or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Just compared a slew of mid-range receivers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just compared a slew of mid-range receivers

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
I been the very proud owner of an Onkyo TX-DS777 for the past 14 years. NEVER had a problem with it, but the center channel output started "crackling" about a year ago. Easy fix was to remove the center channel. Now, in a position of more wealth, I was looking to upgrade. Was absolutely set on the Yamaha RX-830. A friend of mine had a Yamaha (unknown model #) years ago, and, based on it and the recent HDMI problems the Onkyo receivers have been experiencing, I figured it was time to choose another brand (in terms of long-term utilization)

I just returned from the Magnolia center at B_stB_y. It was late at night and there was no associate to help me. BEST POSSIBLE SITUATION. I was able to use their computerized set-up to demo the Marantz-SR 5008, Marantz-SR 7008, Denon AVR-X3000, Yamaha RX-A830, and Yamaha RX-A1030 using their DVD player with no interruption.

Utilizing the "Direct (or comparable) setting on the receivers, I kept switching from one source the the next. Honestly, there was no comparison. The Yamaha RX-A1030 blew them all away. I went in expecting amazing "separation" from the Marantz and kept listening, hoping to hear it. No contest. The Yamaha RX-A1030 (even the 830), bested it on all marks. (I should state that I was using a "Spanish Guitar" + Back Beats CD that I found in the room).

Overall, I must have spent an hour switching sources, and it immediately became apparent that the Yamaha RX-830 and Yamaha RX-A1030 were vastly superior in music reproduction and "separating" high-end sound. In the end, I was sold on the SOLID build of the 1030 model (seemingly at least 10lbs heavier than the 830), as well as the VERY noticeable sonic differences.

Bottom line: After trolling numerous AVR forums for the past week, I just pulled the trigger on the Yamaha RX-A1030 on Cr_tchf_eld.com. Their 60-day return policy and Lifetime Tech Support sold me.

Can't wait for this beast to arrive!

PS - Running a set of 7.1 Klipsch (mixed and matched throughout the years). Will advise if I have any issues with the Yamaha RX-A1030
post #2 of 32
Thread Starter 
PS- I utilized a slew of speakers including B&W 685 Series and Det Tech's 800 and 1000 series. No comparison. The Yamaha RX-1030 beat the Marantz SR-5008 (and even the SR-6008 and 7008, IMHO) on each.
post #3 of 32
Here's the rub ... Magnolia stores never run the Auto EQ systems so you didn't get to experience the Audyssey MultEQ XT in the Marantz 5008 and 6008 (which would have been noticeably better) or MultEQ XT32 in the 7008 (which would have been even more noticeably better). frown.gif
post #4 of 32
Thread Starter 
Yeah, was aware of that going in (thanks to your prior comments in the Marantz threads).

Wasn't looking to compare room equalization/localization, just pure tonal reproduction. I have no doubt that Audyssey is superior to YPAO in this regard.

Smoothie, I'd like to thank you for the (36,000!) posts. Invaluable to so many (including myself).
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Here's the rub ... Magnolia stores never run the Auto EQ systems so you didn't get to experience the Audyssey MultEQ XT in the Marantz 5008 and 6008 (which would have been noticeably better) or MultEQ XT32 in the 7008 (which would have been even more noticeably better). frown.gif

I am sure you meant to say 'subjectively speaking'.
post #6 of 32
Nope ....using the EQ on any AVR will generally always sound better than not using it at all wink.gif
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Nope ....using the EQ on any AVR will generally always sound better than not using it at all wink.gif

Generally is not absolute. I have never heard an improvement with Audyssey.
post #8 of 32
Some rooms sometimes but not always.
post #9 of 32

I'm glad I came across this forum. For speakers I Martin Logan SL3 Front, ML Theater Center, ML Aries Rears, ML Motion 4 Back Surround and 1 ML Depth subwoofer.

 

Currently running a old cheap Marantz sr5001 with a B&K amp.

 

Looking for a new A/V, i was able to try the yamaha RX-A1030. I was really impressed with how it sounded, I immediately noticed a big improvement in sound when playing movies. I just though it was the new audio format like DTS Master Audio cause my old marantz never was able too.I didn't find it had as much bass as my old marantz but in a good way. More like the bass was where it needed to be and wasn't constant.

 

 So like a fool i ended up bringing it back and got a Marantz sr7007. I've been playing with this marantz for the last hour and half and feel like the yamaha was much superior in performance.

 

So i'd have to agree, for the short time i had the yamaha i felt like it was a superiour unit as far as sound for movies anyway.

post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsmoothie View Post

Nope ....using the EQ on any AVR will generally always sound better than not using it at all wink.gif

Generally is not absolute. I have never heard an improvement with Audyssey.

Never failed to not hear an improvement with Audyssey.
post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Never failed to not hear an improvement with Audyssey.

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

Really?? Please explain, I'm quite interested...
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Never failed to not hear an improvement with Audyssey.

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

Yeah, I'm sure we've both heard that line of B...

If you define "good sounding amp" as one with a good DSP and in the hands of someone who can adjust it properly, then I agree. ;-)
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

I believe I hear John McEnroe. biggrin.gif
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Never failed to not hear an improvement with Audyssey.

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

what a load of crap. rolleyes.gif
post #16 of 32
Not everyone likes Audessey's take it or leave it results or approach. Not all speakers in all rooms benefit from it. It's not "the" reason to buy an AVR. It can be "a" reason though.
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

what a load of crap. rolleyes.gif

Sort of like the Audyssey kool aid.
post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

what a load of crap. rolleyes.gif

Sort of like the Audyssey kool aid.

You are full of it. A good sounding amp cannot and will not alter the frequency response in the way any auto calibration program can. You sir are the one in a Kool-aid bath since you believe audyssey and I'm assuming other calibration programs as well are not needed when one has a good sounding amp.

Believing in magic won't change that an amp and auto cal program are not one in the same.
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Sort of like the Audyssey kool aid.

it's not necessary to like Audyssey to understand that in most circles, an amp that acts as an equalizer is not a desirable device, so suggesting that a different amp does something to outflank whatever EQ does is, well, hard to figure . . .
post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

You are full of it. A good sounding amp cannot and will not alter the frequency response in the way any auto calibration program can. You sir are the one in a Kool-aid bath since you believe audyssey and I'm assuming other calibration programs as well are not needed when one has a good sounding amp.

Believing in magic won't change that an amp and auto cal program are not one in the same.

You sound full of it. If all amps sound the same how can you choose a good sounding amp from a bad sounding one?

None of the RC programs have been to my liking. Still I would only suggest to others that they may like it rather than tell them that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

I do not believe in magic I was yanking Arny's chain.

To you and the other pseudo scientists: You are all good at repeating what you have read in an effort to showcase your knowledge. Maybe you should not just relax and enjoy the music until you get a degree in science.
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

it's not necessary to like Audyssey to understand that in most circles, an amp that acts as an equalizer is not a desirable device, so suggesting that a different amp does something to outflank whatever EQ does is, well, hard to figure . . .

It is just as difficult to understand why you can't identify when someone is yanking another person's chain.
post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

You are full of it. A good sounding amp cannot and will not alter the frequency response in the way any auto calibration program can. You sir are the one in a Kool-aid bath since you believe audyssey and I'm assuming other calibration programs as well are not needed when one has a good sounding amp.

Believing in magic won't change that an amp and auto cal program are not one in the same.

You sound full of it. If all amps sound the same how can you choose a good sounding amp from a bad sounding one?

None of the RC programs have been to my liking. Still I would only suggest to others that they may like it rather than tell them that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

I do not believe in magic I was yanking Arny's chain.

To you and the other pseudo scientists: You are all good at repeating what you have read in an effort to showcase your knowledge. Maybe you should not just relax and enjoy the music until you get a degree in science.

rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

anything else you wish to tell me to do?

remember there is a right way and a magic way to understand sound reproduction. please keep the magic locked up.
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

anything else you wish to tell me to do?

remember there is a right way and a magic way to understand sound reproduction. please keep the magic locked up.

The best way is not try to understand it. Simply enjoy the music.
post #24 of 32
^^^ LOL!
Without understanding we have no knowledge. How do we create progress with no understanding or knowledge?
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

Some rooms sometimes but not always.

Room correction software is misnamed because it does more than just correct rooms. The choice is especially misleading because room correction is one its most controversial functions. It also corrects speakers and other components of the system including in some cases (some Class D amplifiers) the AVR itself. No speakers are perfect, and their location and the room itself profoundly affect their performance as seen from the listening location.
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

If you had said room treatments and better speakers eliminate the need for Audyssey, I would agree with you. I have directly compared an Emotiva amp to Lexicon and hear no difference. That isn't to say there may or may not be a measurable difference, but I certainly can't hear it. That said, my Genesis has a Lexicon sound system and I think it's fabulous biggrin.gif But, they designed it to integrate with the car well by ensuring speakers are bolted to the frame and not just popped in, etc so in a sense, room acoustics are better and the speakers themselves make the difference.
post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason 

A good sounding amp cannot and will not alter the frequency response[/B] in the way any auto calibration program can.

Agreed. Most amps do a very good job of maintaining flat response into speaker loads, even tough ones.

In comparison speakers are generally non-flat even on-axis. A speaker that varies by +/- 5 dB (which is clearly audible) is actually a pretty flat and smooth speaker.

Speakers become even more non-flat when their locations are changed from in corners, to along a wall, to somewhat out from the wall.
Quote:
You sir are the one in a Kool-aid bath since you believe Audyssey and I'm assuming other calibration programs as well are not needed when one has a good sounding amp.

Agreed. Amps that are non-flat have frequency response variations that are usually caused by the speaker's impedance curve which does not change for the reasons mentioned above. They are essentially random as compared to optimal changes.
Quote:
Believing in magic won't change that an amp and auto cal program are not one in the same.

Again agreed, for the reasons already given and not rebutted by any of the "magic amps" advocates.
Quote:
You sound full of it. If all amps sound the same how can you choose a good sounding amp from a bad sounding one?

That is a big problem for "magic amplfiier" advocates. In DBTs most good power amps are indistinguishable. The DBTs confirm the results of bench tests that say the same thing - that most power amps, both separates and those in AVRs have low distortion and flat smooth frequency response.
Quote:
None of the RC programs have been to my liking.

Since your evaluations are probably not bias-controlled perhaps your obvious misunderstandings and misapprehensions have created a strong bias against them.
Quote:
Still I would only suggest to others that they may like it rather than tell them that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

I do not believe in magic I was yanking Arny's chain.

Looks to me like I was giving you credit for possessing wisdom that your post shows a clear lacking of.
Quote:
To you and the other pseudo scientists:

Ah yes, the prerequisite broad-brush insults and name-calling.

Reality is that you haven't artculated a logical argument illustrated with reliable facts, so you seem to be resorting to taunts and insults.
Quote:
You are all good at repeating what you have read in an effort to showcase your knowledge.

That is a false claim for at least some of us. We have seen the benefits of this software in actual use.

The effectiveness of system tuning facilities has been well-illustrated by measurements in various AVS threads including the ones about Room Eq wizard, Audyssey and MCACC. Apparently you have not kept up with evolving technology.
Quote:
Maybe you should not just relax and enjoy the music until you get a degree in science.

I have a degree in science - engineering. I'm not alone in that sort of thing around here. I have decades of experience with professional audio. I'm again not alone in that sort of thing around here.

Your apparent lack of proper training and experience seems to have led you astray. And respecting people who have taken more audio more seriously seems to be beyond you. Sad.
Edited by arnyk - 10/23/13 at 5:31am
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

anything else you wish to tell me to do?

remember there is a right way and a magic way to understand sound reproduction. please keep the magic locked up.

The best way is not try to understand it. Simply enjoy the music.

You seem to be articulating a belief that science has nothing to offer to the science and art of sound reproduction. Do you really believe this?
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Never failed to not hear an improvement with Audyssey.

That is because you have inferior amps. A good sounding amp will eliminate the need for Audyssey.smile.gif

 

Mud - Audyssey is a room correction system, not an amp correction system. (Taking on board Arny's comments on that - but generally Audyssey is designed to compensate for the deficiencies of the room not the amps).

 

But I cannot believe you are being serious.

post #30 of 32
Congrats on the 1030! Dont let the Audyssey obsession at AVS dissuade you. It is an excellent AVR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Just compared a slew of mid-range receivers