or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Is there much of a difference between AVRs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there much of a difference between AVRs?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I've been looking at new AVRs but different stores have them hooked up to different speakers so that effects the sound and room is always different.. right now I have a HK 254 and due to all the bugs I'm looking at a new AVR. Now I've looked at Anthem and really liked it but it was paired up to Paradigm studio 60's and 20's, when I went to listen to an Elite it was hooked up to Energy speakers, listen to a Yamaha with Klipsch speakers, and tests are done with different movies and music so this makes it nearly impossible to tell the difference since the tests are done on different days with different speakers with different rooms all that effects the sound. Now lets say I upgrade to an Anthem MRX or Cambridge 551R will there be a noticeable difference to the HK 254? is it worth spending $1000+?
post #2 of 15
I've used HKs, Onkyos, Elites, and regular Pioneers, all on my wharfedale/svs setup, all of them have been regular solid state except for the new pioneer sc-1222k which uses the class D amp, an they have all sounded different, my preference though leans towards the old elite 92, though I do hear more details an nuance with the new sc-1222k.

You need to try them out for yourself to determine which you like best.

Good luck..
post #3 of 15
Totally agreed with Roggo. I own mid-high level receivers from onkyos (709, 515), yamahas (471, a1000, denon 3311, marantz 6003, and now this pioneer 1222. This Pioneer 1222 is the best receiver I ever heard in my life!!!
post #4 of 15
Totally agreed with Roggo. I own mid-high level receivers from onkyos (706, 515), yamahas (471, a1000), denon 3311, marantz 6003, and now this pioneer 1222. This Pioneer 1222 is the best receiver I ever heard in my life!!!
post #5 of 15
Another feature that will set the brands apart is the Auto EQ system used (eg. Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, etc.).
post #6 of 15
Not everyone likes to tweak and tweak and tweak... his AVR just for the fun oft it.
That is one of the reasons, why Audyssey is almost fully automated, to get rid of the added complexity of a manually tweak-able system, especially for the bass/sub, which causes the most problems in an home multimedia/cinema system.
Its the sub/bass most of the time, which is the main culprit due to room modes in a home entertainment system. Thus most of the effort goes into correcting this area.
post #7 of 15
Some do like to "tweak and tweak and tweak," but it's not "just for the fun of it." Its so that one can really improve one's system without the endless purchasing of new electronics. That's one of the reasons measurement mics and programs are such a hot topic. IMHO Audyssey could use a bit more tweakability.
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Some do like to "tweak and tweak and tweak," but it's not "just for the fun of it." Its so that one can really improve one's system without the endless purchasing of new electronics. That's one of the reasons measurement mics and programs are such a hot topic. IMHO Audyssey could use a bit more tweakability.

I can't deny that being able to draw your own 'house curve' and letting Audyssey attempt to match it would be a lovely feature.
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Another feature that will set the brands apart is the Auto EQ system used (eg. Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, etc.).

jd,

I agree that the Auto EQ system of an AVR is what will really makes the difference in overall SQ. I just find it interesting when some comment on having had multiple AVRs in their systems and declaring one the overall winner. I wonder how the comparisons were done and the length of time between having each in ones system.

Bill
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

jd,

I agree that the Auto EQ system of an AVR is what will really makes the difference in overall SQ. I just find it interesting when some comment on having had multiple AVRs in their systems and declaring one the overall winner. I wonder how the comparisons were done and the length of time between having each in ones system.

Bill

I don't know of any double blind comparisons of AVRs. They would have to be set up optimally with Auto EQ run. So many factors would be unknown and they would have significant differences. This is why I disagree with the premise that all AVRs sound the same, amplifiers are another matter altogether.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryder125 View Post

I've been looking at new AVRs but different stores have them hooked up to different speakers so that effects the sound and room is always different.. right now I have a HK 254 and due to all the bugs I'm looking at a new AVR.

I'm kinda curious what sort of bugs evolved with the HK 254 over the years? It seems like a pretty straight forward piece from HK's "High Current" days.
Quote:
Now I've looked at Anthem and really liked it but it was paired up to Paradigm studio 60's and 20's, when I went to listen to an Elite it was hooked up to Energy speakers, listen to a Yamaha with Klipsch speakers, and tests are done with different movies and music so this makes it nearly impossible to tell the difference since the tests are done on different days with different speakers with different rooms all that effects the sound. Now lets say I upgrade to an Anthem MRX or Cambridge 551R will there be a noticeable difference to the HK 254? is it worth spending $1000+?

I don't know why people expect the basic amps and traditional audio functions of AVRs to sound different at any price level. The measurements in published tests don't tell me that should be the case, my analysis of the circuitry in service manuals don't tell me that should be the case, the spec sheets don't tell me that should be the case and my own personal experiences with real-world AVRs don't tell me that should be the case. We should be well past the days when amps were choosy about speaker loads, had audible flaws, converters sound different, etc.

OTOH there are differences in bass management (especially crossover slopes). As others have mentioned the consequences of running the various and actually somewhat different automatic system tuning facilities (Audyssey - 28 different flavors, MCACC (now several flavors?) and YPAO while all generally improvements, can still sound different at some level of detail.

I think a lot of people would like to know more about how different the results are for running say Audyssey 2EQ or Audyssey basic Multieq, versus running Audyssey Multieq XT32 on the same fairly good speakers in the same fairly decent room and calibration mic position(s).
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

Some do like to "tweak and tweak and tweak," but it's not "just for the fun of it." Its so that one can really improve one's system without the endless purchasing of new electronics. That's one of the reasons measurement mics and programs are such a hot topic. IMHO Audyssey could use a bit more tweakability.

One has to differentiate between those, who just want a good sounding system and an "enthusiast", who spents a lot of time and effort in optimizing a system to his liking.
The "average" user probably belongs to group one in my opinion.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkey View Post

One has to differentiate between those, who just want a good sounding system and an "enthusiast", who spents a lot of time and effort in optimizing a system to his liking.
The "average" user probably belongs to group one in my opinion.

There should be growth for even "average users." I would also think it demeaning to label someone just an "average user." Most, but not all, start out as "average users" and some grow into being enthusiasts.
post #14 of 15
This wasn't meant to disqualify an "average" user but to emphasize his intentions to "just use" something instead of spending a lot of time learning the inner workings of (room) acoustics and the likes.
Edited by gurkey - 1/21/13 at 12:24pm
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

There should be growth for even "average users." I would also think it demeaning to label someone just an "average user." Most, but not all, start out as "average users" and some grow into being enthusiasts.
Exactly. And thats the difference between: "Your setup SQ is pretty good" vs "Your setup SQ is AMAZING"
Tweaking has that kind of advantage.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Is there much of a difference between AVRs?