AVS Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone have opinions of the sound quality of the lower end Denon AVR's with 2 channel music in stereo using full-range speakers (no-sub)? I don't care about any other features. I picked up a new/sealed AVR 687 on eBay for $150, but I haven't received it yet. Would I be correct in thinking that I would have to spend 3X more than that to better it in its sound quality (not features)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,187 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.costanza /forum/post/14235303


Anyone have opinions of the sound quality of the lower end Denon AVR's with 2 channel music in stereo using full-range speakers (no-sub)? I don't care about any other features.

Then why buy an AVR, rather than something stereo? Just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark /forum/post/14235381


Then why buy an AVR, rather than something stereo? Just curious.

You probably posted before I added that I had picked up a new AVR 687 on Ebay for $150 to my original post.

To answer your question further, I'll probably add a center and surround speakers one day in the future when I can afford them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,187 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.costanza /forum/post/14235413


You probably posted before I added that I had picked up a new AVR 687 on Ebay for $150 to my original post.

To answer your question further, I'll probably add a center and surround speakers one day in the future when I can afford them.

Well, see, if you're thinking about adding speakers, then suddenly other features do matter, or they will.



As for your simple stereo application, the amp section of this receiver will sound very similar to the amplifier sections of most other entry receivers.


I think your reasoning -- even a low-end stereo receiver will cost this much anyway, so why not buy the new but old Denon? -- is mostly sound. The Denon will be bigger, heavier, hotter, and more complicated than a simple stereo unit would be, but $150 is a good price if it truly is brand new and from a trustworthy seller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Sound quality is NUMERO UNO for me!

*IF* I add speakers in the future, it will most likley be a center and single pair of surrounds. I'm perfectly happy with 5.1, so 7.1 isn't important. I lived with a 7.1 capable Panasonic XR57 for the last 2 years and had no desire to add more speakers to my old 5.1 setup.

I won't be replacing my 2 year old 480P Panasonic 42" plasma for a long time, so I have no need for BluRay DVD (I'm using an Oppo DVD player, which I don't plan on replacing soon).

I have always run my video straight to my display, so I don't need video switching in a receiver.

I have always manually setup my speakers as far as levels, etc, so I don't need that feature.

All I want is the BEST sound quality (natural/warm/dynamic) within my budget, which as you can guess, is very small right now.

So you think this Denon would "sound" the same as other receivers in its price range? I sold the XR57 because it sounded too forward and lacking in bass for my taste. I used it with a pair of Montor Audio B4's followed by a pair of Definitive Tech BP10B's. Should I buy an older, used higher-end Denon receiver that sounds "better" than this entry-level AVR687?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
I have not had bass issues with receivers I have owned. In general, I don't blame my receiver for audio issues. I blame my room, my speakers or the source material.


That being said, newer receivers are coming with onboard room correction, and that can make a significant difference in the sound for better or worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,187 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.costanza /forum/post/14237932




So you think this Denon would "sound" the same as other receivers in its price range? I sold the XR57 because it sounded too forward and lacking in bass for my taste. I used it with a pair of Montor Audio B4's followed by a pair of Definitive Tech BP10B's. Should I buy an older, used higher-end Denon receiver that sounds "better" than this entry-level AVR687?



I think that, as long as the amplifiers are operating comfortably within their range and exhibit no gross abnormalities, they are the least significant factor in the sound of a system. You can move the speakers 6 inches backwards or sideways and create a 100x bigger change in the sound than by swapping one decent 75W Japanese solid state amp for another.


I very much doubt that one amplifier that measures +/- 1dB across the entire audible spectrum will offer audibly different bass levels than another.


Nobody can say whether you'll like the sound of the Denon better or worse than that of a different amp because, frankly, 99% of whatever difference you might hear will be irreproducible in someone else's room or with someone else's ears. Good chance it won't be measurable, either. The only other variable is user settings, and the newer the processor the more likely it is that there's some obscure setting in some menu somewhere that really can make a difference in the sound quality, one that has nothing to do with the raw performance of the amplifier section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Hmm? I've never had the chance to setup a receiver "face off", but I've read some in the audio mags. In one, which included 3 entry level receivers, the listeners claimed to hear audible differences. I think these guys are smart enough to eliminate variables within the receivers. I'm guessing these differences weren't measurable in so far as freq. response, but were related to something else the electronics were doing to the sound. I imagine a reciever could "blur" the sound while still measuring "flat". Maybe a bass note that lasts an imperceptibly longer time makes it more prominent? Is there some test that measures whether a sound is repoduced correctly over time like a "decay plot" for a speaker?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,923 Posts
There's more to receivers than their amp section. Assuming the differences were real (which is always up for debate,) consider other factors -


* Room correction feature

* DACs

* Pre amp section (tone controls, balance, volume control)


To name some, but perhaps not all other factors
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,187 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by g.costanza /forum/post/14239400


Hmm? I've never had the chance to setup a receiver "face off", but I've read some in the audio mags. In one, which included 3 entry level receivers, the listeners claimed to hear audible differences. I think these guys are smart enough to eliminate variables within the receivers. I'm guessing these differences weren't measurable in so far as freq. response, but were related to something else the electronics were doing to the sound. I imagine a reciever could "blur" the sound while still measuring "flat". Maybe a bass note that lasts an imperceptibly longer time makes it more prominent? Is there some test that measures whether a sound is repoduced correctly over time like a "decay plot" for a speaker?

An audiophile magazine that didn't make mountains out of molehills when comparing similar products would not last very long. I'll bet any amount of money you'd care to name that the comparison you read was not a double-blind test.


There are dozens of measurable factors in amplifier performance besides frequency response.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top