3 yr. I figured with the savings, I can be self-insured. Plus I paid (via PayPal) with my AMEX, so it should (I hope) add a second year of warranty. I am not certain if AMEX will honor that since I did not pay the company directly with the AMEX but went through PayPal.
> 
> I tend to buy refurbs whenever possible. The only bad experience I had was with a TV through Walmart. It was poorly packaged and arrived smashed. But I took it back to the store and got a full refund.


The best thing to do is call Amex and ask 

Note : not all cards or even card plans give warranty on electronics purchases you have to check the card details or ask them


----------



## TheHammer

magic said:


> The best thing to do is call Amex and ask
> 
> Note : not all cards or even card plans give warranty on electronics purchases you have to check the card details or ask them


My AMEX card does extend the warranty by one year on electronics. I do not know if it is true of all AMEX cards. The question is, since I purchased it through PayPal using the AMEX, (one step removed) would it cover it? I selected this method since the vendor did not accept AMEX, but did accept PayPal.

If there is someone planning on a purchase, and that was a deciding factor for them, you are correct, it would be worth the call.


----------



## TheHammer

TheHammer said:


> Are you sure about this? I asked Yamaha that question and they told me that the Aventage line does EQ the sub.


And my original comment was incomplete. Here is the response from Yamaha:

"That would depend on the model, the RX-A2020 and above do it for he subwoofer."

So it would appear, according to Yamaha, that the RX-A1040, 840 and 740 models do not EQ the sub. Sorry for my omission. :whistling:


----------



## eyecatcher127

I think the real sleeper here is the anthem which does eq the sub and out of all of the competition that have 32bit dac's the anthem has 24bit and from what i've heard should give them a run for the money.. I'd love to see a head to head battle.


----------



## Picture_Shooter

I am a true fan of the Yamaha flagship receivers. I really don't care for the calibration for any of the AVRs as I do my own calibrations. Out of the box, IMHO yamaha remote and the setup menu is very easy to navigate. The receiver is very neutral, but can be easiy calibrated to be bright or warm sounding. 

I also own a Onkyo 809 and imho the setup menu is messy and the sound it too much in your face sounding. I do still own it and with little bit of calibration and patience it could be a very nice sounding avr. I just choose Yamaha to be my dedicated HT avr.  

Love that there is so much diversity on the choice of receivers above and it makes each one of us so unique of one another. Listen to your ears is my best advice and just make sure you buy from a dealer that has a great return policy if its not want you expected.


----------



## Kain

Well, this thread exploded. 

Quick question: I currently use a Harman Kardon AVR 8500 (or AVR 8000 as it was named in the US). It is known to have a very beefy/powerful amplifier section. I bought it in 2003 and it has been powering my speakers since. I listen at very loud levels and never has it shut-down or caused any real problems. How would the amplifier section(s) of the listed A/V receivers in the poll compare to what I have now? I know it is outdated in terms of not being able to support Blu-ray Disc formats but still.


----------



## TheHammer

Kain said:


> Well, this thread exploded.
> 
> Quick question: I currently use a Harman Kardon AVR 8500 (or AVR 8000 as it was named in the US). It is known to have a very beefy/powerful amplifier section. I bought it in 2003 and it has been powering my speakers since. I listen at very loud levels and never has it shut-down or caused any real problems. How would the amplifier section(s) of the listed A/V receivers in the poll compare to what I have now? I know it is outdated in terms of not being able to support Blu-ray Disc formats but still.


http://www.soundandvision.com/content/harmankardon-avr-8000-av-receiver

"driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 133.5 watts"

There are many receivers made today that can meet that spec. And keep in mind that we hear in a logarithmic scale, meaning that one needs to double (or halve) the power to obtain a 3 db difference, which is considered to be the minimal difference we can detect. 

I suspect that you will be quite happy with any of today's top line receivers. The biggest differences will be interface (setup, looks, on screen, etc.), features and reliability. Oh, and price. Try to decide which features are important to you and start there. 

Good luck on finding any facts on reliability. Onkyo had a bad run for a while. Many claim they have solved their problems. Pioneer recently announced they are discontinuing their receivers.


----------



## zxcvb

I have harman kardon AVR because of the sound. It's almost as good as Cambridge.


----------



## hoot

BeeMan458 said:


> No it's not. The reviewer in the first link was using very inefficient surround speakers with a sensitivity of 85dB. With speakers that were this "bad" one would be lucky to reach reference level play and if they did they'd be distorting the output and quite possibly the speaker itself. The second link didn't even take the time to list the speakers they were using. When the reviewers you linked to, manual set the Audyssey/Denon settings, they used the wrong settings. At minimum, all speakers are to be set to small and all crossovers are expected to be set to 80Hz with everything else to be bass managed over to the LFE channel. LFE channel is expected to be set to 120Hz.
> 
> I gave a mini-review and why the 4520CI was a good choice and linked to two long, complete, legitimate reviews. The first review was by HTS's own Sonnie and second, "Sound and Vision" which includes bench tests to verify output. I listed and linked to the speakers we are using our 4520CI with. I also have in our photo album, graphs based on our dual subwoofer setup using XT32 w/SubEQ HT.
> 
> And as soon as you can, order up a second Seaton. It will make a difference.
> 
> What do I think? I think the links you posted as examples dissing the 4520CI are terrible reviews that should be ignored and for what ever reason, each have given a review where comments of poor performance are just that, unsubstantiated opinions with no facts to back them up. If they're reading what I'm posting, my suggestion, provide empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.
> 
> I have run a bunch of blu-ray movie tracks through our system and have found, there are tracks that are golden, that leave one in stunned silence and there are other tracks that are mediocre and no amount of gear is going fix bad mastering.
> 
> Last night's movie was "Escape Plan" and it was blessed with a mediocre sound track. "Black Hawk Down" has a sound track that is seriously limited for output. Movies that have left us in stunned silence when they ending credits rolled, "The Island" and "Flyboys." A movie with huge dynamic range is "Act of Valor" that is best played at full on reference with is +/-0dB MVC.
> 
> Three movies that are basshead monsters are "Pacific Rim", "Battle: LA" and "Inception". But if one doesn't have accurately dialed in gear, measured to verify it's accuracy at setup, so as to be able to accurately reproduce these sound tracks as intended by the producer and sound/audio engineer, the listener will never know they're being robbed and they'll blame the poor performance on everything but their own incompetence.
> 
> ...lddude:
> 
> Hope the above rantings help.


I had a Denon 4520CI. Could not get rid of it fast enough. I "heard" Denon took some shortcuts in the basic mechanical design of the internal boards. Basically, cheapened up the design to save money. I was told by retailers who sell it that the issues effected very few. I don't buy that. You can buy them used now fro well under $1000. I see one now for $750.

Mine had to go back for intermittent Zone 2. They sent it back with a note that said tested OK, cleaned. It was working again so they fixed something... I think they re-seated the boards because I could get Zone 2 working if I raised a corner of the unit about a 1/2" and dropped it. I also had an event when I powered up and the sound was grossly distorted. Shut it down. That went away.

So since it was working I sold it. The fellow that bought it had issues. They gave him a replacement. He started having problems with the replacement.

I am VERY leery about purchasing another Denon product.


----------



## TheHammer

hoot said:


> I had a Denon 4520CI. Could not get rid of it fast enough. I "heard" Denon took some shortcuts in the basic mechanical design of the internal boards. Basically, cheapened up the design to save money. I was told by retailers who sell it that the issues effected very few. I don't buy that. You can buy them used now fro well under $1000. I see one now for $750.
> 
> Mine had to go back for intermittent Zone 2. They sent it back with a note that said tested OK, cleaned. It was working again so they fixed something... I think they re-seated the boards because I could get Zone 2 working if I raised a corner of the unit about a 1/2" and dropped it. I also had an event when I powered up and the sound was grossly distorted. Shut it down. That went away.
> 
> So since it was working I sold it. The fellow that bought it had issues. They gave him a replacement. He started having problems with the replacement.
> 
> I am VERY leery about purchasing another Denon product.


I am sorry that you had such a terrible experience with a Denon product. Certainly, if I had such an experience with any manufacturer, it would color my opinion of their products. That said.....

Every manufacturer makes products where a percentage has issues. Unfortunately, you had one of them. That does not mean that their products have a higher (or lower) percentage of failures than the competition. The Internet has allowed those who have experienced an issue to share their problems with the world. Just search "[manufacturer] sucks" and see what pops up for everything mass produced.

It also does not excuse the repair facility for not fixing the receiver properly. You had a 3 year warranty. It is too bad that you did not take advantage of that and instead chose to sell an item that you admit was defective to a possibly trusting buyer.

"I 'heard' Denon took some shortcuts" - not a credible source. Go into any store or meet with a group of hobbyists and you will hear similar stories about manufacturers. Sometimes, for morbid entertainment, I go into that big box electronics retailer and ask them questions. What I hear is laughable.


----------



## hoot

The source was not a big box store rep. The source claimed to be a Denon insider. Everything the source said correlated with my issues.

I sold the unit with full disclosure.

I think the loss in resale value of these units is directly due to the reputation they have.

I can only tell you what I experienced and observe now.

It's not easy to choose when companies go through changes that can make or break a product. A few years back I bought a Pioneer Elite BluRay player. I should have did my research or just waited. Ended up the unit was expensive but super cheap with a fancy face. Noisy and slow. I returned it.

But like I said.... the Denon 4311 is a favorite among many and still commands more than a used 4520CI... make sense?


----------



## magic

They don't make a lot of things the way they used too. Personally I look at it this way, if it wasn't for the Internet manufacturers could say the usual reply :

" this is the first time we heard of this problem" 


Question: How much on time did your receiver have per week? Roughly??


----------



## hoot

magic said:


> They don't make a lot of things the way they used too. Personally I look at it this way, if it wasn't for the Internet manufacturers could say the usual reply :
> 
> " this is the first time we heard of this problem"
> 
> 
> Question: How much on time did your receiver have per week? Roughly??


Guessing maybe 10-20 hrs a week.


----------



## magic

That's not that much at all. 

As a side note I know the argument comes in as this company sells more so they will have more complaints etc... but I have a different view as well.
They sell more so what are they doing to address the problems? If it's a smaller company they may not have the finances to fix it. 

I could give you my experiences but then my system stays on a lot longer than yours. (Edit a lot... longer did I say a lot lol)

On that note : I hope anyone reading this gains this knowledge that when you drop off your receiver for a warrenty repair they can take up to 4 weeks to look at it. I think this is now standard across the big company's. So be prepared for the wait. 
( edit call them to ask )

And I will never buy a AV receiver without an extended warranty. Their is too many things that can go wrong in them.


----------



## TheHammer

hoot said:


> The source was not a big box store rep. The source claimed to be a Denon insider. Everything the source said correlated with my issues.


I still consider that to be a non-reliable source. Unless there is some information about this person's actual background, plus a second corroborating source, this may just be a disgruntled person with an axe to grind. 



hoot said:


> I sold the unit with full disclosure.


Thank you for making this clear. It was not in your first note.



hoot said:


> I can only tell you what I experienced


A perfectly reasonable thing to do. 



hoot said:


> I think the loss in resale value of these units is directly due to the reputation they have.





hoot said:


> But like I said.... the Denon 4311 is a favorite among many and still commands more than a used 4520CI... make sense?


On eBay, under the sold listings, I see Denon 4311 going for $515 - $900. I suspect the condition is the difference in price.

I see the 4520CI sold on eBay for $835 to $1,375. 

So your statement appears to be false.



magic said:


> They don't make a lot of things the way they used too.


Thank goodness! Every piece of electronics I purchase seems to do more for less money than the last one I purchased. But that is just my humble opinion and the experience of one. Have you researched MTBF?


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> Thank goodness! Every piece of electronics I purchase seems to do more for less money than the last one I purchased. But that is just my humble opinion and the experience of one. Have you researched MTBF?


I'm refering to build quality. It's nice to have the features but, reliability comes first. 90% of the people don't need 4 zones as an example. Take the extra money and put it towards QC ( quality control).

Is their a website that lists what the MTBF is. It's not listed in the manuals and they don't give that info out.


----------



## TheHammer

magic said:


> I'm refering to build quality. It's nice to have the features but, reliability comes first. 90% of the people don't need 4 zones as an example. Take the extra money and put it towards QC ( quality control).
> 
> Is their a website that lists what the MTBF is. It's not listed in the manuals and they don't give that info out.


I am referring to both. 

You had an unfortunate experience. On the other hand, I have had the Denon AVR-x4000 receiver for 6 months now without any problems. A friend of mine has had this receiver for 9 months without any problems.

So what is it, does Denon have quality issues or not? Neither of us can tell, our sample size is too small. 

My point is that you condemned all Denon products based on your one experience. While that is an understandable feeling, considering what you went through, it can hardly be taken as an indication of an inferior product line. You also went on to say that you 'heard' stuff about Denon that cannot be substantiated. You then made a claim that the price of used Denon 4520CI receivers is dropping because of all the quality issues, but research on eBay indicates that is not true.

I am concluding that your post is an indication of understandable frustration rather than fact. 

Best of luck to you with your next receiver.


----------



## tonyvdb

I agree they dont make things like they used to but keep in mind that receivers of 30 years ago did not have HDMI any sort of digital processing other than maybe an optical input from CD and defiantly any sort of computing ability like on screen menus and room correction.
Things have become way more complicated under the hood. Think of all the issues we have with our PCs.


----------



## lcaillo

magic said:


> That's not that much at all.
> 
> As a side note I know the argument comes in as this company sells more so they will have more complaints etc... but I have a different view as well.
> They sell more so what are they doing to address the problems? If it's a smaller company they may not have the finances to fix it.
> 
> I could give you my experiences but then my system stays on a lot longer than yours. (Edit a lot... longer did I say a lot lol)
> 
> On that note : I hope anyone reading this gains this knowledge that when you drop off your receiver for a warrenty repair they can take up to 4 weeks to look at it. I think this is now standard across the big company's. So be prepared for the wait.
> ( edit call them to ask )
> 
> And I will never buy a AV receiver without an extended warranty. Their is too many things that can go wrong in them.


I know of no major manufacturers that consider 4 weeks to look at a product a standard. If you want better turnaround than you can get locally, you can ship the unit to several locations that have much faster turnaround. That holds for every manufacturer that I know. If a manufacturer is telling you that this is standard, please PM me with the contact info and I will see that their customer service department responds. That response will be made public here.


----------



## TheHammer

magic said:


> And I will never buy a AV receiver without an extended warranty. Their is too many things that can go wrong in them.


Interesting your feelings about this. I used to work for a company that pushed extended warranties. They made a boatload of money by selling them. 

It is insurance. If it makes you feel better, buy it. But, on the average, you will save money by not buying an extended warranty. However, there are some people who, by probability, live out on the edge of the standard curve and use their extended warranties all the time. I am not one of them - they never would have paid off for me, so far. Knock on plastic. :bigsmile:

Some credit cards will automatically extend a warranty by one year - AMEX routinely does this. That is the cheapest extended warranty by far.


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> I am referring to both.
> 
> You had an unfortunate experience. On the other hand, I have had the Denon AVR-x4000 receiver for 6 months now without any problems. A friend of mine has had this receiver for 9 months without any problems.
> 
> So what is it, does Denon have quality issues or not? Neither of us can tell, our sample size is too small.
> 
> My point is that you condemned all Denon products based on your one experience. While that is an understandable feeling, considering what you went through, it can hardly be taken as an indication of an inferior product line. You also went on to say that you 'heard' stuff about Denon that cannot be substantiated. You then made a claim that the price of used Denon 4520CI receivers is dropping because of all the quality issues, but research on eBay indicates that is not true.
> 
> I am concluding that your post is an indication of understandable frustration rather than fact.
> 
> Best of luck to you with your next receiver.


Sorry you feel that way but my intentions are not to chastise one brand or the other as all have their flaws... what I'm saying is that the issues that people are reporting have a lot to do with QC and design. 

I never said what you posted above you may be refering to the other poster. 

My bad experience is not with Denon by the way. It's with another brand


----------



## magic

lcaillo said:


> I know of no major manufacturers that consider 4 weeks to look at a product a standard. If you want better turnaround than you can get locally, you can ship the unit to several locations that have much faster turnaround. That holds for every manufacturer that I know. If a manufacturer is telling you that this is standard, please PM me with the contact info and I will see that their customer service department responds. That response will be made public here.


If your receiver is deemed not repairable by pioneer, or sony they have up to 30 days and they will replace it under warrenty. 
They do not have to wait this long but they have and do this as part of their right.

Please call them and they will confirm what I am saying. ( this has been their policy up until 2014 if it has changed recently that I have no control over. Just an fyi


----------



## lcaillo

That is not what you said that I was referring to. You said...



magic said:


> when you drop off your receiver for a warrenty repair they can take up to 4 weeks to look at it. I think this is now standard across the big company's. So be prepared for the wait.
> ( edit call them to ask )


That is different than taking some time to replace it. There are many factors that can affect repair time or replacement time.


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> Interesting your feelings about this. I used to work for a company that pushed extended warranties. They made a boatload of money by selling them.
> 
> It is insurance. If it makes you feel better, buy it. But, on the average, you will save money by not buying an extended warranty. However, there are some people who, by probability, live out on the edge of the standard curve and use their extended warranties all the time. I am not one of them - they never would have paid off for me, so far. Knock on plastic. :bigsmile:
> 
> Some credit cards will automatically extend a warranty by one year - AMEX routinely does this. That is the cheapest extended warranty by far.


True most do but you should always verify with your credit card company. Also ask them to explain the details to it. 

Read the fine print they have you may find that they take it to a local repair shop that may not put the best parts in your receiver... As well as they might. Its better to have the extra year than not have it like you said. 

Plus I just feel more comfortable with the extended warrenty. Too each their own but for the amount of time my unit is on and the amount of circuit boards that keep being added. To do more and more things.... that is more things that can go wrong. 

You don't have to but I want people to know as it may help others who start to experience problems. 

Thats why I say they don't make them like they used to.


----------



## magic

lcaillo said:


> That is not what you said that I was referring to. You said...
> 
> That is different than taking some time to replace it. There are many factors that can affect repair time or replacement time.


Ok let me be clear 

From the day you drop off the receiver and they have logged the unit in their system they have 30 days to fix it. That means if they can not get the part and they know this in day 7 they can still hold on to your receiver till day 30 in which they will usually ship out a replacement unit or send you the equivalent in the newer model. 

I hope this clarifies what I'm saying.


----------



## lcaillo

Who is "they" and where are these policies coming from?

Frankly, having been in the service business, it is not unreasonable to take several weeks to fix a unit, depending on the problem and parts availability, shipping, etc. It is not the standard to take 30 days, however, and most repairs should be completed more quickly. There may also be a backlog due to the small number of qualified servicers these days. Regardless, I responded to what you said. Please post more clearly if you do not wish to have your statements commented on.


----------



## magic

lcaillo said:


> Who is "they" and where are these policies coming from?
> 
> Frankly, having been in the service business, it is not unreasonable to take several weeks to fix a unit, depending on the problem and parts availability, shipping, etc. It is not the standard to take 30 days, however, and most repairs should be completed more quickly. There may also be a backlog due to the small number of qualified servicers these days. Regardless, I responded to what you said. Please post more clearly if you do not wish to have your statements commented on.


I'm speaking from personal experience not hearsay icaillo.

I have had warrenty repairs in with Pioneer and with Sony for their receivers and I asked them and they have told me that they have a 30 day repair or replace if under warranty. 

I'm not talking about out of warrenty repairs or OBF units.

I do agree with you that they will repair it sooner when and if they can. Also that may be why they wait 30 days to replace it as maybe they can get the part. But as you know to have a person wait too long then they risk having a person who may not buy their product again. Or use your services. 

That's good business to me.


----------



## magic

TheHammer said:


> I am referring to both. You had an unfortunate experience. On the other hand, I have had the Denon AVR-x4000 receiver for 6 months now without any problems. A friend of mine has had this receiver for 9 months without any problems. So what is it, does Denon have quality issues or not? Neither of us can tell, our sample size is too small. My point is that you condemned all Denon products based on your one experience. While that is an understandable feeling, considering what you went through, it can hardly be taken as an indication of an inferior product line. You also went on to say that you 'heard' stuff about Denon that cannot be substantiated. You then made a claim that the price of used Denon 4520CI receivers is dropping because of all the quality issues, but research on eBay indicates that is not true. I am concluding that your post is an indication of understandable frustration rather than fact. Best of luck to you with your next receiver.



Sorry TheHammer, I just want to say I didn't condemn Denon it was Hoot who did. 
Some of the back lash I'm receiving is related to another poster "Hoot" 


It has come to my attention that I'm not being clear enough. So I'm Just setting the record straight.


----------



## gadgtfreek

My Denon X4000 (open box) has been faulting randomly, so I finally decided to get something new. Have an AVR-4520CI on they way. I was using the x4000 and an amp, but I am just going to sell the amp and us the 4520 for everything, will also save me some room.

I figure it gets me a couple of years until I do a UHD upgrade of everything. Price on the 4520 right now is very good with the new models coming out.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Question:

I have a nice APC surge protector/power cond and I am using both its high current ports for my two subs. Is the 4520 OK in a normal port or would straight into wall outlet be the right thing? Or does it matter?


----------

