The "Official" Pioneer Elite SC-55/SC-57 Owners Thread - Page 27

From the review:

Pioneer also seemingly saved some money by not recessing the controls that are behind the front-panel door. I found that if you close the door too forcefully, you can accidentally change inputs or other parameters.

Just how forcefully is he closing it? Is he using a 5 lb sledge hammer? How often does anyone use the front panel controls anyhow?

1111piorec.rem.jpgTo summarize, the Class D sound here definitely differs from what I'd expect from a good Class A/B amplifier, particularly in terms of air, extension, liquidity, and especially decay length. But the differing characteristics produced great clarity and solidity, and the leading edge of transients were free of undesirable etch and hardness that have plagued some other Class D designs. Stage coherence, whether in stereo or surround, was among the best I've heard from any AVR at any price, and instrumental body and weight were positively meaty.

That reads like a B.S. wine review. The only part of it that actually describes the sound is the "etch and hardness" bit, but most people use the term "harsh" don't they?

As far as DSotM (Dark Side of the Moon) is concerned, the original release on CD does sound pretty amazing through the SC-55 - but the new remix is breathtaking - especially the 5.1 (on DVD) remastering of the old quadrophonic release.

Michael Fremer also reviewed the SC-07 in Home Theater magazine and gave that review a similar rating. What I don't understand, why is that review on the SC-57 Posted online before it hits the magazine. After all, that is why I'm a subscriber. I might as well just read the review online when they appear because I feel like I just wasted my money this month, paying them for a 2-year subscription.

I don't know how many of us may know Fremer's background, but he writes & reviews a lot for Stereophile. I'm not 100% sure but he also may have done pieces for Absolute Sound. So he has the "audiophile" writing style

That doesn't mean his reviews lack objectivity, but he does use typical subjective language audiophile reviewers use.

I enjoy his reviews and he's probably right that class D amps do have a subtle difference in sound than many class A/B amps. I hate to admit this, since ccotenj would give me a for it but I could tell slight differences between the SC-09's Ice amps & a hi-power Innersound class A/B amp designed for planar speakers. No room correction, strictly Direct mode, and the Innersound amp had a slightly different presentation. I couldn't put it into words but bass seemed a little tighter with the class A/B amp and soundstage depth a little bit deeper.

That doesn't mean the Ice amps were bad at all just a tiny bit different. Just the way it sounded to my aged hearing

Go figure....fwiw. Not all audiophiles are nut cases

for a frame of reference

This was also the publication that stated no too very long ago that the Onkyo 5008 was the best receiver they had ever heard , to date, and then gave it 5 stars across the board



Warren

If you consider only partial control over the receiver to be "state of the art", then sure. But fact is that app does not cover all the functionality that the reciever has. So you're still stuck with the prehistoric GUI on the device and the poor remote control handset.

Unfortunately theres no getting around this uncomfortable truth. Pioneer needs to get in gear on this issue - it's 2011.

I have to completely agree with this from my point of view. I've been watching this thread waiting for reviews to know if this receiver performs well in audio and video, all the little nuances, while important to many, aren't much of a factor to me. I am looking for a receiver that will give me the best sound while decoding my blu ray movies at a reasonable price.

So far the SC-55 is looking to be that receiver. Now to find an authorized dealer that won't charge me MSRP...

I often shake my head at Fremer's reviews, and he has very strong personal quirks, but no one should doubt his credentials. The guy has been living/breathing/listening/writing about home theater and musical components for a long, long time.

He might not be as sharp on the latest technologies and perhaps he writes from Mt Olympus , but Fremer is a voice I respect on higher level audio-video stuff. Frankly, I was happy that he reviewed the Pioneer because he has a known and oft-stated dislike of D amps compared to A/B. If anyone would find - or think he found - fatal flaws, Fremer would be the guy.

Instead, I read a generally quite praiseworthy review from a guy who could be expected to be critical.

As such, I took his review to be a glowing recommendation of the Pioneer and its latest amp technology. Sure, he picked some nits, but to my less trained ears his review made sense. I find the Pioneer slightly "colder" than, say, Denon, and not as overtly beefy as Onkyo. And that's okay. I still think it sounds great.

Indeed, I very much like the sound of Pioneer and its latest Elites are among my three choices for my next upgrade.

That's funny: I owned a Denon 5803 before I bought a SC-27, and I felt the Denon was cold, had a narrower soundstage, and was overly analytical vs. a Pioneer (and that was before I ran MCACC). Of course, that's a difference of a few generations of AVRs, so it may not be a fair comparison.

Just goes to show that different ears hear things different ways.

My last comparison was between the Denon 3310 and, if I recall correctly, the Pioneer SC-25. I compared the two in Best Buy's Magnolia with my own discs and movie. Maybe not the greatest place to compare since neither receiver was calibrated, but everything else was the same.

I remember thinking that I liked Denon slightly (ever so slightly) better for music and the Pioneer clearly better for movies.

I went with Denon partly because I am 70% music to 30% movies, but mainly because the Pioneer was too tall to fit into my rack!

Otherwise I probably would have bought the Elite. The difference between the two in sound was not huge, to me, and I liked the reserve power and looks of the Elite more.

My next purchase won't be limited by rack size.

And regardless of minute amp differences which could just be a matter of how that particular amp interacts with the particular speaker load connected to it, the vast majority of sound differences are still due to speakers & room acoustics.

Anyone thinking of getting hi dollar cables would be far better off upgrading their speakers

We may have different opinions on a reviewer's style but a positive review from someone with Fremer's background says a lot. If a "golden-eared" audiophile who's used to hi-dollar amps & preamps, says it sounded good, no matter how he describes it, then I'd take that as praise.

I consider his review to be a big thumbs up for the SC-57. This is the same guy who highly praised the Marantz AV7005 prepro (he says he went out & bought one after reviewing it) but wasn't quite as complimentary toward Marantz's 7005 amp in the same HTM review. In making comparisons to his own Halo A51 amp, which has much more on-tap power and costs a whole lot more, his review seemed pretty fair & objective to me.

Fremer has a long, long history as an audiophile reviewer, primarily on the analogue sources. As I am still a big vinyl fan, I have followed him for years. I don't always agree with him, but as in wine reviewers, after awhile you pick up the personal preferences of a writer and can make allowances for them. I know I can pretty much trust Bob Parker on Bordeaux and Rhones, but can't pay any attention to Jay Miller, the guy he has reviewing Australian wines, who apparently never met an Aussie wine he didn't like - a lot!

I was quite glad to see his review, as I'd earlier complained that while everyone was chattering about the features of the unit, almost no one had commented on how it actually sounds. I posted my own impression that the brief audition I've been able to do showed that in 2 channel use it was decent but not up to a Chord power amp that cost more than 7X what the SC-57 did. But that would be a bit much to ask, and I'd agree that my limited reactions were consistent with what Fremer said about lacking a bit of air but I can live with that, particularly as I use my regular stereo set up power amps for the R and L channels.

I think I am going to pick up one of these babies!

Only subwoofers should be limited by physical space issues:-).

Hopefully the next review will focus more on the newer features (particularly the Hi-bit 32, DRC, and DAC options) than nit-picking about Class D amps. Although an A/B of, say, an SC-27/37 vs. the 57 would be nice.

He'd give himself a hernia lifting the SC-55/57 to swirl the electronics or check its bouquet. And opening the AVR to let the components breathe is probably _not_ a best practice.

Pioneer Elite SC-07 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 120.9 watts
1% distortion at 150.5 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 106.1 watts
1% distortion at 135.2 watts

Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
–0.08 dB at 10 Hz
–0.01 dB at 20 Hz
+0.30 dB at 20 kHz
–1.58 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with stereo signal processing:
–1.40 dB at 10 Hz
–0.40 dB at 20 Hz
+0.29 dB at 20 kHz
–2.40 dB at 50 kHz


Pioneer Elite SC-57 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 115.1 watts
1% distortion at 132.0 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 109.6 watts
1% distortion at 123.7 watts

Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
–0.25 dB at 10 Hz
–0.07 dB at 20 Hz
+1.00 dB at 20 kHz
–1.21 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with stereo signal processing:
–0.95 dB at 10 Hz
–0.29 dB at 20 Hz
–1.23 dB at 20 kHz
–68.57 dB at 50 kHz

The original Home Theater Magazine review on the Pioneer SC-07 can be found here: http://www.hometheater.com/content/p...07-av-receiver which can be compared to the SC-57 here: http://www.hometheater.com/content/p...57-av-receiver

Pioneer Elite SC-27 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 111.3 watts
1% distortion at 131.4 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 107.4 watts
1% distortion at 124.2 watts

Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
-0.04 dB at 10 Hz
+0.00 dB at 20 Hz
+0.60 dB at 20 kHz
-1.45 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with stereo signal processing:
-1.34 dB at 10 Hz
-0.39 dB at 20 Hz
+0.36 dB at 20 kHz
-2.31 dB at 50 kHz


Pioneer Elite SC-37 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures

Five channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 135.7 watts
1% distortion at 171.9 watts

Seven channels driven continuously into 8-ohm loads:
0.1% distortion at 125.4 watts
1% distortion at 164.7 watts

Analog frequency response in Pure Direct mode:
-0.06 dB at 10 Hz
-0.01 dB at 20 Hz
+0.48 dB at 20 kHz
-1.51 dB at 50 kHz

Analog frequency response with stereo signal processing:
-1.34 dB at 10 Hz
-0.39 dB at 20 Hz
+0.46 dB at 20 kHz
-2.26 dB at 50 kHz

Funny, though - wine tasting and audio listening share one thing - the lexicon (no pun intended) is not as well defined as in many pursuits and the words many people use may mean different things to different people.

I see terms like 'wishy-washy', 'flabby', and 'well balanced' used in wine tasting and think about the similar terms 'etched', 'bright', 'edgy' in audio and wonder if the poeple using them mean the same thing.

Fremer's use of the term 'lacks air' or a 'drier' sound can denote anything from a lack of higher frequency content to a general blurring of transients, and it can be damned hard to know just what he is talking about (or to describe it yourself if you are trying to write a user level review).

PS - just put in an order for a 57 and will be returning the Cary 11a I had on approval - great sound but also lots of user frustration. At half the price, the Pioneer is an attractive option.

^^^^^^^

with all the data gathered/shown above, how does the 57 compare to the 07/27/37 ? in layman/Joe6pack's terms?

It rocks! Party on man!

SC-57 is the best receiver I have ever had to date already sold 7 to clients and that is out of 11 demos 4 demo tonight is in about 5 min there's the doorbell now talk later.

Just an update

It appears any output from hmg is 4:3 also the menu system for the gui

By setting output resolution to pure or aspect to normal everything is the proper aspect

But a jpeg wiil never be wider than 1440 pixels on a 1920 x 1080 screen

So at least the album artwork looks right

I can't really recommend viewing pictures from a camera on the sc55 unless you are really desperate

^^^^^^^

I'll wait for more knowledgeable veterans on these boards for an explanation as to those ht measured figures. Don't need those fan boys responses as it doesn't explain the #'s thoroughly. I understand the <=sc37 measures close to it's output power ratings and the sc57 doesn't but is the difference between them only miniscule? I don't know

as to the analog frequency reponses, I really don't know what they mean I'd sure would like to know though

it also seems the distortion measured between the 57 vs. the older generation amps is the same. And it was noted that the 57 has less circuitry vs. it's older siblings. Less circuitry lessens the costs is my guess, maybe runs cooler too.

But it DOESN'T do everything it is required. How do you change the video and audio parameters using the GUI? I don't care if the GUI is old looking and not pretty, the problem is that it's impossible to change the video parameters and audio parameters using the GUI. I can't see the display on the unit form 15 feet away.

I think these cables would be a good match for your setup

http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2008/11/...st-audiophile/

You, sir, are a sick man, and I love it! I did recently read about a more expensive cable, don't recall the brand (on another forum and I'm too lazy to hunt for it). AFAIK, we haven't broken the six-figure barrier for a pair of speaker cables yet, but I'm sure someone will prove me wrong.

Regarding SC-27 vs. SC-57 power numbers, here are some comparisons, at 1% (essentially just before hard clipping):

At 1% and five channels, the SC-37 puts out 1.15 dB more power than the SC-57 or SC-27. At seven channels, the SC-37 wins by about 1.24 dB.

The SC-27 loses 0.24 dB going from five to seven channels driven (wish they had done 2 to 5); The SC-57 loses 0.28 dB, and the SC-37 loses 0.19 dB. Tis is pretty much in the mud for all of them. I hate to think what my Sony ES3400 does (it's less than half from stereo to all channels driven).

Significant, perhaps, but audible? I doubt it.

The FR differences are inaudible IMO.

I'm pondering using my old power amp to drive the centre channel and use the Pioneer on board amps to run the rest of the surround. I use an ATI 1505 and it is a not very well known but very good sounding amp - wondering whether it might be a bit better than the Pioneer for that particular speaker. Will try and see.

Don, Thanks for explanation. They all basically sound the same I guess and for sure the newer models got more features.

why?

fwiw, ati is pretty well known around here. great amps at a reasonable price...

+1

I would add to that...Onkyo better for movies...Yamaha better for music

no dogs in the bunch, performance( or sound) wise, at the upper end price points...just nuances and functionality/feature sets


Warren