Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
Receivers, Amps, and Processors > Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 05:53 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What is the 'better job' that it does?

Some receivers do a better job at allowing more than one thing to be done post processing. My last Pioneer allowed me to use Automatic Leveling Control OR PLIIx at the same time...not both. My new one allows me to use Neo:X, Audyssey room correction, AND auto leveling control at the same time. This allows the receiver to do a better job at making me happy since it sounds better.

 

Oh - I must have misunderstood you. Above you're saying DSPs etc make a difference to the sound. Yes I agree.

 

But before you said it was better tolerances and better components such as resistors.

 

"The tighter tolerance does a better job, and cost more. Not all the internal components in a piece of audio equipment, or anything else for that matter, are created equal. Better stuff cost more. It does a better job. You pay for that. You also reap the rewards for that."



kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 05:58 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

RE resistor cost/quality/peformance:

It is a well-known fact (to engineers) that resistors all create thermal noise; that is, they cause irregularities in the current through them, as opposed to a perfectly constant invariable flow.

This is a significant cause of the noise levels in amplifier circuits.

Manufacturers of high quality oscilloscopes and preamplifiers specify the highest grade of low-noise resistors to lower circuit noise levels. These are quite expensive compared to cheaper "noisier" ones used in mass-market equipment (100 times or so).

High-quality pro-audio and other expensive gear use the more expensive resistors to improve noise levels and this is a big cost factor. The same is true of capacitors and transistors etc.

That is one reason why you pay several thousand dollars for an Audio Research or Bryston product (just 2 examples of many), and only a few hundred dollars for typical mass-market products.

Excellent performance only comes when the best components are used, and the highest design standards are adhered to.

Most people never get a chance to drive a Ferrari on a racetrack, or hear an audio system made up of truly high-performance components in an appropriate setting. That makes it difficult to communicate regarding the differences in quality and performance. If you haven't been there, it's hard to believe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

What is the 'better job' that it does?

 

The point is not that some resistors have different specs or qualities compared to other resistors. The point is, do the differences between the resistors cause audible differences in the sound?  If cheap resistor A delivers no audible distortion, then expensive resistor B cannot improve on that.

 

Edit: BTW, I "have been there". Both with 'audiofool' gear and the Ferrari, although my current cars are a 911 Porsche and an AMG Mercedes. Patronising those you reply to doesn't help your cause, especially when you know nothing about the people you are replying to. Just sayin'.


Theresa's Avatar Theresa 06:02 AM 12-27-2012
I significantly edited my post above.
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 06:03 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The point is not that some resistors have different specs or qualities compared to other resistors. The point is, do the differences between the resistors cause audible differences in the sound?  If cheap resistor A delivers no audible distortion, then expensive resistor B cannot improve on that.

Edit: BTW, I "have been there". Both with 'audiofool' gear and the Ferrari, although my current cars are a 911 Porsche and an AMG Mercedes. Patronising those you reply to doesn't help your cause, especially when you know nothing about the people you are replying to. Just sayin'.

Nice cars.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 06:08 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The point is not that some resistors have different specs or qualities compared to other resistors. The point is, do the differences between the resistors cause audible differences in the sound?  If cheap resistor A delivers no audible distortion, then expensive resistor B cannot improve on that.

Edit: BTW, I "have been there". Both with 'audiofool' gear and the Ferrari, although my current cars are a 911 Porsche and an AMG Mercedes. Patronising those you reply to doesn't help your cause, especially when you know nothing about the people you are replying to. Just sayin'.

Nice cars.

 

Thanks. I have always been a car nut and have been fortunate to be able to own many very special cars over the years including several 911s (my all-time favourite) a Ferrari, several Jaguars, a Lotus Esprit Turbo, two or three Mercedes, a couple of Alfas and so on. Car analogies seem to be the 'last resort of choice' on AVS among those who are floundering in their attempted explanations of audio or acoustic science. They rarely add anything useful to the debate IMO. I was reluctant to mention the cars I currenty own, as it can seem like bragging, but the patronising remark pretty much forced me into it.


arnyk's Avatar arnyk 06:14 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post

Ask ANY audio circuit engineer and he will back me up 100%.

I know several including at least one AES Fellow, and he'd say that you were talking trash.

I know what's in his best home audio system, and none of it except the sound quality could be called "high end".

I see a lot of misinformation about parts quality being posted here like it is fact. Some of it seems firmly rooted in the technology of the 1950s and 1960s.

Here is the point - once parts quality is appropriate for the application, we're deep into diminishing returns and further improvements in parts quality makes no difference.

People have been apparently claiming that tolerance is the single quality indicator of resistors, while that is absolutely not true. High tolerance means nothing in many parts applications. In other applications it is highly important. In most circuits only a tiny percentage of the parts need to have high tolerances.

In modern times the standard penny or less resistor is made using a process called deposited carbon. Go to Radio Shack and buy a small resistor such as most in most audio gear and it will be a deposited carbon resistor. In the 1950s and 1960s deposited carbon resistors were premium parts and commanded high prices. They come standard as 5% parts but if you measure up a random selection of them, they are generally far more precise than that. Today, 5% carbon film resistors are jelly bean parts - sold in high volumes for generic usage. The point is that a rising tide raises all ships in the harbor. If the generic part is very, very good, then in most applications there is no need for a premium part any more.

For example the following is the schematic of the highly regarded NAD 372 integrated amplifier's output stage:



There are only 3 resistors in this device that would ever need to be precision resistors. 5% parts will do for all the rest, and that is what is probably in the real-world NAD amplifier. These 3 resistors set the over-all performance of the entire amplifier. Do you know which they are?

They are R317, R319, and R322.

Do you know why?
Quote:
Call Audio Research in Minnesota tomorrow and ask to talk one of their tech people and ask them why they use such expensive resistors in their circuits.

I see no evidence that ARC uses "such expensive resistors".

What we have here is an example of an argument based on just the say-so of the person making the argument. Interesting how a person who is apparently afraid of posting under his true name should be a world-class authority that we should (in his humble opinion) bow to at ever turn.
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 06:23 AM 12-27-2012
I had a surgeon who had a 911, at the time less than a year old. The Porsche 911 is one of the prettiest cars AFAIC. I drive a ten year old vehicle and it's good enough for the little driving I do. It didn't strike me as bragging, just an appropriate response.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 06:46 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

I had a surgeon who had a 911, at the time less than a year old. The Porsche 911 is one of the prettiest cars AFAIC. I drive a ten year old vehicle and it's good enough for the little driving I do. It didn't strike me as bragging, just an appropriate response.

 

Thanks Theresa. 


cybrsage's Avatar cybrsage 07:10 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Oh - I must have misunderstood you. Above you're saying DSPs etc make a difference to the sound. Yes I agree.

But before you said it was better tolerances and better components such as resistors.

"The tighter tolerance does a better job, and cost more. Not all the internal components in a piece of audio equipment, or anything else for that matter, are created equal. Better stuff cost more. 
It does a better job
. You pay for that. You also reap the rewards for that."

I think I confused you. You are correct in your response to the person you responded to, I was just giving my 2 cents on the topic as a whole.
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 07:30 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Oh - I must have misunderstood you. Above you're saying DSPs etc make a difference to the sound. Yes I agree.

But before you said it was better tolerances and better components such as resistors.

"The tighter tolerance does a better job, and cost more. Not all the internal components in a piece of audio equipment, or anything else for that matter, are created equal. Better stuff cost more. 
It does a better job
. You pay for that. You also reap the rewards for that."

I think I confused you. You are correct in your response to the person you responded to, I was just giving my 2 cents on the topic as a whole.

 

Ah right. OK, sorry. I agree of course that DSPs, Audyssey etc will make a difference to the sound. (They'd be kinda pointless if they didn't!). For this reason, receivers can sund different to each other - but not amps (usual caveats apply).


rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne 09:17 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsaville View Post

You're making the (faulty) assumption that I had a preconceived notion of how the Yamaha would perform.

Well that's good to know, but my statements were general ones and not specific to you or anyone else.
rnrgagne's Avatar rnrgagne 09:49 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Ah right. OK, sorry. I agree of course that DSPs, Audyssey etc will make a difference to the sound. (They'd be kinda pointless if they didn't!). For this reason, receivers can sund different to each other - but not amps (usual caveats apply).

I think there was a period with early HDMI implementation where price point or brand might have made more of a difference in sound quality, but once that stabilized and even low end receivers had to have the ability to unpack and clock the hi-rez codecs, the playing field levelled off.
Perry R's Avatar Perry R 09:51 AM 12-27-2012
So.....a question.....if electronics make no difference in avr, pre, amps etc...
Then the same goes for cross over parts in speakers?
Just wondering.....
tsaville's Avatar tsaville 09:58 AM 12-27-2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Ah right. OK, sorry. I agree of course that DSPs, Audyssey etc will make a difference to the sound. (They'd be kinda pointless if they didn't!). For this reason, receivers can sund different to each other - but not amps (usual caveats apply).

Perhaps I didn't express myself well previously, but I agree with Keith on this. Aside from the parts quality tangent, I think we're all pretty much on the same page (possibly without realizing it). smile.gif
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 10:03 AM 12-27-2012
Personally, I didn't use passive crossovers in my L/C/R speakers, they are all actively driven with miniDSPs for crossovers. Passive crossover parts don't need to be hyper expensive, such as $100 capacitors. I wouldn't use electrolytic caps or cheap iron core inductors, good iron cores are probably ok, but the super expensive parts are a waste of money.
ZOOM ZOOM's Avatar ZOOM ZOOM 10:44 AM 01-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I know several including at least one AES Fellow, and he'd say that you were talking trash.
I know what's in his best home audio system, and none of it except the sound quality could be called "high end".
I see a lot of misinformation about parts quality being posted here like it is fact. Some of it seems firmly rooted in the technology of the 1950s and 1960s.
Here is the point - once parts quality is appropriate for the application, we're deep into diminishing returns and further improvements in parts quality makes no difference.
People have been apparently claiming that tolerance is the single quality indicator of resistors, while that is absolutely not true. High tolerance means nothing in many parts applications. In other applications it is highly important. In most circuits only a tiny percentage of the parts need to have high tolerances.
In modern times the standard penny or less resistor is made using a process called deposited carbon. Go to Radio Shack and buy a small resistor such as most in most audio gear and it will be a deposited carbon resistor. In the 1950s and 1960s deposited carbon resistors were premium parts and commanded high prices. They come standard as 5% parts but if you measure up a random selection of them, they are generally far more precise than that. Today, 5% carbon film resistors are jelly bean parts - sold in high volumes for generic usage. The point is that a rising tide raises all ships in the harbor. If the generic part is very, very good, then in most applications there is no need for a premium part any more.
For example the following is the schematic of the highly regarded NAD 372 integrated amplifier's output stage:

There are only 3 resistors in this device that would ever need to be precision resistors. 5% parts will do for all the rest, and that is what is probably in the real-world NAD amplifier. These 3 resistors set the over-all performance of the entire amplifier. Do you know which they are?
They are R317, R319, and R322.
Do you know why?
I see no evidence that ARC uses "such expensive resistors".
What we have here is an example of an argument based on just the say-so of the person making the argument. Interesting how a person who is apparently afraid of posting under his true name should be a world-class authority that we should (in his humble opinion) bow to at ever turn.
In the Mid 70’s I took a communication electronics class through Kirkwood community collage. We were taught how to design and build simple amplifiers along with other items to prepare for a carrer in electronic repare. I ended up taking another career path, but as I have been reading through this thread (all 105 posts) the conversations of Resistors and there tolerances, took me back to some fond memories of looking over schematics, and such.

As for your question. I can tell that the line input is at the CZ301 and I assume it comes out to the speakers at the IC301A, top left of diagram. As for the three resistors that you mentioned I can not tell what the the purpose of them might be. The NB is not helping maters much,rolleyes.gif does it go out to a circuit protection stage of the amp? The capacitors I will assume are going to hold and store energy. This would be the reason for the schematic to specify ¼ and 1/2watt ratings.

One thing I do remember from class is that keeping electronics cool is especially important. If an amp is alowed to over heat, the resistors can leak excessive power to the transistors causing a change in performance, along with possible permanent damage to the circuit board. My first amp was a superscope, I had my first job for only a short period of time when I bought It so I couldn’t afford much, and it was inexspensive. It lasted about a year before I fried a resistor buy driving it hard for long periods of time. Next I spent quiet a bit more money and got a used Marantz 1070. By 1977 I had two Marantz amps that were produced between 71 & 75. These amps have been driven equally hard as I like my rock and roll!!biggrin.gif Through the years these amps have been used daily with the occasional use of CRC2-26 to keep the mechanicals working smooth. other than that I have never had a problem with these amps. I still have both amps in use today, some 40 years later. The 1070 is a pre amp for my emotive XPA3 and the M-2238 is used for my surrounds when watching a DVD.
I would agree with others that with price you don’t get better sound from a power amp. But I do believe that you will get a better built, and longer lasting product that is more capable of driving the best of speakers on the market.
Ricsim78's Avatar Ricsim78 09:53 PM 02-05-2013
These threads always crack me up.

I am fortunate enough to have had the same room with different receivers and I can tell you there is no way possible all receivers sound the same. I have had the same speakers, same settings, no room correction. I also did a comparison: My friends brough over a Denon 3312, an Onkyo 818, and a $2000 Yamaha Aventage. We hooked them up, did not apply room correction, and set the sub at max crossover, the speakers at 80 Hz crossover (since with Yamaha and Pioneer you cannot set individual crossover settings, and set the speaker distances. We played the same music and a movie on them. There was 5 people, not only did we all agree and pick a favorite (my Pioneer Elite SC-65) for sound quality, we noticed they all had different sound signatures. The Denon laid back and smooth, the Pioneer Dynamic, more forward, slightly warm. The Yamaha the most natural and most "peaky", and the Onkyo was the most dynamic with movies, a little bright and clinical. Same speakers, same room, level matched (75 DB/speaker). They all had different subwoofer sound signatures as well. If they all sounded the same, we would not pick a favorite and we all agreed on the sound signatures.

I have owned many different receivers over the years from the "big 4" and I noticed a difference in sound.

Anyone who knows anything about audio knows that each receiver even has a different DAC. That alone will make the sound have a signature that is unique compared to

If all receivers sound the same, do me a favor: Buy a used, low-end Yamaha receiver from 2-3 years ago and try it with some Klipsch (or other bright speakers) and tell me your ears do not bleed from the amount of brightness. Now hook up a 2-3 year old low-end Denon and "level match it" and see if the Denon sounds as bright as the Yamaha.

If all receivers sound the same, why do we not all buy $200 HTIB receivers and call it a day? I bet that $100 Samsung receiver will sound the same as my $1000 Pioneer receiver!

USB DACS, amp paths, internal settings, different capacitors, and 1000s of other component differences dictate that NO receiver could sound the same. If so I will trade you my 7 year old TEAC for your $1500 Denon 4311...they sound the same! Any takers?

Anyone who says otherwise has poor ears or is just guessing. BTW my Pioneer SC-65 sounds nothing like my Pioneer VSX-516.
pokekevin's Avatar pokekevin 11:34 PM 02-05-2013
Are you necroing every receiver sounds the same thread? lol

Anyways, I've had in the last 2 years a Denon 391, 1611, Onkyo 818, and finally a Denon 4311. Sadly never really A/Bed them because I was too eager to run Audyssey and get things rolling. I did notice a difference between the 391 and the 1611 due to Audyssey biggrin.gif. Between the 818 and the 4311, running 1 spot for Audyssey, Eh couldn't really discern a difference on movie scenes I watch a lot.
Ricsim78's Avatar Ricsim78 12:10 AM 02-06-2013
They take the thread away and I bring them back :P But yes I just think it's not possible in my experience or just even thinking about the component differences. There are chances they can sound similar but I bet with good speakers and good musical pieces you could hear a difference easily. In any case, just was giving my $.02
pokekevin's Avatar pokekevin 01:34 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

They take the thread away and I bring them back :P But yes I just think it's not possible in my experience or just even thinking about the component differences. There are chances they can sound similar but I bet with good speakers and good musical pieces you could hear a difference easily. In any case, just was giving my $.02

Very well, my only advice would be to try tone down the "attacks". IE people who can't hear a difference have bad hearing and such. It would help keep the thread from going downhill biggrin.gif
gurkey's Avatar gurkey 01:56 AM 02-06-2013
OK, let's summarize it that way:
- people who can't hear a difference probably have "bad" hearing
- people who can "hear" a difference probably have "bad" hearing too and - additionally - lots of imaginations and fantasies
I hope, that will help wink.gif and will tame either side....
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 03:39 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

OK, let's summarize it that way:
- people who can't hear a difference probably have "bad" hearing
- people who can "hear" a difference probably have "bad" hearing too and - additionally - lots of imaginations and fantasies
I hope, that will help wink.gif and will tame either side....

Those who can't hear a difference should be happy as it saves them lots of money.
gurkey's Avatar gurkey 03:45 AM 02-06-2013
The unresolved question still remains, if there is something in reality to be (physically) "heard" or just mentally recognized (imagined), which can't be decided by the owner of those ears, because they believe but can't prove it scientifically.
And you can't dispute "religion" or philosophical view points, don't you, because the outcome is completely "fruitless". It's that (endless) "...you believe...I believe..." thing.
That really makes the big difference...
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 04:11 AM 02-06-2013
I personally doubt that all pre-pros sound the same except in "direct mode." Its not my experience but that is totally subjective so feel free to disregard this comment.
Todd68's Avatar Todd68 04:15 AM 02-06-2013
What's it mean if the less expensive and uglier amp out of the last two models I owned sounded better? Also, my better sounding amp has less power and slightly worse distortion specs.
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 04:17 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

What's it mean if the less expensive and uglier amp out of the last two models I owned sounded better?

It means you should have kept that model. It also probably means that you are being honest with yourself as we always tend to think that the new expensive one we purchased is better.
indio22's Avatar indio22 05:11 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

If all receivers sound the same, why do we not all buy $200 HTIB receivers and call it a day?

Some reasons:

1) Depending on room size, speaker efficiency and listening preference, some people might need a more powerful receiver.
2) Some people might want room correction and related capabilities which do offer a perceptible difference to the listener.
3) More expensive receivers will generally offer more options such as networking and other connectivity.
4) Quality in terms of not breaking (I bought and returned a certain receiver that already had a recall posted).

Otherwise, I don't see a reason to spend a lot on a receiver. In a well run test, I would be surprised if listeners could consistently pick out differences in DACs etc. But as every marketer knows, they are selling and consumers are buying more than the realities of a product. wink.gif
Theresa's Avatar Theresa 05:21 AM 02-06-2013
Receiver's do not all sound the same. But there are numerous other reasons for buying a more expensive one. Some of these reasons are better room correction, such as Audyssey XT32, accommodation and correction for dual subs, networking features, more HDMI inputs and outputs, more than one zone, inclusion of outputs for front wide and front height, better video processing, and the list goes on and on with some of them impacting the sound of the receiver. I think the whole subject of whether all receiver's sound the same a red herring and that grew out of "all amplifier's sounding the same" like a cancer.
Todd68's Avatar Todd68 05:31 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

It means you should have kept that model. It also probably means that you are being honest with yourself as we always tend to think that the new expensive one we purchased is better.

I kept the cheeper amps (mono blocks) and sold the more expensive one, a Bryston 4BSST. Both models were over $2k though, so neither were cheep.

So this means I was not biased because of price or specs. The simple truth is the slightly cheeper amps with worse basic specs sound better to me!
arnyk's Avatar arnyk 06:55 AM 02-06-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Th
I have owned many different receivers over the years from the "big 4" and I noticed a difference in sound.

I can and frequently have posts lists of reasons why that is so that has nothing to do with the actual SQ of the AVRs.

In general if you line up a bunch of AVRs set for flat response up in a row, carefully match their gain, and do quick-switched blind comparisons every listener is reduced to random guessing. I'm not talking about a strange audio system, only short term switching or forced switching here. I'm saying this is still true if people do their own switching, pick their own recordings,use their own home system, and switch between the AVRs whenever they want to.
Quote:
Anyone who knows anything about audio knows that each receiver even has a different DAC. That alone will make the sound have a signature that is unique compared to

Ditto for lining up a bunch of DACs.
Quote:
If all receivers sound the same, do me a favor: Buy a used, low-end Yamaha receiver from 2-3 years ago and try it with some Klipsch (or other bright speakers) and tell me your ears do not bleed from the amount of brightness.

Been there done that. See my comments above.
Quote:
Now hook up a 2-3 year old low-end Denon and "level match it" and see if the Denon sounds as bright as the Yamaha.

You've probably never ever done this as I described above, so how would you know?

Bright = raised frequency response in the midrange and above. I'm talking about several dB. Why does this not show up in any of the published tests?

Quote:
If all receivers sound the same, why do we not all buy $200 HTIB receivers and call it a day?

That seems to be the question of the day. You think you know all the answers. I say that if we were in the same city I could rock you right out of your cradle with a big dose of reality.
Quote:
I bet that $100 Samsung receiver will sound the same as my $1000 Pioneer receiver!

Within the respective power ratings why wouldn't it?
Quote:
USB DACS, amp paths, internal settings, different capacitors, and 1000s of other component differences dictate that NO receiver could sound the same.

Here comes another cradle rocking. You already know the rest of what I'm going to say. The general quality of those components today is such that there is no reason to expect audible differences.
Quote:
If so I will trade you my 7 year old TEAC for your $1500 Denon 4311...they sound the same! Any takers?

I like new hardware - it has a better possibility of being relialbe. I also like those HDMI inputs and Audyssey Muliteq XT32.
Quote:
Anyone who says otherwise has poor ears or is just guessing. BTW my Pioneer SC-65 sounds nothing like my Pioneer VSX-516.

The way you compare things, probably so.
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop