Pioneer Steps Up Elite AVRs - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by pochoboy View Post

could you pm me your findings/thoughts or post here what your take was concerning the as-eq1 w/mcacc vs. the 4311 xt32?

I can't give you a comparison vs 4311 since I've never owned one.
I can give you comments or refer you to posts I made in the AS-EQ1 thread back in Dec-Jan. But right now, I'm got Sat PM HT activities going so it'll have to wait to Sun sometime

Steve
ss9001 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 05:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
pochoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I can't give you a comparison vs 4311 since I've never owned one.
I can give you comments or refer you to posts I made in the AS-EQ1 thread back in Dec-Jan. But right now, I'm got Sat PM HT activities going so it'll have to wait to Sun sometime

No problem, I'll go head on over there and check out that thread
pochoboy is offline  
post #123 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 06:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Lotus00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomous View Post

Facts are facts..i have had my share of faulty onkyo equipment and so has many others on this forum. I'll be more than happy to join a hate onkyo fanboi club any time based on my own owners experience, which is hardly positive.

I hear you but the onkyos sell like hot cakes and here's some inside info. The 609 for example was considered the most reliable and popular mid range receiver when I spoke to different installers. The customers loved it and the installers loved it because it gave them the fewest problems, worked well, and for the price provided a lot of features.
Lotus00 is offline  
post #124 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 07:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Venomous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Huntington Beach/San Diego CA
Posts: 1,198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus00 View Post

I hear you but the onkyos sell like hot cakes and here's some inside info. The 609 for example was considered the most reliable and popular mid range receiver when I spoke to different installers. The customers loved it and the installers loved it because it gave them the fewest problems, worked well, and for the price provided a lot of features.

Lol ok
Venomous is offline  
post #125 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 08:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Lotus00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomous View Post

Lol ok

laugh all u want but thats real world example from business people who want to install reliable equipment and need their customers to be happy
Lotus00 is offline  
post #126 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 08:55 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcrpro3 View Post

He did state facts;
(1)"i have had my share of faulty onkyo equipment"-He's owned then and had more than enough problems...(I had nothing but grief from a TX-NR905 and a TX-NR1007....)

(2)"so has(have) many others on this forum" (Have you ever looked at this thread?? 129,00+ posts.... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ighlight=onkyo Check your 'facts' before you say somebody else's 'facts' ain't 'facts'..........

This is his statement of "fact":

"Onkyos have THEE worst quality control and reliability"


If we use what you are claiming are his "facts", then ALL vendors have THEE worst quality control and reliability. This is obviously just a personal opinion he is pretending to be a fact and will remain that way until he actually provides real supporting data to back up the claim. He made a declarative statement and claims it is a fact. I simply want him to either amend his statement and claim it is simply his opinion, or to actually post supporting facts.

Nothing more than anyone is be expected to do when they say such a thing and claim it is a fact.
cybrsage is offline  
post #127 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 08:59 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venomous View Post

I guess you can't read... I've owned plenty of onkyos.. You know what they all have in common today when comparing them over the last 10 years? They still all look alike and stop working. Amazing, isn't it?

This is your facts?
cybrsage is offline  
post #128 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 09:05 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Sorry folks, did not mean to sully the Pioneer thread by beating on a poor fanboi. I will not continue it so as to not futher sully the thread.
cybrsage is offline  
post #129 of 263 Old 05-05-2012, 09:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
pochoboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post

I can't give you a comparison vs 4311 since I've never owned one.
I can give you comments or refer you to posts I made in the AS-EQ1 thread back in Dec-Jan. But right now, I'm got Sat PM HT activities going so it'll have to wait to Sun sometime

I found you postings. Thanks! Have a Great Movie Nite tonite!
pochoboy is offline  
post #130 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,885
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus00 View Post

I hear you but the onkyos sell like hot cakes and here's some inside info. The 609 for example was considered the most reliable and popular mid range receiver when I spoke to different installers. The customers loved it and the installers loved it because it gave them the fewest problems, worked well, and for the price provided a lot of features.

I find it hard to believe custom installers are putting in a lot of 609's. Most people who have the money for a custom install will typically install a much more expensive receiver than a 609. Also, any custom installer recommending a 609 probably doesn't know a whole lot about audio. Do the custom installers you reference work for the geek squad?

Onkyo addressed many of their problems in the 09 series. Their real lemons were in the 05-08 series.
KidHorn is online now  
post #131 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 05:41 AM
Member
 
dscottj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently completed ripping my small (~ 300) but ancient (I still have the first CD I ever bought, in 1984) CD collection to FLAC and have started using the HMG feature of my 57 extensively. From what my research is showing, the -57 and -68 appear to use the same DSP, which means (presumably) they use the same SDK. I would just like to put out there that while I understand MCACC is a thorny and complex issue, it'd be nice to see Pioneer updating HMG for receivers which support firmware updating. I'm surprised how much I find myself wishing for a "pause" button.

If nothing else, anyone know if the -68 supports pause in HMG?
dscottj is online now  
post #132 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 05:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscottj View Post

I recently completed ripping my small (~ 300) but ancient (I still have the first CD I ever bought, in 1984) CD collection to FLAC and have started using the HMG feature of my 57 extensively. From what my research is showing, the -57 and -68 appear to use the same DSP, which means (presumably) they use the same SDK. I would just like to put out there that while I understand MCACC is a thorny and complex issue, it'd be nice to see Pioneer updating HMG for receivers which support firmware updating. I'm surprised how much I find myself wishing for a "pause" button.

If nothing else, anyone know if the -68 supports pause in HMG?

don't know the answer to your question, but i am truly impressed by the bolded part... i don't think i have anything i had in 1984, let alone a cd...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ccotenj is offline  
post #133 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 06:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by pochoboy View Post

I found you postings. Thanks! Have a Great Movie Nite tonite!

Glad you found them

Keep in mind, sometime in my years of owning Pioneer VSX-49Txi & 59Txi, I added a Velodyne sub with their built-in full bass parametric EQ. Those days are years ago so I honestly can't remember the details of comparing just MCACC vs using the EQ'r. I had a DT Supercube sub, MCACC and was looking for improvements. Found a friendly local dealer who gave me a big discount on a very expensive Velodyne DD18 sub I specifically chose the Velo because of its EQ capabilities. So I became a believer in bass equalization early on after doing my homework on the alternatives for doing bass EQ.

The Velodyne system is still very advanced and considered one of the 2 or 3 best approaches, along with Audyssey. The Audyssey EQ1 system was considered a more advanced way to do bass EQ than the parametric EQ'r approach since it has 512 filters and does not just amplitude based response but also time based, accounting for ringing effects from decay times.

So, my posted comparisons were between the Audyssey system and what I was able to ever achieve with the Velodyne system, not MCACC by itself.

I can say there are benefits of doing some form of sub EQ, and while each system has its strengths and its weaknesses, they all are better than nothing

I fully believe that everyone can benefit some form of bass/subwoofer EQ.; it would be rare to find a room that couldn't because there will always be peaks, valleys, and bass suckouts (nulls) in the response. Some are more audible in specific room setups than others, so ymmv.

The benefits usually are tighter bass, more clarity in notes accompanying the bass (due to reducing ringing from long decay times). But, I freely admit these may be subtle in some rooms and if you are just background listening, not readily apparent or important to you. But IF you are a serious, focused listener, they become more an issue, especially when you make an improvement and a thin veil is lifted

Comparing the AS-EQ1 to the Velo parametric was a subtle difference, because I had already had bass EQ and the response wasn't bad to begin with. It just became better using Audyssey.

In my posts, there are pics of the response with the Velodyne and with the AS-EQ1, the flattest being the AS-EQ1 coupled with MCACC Phase Control. These are smoothed taken from the OSD of the Velodyne GUI interface.

Steve
ss9001 is online now  
post #134 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 06:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
purdyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscottj View Post

I recently completed ripping my small (~ 300) but ancient (I still have the first CD I ever bought, in 1984) CD collection to FLAC and have started using the HMG feature of my 57 extensively. From what my research is showing, the -57 and -68 appear to use the same DSP, which means (presumably) they use the same SDK. I would just like to put out there that while I understand MCACC is a thorny and complex issue, it'd be nice to see Pioneer updating HMG for receivers which support firmware updating. I'm surprised how much I find myself wishing for a "pause" button.

If nothing else, anyone know if the -68 supports pause in HMG?

A very "timely" post

My first cd is from 86 and, all my CDs are also on a hard disk in flac. I haven't bought a physical cd in years

It is disappointing that pioneer doesn't have a rear USB connector, support NTFS, or flac from USB. Because what would make sense is connecting a hard disk to the receiver with all your music

Of course home media gallery is so primitive, and slow, it might not be worth it anyway and no one makes a big deal about it but the graphics from the receiver appear to be DVD resolution 4:3 aspect in a blu ray display world

Fortunately, dlna comes to the rescue, which is the only way to play flac. Because pioneer supports a dlna remote control programs which can act as an intermediary between the receiver (renderer) and the dlna server.

For example on my iPad I use a program called mediaconnect which also doesn't pause

So yes, I agree, home media gallery should be improved and that is a feature that should be pushed to older receivers. In fact I believe it was updatable in theory anyway on previous years receivers, even those that didnt support upgrade of the base firmware
LL
purdyd is offline  
post #135 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 07:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
purdyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post


I have to agree with you. it wouldn't be on my list of items to be upset about - I look at core functionality, handling new formats, connectivity, things that impact sound quality (bass mgmt & room EQ software), compatibility with what the company is putting in players (PQLS - 1 of the issues for SC-09 owners) but those are & have been my hot buttons & are not someone else's.

IMO, one always can get a universal remote & be set for 10+ years, no matter what gear you own as long as the mfg stays in business & maintains its code base. Even if they go belly up, you still can control your present gear...it suddenly didn't stop working same is tru for icontrol...the one for your model suddenly didn't go away.

maybe I'm missing something...(not the 1st time)

obviously, different people have different needs that are important to them. my view is that i-apps may be convenient but they aren't core. they are "nice-to-haves"

Well since pioneer does NOT have an onscreen GUI, the icontrolav app is the best game in town

IF pioneer had implemented the full capability of the remote in incontrolav2, I would have less of an issue, but it does not

I might point out there is no manual for icontrolav2, so figuring out what it can rally do requires a receiver, although there is a demo mode for the software

Also, manufacturers of devices have this habit of updating operating systems and resolutions, for example apple seems to have increased the screen resolution on the iPad

I suppose the answer is to write my own program, certainly something I could do, but I would rather not

And to me it is a symptom of a greater issue, elite receivers should not lose software/firmware support after 8 months
purdyd is offline  
post #136 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 07:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
purdyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ss9001 View Post


Junking the faux surround reverb modes would not only free up DSP for something useful, it would eliminate confusion, needless complexity and preserve the sound quality we pay so dearly to achieve.

.

Absolutely!

Would trade all of those reverb modes, virtual depth height,, dialog enhancement, dimension, panorama, etc.

For better bass management

Specifically

Specify where bass goes from small speakers (large vs sub)
Multiple crossovers
Sub equalization
purdyd is offline  
post #137 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 08:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
winston9332's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Genuinely excited that pioneer has finally brought an osd into the fray albeit only on their higher end units.

Chris, any pics or ideas of what it will look like?
winston9332 is offline  
post #138 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 08:29 AM
Senior Member
 
gene c353's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S.F Bay Area
Posts: 494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
While I don't have the absolute disdain for these dsp modes as most others I rarely, if ever use them anyway. DTS Cinema works best for me and only then for the occasional stereo tv program. Pioneer did offer Advanced Music on the 1014 that I thought was pretty good.

I think Harman kardon is the only consumer brand that didn't jump in to the dsp thing head first. They've only offered a Vitual Surround and two completely useless Hall modes. Horrible. And why would anyone want their room to sound like a community or union hall?

As for Pioneer, the three things I'd like to see in their receivers are quad bass management, sub eq and on-screen display of volume, surround modes and level changes etc. I don't really need the first two but they should have included them by now. As for the third one, my receiver is too far away to clearly see the display. Plusm my eyes aren't what they used to be.

I do like the 6 MCACC presets (which include speaker trim levels) and the Data Copy feature, Dialog enchancement and the over-all ease of use (even with all the adjustments that Pioneer receivers offer). I'm not crazy about the new look of the Elite line. I prefer the last generation a bit better. After all, you do have to look at these things once in a while so they might as well be attractive. Denon looks pretty nice too. Yamaha and H/K are so-so, Onkyo not so much. But the new is still a huge improvement over the previous ones.

And ease up on Walkamo. At least he's willing to post here once in a while. And remember, Pioneer is a huge company with many layers of management that have to approve every dime spent. And that's the bottom line. One employee posting on some silly internet site isn't going to change that.
gene c353 is offline  
post #139 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 08:46 AM
Member
 
dscottj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I actually did some research on the DSP in the 57 (and presumably the 68). There's only one dual core DSP aimed at this market listed on Ti's website, so I went with that one. If my reading is correct, it's an embedded java platform, with a custom development suite a developer can use to "add value." It actually seemed pretty nice, probably based on Eclipse (most seem to be).

My working theory is the reason these Pioneer receivers (and, indeed, any piece of electronics that uses this DSP) do not support NTFS is because the DSP doesn't. Ditto for why there's no wireless ethernet support just yet. It would also go some way toward explaining why HMG is so pokey... IMO & IME, Java is just slow, that's the way it is.

My thinking is the lack of Sub EQ may be a consequence of politics (if Pioneer and AiR studios doesn't think it's important, it's not important) and perhaps a quirk of the way MCACC is engineered. My own research makes me think they actually have been updating it, with the last major upgrade happening with the introduction of the receiver which replaced my 72Txi (92Txi?) and the last "point" release happening with the SC37, when they added precision distance.

Of course, this is all rank speculation. I repeat: RANK SPECULATION. Reasonable people can and do disagree about this stuff. I genuinely enjoy my 57, and since I've never heard anything with sub EQ and likely won't for quite some time, I obviously can't miss it. All I know is the 57 represents a profound improvement over my 72TXi. Which is only to be expected, jumping seven years ahead in technology. I really like it, and that's all that matters to me.

Enjoy yours!

And now for the Comic Book Guy stuff: I still have the first four CDs I ever bought, all (as I recall) in the summer of 84... Don Henley's The Perfect Beast, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, A von Karajan 9th Symphony (a recording from a TV broadcast, of all things), and Tears for Fears' Songs from the Big Chair. Although, now that I think about it, it may have been 1985.

The 9th symphony disk, a deutsche grammophon product that I think was actually manufactured in '83, has really impressive rot which made it unplayable on the final movement. When I hold it up to the light, it looks like it got hit by a really small shotgun. It ripped just fine.

I still buy CDs, but now that my migration is complete I'm using them as installation media. I now have 3 disks that likely will never be played through a conventional disk player. I figure that'll only increase as time goes on. I love pop music. Sue me.

I really miss the pause button. I'm hoping something will come along that'll bring it back, but I'm thinking this might be a DLNA thing, which means we have to wait for a new spec. In other words, don't hold your breath and don't blame Pioneer about this one .
dscottj is online now  
post #140 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 09:50 AM
Senior Member
 
johnson636's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 310
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcrpro3 View Post

Is there a possibility, since Air Studios had some input on the features and functionality or MCACC, that it was felt to be an unecessary parameter to adjust from the receiver, but rather with the subs own controls?

If this indeed is the case, then pioneer should no longer consider such inconsiderate input. For high end elite owners to not have the same enhancements that of it's competitor's mid level receivers due to parameters being deemed "unnecessary" is utter neglect. I see why cc and other former elite fanboys would jump ship.
johnson636 is offline  
post #141 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
zoetmb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchoolMETAL View Post

Any chance of getting recording loops back into production as well as a healthy assortment of analog a/v and digital audio connections to keep compatibility with music oriented equipment as well as older A/V equipment???

AGREED!!!!!!

Comments on this and other areas for improvement:
Tape loops: Even though the original purpose of tape loops was to monitor the recording off the playback head on 3-head decks, which virtually no one uses anymore, it does serve other purposes, like making sure the recording deck is actually getting an undistorted signal. And if you don't need them as tape loops they actually also serve as extra inputs. Up until I bought the SC-55, I was still using an Apt-Holman preamp from 1980 that had absolutely terrific functionality, which I miss terribly. In a modern receiver, the tape loops should work in conjunction with zones so that you can send one signal to the recorder, monitor that when you want to, but also listen to something else.

Phono Input: I noticed on the new line that only the SC67 and SC68 have a phono input. It seems to me it should be the opposite: the lower end models should have the phono input because someone buying the higher end models is more likely to buy an external high-quality phono preamp (although I wouldn't take it away from the high-end part of the line). While there are many videophiles who don't care about music, the revival of vinyl (although still less than 2% of the physical audio media market), should, IMO, cause Pioneer to keep phono inputs on all models. Why give someone an excuse not to buy your receiver?

Other Inputs: Why no Coax out?

Legacy Video connections:
- While everyone has their own opinion on what legacy connections are still necessary, does anyone these days really need more than one composite, one s-Video (even though Pioneer has already dropped them completely) and one (maybe two) component?
- The SC-68 has 3 component in and 2 out. Is that necessary when there's also the new HDMI Zone 4?
- In an HD age, does it really make sense to have Zone 2/3 composite video out at all? Who buys a high-end receiver and is okay watching SD analog video?
- What's the point of composite video in/out from/to a DVR or BDR?
- And how come we're not seeing a Thunderbolt input port as yet?

Product Line: IMO, there are three very distinct kinds of users:
- those with large homes, room for 7.x, 9.x or 11.x speakers and multiple rooms to feed signals to.
- those who want high quality, but live in small spaces or apartments and still have some analog or non-HDMI sources
- someone who has only HDMI sources + an MP3 player or iPod or computer.

I'm in the second group and while I want the highest possible audio quality, I'm never going to go beyond 5.1 and I'm never going to wire up the other rooms (wireless zones might make a lot of sense, though).

A user in the third group might want the same high audio quality as the top-of-the-line, but they only need 4 HDMI in (max), 1 out (with ARC), an input for the MP3 and that's it. Strip a receiver model down to the essentials, add the equivalent of an outboard D/A into the receiver and market it as a true digital receiver.

So maybe it's time to have different receivers for those different types of users so you can remove functions that each group will never use and replace those with other improvements that they will use.

EQ:
- I'm an ex-recording engineer and while hearing is believing (and I haven't heard it yet), I really have to wonder whether Sub-EQ really makes much difference, except perhaps to dip out resonant frequencies, however I'll admit that from a marketing perspective, there are tons here who want to see it.
- What I'd really like to see instead is 1/3-octave equalization on the "main" frequencies. I'm assuming that MCACC uses the same frequencies in the auto setup mode that we see when we set the EQ manually, which is nowhere near enough.

UI/Sound Modes:
Needs Improvement:
- I find these modes terribly confusing, especially the relationship between them. These need to be organized in a better way. I can never tell when I engage certain modes whether I've turned off the other mode or whether they're working in conjunction with each other and what that means. Where is it documented what Auto does and what Optimal does?

- And although the new OSD might resolve some of this issue, isn't it time for a top-of-the-line receiver to have a bitmapped color display?

- I realize that you do it for the neophytes who have no idea how to setup the receiver, but having these pre-labeled inputs actually cause more confusion, IMO. I think they should simply be numbered, then you set them up as you like. It's never made sense to me that you treat HDMI differently than the other inputs in that the HDMI input jacks are pre-labeled like the other jacks, but from a switching perspective, you also have HDMI 1-4. Also, in setup, you should select each input from the HDMI, digital coax, digital optical, composite, component and analog audio jacks and if one hooks up multiples for the same input, be able to switch between all of them from the front panel button and the remote. In the SC-55, you can run out of input selection before you run out of input jacks.

- I see you've renamed the jack, so have you fixed the issue where if you used the ARC, you couldn't also use the TV/Sat input? I always thought that should have been switchable from the input function (or automatic - if the TV wasn't feeding an ARC signal back to the receiver and the analog or digital audio input was used, it would pick up that signal.)

WiFi/Bluetooth: I realize you want to market to certain price points, but it's time these were built in.

IMO, if Pioneer would like to "own" this market (which I realize is relatively small), it's time to re-think what a receiver is and we need to see more than these small incremental updates year after year.
zoetmb is offline  
post #142 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ss9001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: metro Atlanta
Posts: 8,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscottj View Post

My own research makes me think they actually have been updating it, with the last major upgrade happening with the introduction of the receiver which replaced my 72Txi (92Txi?) and the last "point" release happening with the SC37, when they added precision distance.

I would agree with your 1st point, IIRC the 80/90 series may be when the additional features of phase control & standing wave filters started showing up. The 59Txi is when reverb compensation was introduced, which predates your 72txi.

On 2nd point - no, the present 1/2" Precision Distance predates the 37 by several years. It's in the SC-09, introduced in late 2007, and was included in the SC-27 model. And there's been a 1" increment version called Fine Speaker Distance from the VSX-94thxh model to the present. I realize this may be splitting hairs, but it's been around for some time

Steve
ss9001 is online now  
post #143 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 11:04 AM
Advanced Member
 
MrMcGoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Spokane WA
Posts: 818
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Many folks do not need an additional subwoofer EQ. Some subs come with an EQ built in. Some of us have a Velodyne SMS-1. A redundant sub EQ in a receiver might add to the price. I'm happy with the new Pioneer SC series receivers as they are.

Bill
MrMcGoo is offline  
post #144 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 11:18 AM
Senior Member
 
moparfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
No need for tape loops here.

Phono for the vast majority of people could be digitized... those that care will have an outboard phono anyway.

Keep a good array of digital ins and having a digital out would be nice.

Legacy connections could all be dropped.

Sub-EQ: it makes a big difference to me (via Antimode). Correction further up the the frequency spectrum is a needed or not depending on who you read/believe.

Sound modes: Sometimes I find these useful when I listen to low quality youtube or bootlegs and it is able to make them sound a little better or more "real" than the poor quality they are in.

I don't need a video scaler either.

Built in wifi would be nice if it has external attennas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

AGREED!!!!!!

Comments on this and other areas for improvement:
Tape loops: Even though the original purpose of tape loops was to monitor the recording off the playback head on 3-head decks, which virtually no one uses anymore, it does serve other purposes, like making sure the recording deck is actually getting an undistorted signal. And if you don't need them as tape loops they actually also serve as extra inputs. Up until I bought the SC-55, I was still using an Apt-Holman preamp from 1980 that had absolutely terrific functionality, which I miss terribly. In a modern receiver, the tape loops should work in conjunction with zones so that you can send one signal to the recorder, monitor that when you want to, but also listen to something else.

Phono Input: I noticed on the new line that only the SC67 and SC68 have a phono input. It seems to me it should be the opposite: the lower end models should have the phono input because someone buying the higher end models is more likely to buy an external high-quality phono preamp (although I wouldn't take it away from the high-end part of the line). While there are many videophiles who don't care about music, the revival of vinyl (although still less than 2% of the physical audio media market), should, IMO, cause Pioneer to keep phono inputs on all models. Why give someone an excuse not to buy your receiver?

Other Inputs: Why no Coax out?

Legacy Video connections:
- While everyone has their own opinion on what legacy connections are still necessary, does anyone these days really need more than one composite, one s-Video (even though Pioneer has already dropped them completely) and one (maybe two) component?
- The SC-68 has 3 component in and 2 out. Is that necessary when there's also the new HDMI Zone 4?
- In an HD age, does it really make sense to have Zone 2/3 composite video out at all? Who buys a high-end receiver and is okay watching SD analog video?
- What's the point of composite video in/out from/to a DVR or BDR?
- And how come we're not seeing a Thunderbolt input port as yet?

Product Line: IMO, there are three very distinct kinds of users:
- those with large homes, room for 7.x, 9.x or 11.x speakers and multiple rooms to feed signals to.
- those who want high quality, but live in small spaces or apartments and still have some analog or non-HDMI sources
- someone who has only HDMI sources + an MP3 player or iPod or computer.

I'm in the second group and while I want the highest possible audio quality, I'm never going to go beyond 5.1 and I'm never going to wire up the other rooms (wireless zones might make a lot of sense, though).

A user in the third group might want the same high audio quality as the top-of-the-line, but they only need 4 HDMI in (max), 1 out (with ARC), an input for the MP3 and that's it. Strip a receiver model down to the essentials, add the equivalent of an outboard D/A into the receiver and market it as a true digital receiver.

So maybe it's time to have different receivers for those different types of users so you can remove functions that each group will never use and replace those with other improvements that they will use.

EQ:
- I'm an ex-recording engineer and while hearing is believing (and I haven't heard it yet), I really have to wonder whether Sub-EQ really makes much difference, except perhaps to dip out resonant frequencies, however I'll admit that from a marketing perspective, there are tons here who want to see it.
- What I'd really like to see instead is 1/3-octave equalization on the "main" frequencies. I'm assuming that MCACC uses the same frequencies in the auto setup mode that we see when we set the EQ manually, which is nowhere near enough.

UI/Sound Modes:
Needs Improvement:
- I find these modes terribly confusing, especially the relationship between them. These need to be organized in a better way. I can never tell when I engage certain modes whether I've turned off the other mode or whether they're working in conjunction with each other and what that means. Where is it documented what Auto does and what Optimal does?

- And although the new OSD might resolve some of this issue, isn't it time for a top-of-the-line receiver to have a bitmapped color display?

- I realize that you do it for the neophytes who have no idea how to setup the receiver, but having these pre-labeled inputs actually cause more confusion, IMO. I think they should simply be numbered, then you set them up as you like. It's never made sense to me that you treat HDMI differently than the other inputs in that the HDMI input jacks are pre-labeled like the other jacks, but from a switching perspective, you also have HDMI 1-4. Also, in setup, you should select each input from the HDMI, digital coax, digital optical, composite, component and analog audio jacks and if one hooks up multiples for the same input, be able to switch between all of them from the front panel button and the remote. In the SC-55, you can run out of input selection before you run out of input jacks.

- I see you've renamed the jack, so have you fixed the issue where if you used the ARC, you couldn't also use the TV/Sat input? I always thought that should have been switchable from the input function (or automatic - if the TV wasn't feeding an ARC signal back to the receiver and the analog or digital audio input was used, it would pick up that signal.)

WiFi/Bluetooth: I realize you want to market to certain price points, but it's time these were built in.

IMO, if Pioneer would like to "own" this market (which I realize is relatively small), it's time to re-think what a receiver is and we need to see more than these small incremental updates year after year.

moparfan is offline  
post #145 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 09:33 PM
Member
 
Enitime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dscottj View Post

I actually did some research on the DSP in the 57 (and presumably the 68). There's only one dual core DSP aimed at this market listed on Ti's website, so I went with that one. If my reading is correct, it's an embedded java platform, with a custom development suite a developer can use to "add value." It actually seemed pretty nice, probably based on Eclipse (most seem to be).

My working theory is the reason these Pioneer receivers (and, indeed, any piece of electronics that uses this DSP) do not support NTFS is because the DSP doesn't. Ditto for why there's no wireless ethernet support just yet. It would also go some way toward explaining why HMG is so pokey... IMO & IME, Java is just slow, that's the way it is.

This is the DSP ic in the SC-57: TMS320DA810 - which does not appear to be dual core, so I think you were looking at the wrong one. That's a straight DSP chip, not a SoC, so I'm not sure the USB feature is run straight through to that IC. But I think your point stands, NTFS is not supported because one of the third party ICs only supports FAT.

Wifi support could be similar, but I think more likely it's because having built in wifi is a tech support nightmare. An included dongle would have the same box ticked on the feature list. Bluetooth should be built-in, it is phenomenally convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dscottj View Post

My thinking is the lack of Sub EQ may be a consequence of politics (if Pioneer and AiR studios doesn't think it's important, it's not important) and perhaps a quirk of the way MCACC is engineered. My own research makes me think they actually have been updating it, with the last major upgrade happening with the introduction of the receiver which replaced my 72Txi (92Txi?) and the last "point" release happening with the SC37, when they added precision distance.

Of course, this is all rank speculation. I repeat: RANK SPECULATION.

That's the most interesting kind of speculation.

I read somewhere they made a design choice in regards to multiple sweetspots like Audyssey's MultEQ - They just decided that calculating for multiple sweet spots just leaves you with a bunch of mediocre spots instead and therefore they didn't add it. So it does happen like that sometimes.I don't see how that would apply to low frequency manipulation though. Also for multiple sweet spots it was publically stated outright why it was missing but I haven't heard any comment on sub equalisation.

It is a feature that should be implemented, in my opinion, if for no other reason than match a selling point for the competition. Low frequencies would be more difficult to adjust than high but it's clearly not an insurmountable issue if Audyssey can do it. Processing power shouldn't be an issue. They might need a better microphone, but that seems trivial.

Unless they can only do MCACC on amplified channels with no effect on pre-outs (like the LFE). Does anyone know if the pre-outs are affected by MCACC? They would have to be, right?

Is Audyssey the only one who does it, or do oher companies have sub equalisation as well? If no one else does maybe it's as annoyingly simple as being covered by some patent. Who's good at searching the patent office database?

It's definitely something you Elite customers should try to get Walkamo to ask the Japanese.
Enitime is offline  
post #146 of 263 Old 05-06-2012, 10:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Lotus00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I find it hard to believe custom installers are putting in a lot of 609's. Most people who have the money for a custom install will typically install a much more expensive receiver than a 609. Also, any custom installer recommending a 609 probably doesn't know a whole lot about audio. Do the custom installers you reference work for the geek squad?

Onkyo addressed many of their problems in the 09 series. Their real lemons were in the 05-08 series.

They were putting in a lot of 609's because they gave you a lot of features for the price and were very reliable. A lot of money doesnt mean they have a lot of need or desire to have a 2000 dollar receiver. They just want it to function and not give them any problems. This is why the 609 etc was a popular install and I assume the 718 and 818 will take its place now. The installer will recommend what the person needs with a big focus on reliability because they want and need the customer to be happy.

The Onkyo 609 was a big hit with many sales becasue it gave a lot of features for the price...and was VERY RELIABLE. Which is the main point. If onkyo had problems previously the 609 addressed that and was a huge hit.
Lotus00 is offline  
post #147 of 263 Old 05-07-2012, 04:09 AM
Member
 
dscottj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@Enitime: I saw "TI Aureus™ x 2" in the spec and guessed (wrong, I suppose) that this meant dual-core. So, it has 2 of them instead? Regardless, if the DSP is the same in the 57 & 68, it would **seem** to be easier to upgrade the HMG for both.

Where'd you find that, anyway? I couldn't find a specific reference. Not doubting, just wanting to find all the sources I can
dscottj is online now  
post #148 of 263 Old 05-07-2012, 06:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
purdyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enitime View Post

This is the DSP ic in the SC-57: TMS320DA810 - which does not appear to be dual core, so I think you were looking at the wrong one. That's a straight DSP chip, not a SoC, so I'm not sure the USB feature is run straight through to that IC. But I think your point stands, NTFS is not supported because one of the third party ICs only supports FAT.
.

Fat or NTFS are functions of software. Chris already mentioned last year that pioneer uses their own operating system and it did not support NTFS

I am guessing there is a general purpose chip handling USB, Ethernet, GUI etc

Why is hmg slow, at viewing file names, don't have a clue?

Of course the solution for ntfs is to develop software that does or buy someones implementation or use open source code and modify it

NTFS is also I believe not an open standard and requires licensing from microsoft

With the full octave equalizer tap system, sub eq probably would not mean much, but if you crossover was at 80 Hz you would at least have two

I think multiple crossovers would be relatively easy to implement as the processing for each channel at a single point is already being done

Giving the option of sending low frequency to the large front vice sub would also be trivial to implement

Sub equalization would I think require more taps, and a better or at least calibrated microphone so would consider that would require more work

It would be interesting to see what could be done if pioneer would make old receivers software, open source.

In the end through, it appears that pioneer is intent on cleaning the slate each year to sell more receivers.

Understandable, but hard to stomach when you spend $1500 for an item.

My suggestion would be pioneer should support elite receivers firmware and supporting software for at least three years. In the end it might help them sell more and maintain higher margins for their dealers and not have such a huge fire sale on their products every year when the new models hit the street

It doesn't matter why; poor engineering or short sighted sales and marketing , the result is the same

The model they have today, as evidenced by icontrolav software and no updates to core avr software in their top of the line avrs, is a reason to look harder at other companies
purdyd is offline  
post #149 of 263 Old 05-07-2012, 12:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ross Ridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,550
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by purdyd View Post

Of course the solution for ntfs is to develop software that does or buy someones implementation or use open source code and modify it

NTFS is also I believe not an open standard and requires licensing from microsoft

Yah, while NTFS has been reversed engineered and there are open source implementations with varying levels of completeness, Microsoft has never publically documented how it works exactly. It's not entirely clear that commercial product can use NTFS without Microsoft's permission, and I don't think Microsoft is willing to licence NTFS except by licencing Windows in its entirety.

In other words, the only way you're likely to ever see an AV receiver supporting NTFS is if it uses Windows as its operating system.

Windows will licence exFAT, which solves the basic problems with FAT, and is intended to be used with flash drives and memory cards. So far though I don't think any AV receiver supports it.

Finally FAT works well enough for use with an AV receiver anyways. The software built in to Windows will refuse to format a FAT disk bigger than 30GB but the file system itself can support drives up to 2TB. You just need to use other software to format the disk, and it'll work fine with both Windows and your AV receiver. FAT doesn't support files bigger than 4G, but since AV receivers only support audio files, that shouldn't be a problem.

It would be nice if AV receviers had Type-A USB connectors on back and front though. There's no technical reason, in hardware or software, that they couldn't.
Ross Ridge is offline  
post #150 of 263 Old 05-07-2012, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mjpearce023's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 2,489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus00 View Post

I hear you but the onkyos sell like hot cakes and here's some inside info. The 609 for example was considered the most reliable and popular mid range receiver when I spoke to different installers. The customers loved it and the installers loved it because it gave them the fewest problems, worked well, and for the price provided a lot of features.

I think it's still too early to tell if the 09 series was really a big improvement. I mean it's easy to do better than the 06 thru 08 series but I still don't think Onkyo would be considered more reliable than some of the other CEMs. There was already a recall in March on some of the 09 series. http://www.us.onkyo.com/press_releases.cfm?id=253
Also I've heard quite a few people are having issues with the 616. I'm not knocking Onkyo and I'm considering the 818 myself but I still think their track record for dependability is very questionable.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mjpearce023 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