or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 5

post #121 of 540
Ha awesome. So it basically comes down to our own perceptions and unconscious justifications for buying certain products?
post #122 of 540
At the end. Yes.
Because there is no reliable "raw" data available from your hearing process (and it is a rather complex process involving more than one sense plus interception by your brain), there is no chance, that anyone else will be able to experience or document the same impressions as you do, real or imagined. As long as we can't prove to someone else by scientific reproducible means, what our own "impressions" are, this will go on and on without an acceptable solution. If there would be a detectable difference, it should be measurable one way or the other, because everything must have a cause. As long as it isn't it is only "make believe". Todays measuring equipment already is so far reaching and sensitive, that only a qualified procedure would be needed to discover anything (un-)usual as stated. There is nothing paranormal in a listening experience. Psychoacoustics plus the interaction with our brain and its inner workings make it difficult to evaluate this purely on plain data (yet). As such our brain does add (and "error correct") what we think should exist, sometimes without any correlation to whatever has happened in physical reality.
A very well known phenomenon. Ask anyone from the forensic sciences about this.
Edited by gurkey - 2/6/13 at 6:57am
post #123 of 540
It sounds very reasonable to me that AVRs pushed to within their limits should sound about the same. My own experience with my own gear pretty much supports that position too although I haven't doen extensive A-B comparisons.

My Onkyo 876 and Denon 4520 sound about the same to me. Having said that, they sound quite different after running Audyssey on both and engaging Dynamic EQ and I don't think it has anything to do with XT versus XT32 as I also tried out a Denon 3313 that I don't think I could reliably identify from the 4520 if not for XT32 seemingly doing a better job integrating the subwoofer.

To put it simply, both Denon AVRs sounded both louder and clearer after running Audyssey and engaging Dynamic EQ than did the Onkyo 876. I suspect this shouldn't be the case and perhaps there is a variable that caused it that I didn't catch but I wasn't trying to do a true comparison. My main concern and what caused me to do any comparisons at all was that I was concerned that the Denon units wouldn't be able to power my speakers the way the Onkyo 876 did. On that count I found that even the 3313 had more than enough power to do so.
post #124 of 540
This is work in progress, as those technologies took major turns in recent years. Thus a detectable difference between an aging 876 and the newer Denon components is quite possible. A fair comparison would be based upon a 5010 or 3010.
All those processing algorithms allow the manufacturer to tune the sound experience (almost) any way he wants it to because no longer the hardware is the determining factor as the major basis for SQ.
Edited by gurkey - 2/6/13 at 7:47am
post #125 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

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.
Ditto for lining up a bunch of DACs.
Been there done that. See my comments above.
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?
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.
Within the respective power ratings why wouldn't it?
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.
I like new hardware - it has a better possibility of being relialbe. I also like those HDMI inputs and Audyssey Muliteq XT32.
The way you compare things, probably so.

Thanks for this meaningless "counter attack" filled with assumption and "cradle rocking" (whatever that was supposed to mean). If you were in my city I would move out because people like you I have no time for. To me you sound like the one who is closer to the cradle. Grow up and keep this a forum, you are trying to sound superior yet you ALSO have no scientific evidence or definite proof all sound the same. If you do, show me your source and I am waiting for it. Funny how even the companies doing reviews talk of the sound quality difference.

Since you like to retort and assume, and you should never assume because actually I have had a cheap 2-3 year old Yamaha and I do own Klipsch speakers. It was VERY bright and I am not the only to say this. It was not a good speaker-receiver pairing. Then I bought a "cheaper" Denon 1612 and even out of the box the difference was night and day. The Denon was more laid back and no where near the sound signature of the Yamaha. Not to mention my girlfriend also agreed with me on everything I said in my receiver comparison, along with my friends. I guess we all, "need to have our cradle rocked" or you need to wise up a bit.

Okay, so we disagree. I do not recall personally attacking you or saying that people are stupid who believe all amps/receivers sound the same. I just not only do not understand how, thanks to the differences in all amp/preamp performance, they could. I can also hear differences and even if you had bad ears, the Yamaha/Klipsch pairing was a horrible one. Unless you were there, or personally own a low end Yamaha and Klipsch speakers, can you tell me I am wrong?

And one last thing: All low to midrange receivers come with room correction (at least from Yamaha/Pioneer/Denon/Marantz/Onkyo) so that argument is not valid.

Ahh...the "delusional" argument. I would rather be "delusional" than believe they all sound the same. Also, thanks for your definition of bright...I did not know that. I feel so informed now.

Finally: This is a forum; if we disagree then handle it like an adult without grade school insults, if we lived in the same city I would not need to see you. I just rocked your cradle and gave you advice on how to grow up. I suggest you take it. If you disagree, give your input or take on it. Do not come around trying to sound big and bad or "smarter" because if that is what you were after, you sound the opposite.

The fact you said all DACS sound the same is laughable and takes even more credibility from you. I guess when I hooked my 2 Auzentech Fortes with differing custom DACS (One Burr Brown, the other Anolog Devices) up and they sounded totally different (hooked up to the same receiver through analog) and I could quickly A/B them and hear an immediate difference, I was also delusional and making things up to rain on your parade? Same sound cards, same volume level, same receiver, just switching input 1/input2 and I heard a total difference. And you say all DACS sound the same? Wow.. In case you have not figured this out, I have been big time into audio for a long time. I am no engineer or whatever but I can hear differences in sound and understand that no receiver will sound alike because unless they had the exact same internals under a different shell, it is not going to happen (but even Denon and Marantz sound different and they are made by the same company and share a lot of internals). If you play receiver A vs receiver B to it's full potential, you will have 2 very different sounding units. Case closed.

P.S. I am not saying Yamaha is a bad brand, that all Yamaha receivers are bright, or anything like that. Yamaha makes a good receiver and sounds good. Just my particular Yamaha with Klipsch was a bad match.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 12:43pm
post #126 of 540
I have long wondered about this concept of bright Yamaha receivers. That does not show up on tests.

So if it's happening, one explanation could be a receiver-speaker interaction (something that does not happen when dummy loads are connected.)

Also, Yamaha receivers have changed designs. For example, some cheaper models have used hybrid amplifier chips. So I find it very hard to believe it's a problem endemic to all Yamaha receivers (as some people imply.)

In the above poster's specific case, all I can say is that if he has no bias for Denon or Yamaha, and is simply trying to get the best sound, it seems reasonable to deliver a benefit of the doubt for him. Maybe some interaction does occur which results in a less pleasant experience with his receiver and Klipsch speakers. I can't say I have experienced that same phenomenon, but that doesn't rule out the possibility I think.

You might want to note (Ricism) that many respected engineers claim that should not happen in a properly design amp. Maybe the amp is not properly designed. I don't know. Just saying that conventional knowledge among many engineers is that amps should be free of audible distortion when not overdriven. Not ALL agree though. Which is why you see some companies coming up with amps that don't use global feedback because they think there's problems with it. I tend to side with the majority as their observations seem to be backed by simulations and measurements. But I am open to the idea there's lessor known factors which result in audible distortion when none was expected.
Edited by MichaelJHuman - 2/6/13 at 9:44am
post #127 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I have long wondered about this concept of bright Yamaha receivers. That does not show up on tests.

So if it's happening, one explanation could be a receiver-speaker interaction (something that does not happen when dummy loads are connected.)

Also, Yamaha receivers have changed designs. For example, some cheaper models have used hybrid amplifier chips. So I find it very hard to believe it's a problem endemic to all Yamaha receivers (as some people imply.)

In the above posters specific case, all I can say is that if he has no bias for Denon or Yamaha, and is simply trying to get the best sound, it seems reasonable to deliver a benefit of the doubt for him. Maybe some interaction does occur which results in a less pleasant experience with his receiver and Klipsch speakers. I can't say I have experienced that same phenomenon, but that doesn't rule out the possibility I think.
Thank you MichaelJHuman, a proper response; though you do not totally agree with me you definitely saw my point and offered a plausible explanation.

Here is what I learned/know from this. I said a low end model from Yamaha 2-3 years ago because the newer Yamaha receivers do not sound bright. A 2012 model Yamaha (low end) will not sound as good as a mid-range or high end Yamaha (like the Aventage line) but it does not sound as bright as the ones they made in 2010 or earlier. I was surprised actually because before I bought my Yamaha, I always heard they sound very good and I got a good deal on my 2010 Yamaha RX-V367 which is a 5.1 low end model. It sounded good with my laid back Polk speakers (bright receiver/laid back speakers), but when I hooked it into my Klipsch towers, it sounded terrible (bright receiver, bright speakers). Now I have a friend who has a high end Yamaha Aventage and he has a full Klipsch setup and it sounds fantastic, so it's not just Yamaha or ALL Yamaha models. It is certainly a weird phenomenon, not only audible but fatiguing as well. That tells me it is present!

Now as stated, I bought a Denon 1612 (used from a friend for CHEAP) just as a spare receiver and I was curious to see how it would sound with the same speakers. So I hooked it into the Klipsch and it sounded much better than the Yamaha did; more laid back, dynamic, and no fatigue after listening for a while. With the Yammie/Klipsch combo I would get fatigued very quickly and want to shut off the amp or turn it way down.

One explanation is Yamaha tends to have the weakest actual power output (again, especially in their older products) compared to it's specs. A 120 watt Onkyo will be within 95% of it's rated specs and rates closest to actual output. A 90 watt per channel, low end Yamaha might be lucky to put out 40-50 wattts actual power. Klipsch are very efficient but they are also power hungry and sound best with more power put through them. Maybe the Yamaha I own simply does not have the power to make the Klipsch sound good, the results being bright and just plain bad? It's another reasonable explanation.

I think now by far the biggest difference nowadays would be the different room correction software in the new receivers that would make them sound different. But I have had multiple sound cards with different DACS and hooked up analog, there was a major difference in sound signature. Each receiver is going to have different DACS. No DAC in existence does not color the sound in some way or the other. And a DAC is just one of thousands of parts in the receiver. Capacitors, amp signal paths, amp specs, DSP, power design, the list goes on and on. Too many variables to create the same product over and over (if all amps sound the same).

Why would I buy a $1000+ Anthem if I can buy a $500 Yamaha and get the same sound and way more features? Because the Anthem sounds better than the Yamaha...there would be NO other good reason to get the Anthem unless less is more. If they all sounded the same, companies like NAD and Anthem would be on sinking ships because no one would buy their products when you can get the same sound and more features for less.

Lastly, I think if you buy a mid-range (or higher) unit from any manufacturer, you will be quite pleased with the overall product and it is a tough choice when buying a receiver because they all make products with great features and excellent sound quality. It's a matter of comparing features and reliability. I just want the best sound and features for my money, and I am sure everyone wants that.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 10:33am
post #128 of 540
I can agree with this. While there may be some differences in the sound quality between different brands at different price levels, it probably has more to do with room correction features than anything else. And while a higher priced or higher tier receiver may have better sound quality than it's lesser models, I doubt it would be noticeable. What would be noticeable would be the features.

That's what I think people upgrade their receivers for. Features. And that's prefectly OK.
post #129 of 540
Note that a Yamaha 367 cuts a lot of corners to get to that price point. It's power is quite limited IMO.

And some claim the chip amps they use are inferior to the discrete amp circuits. I have no idea if this is true. You could read something into the fact the cheapest models did not use discrete amp circuits in some model lines. You could make a guess that the discrete amps measure better or why use them? (There is a power limitation on the chips, so on the higher powered models they may have had to use the discrete circuits.)

Every part is a budget part. That would include volume/tone control chips, DACs, etc. So consider that the 367 might not be a representative Yamaha.

I prefer the higher end models because in my experience they have proven themselves to perform better. But they cost an unreasonable amount of money for most people's AV budget.
post #130 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Note that a Yamaha 367 cuts a lot of corners to get to that price point. It's power is quite limited IMO.

And some claim the chip amps they use are inferior to the discrete amp circuits. I have no idea if this is true. You could read something into the fact the cheapest models did not use discrete amp circuits in some model lines. You could make a guess that the discrete amps measure better or why use them? (There is a power limitation on the chips, so on the higher powered models they may have had to use the discrete circuits.)

Every part is a budget part. That would include volume/tone control chips, DACs, etc. So consider that the 367 might not be a representative Yamaha.

I prefer the higher end models because in my experience they have proven themselves to perform better. But they cost an unreasonable amount of money for most people's AV budget.
No argument there whatsoever; if the 367 represented Yamaha as a whole, they would be in deep trouble. It is nice little unit for what it is but it's no flagship model either. I would personally not buy a low end receiver (unless I just needed a cheap amp for a spare room) because low end parts = worse quality and questionable reliability. I just bought the Yamaha because I needed a spare room receiver and I bought the Denon 1612 because I got the best deal ever (less than $100!)

My main receiver right now is the Pioneer SC-65 and I would not trade it for anything. If I was going to knock it for anything it is just complicated compared to other models I have had/tried. But I would have been very happy also with an Onkyo 818/Denon 3313/Yamaha Aventage (insert around same price range model here)/etc. I know for a fact the Pioneer sounds better than my former Denon 2112 and is louder at any given volume. They also sound nothing alike and they were hooked up to the same Kef speakers and same subwoofer. The Pioneer is also less forgiving of bad quality MP3 or source materials. That does not mean I would not recommend Denon or Yamaha or (insert name here). Just for me the Pioneer was in my price range, had the features I wanted, and sounds incredible.
post #131 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Thank you MichaelJHuman, a proper response; though you do not totally agree with me you definitely saw my point and offered a plausible explanation.

Here is what I learned/know from this. I said a low end model from Yamaha 2-3 years ago because the newer Yamaha receivers do not sound bright. A 2012 model Yamaha (low end) will not sound as good as a mid-range or high end Yamaha (like the Aventage line) but it does not sound as bright as the ones they made in 2010 or earlier. I was surprised actually because before I bought my Yamaha, I always heard they sound very good and I got a good deal on my 2010 Yamaha RX-V367 which is a 5.1 low end model. It sounded good with my laid back Polk speakers (bright receiver/laid back speakers), but when I hooked it into my Klipsch towers, it sounded terrible (bright receiver, bright speakers). Now I have a friend who has a high end Yamaha Aventage and he has a full Klipsch setup and it sounds fantastic, so it's not just Yamaha or ALL Yamaha models. It is certainly a weird phenomenon, not only audible but fatiguing as well. That tells me it is present!

Now as stated, I bought a Denon 1612 (used from a friend for CHEAP) just as a spare receiver and I was curious to see how it would sound with the same speakers. So I hooked it into the Klipsch and it sounded much better than the Yamaha did; more laid back, dynamic, and no fatigue after listening for a while. With the Yammie/Klipsch combo I would get fatigued very quickly and want to shut off the amp or turn it way down.

One explanation is Yamaha tends to have the weakest actual power output (again, especially in their older products) compared to it's specs. A 120 watt Onkyo will be within 95% of it's rated specs and rates closest to actual output. A 90 watt per channel, low end Yamaha might be lucky to put out 40-50 wattts actual power. Klipsch are very efficient but they are also power hungry and sound best with more power put through them. Maybe the Yamaha I own simply does not have the power to make the Klipsch sound good, the results being bright and just plain bad? It's another reasonable explanation.

I think now by far the biggest difference nowadays would be the different room correction software in the new receivers that would make them sound different. But I have had multiple sound cards with different DACS and hooked up analog, there was a major difference in sound signature. Each receiver is going to have different DACS. No DAC in existence does not color the sound in some way or the other. And a DAC is just one of thousands of parts in the receiver. Capacitors, amp signal paths, amp specs, DSP, power design, the list goes on and on. Too many variables to create the same product over and over (if all amps sound the same).

Why would I buy a $1000+ Anthem if I can buy a $500 Yamaha and get the same sound and way more features? Because the Anthem sounds better than the Yamaha...there would be NO other good reason to get the Anthem unless less is more. If they all sounded the same, companies like NAD and Anthem would be on sinking ships because no one would buy their products when you can get the same sound and more features for less.

Lastly, I think if you buy a mid-range (or higher) unit from any manufacturer, you will be quite pleased with the overall product and it is a tough choice when buying a receiver because they all make products with great features and excellent sound quality. It's a matter of comparing features and reliability. I just want the best sound and features for my money, and I am sure everyone wants that.


You lost me when you said that klipsch speakers are very efficient but power hungry. An efficient speaker is just that, efficient. It isnt efficient, but needs a lot of power to perform correctly, it can't be both.
post #132 of 540
Higher sensitivity = lower power draw

That's because sensitivity says how much electrical power is needed to produce 90 dB SPL. So I don't see how a speaker can be "efficient" (if meaning sensitivity) but also "power hungry"
post #133 of 540
Klipsch are efficient but ANY speakers sound better with more power. Klipsch sound better with more power, in fact a more powerful amp really opens them up and tends to smooth them out. Maybe power hungry was a bad term but they like power, but any speaker does. Especially those who do not like horn tweeters and find them bright or fatiguing. It tends to even out the sound more with a beefier amplifier.

Bad terminology but Klipsch like power.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 1:23pm
post #134 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Klipsch are efficient but ANY speakers sound better with more power. Klipsch sound better with more power, in fact a more powerful amp really opens them up and tends to smooth them out. Maybe power hungry was a bad term but they like power, but any speaker does. Especially those who do not like horn tweeters and find them bright or fatiguing. It tends to even out the sound more with a beefier amplifier.

Bad terminology but Klipsch like power.

A more powerful amp may be needed to get the SPL you desire without clipping. Power unused has nothing to do with this. In other words if I only needed 120 watts (unclipped) to reach the desired SPL, it helps not at all to have 240. Any other conclusion does not match the electronic theory I have learned (I admit I am a not an electrical engineer, but the theory is pretty straightforward.)

Some Klipsch speakers are less power hungry than other speakers because they produce high SPL with little power. Some did 104 dB SPL with one watt of input at one meter. I can't call that power hungry.

I conclude that the Klipsch speakers are not power hungry. You are SPL hungry. As you say, regardless of speaker, you want to turn up the power. Nothing wrong with that. I used to love loud music.

As for horn speakers, some people do complain they are more fatiguing. I don't know why that is, but if that's true, it should be independent of power. Any speaker will sound harsh if you feed it a distorted signal. "They" used to say don't turn the volume dial past halfway with the typical stereo receiver. After that point, you were probably getting too much distortion in the signal as the stereos amps were clipping. Heard that harshness many times. Only solution is more power or turn it down. And again, that's independent of speakers. No speaker is libel to sound good when fed an overly distorted signal.
post #135 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

A more powerful amp may be needed to get the SPL you desire without clipping. Power unused has nothing to do with this. In other words if I only needed 120 watts (unclipped) to reach the desired SPL, it helps not at all to have 240. Any other conclusion does not match the electronic theory I have learned (I admit I am a not an electrical engineer, but the theory is pretty straightforward.)

Some Klipsch speakers are less power hungry than other speakers because they produce high SPL with little power. Some did 104 dB SPL with one watt of input at one meter. I can't call that power hungry.

I conclude that the Klipsch speakers are not power hungry. You are SPL hungry. As you say, regardless of speaker, you want to turn up the power. Nothing wrong with that. I used to love loud music.

As for horn speakers, some people do complain they are more fatiguing. I don't know why that is, but if that's true, it should be independent of power. Any speaker will sound harsh if you feed it a distorted signal. "They" used to say don't turn the volume dial past halfway with the typical stereo receiver. After that point, you were probably getting too much distortion in the signal as the stereos amps were clipping. Heard that harshness many times. Only solution is more power or turn it down. And again, that's independent of speakers. No speaker is libel to sound good when fed an overly distorted signal.
While you are correct in almost everything, I more jam movies than I do music nowadays. Sure, sometimes I will turn it up a bit but I never listen to music more than is comfortable because I have pretty good hearing and want to keep it that way!

I was not just referring to cranking up volume, I was referring to cleaner power. A more powerful amp will have more signal to distortion at any volume level. This is why it is preferable to get power amps and use your receiver as a pre-amp.

Modern receivers are packed with technology and a modern receiver does about 5000 things more than say a 15 year old Sansui. One area they are skimping on is the beefiness of the power supplies. Every few years they seem to be getting lighter and lighter. Sure, they are coming out with better technology (such as digital amplifiers). But it seems every few years, receivers are weighing less and less and with that it seems putting out less power. For example, many say the Pioneer 1121 sounds better than the newer 1122, the new one has more features yet the older unit sounds better. The 1122, you guessed it, weighs less.

ANY speaker likes power, the more and the cleaner the better. Klipsch speakers are a good example because owning them and having run them with different models and grades of receivers, I have found that the more powerful the amp, the better. In fact the best sound I got out of them was through an older Sansui that my dad had. It seemed to really balance them out. I have found with weaker receivers, (such as the Yamaha discussed in my other posts) it seems the horns get more of the power load then the bass. Not only did the Sansui make the Klipsch really sound good, it made it sound more musical than even my rather expensive and brand new Pioneer SC-65. The Sansui seems to also weight about twice as much and it is a pure stereo receiver with just basic tone controls. In fact, you need a sub with the Klipsch and my Pioneer (and every other modern receiver) yet the Sansui made it sound deeper in the bass section. The more power a Klipsch is fed, the more it seems to balance out the horn/bass and the less "bright" they sound.

The more powerful the amp, the more "reserves" it has for dynamics and the less distortion at any given volume. If I wanted to jam that older Yamaha, the same load that is taxing it would barely make my Pioneer break a sweat. This is why people like to run separates because they do notice an improvement in sound quality. A good example is my car, I have an Alpine deck and they make this thing called a Powerpack, which is essentially an in-line amplifier. Even though it is rated the same as the Alpine (45 watts x 4) it improves sound quality very noticeably at all volume levels. Cleaner power = better sound. Sound that is noticeably better and sharper, even at lower volumes with more dynamics thanks to more power preserves. Not to mention an amp is just that, there is no other gimmicks and such to induce interference.

When I was younger, I played my music super loud but nowadays I try and find a volume setting that makes the music sound "sweet" . Sweet is no where near deafening anymore, thankfully! biggrin.gif

As for horn speakers, they are my least favorite for music playback yet I do like them. They are very efficient but I prefer other types of tweeters. I bought these Klipsch sight unseen and I like them, but my Kefs blow them away. In fact, I like BIC America horn speakers better than Klipsch but I have heard Klipsch that sounded better than BIC. Of course, the Klipsch were about 4 times more expensive.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 4:03pm
post #136 of 540
Thread Starter 
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? I bet that $100 Samsung receiver will sound the same as my $1000 Pioneer receiver!

This is basically what I did, I went from a Harman Kardon AVR525 which was a 45lb beast that was known for it's power supply back in the day and bought a Denon 1513 for $199. No difference in sound, if anything the Denon sounds cleaner which might be because of the age of the HK. I also originally mentioned thinking the bass wasn't as pronounced with the Denon but my OCD has since kicked in and I'm messing around with the crossover settings between 80-100 just like I used to on the HK so now I don't think that's any different either. You're free to believe whatever you like but you're only wasting your money with your 1000 dollar receiver.
post #137 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

Note that a Yamaha 367 cuts a lot of corners to get to that price point. It's power is quite limited IMO.

Based on what?

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/av-receivers-amps/rx/rx-v367_black__u/?mode=model

Rated Output Power (1kHz, 1ch driven) 100W (8ohms, 0.09% THD)
Dynamic Power per Channel (8/6/4/2 ohms) 110/130/160/180W
Quote:
And some claim the chip amps they use are inferior to the discrete amp circuits. I have no idea if this is true. You could read something into the fact the cheapest models did not use discrete amp circuits in some model lines. You could make a guess that the discrete amps measure better or why use them?

It is true that the RX373/367/473 use a certain Sanken hybrid power amp chip. They use both the 2 amplifier per chip and 3 amplifier per chip models. The use of this chip is clearly a cost-cutting measure. However, the relevant question is what sonically does this chip cost and IME the answer is nothing.
Quote:
(There is a power limitation on the chips, so on the higher powered models they may have had to use the discrete circuits.)

True of every output stage. The Sanken chips are hybrid chips so that they can contain any output device that the designers choose. However, their economics fall apart as more expensive higher powered output devices are chosen.

If you really look hard at AVRs virtually all of them put out 100 wpc +/- 3 dB. It takes 10 times the power to create the subjective impression of "twice as loud" so none of these are going to lag appreciably or run away from the pack in an unbiased, level matched listening test.
Quote:
Every part is a budget part. That would include volume/tone control chips, DACs, etc. So consider that the 367 might not be a representative Yamaha.

Every part in virtually every AVR is under the gun economically. The most relevant question is not the parts budget but what it means in the listening room, with longevity and durability being in the picture. Again all manufacturers are under the gun to minimize warranty claims because every AVR that is returned ends up costing the manufacturer and retailer at least twice in terms of manpower and paperwork as one that "sticks". That leaves out-of-warranty durability which is somewhat contained because a lot of AVRs obsolesce out, instead of failing in service.
Quote:
I prefer the higher end models because in my experience they have proven themselves to perform better. But they cost an unreasonable amount of money for most people's AV budget.

I can see paying more to get features that can strongly relate to SQ such as Audyssey Multieq XT32. Since I already have an acoustics measurement setup and decades of experience doing things like that I can better get away with buying a low end receiver than the average audiophile.
post #138 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

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.
Ditto for lining up a bunch of DACs.
Been there done that. See my comments above.
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?
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.
Within the respective power ratings why wouldn't it?
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.
I like new hardware - it has a better possibility of being relialbe. I also like those HDMI inputs and Audyssey Muliteq XT32.
The way you compare things, probably so.

Ad Hominem attack packet #1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 
If you were in my city I would move out because people like you I have no time for. To me you sound like the one who is closer to the cradle. Grow up and keep this a forum, you are trying to sound superior yet you ALSO have no scientific evidence or definite proof all sound the same.

I do not recall personally attacking you or saying that people are stupid who believe all amps/receivers sound the same.

The above has to be an example of the shortest memory on the AVS record! First the attacks and then the instant denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 
Ahh...the "delusional" argument. I would rather be "delusional" than believe they all sound the same.

Note that I never ever said anything about anybody being delusional...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 
Finally: This is a forum; if we disagree then handle it like an adult without grade school insults

And what do we call the above or below?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 
The fact you said all DACS sound the same is laughable and takes even more credibility from you.

BTW, I am an EE with over 40 years of experience. If you do a little googling on my name, you may reconsider many of your statements.

Let's try starting here::

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hifi2005/atkinsonkrueger.html

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
post #139 of 540
Oh, you again. Should I be impressed now or later? You attacked me after I posted in here with the difference of opinion from you, bottom line. You may be a EE but I think it's your memory that is the bad one, not mine. You seem like a very angry person, being opinionated is one thing but acting like you are the king of audio is another. Do not act like you are schooling me, I do not need a degree (of which I have one anyhow in a technical field) to know the information I do. I have witnessed it personally, studied it, researched it. I have been into computer audio and audio since I was a boy. I do not know it all but I know all I need to; to make informed decisions and not come off like an idiot to the likes of you. You come in here telling everyone they are wrong, yet you lack also the same scientific proof that they do.

Being a EE for 40 years does not make your opinion right, nor does it change mine. I never did personally attack you and actually I still have not, you are much older than me which makes your post all the worse. Instead of trying to put me in awe with your credentials (bravo btw) put me in awe that you can have a difference in opinion without comments like you made (like you would school me). If you think all DACS sound the same, you need to check your hearing because that is the reason high end equipment HAS removable OPAMPS. I have owned several and with decent headphones or a decent sound system you WILL hear all DACS sound different unless you have poor ears. Oh, and I also built one and modified a couple and not one sounded alike. OPAMPS are designed to flavor an audio signal, if a DAC has one OPAMP and a different DAC has a different model/brand OPAMP, they will sound vastly different. Well, every receiver has a DAC, some Burr Brown, some Analog Devices, etc. Why does an Oppo Blu-ray player sound better than a Sony Blu-ray? Better DAC and better OPAMP along with better audio circuitry. I suppose no one should buy OPPO because all Blu-ray units sound the same too?

On a friendlier note, I was going to go to college to be an Engineer but I hate complex math (I can do it but I hate it!) so I am glad for you that you are more patient then me and it's a nice career you have. Too bad you are your biggest fan and you come around here like you own the place, come in here and reply with decency and I would be more impressed than articles about you. I do not care if you are Secretary of State, you come off as anyone but someone who I would respect and be impressed by.

Since you have a good understanding of engineering but lack the grasp of the written word, let us clarify things:
  • You attacked me after I posted in here with a different opinion of yours. My memory works quite good while you seem to forget you came in, "rocking my cradle" (still not sure what that means). You struck first and thought you were all mighty but you failed.
  • Someone else said, "delusional", not you. Correct. I was replying to not just you on post. This is not all about you, thankfully.
  • This is a forum, one of which you do not own. Coming in here like you are God is pathetic and bragging of your accomplishments is also sad.
  • Not one DAC sounds the same as another, not one. Unless you designed two that had exactly the same components/specs/OPAMPS. You are sadly misinformed if you think otherwise or we would also all be buying $20 USB DACS off eBay to go with our $200 receivers that all sound the same.
  • You should know all of the above, yet 40 years of being an EE did not teach you any of this.
  • You want to keep trying to match wits and quote me, go ahead but you are trolling this thread, not giving useful opinions.
  • When you level match something, you are bringing one product down to equal the volume of another. In other words, you are running one unit at full potential and crippling another to match it. Unfair comparison and no indication of "sound quality" or direct comparison. In that case I am sure you would not hear much difference. You can drive a Corvette at 60 miles per hour and a Yugo at 60 miles per hour (in theory anyhow). Does that make the Corvette the equal of a Yugo? Does that mean a Yugo can perform as well as a Corvette? You would be maxxing out the Yugo and not even pushing the Corvette, which can do 3 times that speed stock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post

This is basically what I did, I went from a Harman Kardon AVR525 which was a 45lb beast that was known for it's power supply back in the day and bought a Denon 1513 for $199. No difference in sound, if anything the Denon sounds cleaner which might be because of the age of the HK. I also originally mentioned thinking the bass wasn't as pronounced with the Denon but my OCD has since kicked in and I'm messing around with the crossover settings between 80-100 just like I used to on the HK so now I don't think that's any different either. You're free to believe whatever you like but you're only wasting your money with your 1000 dollar receiver.
About the "wasted money statement": Well, this is the most I spent on a receiver, but you know what? I am very happy with an awesome amp, pre-outs for system expansion, and the best sound quality and features I have ever seen/heard/owned. I am quite sure I would have been happy with a 2012 midrange model as well but I am glad I spent the extra money and this thing does everything I want and then some. When I got the Denon 2112 last year, I was happy with it but I felt I should have stepped into the higher model (particularly the 3312). Total buyers remorse, maybe unjustified and more psychological, but this time I have none and I could not have done much better if at all. I wanted to go all out and get the receiver I felt matched my needs most and here it sits. Money well spent, not wasted if I am happy with it. biggrin.gif

If you are happy with your Denon 1513, I am happy for you and I think you have a great receiver by an awesome company. That is what it is all about, having fun and being happy with what you have. Do you need to spend a grand on a receiver? No. But I can never go back and say, "I wish I had got the next model up". There is higher end models, but anything over this and you are not getting much more yet paying much more. Diminishing returns in my opinion.

Another fact: If you do not have good speakers, you will hear less of a difference in audio quality. Just like $5.00 Walmart headphones are not going to be as revealing as much more expensive Sennheisers. I have a pair of EPI speakers that are over 30 years old. I had to replace the stock woofers and tweeter and opted for cheap replacements. I could not hear the same difference in audio components as well as my Kef Q series 5.1 set. This is not assuming you have poor speakers, it is just food for thought. The higher quality audio output device, the more revealing of flaws and perceivable differences in audio quality.

I can get any receiver I own (except my older Yamaha with my Klipsch that is) to sound good after tweaking it. I prefer Pioneer MCACC and Yamaha YPAO to Audessey simply because you can tweak everything when it is finished. Audessey punishes you for it more or less and also the Audessey roll off. But I think Audessey is better for those who want the receiver to just work and sound good and do not want to tweak things. My personal 3 favorite receiver makers are Pioneer, Denon/Marantz, and Onkyo but I would take a nice HK, Yamaha, or other brand if I felt it was the best in my budget.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 10:34pm
post #140 of 540
Oh, and I read the article that you posted about Arny. Yep sounds like the same guy in the forum. Do ABX tests also take away common sense? I did not know we needed test data to like the way something sounds or not. While you go about trying to prove everyone wrong and act like you know everything, I will be enjoying my sound and hold my very same opinion. I am sorry but a ABX test is not the ,"end all, be all" when it comes to it. If they all sound the same, the Sansui mentioned should not sound different or better than my Pioneer in Stereo mode should it?

Anyone who says all DACS sound the same should not even be taken with a grain of salt.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/6/13 at 10:06pm
post #141 of 540
I think I am the one that called you "delusional," and I apologize. Much of what Arny says is true but IMHO he goes overboard at times.
post #142 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

I think I am the one that called you "delusional," and I apologize. Much of what Arny says is true but IMHO he goes overboard at times.

...and you want to believe that nobody that I ever deal with goes wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overboard???

When you try to bathe pigs, you have to accept getting a little mud splashed on you.

It is not going overboard, it is making effective use of hyperbole.
post #143 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post


Do ABX tests also take away common sense?

No, they have brought audio back to common sense.
Quote:
I did not know we needed test data to like the way something sounds or not.

Liking the sound of one thing over another requires that they sound different. That is just common sense.
Quote:
While you go about trying to prove everyone wrong and act like you know everything, I will be enjoying my sound and hold my very same opinion.

I never ever had to prove anybody wrong. I simply set up the test, let them take it and consider the results, and they reach whatever conclusion that they reach on their own. Furthermore, there was never a point where everybody was wrong. There were always people who sensed that things were not what they seemed to be on the surface.

The truth sets you free and when you are free you can enjoy all aspects of life far better.
Quote:
I am sorry but a ABX test is not the ,"end all, be all" when it comes to it.

I never said it was. The be all and end all is Science.
Quote:
If they all sound the same, the Sansui mentioned should not sound different or better than my Pioneer in Stereo mode should it?

We'd have to do a proper test. You have to realize that individual components are individuals and they have general flaws that are built into their design and construction, and they also may have individual faults. Without carefully examining the individual pieces of equipment there is no way to know. However you know better than that, don't you? ;-)
Quote:
Anyone who says all DACS sound the same should not even be taken with a grain of salt.

I never said that all DACs sound the same. Again you have to lie about me to be at peace with yourself. You then blame your errors on other people. I never said anything about you being delusional, and I don't think you are. But you are in denial big time, and you are overcome with illusions.
Quote:
Not one DAC sounds the same as another, not one.

False, and this is a well known. Not only do many DACs sound the same, but whole pieces of equipment with DAC buried inside sound the same. Some very good DACs sound the same as their input when cascaded over 10 times. I have demonstrated this to many people and so have many others. You apparently never heard of Ethan Winer. if you think I am unique. You must have no idea who David Clark or Earl Geddes are. Many, many others.
Quote:
Unless you designed two that had exactly the same components/specs/OPAMPS.

A great many opamps sound the same. Not only do many opamps sound the same, but whole pieces of equipment with many opamps buried inside sound the same. Even some mediocre opamps sound the same as their input when cascaded over 20 times.
Quote:
You are sadly misinformed if you think otherwise or we would also all be buying $20 USB DACS off eBay to go with our $200 receivers that all sound the same.

I can prove what I say in the real world and have done so many times. That you seem to know nothing about it speaks to your degree of being poorly informed.
Quote:
You should know all of the above, yet 40 years of being an EE did not teach you any of this.

Actually it did. You, not being as well educated as I must have no idea what an EE program involves.
Quote:
You want to keep trying to match wits and quote me, go ahead but you are trolling this thread, not giving useful opinions.

no, I am correcting the disinformation and false claims as they appear.
Quote:
When you level match something, you are bringing one product down to equal the volume of another.

I could only believe that if I believed that the gain of a piece of equipment is an immutable property. IOW, if I believed that there was no equipment with volume controls.
Quote:
You can drive a Corvette at 60 miles per hour and a Yugo at 60 miles per hour (in theory anyhow). Does that make the Corvette the equal of a Yugo? Does that mean a Yugo can perform as well as a Corvette? You would be maxxing out the Yugo and not even pushing the Corvette, which can do 3 times that speed stock.

In another life I was an automotive engineer working for Chrysler who was part of the team that did preliminary chassis design for the car platform that turned Chrysler around in the 80s. Your little example is frankly too obvious for me to bother to respond to. Of course a Yugo (which is not really a original car design but just a rebranding of the Fiat 128) is not a Corvette just because they both can go 60.

You seem to completely not get audio. You have just said that a component becomes a different, inferior component because of an adjustment of its volume control. That is beneath the pale.

Level matching is not damaging to one or either components. The inherent sound quality of audio gear is independent of trivial changes to volume controls. The essence of any comparison is fairness, which includes playing them at the same level, no matter how you posture.
Edited by arnyk - 2/7/13 at 2:56am
post #144 of 540
Its good that you admit there are differences in both component parts and the end product. That is often lost in what you say.
post #145 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Its good that you admit there are differences in both component parts and the end product. That is often lost in what you say.

The whole story is too complex to repeat in every post.
post #146 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

... you ALSO have no scientific evidence or definite proof all sound the same. If you do, show me your source and I am waiting for it. Funny how even the companies doing reviews talk of the sound quality difference.

 

There is substantial evidence gained from double blind tests everywhere - all you have to do is look for it and read it. All of it supports the view that in a properly conducted ABX test nobody can reliably differentiate between one amplifier and another. If you can't hear a difference between one and another, then it follows that the sound quality cannot be different between different units. This has been so well proven I am astonished that anyone joining into a discussion of this nature is unaware of the evidence that exists.

 

Here is page of links to about 50 such tests:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

 

 

Quote:
And one last thing: All low to midrange receivers come with room correction (at least from Yamaha/Pioneer/Denon/Marantz/Onkyo) so that argument is not valid.

 

AVRs using any form of DSP or signal processing have the potential to sound different to each other simply because of the way the signal processing is implemented. The whole point of DSP and room correction is to change the sound!  Nobody is disputing this - it is amplifiers which all sound the same (given the usual caveats). 

 

 

Quote:
Ahh...the "delusional" argument. I would rather be "delusional" than believe they all sound the same.

 

I would hesitate to call anyone 'delusional', but the reality is that anyone who believes that amps sound different to each other (usual caveats - working within their design parameters, not broken etc) is simply ignoring the scientific evidence that is so abundantly available. You use the word 'believe' but of course, this is a scientific issue and there is no need for 'belief' because proofs are readily available. It doesn't really matter what anyone 'believes' when there are proofs.

 

 

 

Quote:
The fact you said all DACS sound the same is laughable and takes even more credibility from you. I guess when I hooked my 2 Auzentech Fortes with differing custom DACS (One Burr Brown, the other Anolog Devices) up and they sounded totally different (hooked up to the same receiver through analog) and I could quickly A/B them and hear an immediate difference, I was also delusional and making things up to rain on your parade? Same sound cards, same volume level, same receiver, just switching input 1/input2 and I heard a total difference. And you say all DACS sound the same?

 

Unfortunately, he is right. DACs are, these days, very straightforward components that cost a few dollars each. They have evolved to a level of quality (like most other AV components) that there are no appreciable differences between them - certainly no audible differences. Again, there are many proofs out there if you take the time to look for them and read them.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting you are 'making things up' when you say you can hear a difference, or that anyone doubts you really do believe you hear a difference. The problem is that the human hearing mechanism, allied to the human brain, is an unreliable indicator of these things. Fortunately, measurement equipment exists nowadays that goes far beyond what is needed to reliably detect any differences that exist and to report objectively on those differences. And wrt to the psychoacoustics, the double blind tests pretty much nail it there.

 

 

 

Quote:
 In case you have not figured this out, I have been big time into audio for a long time. I am no engineer or whatever but I can hear differences in sound and understand that no receiver will sound alike because unless they had the exact same internals under a different shell, it is not going to happen (but even Denon and Marantz sound different and they are made by the same company and share a lot of internals). If you play receiver A vs receiver B to it's full potential, you will have 2 very different sounding units. Case closed.

 

Receivers can sound different to each other because of the DSP etc. Nobody here has disputed that. It is amps where there are no audible differences (usual caveats). If you disable all the DSP, room correction etc etc in the receivers and use a form of 'bypass' or 'direct' mode then there will be no audible differences. Once you engage Yamaha's version of a particular DSP in one AVR and Denon's version of that DSP in another, all bets are off, simply because the entire point of the DSP is to alter the sound in an audible way.

 

It's evident you are no engineer wink.gif but you don't need to be an engineer to read up on the many double blind tests of amps, DACs etc and discover the evidence and proofs that support the current viewpoint with which you so strongly disagree. I'd suggest you do that and see what your view is after doing so - likely it will have changed substantially once you have seen the overwhelming evidence.

post #147 of 540
You are correct IMHO about everything except in saying that no one is claiming all receivers sound the same. There are some saying this just as the title of this thread does.
post #148 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

You are correct IMHO about everything except in saying that no one is claiming all receivers sound the same. There are some saying this just as the title of this thread does.

 

Good point, Theresa. I am happy to stand corrected on that. But it is just plan silly to suggest that receivers all sound the same for fairly obvious reasons, not the least of which are the numerous controls which they all offer which are specifically designed to change the sound they produce! Perhaps I should have said something like "nobody with any credibility is saying all receivers sound the same..."

post #149 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

You are correct IMHO about everything except in saying that no one is claiming all receivers sound the same. There are some saying this just as the title of this thread does.

Good point, Theresa. I am happy to stand corrected on that. But it is just plan silly to suggest that receivers all sound the same for fairly obvious reasons, not the least of which are the numerous controls which they all offer which are specifically designed to change the sound they produce! Perhaps I should have said something like "nobody with any credibility is saying all receivers sound the same..."

I will boldly say that all good receivers will fail to sound different from each other in a level-matched, time-synched, DBT given that they are run so they don't clip and have all their relevant settings zeroed out.

I can't find a manufacturer whose spec sheet and independent test reports show something that should result in an audible difference.

If there are exceptions, I'd like to know about it.

Virtually every mainstream AVR I can find technical data on falls within a +/- 3 dB range of power which eliminates the possibility of dramatic differences.

Again, I'd like to be corrected if there are exceptions.

BTW that means 50-200 WPC.

I will also say that if you have a modern AVR and aren't using its facilities to compensate for the discrepancies elsewhere in your system where they apply, and thus make the AVR sound different, then you are missing a blessing. I've found people here running 5-8 year old AVRs that have these features and don't seem to be exploiting them.
post #150 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

You are correct IMHO about everything except in saying that no one is claiming all receivers sound the same. There are some saying this just as the title of this thread does.

Good point, Theresa. I am happy to stand corrected on that. But it is just plan silly to suggest that receivers all sound the same for fairly obvious reasons, not the least of which are the numerous controls which they all offer which are specifically designed to change the sound they produce! Perhaps I should have said something like "nobody with any credibility is saying all receivers sound the same..."

I will boldly say that all good receivers will fail to sound different from each other in a level-matched, time-synched, DBT given that they are run so they don't clip and have all their relevant settings zeroed out.

I can't find a manufacturer whose spec sheet and independent test reports show something that should result in an audible difference.

If there are exceptions, I'd like to know about it.

Virtually every mainstream AVR I can find technical data on falls within a +/- 3 dB range of power which eliminates the possibility of dramatic differences.

Again, I'd like to be corrected if there are exceptions.

BTW that means 50-200 WPC.

I will also say that if you have a modern AVR and aren't using its facilities to compensate for the discrepancies elsewhere in your system where they apply, and thus make the AVR sound different, then you are missing a blessing. I've found people here running 5-8 year old AVRs that have these features and don't seem to be exploiting them.

 

I agree and I think I made the same point in my post: "If you disable all the DSP, room correction etc etc in the receivers and use a form of 'bypass' or 'direct' mode then there will be no audible differences."  Otherwise, with any DSPs etc engaged, they will clearly sound different to each other, depending on the relative settings of their various 'sound-shaping' controls.  I also agree entirely with your concluding paragraph.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same