# Onkyo vs Pioneer Viewers feedback



## HTGeek7 (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm debating over Pioneer vs Onkyo as receivers and just wanted viewers general feedback. People have told me onkyo has some of the best video processing but bc of mass production experiences more problems, and pioneer sc series are just beasts for power. Is it a benefit for class d amp for a receiver?? Any thoughts and feedback would help


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

I don't know what price range you are looking in. Pioneer (and other mass market brands including denon) tend to have antiseptic sound and lacks natural presence, bloom, and immersion (that sense that you are in a sound field rather than listening to 5 speakers). Onkyo does better but every Onkyo I have heard tends to have a fatiguing edgness to the sound. Not a shrill frequency shift, but rather an edge that is fatiguing to listen to over time. If you are in the low $1000's range I would recomment Rotel, Anthem, Cambridge Audio. Much better sound from these entry level high-end avrs.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

xyzzy said:


> If you are in the low $1000's range I would recomment Rotel, Anthem, Cambridge Soundworks. Much better sound from these entry level high-end avrs.


Simply no longer true because of the mass production and availability of mainstream companies like Onkyo the sound quality from most receivers between $500 and $2000 are the same as a matter of fact receivers offer far better room EQ and other features that very few Boutique high end companies can offer. for such a low price. 
I highly recommend Onkyo for bang for buck, now we just need to know your budget and we can go from there.


----------



## tcarcio (Jun 27, 2007)

I have owned both Pioneer and now Onkyo and I would say it depends. It depends on your needs. I loved my Pioneer but I didn't like their Mcacc EQ because it does nothing in the subwoofer freqency's so for me the 809 that I have had for a month now really works well in my room I believe because of Audyssey. If your needs are small and like cosmetics the Pioneer Elite series blows the Onkyo out of the water with it's fantastic looks, IMO. I also think with the recent problems Onkyo has had it is getting to be kind of a gamble as to wether or not you will have any problems but Onkyo is stepping up to the plate and providing a fix so I will commend them for that. So far I am very happy with my 809 but I still wish I could get an 809 that looks like a Pioneer Elite.....:bigsmile:


----------



## ozar (Feb 12, 2012)

Onkyo has been having some quality control issues for a while now, but if you can get your hands on a unit without problems, you'd be hard pressed to find another brand at the same price with equal power and features. I currently have Denon, Onkyo, and Pioneer receivers, and the Onkyo units are the only ones that I've had trouble with. Still, the bottom line is that it's hard to beat Onkyo when it comes to bang for the buck. 

Let us know what you go with.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

xyzzy said:


> I don't know what price range you are looking in. Pioneer (and other mass market brands including denon) tend to have antiseptic sound and lacks natural presence, bloom, and immersion (that sense that you are in a sound field rather than listening to 5 speakers). Onkyo does better but every Onkyo I have heard tends to have a fatiguing edgness to the sound. Not a shrill frequency shift, but rather an edge that is fatiguing to listen to over time. If you are in the low $1000's range I would recomment Rotel, Anthem, Cambridge Soundworks. Much better sound from these entry level high-end avrs.


Sure, dedicated amps perform well..... But that's expected for the cost. The typical consumer is not buying components and Onkyo knows this. 

I've never heard of anyone describe a physical device as causing any of what you describe.

Onkyos perform extremely well for what they cost.
If I were to pick Onkyo vs Pioneer, my preference would be Onkyo.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

Both brands offer quality products, so what features are important to _you_? As previously stated by others, what is your budget?


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

Zeitgeist said:


> Sure, dedicated amps perform well..... But that's expected for the cost. The typical consumer is not buying components and Onkyo knows this.
> 
> I've never heard of anyone describe a physical device as causing any of what you describe.
> 
> ...


Rotel, anthem, Cambridge Soundworks sell single unit AVRs. Sound quality from their AVRs far exceeds what one will get from Onkyo. Onkyo is one of the better mass market brands. But if you can stretch budget a bit you'll be much happier with sound quality from the high end units.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Simply no longer true because of the mass production and availability of mainstream companies like Onkyo the sound quality from most receivers between $500 and $2000 are the same as a matter of fact receivers offer far better room EQ and other features that very few Boutique high end companies can offer. for such a low price.
> I highly recommend Onkyo for bang for buck, now we just need to know your budget and we can go from there.


If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR. I agree most mass market AVRs sound the same which is they sound poor. These "boutique" AVRs (rotel, arcam, Cambridge Audio, anthem, among others) need less to no EQ because they produce full bodied sound since they are not built with anemic components or power supplies. The only EQ you should need is some wall hangings of soft materials if your room has high reflectivity (no carpeting or curtains).


----------



## D Bone (Feb 23, 2012)

*Room correction/EQ*



xyzzy said:


> If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR. I agree most mass market AVRs sound the same which is they sound poor. These "boutique" AVRs (rotel, arcam, Cambridge Soundworks, anthem, among others) need less to no EQ because they produce full bodied sound since they are not built with anemic components or power supplies. The only EQ you should need is some wall hangings of soft materials if your room has high reflectivity (no carpeting or curtains).


I believe that the "eq" in question here is actually _room correction_. Even the highest quality component is only as good as its room (and room interactions). I know that I'm painting with a *broad* brush, but my point is that room correction can be a good thing regardless of the quality of the equipment. Just my 2¢; sorry if I misunderstood your point! :innocent:



wgmontgomery said:


> I believe that the "eq" in question here is actually _room correction_. Even the highest quality component is only as good as its room (and room interactions). I know that I'm painting with a *broad* brush, but my point is that room correction can be a good thing regardless of the quality of the equipment. Just my 2¢; sorry if I misunderstood your point! :innocent:


I think I agree with you. Within the high end community I read about mixed results of EQ correction gear as the final stage after all physical means (tube traps, wall hangings, etc) of taming reflections and standing waves have been put in place. But the high end EQ correction gear is well out of my price range and I look at it with some askance because the source signal is digitized. For serious music listening (2 channel) I don’t do digital (yet)but have heard some decent almost good digital gear.  And just to note, I don't have anything against digital and continue to play with DACs looking for a good one. A low priced Arcam rDAC is going through its rounds in my 2 channel system and its not so bad. But I am always looking for the best sound I can afford.

At the mass market AVR level EQ is a travesty to cover up for anemic equipment. And it doesn’t cover it up and usually muddles the sound. I’ve been in some folks homes and heard horrendous home theater and after getting the host to pay attention to the sound of an instrument or passage and turning off all EQ and surround sound modes can get it to sound better rather than some echo-ey unnatural hollow “equalized” reproduction.
No different than trying to save a person or two from the budweiser crowd. I can’t drink the swill but it’s the highest selling beer. :boxer:



xyzzy said:


> If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR. I agree most mass market AVRs sound the same which is they sound poor. These "boutique" AVRs (rotel, arcam, Cambridge Soundworks, anthem, among others) need less to no EQ because they produce full bodied sound since they are not built with anemic components or power supplies. The only EQ you should need is some wall hangings of soft materials if your room has high reflectivity (no carpeting or curtains).


REALLY? You've got to be kidding me! If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR? I think the first thing you need to do is educate yourself on what room correction software is and actually does. Far more than just EQ. Before making statements like that please take the time to know what it is you're talking about.



JBrax said:


> REALLY? You've got to be kidding me! If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR? I think the first thing you need to do is educate yourself on what room correction software is and actually does. Far more than just EQ. Before making statements like that please take the time to know what it is you're talking about.


+1.:T:T



JBrax said:


> REALLY? You've got to be kidding me! If EQ is needed you have a poor quality AVR? I think the first thing you need to do is educate yourself on what room correction software is and actually does. Far more than just EQ. Before making statements like that please take the time to know what it is you're talking about.


Honestly, what you need to do is to listen to some high end equipment which does far better job of faithfully reproducing a recording and you might come to realize that, in general, electronic EQ is needed if you have poor electronics & speakers which are not being faithful to what was recorded. So please take the time to know what you are listening to before making your statements.

This said, there is room correction software & equipment (its not software only and it isn't me that needs that education, sorry) in the high end realm that acutally does something. But you ain't getting that in some mass market $1000 something AVR. To start with, that microphone you get with a low end AVR sucks. Don't delude youtself.



xyzzy said:


> Honestly, what you need to do is to listen to some high end equipment which does far better job of faithfully reproducing a recording and you might come to realize that, in general, electronic EQ is needed if you have poor electronics & speakers which are not being faithful to what was recorded. So please take the time to know what you are listening to before making your statements.


I won't comment on your outlook of "poor electronics" as I don't really see the point. What I will comment on however is the application of what we are talking about…home theater. This is not stereophile shack it's Home Theater Shack. Room correction software for the majority of the users here is a invaluable technology as most of us don't have optimum acoustic rooms.

Even the very best recording studios use EQs on their main monitors. the microphone used on most receivers is more than good enough to do what it is designed to do. Auddyssey has proven to be very good and so is Trinnov. No one has a perfect room for acoustics as well as dimensions. and to say that EQ is only if you have poor speakers and a poor receiver is just bunk. There isn't a speaker out there (that most of us can afford) thats perfectly flat and room response is going to change how it sounds even more.



tonyvdb said:


> Even the very best recording studios use EQs on their main monitors. the microphone used on most receivers is more than good enough to do what it is designed to do. Auddyssey has proven to be very good and so is Trinnov. No one has a perfect room for acoustics as well as dimensions. and to say that EQ is only if you have poor speakers and a poor receiver is just bunk. There isn't a speaker out there (that most of us can afford) thats perfectly flat and room response is going to change how it sounds even more.


Sorry, but the very best studios don't use any EQ at all and use high quality microphones placed properly along with acoustic treatment to cut down on reflections and standing waves.
Regards EQ, you can slap lipstick on a pig and then its just a colorized pig. If the signal coming into the mic is compromised or if the mic is poor EQ is just slapping lipstick on it.

And there is no speaker at any price that is flat even after the most sophisticated room correction systems and certainly not after the use of a mic that comes with a low end receiver so not sure what your point is. In fact, with sophisticated room correction systems the speakers will not be flat becasue they are compensating for room misbalances. In the end, room correction adjustments are more slapping lipstick on pig.



xyzzy said:


> Sorry, but the very best studios don't use any EQ at all and use high quality microphones placed properly along with acoustic treatment to cut down on reflections and standing waves.
> Regards EQ, you can slap lipstick on a pig and then its just a colorized pig. If the signal coming into the mic is compromised or if the mic is poor EQ is just slapping lipstick on it.
> 
> And there is no speaker at any price that is flat even after the most sophisticated room correction systems and certainly not after the use of a mic that comes with a low end receiver so not sure what your point is. In fact, with sophisticated room correction systems the speakers will not be flat becasue they are compensating for room misbalances. In the end, room correction adjustments are more slapping lipstick on pig.


It would appear you are here for the sole purpose of conflict. This will be my last reply as I won't feed any more of your misinformation. All studios use EQ. The fine members of this site provide good advice and accurate information to people looking for guidance. Move along please.

Well, in my living room, Audyssey XT has made a huge improvement.................I have always liked bacon, I guess my stomach as well as my ears aren't golden.



JBrax said:


> It would appear you are here for the sole purpose of conflict. This will be my last reply as I won't feed any more of your misinformation. All studios use EQ. The fine members of this site provide good advice and accurate information to people looking for guidance. Move along please.


(Edited)
You can read up on this site and Doug Sax (as one of not too many examples, sadly).

http://www.sheffieldlab.com/

Doug Sax founded this company and has credits galore in the industry including mainstream music. He is a sought after recording engineer and trains and consults many. He even has grammy or two which impresses many who are impressed by that sort of stuff.

His best recordings and his mantra is well placed mics, no EQ, in an acoustically treated rooms. Most of his direct to disc recordings are all acoustic, minimal electronics, well placed mics, and are coveted by those who listen for musicality.

Does he use EQ when recording in less than perfect venues? Yes he does. But as he will say (and so did I) that the best recording studio is acoustically setup room and uses no EQ. What you consider best isn't, when it comes to quality recordings. Perhaps you equate best with studios that record artists that sell the most.

I'll move along alright not too long for now, just trying to spread some knowledge that there is better out there than mass market and its within reach of all of us with mere mortal budgets (myself included).

I think that the vast majority of experienced users here would agree that to not have to EQ anything would be preferable. I have read many posts where users are encouraged to deal with fundamental problems in system design or room acoustics before trying to correct it with equalization. It is well understood that there is only so much that can be accomplished with such. The fact is, however, that there are many very effective processing chips on the market that perform quite well compared to the equalization that was available when Doug Sax was doing the majority of his work and during the formative years of Sheffield. They have made some truly amazing recordings and his purist approach is certainly understood and appreciated. That does not mean that there is not a place for systems that do process the signal with very specific intent. The end result is itstelf impressive in systems that are far from reference quality.



xyzzy said:


> Does he use EQ when recording in less than perfect venues? Yes he does. But as he will say (and so did I) that the best recording studio is acoustically setup room and uses no EQ.


I would love to see an "acoustically setup room" which requires no EQ below the Schroeder frequency to get +/- 2db in room response tolerance, and simulaneously sounds inviting, open, and diffuse in the midrange and treble.

No, all speakers/electronics don't need equalization beyond their built-in voicing, (which electronics should not have anyways, by the way), above the Schroeder frequency. But below it, it's just russian roulette with regards to a listening or mixing environment. Even the best rooms and speakers will still not be flat in-room. Given our hearing mechanism it only makes sense to tame the response where possible at frequencies where our hearing is dominated by frequency response. And even a $25 microphone has good enough accuracy to do so.

Hmm, adjust the tone on my amp or spend thousands of hours and dollars and re-arrange my room while rendering that room useless for any other purpose other than listening to music (only certain properly recorded stuff) yet still having that anoying thought in the back of my head that it would sound better with my head slightly tilted to the left; just so i dont have to touch that dreaded tone dial!!!

Hard decision......



biach said:


> Hmm, adjust the tone on my amp or spend thousands of hours and dollars and re-arrange my room while rendering that room useless for any other purpose other than listening to music (only certain properly recorded stuff) yet still having that anoying thought in the back of my head that it would sound better with my head slightly tilted to the left; just so i dont have to touch that dreaded tone dial!!!
> 
> Hard decision......


Nah, it's not that hard. You do what _YOU_ want to get an enjoyable listening environment.
If you are happy with what you have then don't change anything! :T
If not then look at ways to improve, within your budget, and be happy. lddude:

Cheers,
Bill
.



megageek said:


> Hmm, adjust the tone on my amp or spend thousands of hours and dollars and re-arrange my room while rendering that room useless for any other purpose other than listening to music (only certain properly recorded stuff) yet still having that anoying thought in the back of my head that it would sound better with my head slightly tilted to the left; just so i dont have to touch that dreaded tone dial!!!
> 
> Hard decision......


Us purist would argue why would you want to listen to a bloated tone altered instrument or voice?
And if you have to tone alter to supplement the anemic reproduction by low quaility equipment you've already lost a lot because the equipment is inadequate.

For a simple analogy, if a TV is lacking in producing RED turning up RED doesn't correct your picture to natural balance. It amplifies the RED which then has an effect across the entire color reproduction specturum and your pciture is still completely off from natural balance.

Listening (with your ears) to live instruments or voice you do not need EQ. Room treatment can help and with modest (or no) room treatment acoustic voice and instruments sounds fabulous to your ears. So, if the recording is done faithfully and the playback equipment is robust and is designed to faithfully reproduce the recording then the need to EQ is just about not there.

If the recording is poor or processed (EQ'd) by someone who has no clue its not worth listening too. When great music is recorded terribly its a tragedy. If the recording is done well then high-quality (high end) equipment designed to faithfully reproduce what was recorded the sound you will hear will be a delight, as it was if you where standing there listening to it live acoustically. High end equip is not perfect but far better than than mid fi and thats why high end equip has no tone controls, they don't need it.

So the point here is that if the recording is faithful and the playback equip is faithful then you didn't need to EQ it.
As many have noted, most studios EQ. So why would your playback equipment need to EQ unless it is inadequate at faithfully reproducing what was recorded????

Go audition some high-end equipment and you'll hear what I am talking about. You can live without tone controls (with good equipment)!



xyzzy said:


> Us purist would argue why would you want to listen to a bloated tone altered instrument or voice?


So your saying that if I have an EQ on my system Im no longer a Purist or better put an audiophile?



> High end equip is not perfect but far better than than mid fi and thats why high end equip has no tone controls, they don't need it.


If you say so



> So they point here is that if the recording is faithful and the playback equip is faithful then you didn't need to EQ it.


If your room acoustics are perfect and your listening position is in the sweet spot then yes by all means.

The reason for "eq" is actually best answered by its true name: room correction. I consider myself to be an audio purist, but I do not discount the benefits of room correction if properly applied. Also, just because a piece of equipment has room correction does NOT mean that it's not of high quality. If so, why do JL Audio and B&W's top end subs have room correction?? Theta's new Casablanca III uses DiracLive; I'd hardly consider Theta to be trash. ADA's (prototype) Cinema Ref. Mach IV (~$40,000) also includes room correction from Trinnov Audio...

Not all (if any) rooms are perfect, so room correction can be a very good thing.



tonyvdb said:


> So your saying that if I have an EQ on my system Im no longer a Purist or better put an audiophile?
> .


Sadly yes, with better quality entry level (on up) high-end equipment EQ is the last thing you need to do after some cursory room treatments to cut down on high reflectivity. Curtains, carpets, some other soft wall hanging are all you need. Unless you are going for uber high-end EQ is not necessary. Standing waves from the subwoofer are a whole other matter and here tube traps might be the first remedy but EQ on the subwoofer, due to standing waves, is sometimes needed and unavoidable.

Most high-end AVRs also have room EQ. My own AVR (a entry level high-end Arcam unit) has EQ but I don't use it. This AVR coupled with decent speakers I only have to adjust the cross over to the subwoofer. The EQ is just like all the surround sound modes, useless.

Real room EQ (uber high-end) is an endeavor far more complicated than throwing a cheap mic in the middle of the room (which is made worse when it hooked up to an anemic AVR). Real room EQ, done with care and far more equipment and calibration I have no issue with. But I can't afford it and can't afford very high-end equipment that can take advantage of it.



tonyvdb said:


> If you say so
> .


Well, this may be your way of being dismissive and the EQ :bigsmile: of "whatever". Most of my posts ask the reader to go listen to some high-end equipment so it isn't "If you say so". It should be becasue you know yourself because you have experienced good sound reproduction. You can then make up your mind if you want it in your home.



tonyvdb said:


> If your room acoustics are perfect and your listening position is in the sweet spot then yes by all means
> .


Not at all. Good (entry level high end on up) high end AVR with good entry level high end on up speakers will immerse you in a sound field everywhere in your room.

Unfortunately it seems you yourself have not heard any high end systems in a home environment (High end boutique store listening rooms do not count). I have personally used the Trinnov room eq (said to be the very best available) as my Sherwood/Newcastle 972 has it. without it turned on my livingroom system sounds very thin and lifeless. With it on my two channel system fully envelops me in the sound. 

I use $7000 studio monitors for my mains and a $1800 sub in my theater room and I have had many a people astonished as to how good it sounds and believe me running them with music or movies is always a pleasure. I still use an EQ on them even though they are time coherent and flat 40-20,000Hz once in the room they are no longer truly "flat" and need EQ to fix the frequency response. I have used REW and a $2000 Audio Control Analyzer to verify this.



tonyvdb said:


> Unfortunately it seems you yourself have not heard any high end systems in a home environment (High end boutique store listening rooms do not count). I have personally used the Trinnov room eq (said to be the very best available) as my Sherwood/Newcastle 972 has it. without it turned on my livingroom system sounds very thin and lifeless. With it on my two channel system fully envelops me in the sound.
> 
> I use $7000 studio monitors for my mains and a $1800 sub in my theater room and I have had many a people astonished as to how good it sounds and believe me running them with music or movies is always a pleasure. I still use an EQ on them even though they are time coherent and flat 40-20,000Hz once in the room they are no longer truly "flat" and need EQ to fix the frequency response. I have used REW and a $2000 Audio Control Analyzer to verify this.


Tony, thanks for this post, the book Get Better Sound by Jim Smith is a testament to what you you just said, the most overlooked component in an audio system is THE ROOM, I believe the saying "voice the speakers to play the room and not vice versa, I like to hear my speakers and not the room and it is the least expensive upgrade that I know of.....ROOM CORRECTION period!!!!!!
Jeff



27dnast said:


> Wow. I feel bad for the OP. The guy was simply asking a question about two brands and the ensuing debate has turned into a put-down fest of snobbery.
> I would ignore all of these folks puffing their chests and blowing smoke. Buy, use, enjoy, and move on with your life. It's only audio equipment.


The OP already received his answer long ago in this post. Thats the beauty of this forum is its a "discussion forum" and we are discussing the validity of Room EQ I would not take issue if these recent posts were moved over to here. I will ask if it can be done.

Remember room eq can be done by modifications to the room with various bass absorbers and diffusers strategically placed as well as done electronically. Better to start with the room and then go to an eq system. This assumes the speakers and source are not issue.


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

xyzzy said:


> Rotel, anthem, Cambridge Soundworks sell single unit AVRs. Sound quality from their AVRs far exceeds what one will get from Onkyo. Onkyo is one of the better mass market brands. But if you can stretch budget a bit you'll be much happier with sound quality from the high end units.


I didn't actually know that they make single unit AVRs, All that I've ever seen is their amps (and some stand alone components - like Cambridge's CD players). Good to know.

I'd want to see test results or A/B comparisons before agreeing with a generalization like "better sound quality though". I wouldn't generalize that all high end brands sound better, just like I wouldn't generalize that all cheap brands sound mediocre/bad.

I think that Emotiva amps are great bang for the buck and fans of Bryston/Rotel/etc put them down because they don't "cost enough", despite the Audio Precision data.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

Zeitgeist said:


> I didn't actually know that they make single unit AVRs, All that I've ever seen is their amps (and some stand alone components - like Cambridge's CD players). Good to know.
> 
> I think that Emotiva amps are great bang for the buck and fans of Bryston/Rotel/etc put them down because they don't "cost enough", despite the Audio Precision data.


FWIW-Arcam makes the Solo Neo Network ($1999)-CD player, Wi Fi, tuner, internet radio etc. and 75 watts x 2. They make a satellite sub system (Arcam Muso ~$1600) to go with it. :wave:

I saw the Cam. Soundworks' CD player/intergrated on Audio Advisor (I belive that it streams, too), and I think that NAD makes a CD player/streaming intergrated amp, too. I haven't seen any that are HT AVRs, but I may have simply overlooked them. :huh:

BTW-I concur with your assesment of the Emotiva amps; Adcom went through a similar thing ~the early 90s. :spend:


----------



## RTS100x5 (Sep 12, 2009)

| am a HT installer. Over the past several years I have installed many systems featuring both Onkyo, Marantz, Denon and Pioneer AVR's. I can verify that I stopped selling Onkyo recently because of units failing.... The latest was a 8050 which has failed twice since being installed in mid Feb. 
That being said I have only replaced 2 Pioneer units in the last 2 years since Ive been carrying that line... One bc it was abused / high volume levels in an unventilated cabinet... 
In Sept last year I upgraded to my first ELITE receiver the SC35 after many listening tests at my local AV distributor....The Class D ICE amplifier in my opinion simply outperforms the Onkyo flat out in detail. and dynamic range / available headroom.. It has performed flawlessly with my custom built speakers which are a 4 ohm load and many times at 0 db volume with hardly any distortions (depending on the source)and BARELY gets warm to the touch !! I am equally impressed with the build quality except for the AC cord which I upgraded more for peace of mind than any sound improvements...
I highly recommend Pioneer over Onkyo / Integra and Marantz...but test them side by side for yourself if possible....and be wary of the latest Onkyo models that under recall notice....lddude:


----------



## megageek (Oct 27, 2011)

Some of you guys are going over the top i think. 
1: he wants an onkyo or a pioneer, 
2: eq = avr?? Take a look at ANY install of ANY cinema or HT or hall or concert or church or whatever and tell me how many dont do eq tweaks!! 
3: saying a 'premium' brand is WAY better than an onkyo or pioneer in this day and age is just nonsense. Sure they have subtle differences in 'bloom' and 'emersion' ( what the dickins is bloom???) but come on?!!! WAY better?? You could argue build quality but who wants an avr to last 100 years??? Not me!!
4: SPEAKERS! They are realy what makes the difference! In the pioneer, onkyo price range there would be no major (or even percievable) difference in sq that couldnt be corrected with the in built eq menu's. So pick the one you like! 
5: dunno about the video processing as i dont run a hdmi amp. Im sure the differences there are subtle as well.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

I believe that we (myself included) have gotten a bit off-track from the original question (Onkyo vs. Pioneer). It _is_ true that Onkyo has had a recent recall of certain AVRs (more info here: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...rocessors-amps/56387-onkyo-recall-notice.html ), they still make a quality product. 

"Is Pioneer better than Onkyo?" I believe that's too broad of a question to answer. Simply put, buy the best AVR that is within your budget; each brand/model will have features that may or may not appeal to you. I _would_ look for preouts for all channels (7.1) AND a 7.1 input; as for room correction, for MOST people it is a BIG plus.


----------



## HTGeek7 (Mar 20, 2012)

Wow 
Thanks to those who have responded!! Didn't think it would cause that heated of a debate hahaha 
Yes my price range is about 1.6-2.1 and have checked out the flagship receivers from both, god they both sound amazing!! I think separates in my current situation would be a little much so was thinking just a stand alone receiver would be okay. Am I crazy thinking that the high end onkyo had a little better response in hmdi video display? I'm no true audiophile (my screen name was catchy) lol and I do have a good knowledge on how home theater systems are gathered and the amount of research needed so again thanks for all the advice/input!! I will let you know what I go with and the current setup once complete!!


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

HTGeek7 said:


> Wow
> Thanks to those who have responded!! Didn't think it would cause that heated of a debate hahaha
> Yes my price range is about 1.6-2.1 and have checked out the flagship receivers from both, god they both sound amazing!! I think separates in my current situation would be a little much so was thinking just a stand alone receiver would be okay. Am I crazy thinking that the high end onkyo had a little better response in hmdi video display? I'm no true audiophile (my screen name was catchy) lol and I do have a good knowledge on how home theater systems are gathered and the amount of research needed so again thanks for all the advice/input!! I will let you know what I go with and the current setup once complete!!


Well, if you are spending $1600 to $2100 on an AVR you are really missing something by not having a listen to to the Arcam AVR360 which is priced about $1900. I can only suggest, rest is up to you.


----------



## needspeed52 (Aug 2, 2008)

xyzzy said:


> Rotel, anthem, Cambridge Soundworks sell single unit AVRs. Sound quality from their AVRs far exceeds what one will get from Onkyo. Onkyo is one of the better mass market brands. But if you can stretch budget a bit you'll be much happier with sound quality from the high end units.


Just for clarification, Cambridge Soundworks makes speakers and radios, no AVR's..............


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 5, 2012)

needspeed52 said:


> Just for clarification, Cambridge Soundworks makes speakers and radios, no AVR's..............


My mistake! The company is Cambridge Audio. Thanks for the fact check!

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=493

Another AVR that will blow the onkyo out of the water. Will the guy who started this thread bite and go for better than ordinary?


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

Wow. I feel bad for the OP. The guy was simply asking a question about two brands and the ensuing debate has turned into a put-down fest of snobbery. Do you all really think this what this guy wants??? To be told that what he's looking at is ?

To the OP: both the Pioneer and Onkyo amps will be fine. I don't think you can really go wrong. At the end if the day, you can always return a purchase and try the other one. Other than that, I would ignore all of these folks puffing their chests and blowing smoke. Buy, use, enjoy, and move on with your life. It's only audio equipment.


----------



## needspeed52 (Aug 2, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> The OP already received his answer long ago in this post. Thats the beauty of this forum is its a "discussion forum" and we are discussing the validity of Room EQ I would not take issue if these recent posts were moved over to here. I will ask if it can be done.


Bravo,


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

I will be moving parts of this discussion to another area better suited to the topic: 

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ssing-lack-there-there-really-such-thing.html

I've been considering this action for some time; although a valid discussion, it really has gotten off-topic! Thanks to all!!


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

Posts moved and pending approval; they have *not* been deleted. Sorry for any inconvenience, but since this is being moved it has to be approved.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I would be all over the flagship elite. No interest in arguing with anyone ;-)... I've owned pioneer and elite AVRs for the last 5 years... My only complaint is MCACC being a little confusing. But, once you get it nailed down, it works just fine. I have nothing against Onkyo. I owned an Integra Amp back in the early to mid 90's and thought it was great too (I did have an Onkyo 6 cd changer that was a nightmare, but that wasn't an AVR! ;-)

My HT has been anchored by an Elite and I have no regrets. I would live to get my hands on their top of the line receiver... Mmmmmmm


----------

