Harman Kardon vs. Marantz...music quality? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
comiconline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For years, i've read countless things on the internet touting either Harman Kardon or Marantz as the most musical of the budget receivers around. But every time i read things about them, one or the other is always compared to Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc...but almost never compared to each other.

Soooooo......i would love to know people's opinions as to which one sounds more "musical." And for that matter, how do you define musical? I've read where some people don't like "the Marantz sound" or that HK tends to have a sound that's "very neutral," whatever that means (clinical, is what that sounds like to me.) What differentiates the sonic character of each of those brand's receivers?

The main reason for this thread is not just curiosity. I have been wanting to upgrade my HK635 to something with HDMI inputs and HD audio codecs, etc, to match with my v.1 Mirage Omnisats.

I have been looking pretty hard at the Marantz SR6003/5003 and the HK AVR-354. Firmware bugs aside, as far as actual sonic characteristics and functionality, any opinions as to those current receivers, or to those particular brands in general? How about the Audyssey MultEQ on the Marantz vs the EZsetEQ on the Harman?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. thanks.
comiconline is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 01:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 91
I just figured you hit both receivers with a mallet, hold up your tuning fork and listen for which one is closest to the pitch of the tuning fork. Some receivers, just can't stay in tune, you know?

Seriously, I have no idea what a musical receiver is. I would chalk the term 'musical' up as an ambiguous and subjective term. Only the person using it can possibly know what they mean, in my opinion.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #3 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 01:46 AM
Advanced Member
 
BAMAVADER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mars
Posts: 880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Seriously, I have no idea what a musical receiver is.

I think what is meant on AVS by being a musical receiver is simply a modern home theater receiver that comes closest to sounding like the old mid to high end stereo receivers of the 1970s and 80s with rock music or pick your flavor music.

<><

RTR
BAMAVADER is offline  
post #4 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 02:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
blackzarg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAMAVADER View Post

I think what is meant on AVS by being a musical receiver is simply a modern home theater receiver that comes closest to sounding like the old mid to high end stereo receivers of the 1970s and 80s with rock music or pick your flavor music.

I think, like anything that is posted here, it's really subjective and based on your own tastes and preferences. I own a Harman Kardon AVR-247, and also an Onkyo TX-SR876, and while they do sound different, they both sound very good. The HK definitely has a warmer sound, but powering my mini monitors (AV123 ELT525Ms) they make it sound very rich and lush.

Can you try them out at a local store? Or maybe buy it from a place with a liberal return policy. I know Magnolia carries Marantz, and Best Buy carries Harman Kardon, so you could get them both and test them with your equipment.
blackzarg is offline  
post #5 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 05:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Lhasa-lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzarg View Post

I think, like anything that is posted here, it's really subjective and based on your own tastes and preferences. I own a Harman Kardon AVR-247, and also an Onkyo TX-SR876, and while they do sound different, they both sound very good. The HK definitely has a warmer sound, but powering my mini monitors (AV123 ELT525Ms) they make it sound very rich and lush.

.

There are some that would argue that the sound differences alleged to in most receivers is not subjective at all as there is no audible difference. They would point to the fact that there is no study or comparrison that can be pointed to that supports the position that, for example, any two compentently designed receivers, including Marantz and HK, sound any different at all. They would point to the fact that if you take any two receivers, put them into a controlled enviornment, calibrate them, play the same source marterial through them, and then use them in any sort of DBT or even an simple unsighted test, nobody has ever been able to discern any audible difference. It can't be subjective if it doesn't exist.
Lhasa-lover is offline  
post #6 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 06:14 AM
Senior Member
 
bsavitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

There are some that would argue that the sound differences alleged to in most receivers is not subjective at all as there is no audible difference.

But they would be wrong.
tritiumglo likes this.
bsavitz is offline  
post #7 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 07:08 AM
Advanced Member
 
Lhasa-lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsavitz View Post

But they would be wrong.

Prove it.
Lhasa-lover is offline  
post #8 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ClarkeBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tea Party Central
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
comiconline,

A few thoughts:

I have used quite a few HKs as both receivers and as prepros with external amping for years and am just coming off switching out my 635 which I loved (except for sporadic lockups with video switching). I finally moved to full separates with an Onkyo PR-SC885 processor.

Generally disagreeing with the 'everything sounds the same' crowd, IMO the SQ of HK and Marantz is in fact quite similar. Some describe it as 'sweet' which may well be referring to a slight mid range bump. Design wise they usually share a preference for Cirrus chips. I have always found HK to be extremely good with Bass, likely due to the generally excellent amping.

Having used both EZSet/EQ and Audyssey I can tell you straightaway that Audyssey is superior to my ears. Every room is different and results will vary but in my space the SQ of Audyssey MultEQ (XT with the 885) gives a better soundstage without the artificial elevation I encountered with the 635 EQ. Also, vocal character post EQ is not altered nearly as much. Of course, you may not have suffered from these particular issues with the HK EQ as I did. The Tilt feature in the 635 was a necessity for me. The 885 does not offer this feature but I bump the treble a little and everything just sounds right.

I think you can move to Marantz and Audyssey with confidence. The 'Sweetness' should continue. One caveat...if your speakers are 4 Ohm you may have less success with Marantz. I've never had a problem in that regard with any mid-high level HK.

Paul




My life is an open book...wish I could read it and have it make sense.

ClarkeBar is offline  
post #9 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 08:30 AM
Member
 
legacydoor2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsavitz View Post

But they would be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

Prove it.

Isn't there a guy offering a but load of money to anyone who can identify different receivers just by sound???
legacydoor2 is offline  
post #10 of 104 Old 05-27-2009, 09:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
amicusterrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Only YOU can resolve this to YOUR satisfaction ny trying both brands.

I don't believe there is an audible difference (and I've owned both brands though I've never set up an ABX test), but it sounds like you are inclined to believe otherwise.

This debate is really harmless because either brand makes fine receivers. I think you can get more for your money with HK, though it is true they don't offer Audessey. Keep in mind though that Marantz doesn't offer the best MultiEQ XT Audessey. And, HK has arguably the best matrixing decoder, Logic 7. If you use an Ipod, check out the HK 354, as it includes a very cool proprietary dock. HK's power specs are regarded as conservative. Neither brand offers torroidal transformers; if that is something you care about, you move into botique niche brands like NAD and Cambridge Audio.
amicusterrae is offline  
post #11 of 104 Old 05-28-2009, 12:38 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
comiconline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks to everyone who has replied so far...much appreciated.

As far as difference in the SQ (of music) among different brands of receivers, i know there IS an audible difference, at least among some brands. I have taken different brands home and tested them before. Usually with about 3 other people, using different musical sources, and one of us flipping the cables back and forth, while the rest of us sit with our eyes closed, so we didn't know which one we were going to listen to.

Over the years my comparisons were (i think):
HK635/Denon...something
HK630/Onkyo...something
NAD T752/Marantz...something.
Carver HR895/Sony...something.

Except the Carver/Sony comparison, the differences were always subtle, but noticeable, even to the ears of my various ex-girlfriends, who cared less about sonic quality than i, until they were forced to sit down and give an opinion.

Now, i'm not saying EVERY brand has a noticeable difference from every other brand in sonic reproduction. If i had compared Marantz and HK, maybe i wouldn't have heard a difference. Maybe Onkyo/Denon would have offered no preference to me. Maybe it's just with the particular brands i chose to compare. But with the ones i DID choose, i noticed a difference.

But agree or disagree with their preferences, most people can make the same evaluation of sonics, only with different words. Denon lovers always described their receivers as "accurate, clean, loud" etc. People who hate Denon may call it "sterile, shrill, or tedious." But friend or foe, Denon is never described as "warm."

In addition, not everyone has the same level of discerning taste in audio. Whether it's from lack of exposure, or just not having a good ear, not everyone will notice the differences. I have friends that are really into wine. No matter how hard i've tried, i can not taste "a hint of oak and orange peel" in my merlot.
comiconline is offline  
post #12 of 104 Old 05-28-2009, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
comiconline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As far as moving up to boutique brands like NAD...well, i just can't afford that. My options remain in the level of HK, Marantz, Denon, etc...

As far as the HK's EZsetEQ, i'll admit, i've never used it in my HK635. I kept meaning to, but never got around to it. Part of the reason i bought the Mirage Omnisats was to be able to avoid having to sit in a localized sweet spot in my tiny apartment. When i first brought them home, i fell in love with them instantly. They opened up the whole room to music in a way my previous Polks and Klipschs did not (although they were great speakers, too). I'm not concerned with pinpoint precise imaging. I like the open, enveloping soundstage. So, perhaps with the Omnisats, i don't have as much of a need for microphone calibration systems. Or is my reasoning unsound?

Unfortunately, i no longer own a car, so carting stuff to and from stores is no longer an option, and i won't put out my friends to cart me around. I think i'm going to pick up a new AVR354 continuing my HK love affair, or maybe cheat on her with a Marantz 5003. I suppose i could get both, and then only beg ONE person to go to UPS to drop off the reject.
comiconline is offline  
post #13 of 104 Old 05-28-2009, 03:39 AM
Senior Member
 
bsavitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

Prove it.

I can't prove it to you if your hearing can't discern any differences. But some people can most definitely hear differences between many amps, pre-amps, receivers, CD players, etc... I know I can.
I've auditioned stereo equipment many times with everything set up so that it is easy to A/B compare an individual component. Some differences are more pronounced than others, but between many components there is a distinct difference.
Just because you can hear no difference (Although I think you probably could hear differences in the right setting, but that we'll never know.) you should not jump to the conclusion that the differences are not there.
bsavitz is offline  
post #14 of 104 Old 05-28-2009, 06:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ClarkeBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tea Party Central
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiconline View Post

As far as moving up to boutique brands like NAD...well, i just can't afford that. My options remain in the level of HK, Marantz, Denon, etc...

As far as the HK's EZsetEQ, i'll admit, i've never used it in my HK635. I kept meaning to, but never got around to it. Part of the reason i bought the Mirage Omnisats was to be able to avoid having to sit in a localized sweet spot in my tiny apartment. When i first brought them home, i fell in love with them instantly. They opened up the whole room to music in a way my previous Polks and Klipschs did not (although they were great speakers, too). I'm not concerned with pinpoint precise imaging. I like the open, enveloping soundstage. So, perhaps with the Omnisats, i don't have as much of a need for microphone calibration systems. Or is my reasoning unsound?

It costs you nothing to try out any EQ system if available and a simple push of a button or menu selection can toggle it on/off. I understand your approach but really, room EQ is virtually indispensible unless you have a perfect room. I'm not saying it doesn't take some time to get it right. But the results are well worth it IMO. I felt Bass was always going to be the most troublesome issue in my space (see Sig Link for pics). Both EQ systems handled that well but Audyssey is markedly better overall. Both systems also evened out the Mids/Highs more than I would have thought necessary as I considered my space to be fairly well dampened. I was wrong ... and a simple push of a button now shows me how wrong I was. YMMV.




My life is an open book...wish I could read it and have it make sense.

ClarkeBar is offline  
post #15 of 104 Old 05-28-2009, 05:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
amicusterrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
Posts: 729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiconline View Post

In addition, not everyone has the same level of discerning taste in audio. Whether it's from lack of exposure, or just not having a good ear, not everyone will notice the differences. I have friends that are really into wine. No matter how hard i've tried, i can not taste "a hint of oak and orange peel" in my merlot.

Ouch
I'll have to work on my "exposure." As for my ears, I suspect they are only getting worse.

Good luck on your quest!
amicusterrae is offline  
post #16 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jkozlow3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Good God. People if you can't hear a difference between components, get your ears checked (and then just buy the cheapest receiver you can find)! Saying that all receivers sound the same is asanine. I can most definitely hear subtle differences between various audio devices, and I would think most people could - particularly when AB comparisons are done with only 1 piece of equipment being variable. The problem is getting the output levels matched properly, etc. But there are most certainly sonic differences. One profound example of this is the quality of the DACs in the various units. DAC quality and cost has improved a lot over the past few years, but I would assume that there are still noticeable differences.

I once had a Sony flagship CD player that originally retailed for $1800 (purchased it for $600 on closeout). Anyway, hooked up side by side with a $200 retail CD player to the same receiver (both with analog outs), the more expensive unit (with the clearly superior DACs) sounded NIGHT & DAY better to both me and my roommate at the time.

Then, if I hooked the same flagship player up to the NAD receiver I had at the time via both the analog & digital connections, I could EASILY tell that the DAC in the Sony CDP was superior to the DACs in the NAD, as the analog outs sounded MUCH better than the digital out. A couple years later, I now have a Marantz receiver and the analog & digital connections from the same player sound about the same on my modest system. This tells me that the DACs in the Marantz are clearly better than in my old NAD and that they are roughly on par with those in the Sony CDP. DACs have gotten cheaper and better ones are now being used at lower price points vs. a few years ago as is clearly evidenced between my old NAD & new Marantz. Again, these differences were not particularly subtle if you cared to listen for them and I don't have ridiculously expensive speakers either (NHT SB3 mains).

I just don't see how people are still debating whether or not one piece of equipment can sound better than another and that the differences are inaudible. Ridiculous.
8086 likes this.
jkozlow3 is offline  
post #17 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 01:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkozlow3 View Post

Again, these differences were not particularly subtle if you cared to listen for them...

In my opinion, if you needed to take effort to 'care to listen for them' they are subtle and not night and day.

Night and day implies someone like my sister, who has shown no interest in high quality audio could blind AB the difference 100% of the time.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #18 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 01:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
Lhasa-lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsavitz View Post

I can't prove it to you if your hearing can't discern any differences. But some people can most definitely hear differences between many amps, pre-amps, receivers, CD players, etc... I know I can.
I've auditioned stereo equipment many times with everything set up so that it is easy to A/B compare an individual component. Some differences are more pronounced than others, but between many components there is a distinct difference.
Just because you can hear no difference (Although I think you probably could hear differences in the right setting, but that we'll never know.) you should not jump to the conclusion that the differences are not there.

OK, I see. The only evidence you have to prove your point is that you can hear a difference. Nothing more, nothing less. So based on your opinion, the rest of the audio world should just take your word for it???? Sorry. Give me some data to support your position not anecdotal evidence. If you are going to give advice to someone that might influence their pocket book perhaps it might be a good idea to provide just a "little" evidence to support your claim. BTW did you level match those components before you listened to them? Were your listening auditions unsighted? Don't misunderstand. I'll keep an open mind. Just provide a link to any study, any data, anything at all that supports your position. I'd love to read it. And how do you know what my setting is? There you go, jumping to conclusions. If I don't hear a difference then it must be my setting, my components, my ears. Attack, attack, attack. Stop the attack about what you have no knowledge of and just provide something to support your claim other than your ears.

And to jkozlow3 to suggest that you can hear a difference between DACS is just plain ridiculous. Unless the DAC is malfunctioning there is no audible difference between DACS. There have been quite a few studies that support this. Search for them. You will find that some of the very people that engineered those DACS, and engineered the very codecs you listen to daily, all agree that there is no discernible sq difference between DACS. Sheesh.

If you have an opinion about this. Fine. I won't argue with an opinion. But when you state it as fact, then you need to;

Prove it.
Lhasa-lover is offline  
post #19 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 02:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jkozlow3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

In my opinion, if you needed to take effort to 'care to listen for them' they are subtle and not night and day.

Night and day implies someone like my sister, who has shown no interest in high quality audio could blind AB the difference 100% of the time.

I said "if you care to listen for them". Maybe that was a poor choice of words, as I was not implying that you had to have extremely critical listening sessions. Anyone who was even remotely paying attention to the same CD being played simultaneously on both players would have noticed the depth of the vocals & soundstaging differences if they had ANY kind of ear for music whatsoever. Believe me, my roommate with his $200 Sony CD player was extremely sceptical of my $600 purchase until I proved it to him. We took 2 identical CDs, hooked both players up to the same receiver via analog cables and both immediately noticed a difference. The cheaper player sounded flat and tinny in comparison and it took both of our untrained ears all of 30 seconds to realize this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhasa-lover View Post

And to jkozlow3 to suggest that you can hear a difference between DACS is just plain ridiculous. Unless the DAC is malfunctioning there is no audible difference between DACS. There have been quite a few studies that support this. Search for them. You will find that some of the very people that engineered those DACS, and engineered the very codecs you listen to daily, all agree that there is no discernible sq difference between DACS. Sheesh.
Prove it.

I'm not an engineer, but if it's NOT the DACs that accounted for my experience, then do you care to comment on WHAT it might have been? If 2 players are both hooked up to the same receiver via analog connections (bypassing the receiver's DACs), what exactly would account for the difference in sound quality in your opinion? Or do you suggest that both my roommate and I are crazy and did not hear a noticeable difference? Keep in mind, he was trying to prove my $600 purchase wrong and he immediately asked me where he could get one after our auditioning session. But I supposed that was a placebo effect?

Similarly, when the same player is hooked up to a receiver via both analog and digital connections, what else are you testing besides the DACs of the player vs. the receiver? I suppose I couldn't clearly discern a difference in SQ here either when the analog input was calibrated to produce the same SPL. Why would I have cared WHICH one sounded better? All I know was that the analog outs of the Sony player sounded better than the digital out. Does this NOT indicate a better DAC in the player than in the receiver?

Please educate us since you seem to think that all DACs sound the same. Do all video processors deinterlace DVDs the exact same as well? Is there no way that the Anchor Bay VRS chip or HQV Realta chips pass deinterlacing tests using test material better than cheaper solutions? Are the hundreds of reviews that indicate this all wrong too? If video componenets can do things better/worse than competitors, why can't audio components?

I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about.
jkozlow3 is offline  
post #20 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 02:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 414
I think I'll just have some wings and sit this one out.


"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #21 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
phantom52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 7,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I think I'll just have some wings and sit this one out.


Agreed. I'm sittin this one out also. Been there done that.
phantom52 is offline  
post #22 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Splicer010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
What I find so amusing is that everyone says an amplifier is different sounding and just as many say it can't be proven...Everyone seems to forget it is the speaker that produces the sound(s) and as such is the determining factor as to which amp sounds better to YOU...Some amps sound better than other amps with certain speakers...and vice-versa...

Example...A pair of Klipsch speakers is basically agreed to make a receiver...be it Onkyo Denon Marantz Pioneer etc...'bright'...While Polk will sound 'warm'...

So it all boils down to what amp sounds good with your speaker of choice...

Chu...That chick has a great body...but one helluva ugly face...Not quite your usual high standard...
Splicer010 is offline  
post #23 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jkozlow3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splicer010 View Post

What I find so amusing is that everyone says an amplifier is different sounding and just as many say it can't be proven...Everyone seems to forget it is the speaker that produces the sound(s) and as such is the determining factor as to which amp sounds better to YOU...Some amps sound better than other amps with certain speakers...and vice-versa...

Example...A pair of Klipsch speakers is basically agreed to make a receiver...be it Onkyo Denon Marantz Pioneer etc...'bright'...While Polk will sound 'warm'...

So it all boils down to what amp sounds good with your speaker of choice...

Yes, some amps sound better with certain speakers, because just like speakers, amps ALSO have their own tonal characteristics. I think that speakers are arguably even more critical than the sonic differences in amps overall, but to profess that there are NO discernable differences in amps as some people in this thread have is about as ludicrous as saying all speakers sound the same.

And when people keep saying 'prove it', how exactly do they want us to prove it? If 2 amps reproduce the same frequencies when measuring output, does that mean that they must sound identical? Or should I invite 100 people over to my house and conduct a double blind study to show that 95/100 of the people surveyed could also tell that one component sounded "better" (entirely subjective) than another? Not that I particularly care if the sceptics in this thread or anywhere else believe me or not. If you actually took the time to perform similar experiments yourself, I'd find it hard to believe that you or anyone else could NOT hear differences in various pieces of audio equipment. Then you too could post your findings on a thread for other people to tell you that you did not hear what you thought you did.

Look, I'm not talking about snake oil here. I don't believe that 2 cables of identical gauge and material sound different than each other nor do I believe that different power cords make a component sound better. I am talking about a piece of electronics doing something better than it's competitor. If 2 different televisions can produce different pictures, so can 2 different amplifiers produce different sounds. Ignorance is bliss...if you prefer to be ignorant so be it. Ignorance does not make something untrue however just because you haven't experienced it for yourself.
jkozlow3 is offline  
post #24 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 03:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
psujohny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Having used both EZSet/EQ and Audyssey I can tell you straightaway that Audyssey is superior to my ears. Every room is different and results will vary but in my space the SQ of Audyssey MultEQ (XT with the 885) gives a better soundstage without the artificial elevation I encountered with the 635 EQ

I would like to point out to folks that you havent used the best H/K eq if you were using the 635. The eq in the H/K 745 is vastly superior to the eq in the 635.
Having owned tons of receivers, I will say with no doubt , the 745's eq was superior ( in a big way ) to all the others imo. The bass especially , and just to add to that..The 745 can eq two subs independently of each other. The H/K 745 does farfield and nearfield calibration , while the other h/k's only do farfield
psujohny is offline  
post #25 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 04:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by psujohny View Post

I would like to point out to folks that you havent used the best H/K eq if you were using the 635. The eq in the H/K 745 is vastly superior to the eq in the 635.
Having owned tons of receivers, I will say with no doubt , the 745's eq was superior ( in a big way ) to all the others imo. The bass especially , and just to add to that..The 745 can eq two subs independently of each other. The H/K 745 does farfield and nearfield calibration , while the other h/k's only do farfield

I'll take your word that the 745 has better eq than the 635 as I've never heard/used the 745. But you're wrong about the 635 not doing nearfield. It does both, if working right. But you are also right about the 635 can't do two independent sub cal.

And having never used Audyssey MultEQ, I don't have any opinion. But you only get Harman's L7 processing with HK and Lexicon. And I prefer it to Dolby.

As for this thread topic, I enjoy using both Marantz and HK receivers. The old Marantz 880 doesn't have much for bass management, but I'm just using it for stereo now.
4DHD is offline  
post #26 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 08:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Knucklehead90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: State of Confusion - 98823
Posts: 7,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I think I'll just have some wings and sit this one out.


Great idea.

I'll have a thigh.

When all else fails - RTFM!

♫♫♫ Two Channel Rules! ♫♫♫

GO SEAHAWKS!!!
Knucklehead90 is offline  
post #27 of 104 Old 05-29-2009, 08:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,624
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 91
I live just 60 mins south of Denver. Let me know which Hooters she works at, lol

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #28 of 104 Old 05-30-2009, 02:36 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
comiconline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As far as the guy looking for proof that receivers have different toanl qualities...i think he's a lost cause. Apparently, auditory proof is not good enough proof. In addition, quality receiver manufacturer's also purposely have a signature sound. They design their equipment with he specific INTENTION to sound a certain way. It's not like there's just one amp that gets thrown in every receiver, only with different outer shells and labels. That's ridiculous. It's as silly as saying a Hostess Ho-Ho tastes the same as a Little Debbie Swiss Roll. They are similar, but they...duh...use different ingredients, and in different amounts. Of course they are going to taste a bit different. In fact, i do believe every person is unique as well, and does have different abilities. Perhaps the "Doubting Thomas" read 1984 too many times. I'm sure that merlot has a hint of oak in it. I'm just saying i can't taste it myself. In any case, the dude's a lost cause.

Ugggghhhh...ANYWAY. I am convinced i should use the calibration system. Like i mentioned before, i thought because i used Omnisats, instead of direct-radiating speakers that it wouldn't make a difference, because sound was eminating in many directions. But then, the sub was mentioned. But hey, hat's why i asked about it...because i didn't know for sure.

In the next few days, i'm going to have to find a minute to calibrate my receiver, and see what kind of result i get. I've read things in this forum of people saying they had to change a bunch of the settings that their calibration system gave them, so there was that fear, too. But whatever. If i don't like it, i can switch it back.

I guess i'm still kind of unclear in the differences in the HK sound and the Marantz. I guess they are both "warm," and i should just pick the better value, with the features i want. I guess that makes the HK354 the answer. I saw HarmanAudio has an ebay store, where they sell refurbs pretty cheap. I think i'll go that route....unless someone has a better receiver match for my Omnisats.

Thanks again, y'all.
comiconline is offline  
post #29 of 104 Old 05-30-2009, 08:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ClarkeBar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tea Party Central
Posts: 3,720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
The 354 should be a winner. Just stay aware of the bugs and tweaks threads and you should be fine. And by all means, run the EZSet/EQ.

Here is the difference in operational approaches between EZSet/EQ and Audyssey:

EZSet/EQ is run either automatically or manually. Auto usually gives results many do not like or wish to change, either in speaker sizes/X-overs or distances, etc. Levels are usually OK but not always. Manual means you set the speaker size/X-overs and then run EZSet/EQ which will be solely based on your chosen settings.

Audyssey runs once on Auto and then makes selections. If you prefer to change them you can do so but you do not get the option of running again in Manual based on your selections, which I find strange. However, while I actually prefer the operational approach of HK, I still prefer the results of Audyssey. As always, YMMV.

Good Luck.

Paul




My life is an open book...wish I could read it and have it make sense.

ClarkeBar is offline  
post #30 of 104 Old 05-30-2009, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
With the EZSet/EQ you can turn off the EQ at any time, rerun the EZSet if you move speakers around or want to change XO settings or sub settings.
From what I've read, some of the refurb 354s come with the lastest firmware upgrade and others do not, meaning you have to download it. Makes no sense if they're refurbs why didn't they do it when it was on the bench?
There is also the newer 3550HD and the yet to be released 7550HD (suppose to be the end of June.)
4DHD is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off