[waldojim]

Ok, here we go. Part one of the multi-part saga for updating the sound in my home theater setup.

First, I would like to post an interesting but informative report: http://news.cnet.com.../?tag=mncol;txt

Quote

As luck would have it, my friend Brent Butterworth just wrote an article where he compared the sound of a 2009 Yamaha RX-V1800 receiver with a 1980 Pioneer SX-1980 and a 1978 Sony STR-V6 receiver. In blind tests, where the listeners did not know which receiver was playing, most preferred the sound of the ancient Pioneer. Butterworth said, "Even with all the levels carefully matched, and even in conditions where none of the receivers were ever pushed past their limits, the Pioneer SX-1980 simply beat the hell out of the other receivers." Gee, what a shock; in three decades, the industry has gone backward!

Quote

don't blame Denon, Harman Kardon, Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, or Yamaha for making "good-enough-sounding" receivers, but it would be nice if they could occasionally offer one or two models with a minimal features set, and devote the maximum resources to making the thing sound as good as possible. Oh right, that's what high-end audio companies do!

Now then, at some point in time, I would have labeled a couple of those (Marantz, Denon, HK) as 'high-end'. What happened? Who do we turn to now for quality audio?

I have personally listened to Integra receivers, and the Marantz 1601, and several Denon models. They honestly left me wondering what these manufacturers are smoking! The Marantz in particular actually made me ask the question: HOW can they honestly expect people to pay this? That amp is rated at 50 watts per channel across 7 channels. I don't care how many channels it claims it can handle, if it cannot really handle the rated power on a $700 amp, then it doesn't need more channels. It needs to be redesigned. That amp, connected up to two B&W 683's sounded like crap. I have heard better Systems in a Box.

Now then, at the end of the year, I fully intend to replace the entire sound system. Amp through speakers. I am having an impossible time testing receivers as when I find the ones I want to listen to, I cannot find them at places with the same speakers, or similar listening areas. It is hard to tell if the coloration is coming from the amp or the speakers. In the case of the Marantz though, I can tell you that it was a lack of SUSTAINABLE POWER. Listening to Shine on Part 2 from Pink Floyd was enough to prove that. It cannot sustain any amount of power, and immediately muddies out. I feel sorry for the B&W's it was played on.

So, any suggestions out there folks? I don't need TOTL. I don't care about that. I want QUALITY sound across 2 channels, and the ability to watch a movie (5.1) as needed.

I do want to stay under $700 new, or if I can find it as a refurb (with warranty) will go that route. Speakers will be determined at a later date, though leaning B&W 600 series right now. I don't need a lot of power - those 683's will do fine with a SOLID 55WPC amp - I have tested this with my Nakamichi, and can prove that yes, 55 is plenty. That is also my benchmark for sound quality.

Any hints, tips, places to look? Even just comments about current generation of kiddies and sound quality?

[smax013]

I ain't gonna be much help overall as you likely have much higher criteria than I do...my Sony STR-DE885 does me fine for my music and regular TV orientation and I use Logitech Z-5500 speaker with my projector setup (I have my 720p projector oriented 90 deg to my HDTV...the projector came about because the house had a pull down screen when I bought it, so I always saw a projector in my future for movies ).

I can sympathize with not having too many good options for "laying hands on" and testing stuff these days. While I love ordering stuff online, the explosion of online purchasing has killed a lot of local stuff and make it a lot harder to try stuff out before ordering. This is definitely true in the computer world, but also in things like home theater stuff too.

[LincolnSpector]

Hi, waldojim.

You're clearly more of an audiophile than I am. Nothing wrong with that.

A lot of people argue that audio quality lost a lot when they replaced tubes with transistors in the amps. I'm not sure I agree. I'm also not sure if Pioneer was still using tubes in 1980.

Also, the number of variables for these types of tests are huge. If one of the receivers was just a tiny bit louder, most people will say it sounds better. There's also the question of whether the 1980 model was a higher-priced model (adjusted for inflation, of course) than the newer ones.

And keep in mind that a 1980 receiver isn't adequate for a modern home theater. It doesn't take digital inputs, and it only feeds two speakers. A home theater needs 5 or 7 directional speakers, plus a subwoofer.

About watts per channel: Depending on the size of your room, 50 is probably good enough. Remember that the subwoofer, which is self-powered, is doing much of the heavy lifting.

Lincoln

[mjd420nova]

I've spent some extensive time with clients listening to systems in stores that have some very nice listening rooms and reached the point of saturation. My system, although only four channel surround, is more than adequate when set up properly. Listening to amps and speakers in a salesroom can be very misleading. My twenty year old Pioneer unit with 100 watts per channel(100 watts on surround channels too) has served me well and survived four children who think higher volume makes better sound. This has resulted in many burned out speakers. Two sets of Pioneer pairs, one CS-66 and a set of CS-88, couldn't handle the strain and either burned the voice coils or pinned the cones to the magnets. The only satisfactory pair I've found are the AR-100's from Acoustic Research that have continued to meet the strain without failure. They are guaranteed not to burn out and I couldn't buy them fast enough after they were demonstrated to me when the salesman hooked a zip cord to them and plugged them into a wall outlet. With a 15 inch woofer, ten inch mid-range and peizo element tweeters, placed at the almost ceiling level, fills the room with bass that will pound on your chest and make a sub-woofer unneccesary. The rear speakers are Pioneer CS-100 and mounted above and behind the prime listening area. Todays amps are over rated and do not offer the wide range of response that are evident in the older systems. For those looking to buy a system, I recommend you select your favorite CD(not MP3) to take with you and do some comparisons. Again, many of these listening areas in the stores are not the best environments nor would the average user be able to create the ideal areas within your home. Working with wall coverings and placement of the speakers can go a long ways to enhance the sound and even make up for some losses that would detract from good sound. Proper bass relief port sizing will give the cones of the woofers the room to move properly and often are an overlooked part of construction. So many systems, so little time. "High end" amps are often just banking on the brand name rather than producing a good quality sound amplifier. However, even cheap systems can be made to excel in a proper environment. I spend much more time adjusting position and surroundings in a users home than I would ever do selecting a system.

This post has been edited by mjd420nova: 29 July 2011 - 09:12 AM

[waldojim]

LincolnSpector, on 29 July 2011 - 08:18 AM, said:

Hi, waldojim.

You're clearly more of an audiophile than I am. Nothing wrong with that.

A lot of people argue that audio quality lost a lot when they replaced tubes with transistors in the amps. I'm not sure I agree. I'm also not sure if Pioneer was still using tubes in 1980.

Also, the number of variables for these types of tests are huge. If one of the receivers was just a tiny bit louder, most people will say it sounds better. There's also the question of whether the 1980 model was a higher-priced model (adjusted for inflation, of course) than the newer ones.

And keep in mind that a 1980 receiver isn't adequate for a modern home theater. It doesn't take digital inputs, and it only feeds two speakers. A home theater needs 5 or 7 directional speakers, plus a subwoofer.

About watts per channel: Depending on the size of your room, 50 is probably good enough. Remember that the subwoofer, which is self-powered, is doing much of the heavy lifting.

Lincoln

I don't mind transistor too much, as the overall amp quality really isn't hampered too much there (if done correctly). The main problem seems to be amplifiers that cannot deliver rated power when it is needed. For example: Here is the product information page for the Marantz 6005. This amp claims to be able to deliver 110wpc across 7 channels, yet only consumes 650 watts from the wall. Now, I might not be the worlds best mathematician, or physicist. here, but where the heck is the other 120 watts coming from!? This is a classic case of, giving the amplifier stage proper hardware, without having a power supply that can back it up.

The Pioneer 1980 had 14 Field Effect Transformers in there. And about 95% of that case was consumed with capacitors, and power supply. Delivering a stable 270WPC is not an easy thing to do, and Pioneer did it well. The Pioneer was more expensive, no doubts there, adjusted for inflation, it would be close to $3,000. That said, there are Denon, and Marantz receivers in the $5,000+ mark that don't have 1/2 the power, or sadly, even comparable sound quality.

While I am not suggesting that the 1980 has any place in a modern Home Theater setup, I am suggesting that it is hard to find something that IS.

Again, I am not worried about power to any great degree. Only that the receiver needs enough to prove useful. If it can manage a pair of B&W 683's, then I think it can manage most anything I would be willing to throw at it. The 683's aren't the worlds most efficient speaker, but they aren't bad either. They also manage to have relatively clean sound across multiple listening types (be it movies, to most music I enjoy).

So again, at this stage, to repeat my primary concern - I just want to know what qualifies as a 'quality' amp these days. So far, it would seem NAD is the only company releasing amps with accurate information on what they can really do. Though I came across a company I never heard of last night: Anthem. Not sure what the story is with them, but the reviews pretty well state that the MX500 can more than pull its own weight. The problem is that the sites reviewing that gear, are just as focused on the 'checklist' features, that I learned nothing reading the articles.

[MLStrand56]

LincolnSpector, on 29 July 2011 - 08:18 AM, said:

If one of the receivers was just a tiny bit louder, most people will say it sounds better. There's also the question of whether the 1980 model was a higher-priced model (adjusted for inflation, of course) than the newer ones.

And keep in mind that a 1980 receiver isn't adequate for a modern home theater. It doesn't take digital inputs, and it only feeds two speakers. A home theater needs 5 or 7 directional speakers, plus a subwoofer.

About watts per channel: Depending on the size of your room, 50 is probably good enough. Remember that the subwoofer, which is self-powered, is doing much of the heavy lifting.

Lincoln

Why do people keep complaining about how limited their RECEIVER is? You bought a Receiver, which by it's defination limits your options. Does nobody buy A/V Control Amps (formerly called pre-amps), & separate Power Amps anymore?

With a Receiver, if you want to upgrade your I/O options, you have to upgrade the amplifier section even if it's perfectly adequate. With separate control/power components I can upgrade the Control Amp, but keep my Power Amps. I currently run 5x Yamaha MX-1000U amps. Doubtful I'll ever need to upgrade Those! Also with that kind of power, no Home-Theater-In-A-Box speakers will be adequate. Home Theater requires REAL speakers. Throwing a whole bunch of 2-inch Yamaha speakers around a room is NOT Theater.

MLStrand56

[waldojim]

MLStrand56, on 21 January 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Why do people keep complaining about how limited their RECEIVER is? You bought a Receiver, which by it's defination limits your options. Does nobody buy A/V Control Amps (formerly called pre-amps), & separate Power Amps anymore?

With a Receiver, if you want to upgrade your I/O options, you have to upgrade the amplifier section even if it's perfectly adequate. With separate control/power components I can upgrade the Control Amp, but keep my Power Amps. I currently run 5x Yamaha MX-1000U amps. Doubtful I'll ever need to upgrade Those! Also with that kind of power, no Home-Theater-In-A-Box speakers will be adequate. Home Theater requires REAL speakers. Throwing a whole bunch of 2-inch Yamaha speakers around a room is NOT Theater.

MLStrand56

Many high end receivers will allow you to feed it 7 channels (or more these days) of analog audio. Thus, if you have a POWERFUL receiver, then it can easily be used as a power amp. Some of us are also quite happy with certain receivers - depending on the task at hand. The only issue I have with many of them today, is the power ratings. If you are going to claim you can deliver 100wpc across 7 channels, then the power supply needs to be able to actually deliver it! Drawing 500watts from the wall, and claiming 700 watts to your speakers is nothing less than lying.

edit: Oh.. and who mentioned tiny little Yamaha speakers?

This post has been edited by waldojim: 22 January 2012 - 03:47 PM

[MLStrand56]

waldojim, on 29 July 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

The Pioneer 1980 had 14 Field Effect Transformers in there. And about 95% of that case was consumed with capacitors, and power supply. Delivering a stable 270WPC is not an easy thing to do, and Pioneer did it well. The Pioneer was more expensive, no doubts there, adjusted for inflation, it would be close to $3,000. That said, there are Denon, and Marantz receivers in the $5,000+ mark that don't have 1/2 the power, or sadly, even comparable sound quality.

While I am not suggesting that the 1980 has any place in a modern Home Theater setup, I am suggesting that it is hard to find something that IS.

Again, I am not worried about power to any great degree. Only that the receiver needs enough to prove useful. If it can manage a pair of B&W 683's, then I think it can manage most anything I would be willing to throw at it. The 683's aren't the worlds most efficient speaker, but they aren't bad either. They also manage to have relatively clean sound across multiple listening types (be it movies, to most music I enjoy).

So again, at this stage, to repeat my primary concern - I just want to know what qualifies as a 'quality' amp these days. So far, it would seem NAD is the only company releasing amps with accurate information on what they can really do. Though I came across a company I never heard of last night: Anthem. Not sure what the story is with them, but the reviews pretty well state that the MX500 can more than pull its own weight. The problem is that the sites reviewing that gear, are just as focused on the 'checklist' features, that I learned nothing reading the articles.

The Pioneer SX-1980 is, to this day, the highest power rated Receiver ever made. The SX-1980, it's little brother SX-1250 have the most accurate phono EQ circuits ever made. Last yr I bought an old Pioneer SX-5590 (European Black Face 1250 w/voltage selector) for a temp. living room receiver. When I eventually get my A/V equipment from USA, the 5590 will be for my computer system.

An old 2 Ch. stereo or Receiver can quite nicely work with todays multi-Ch systems. You must however be able to separate the pre-amp from the power amp of the receiver. The key is having the proper outboard multi-Ch processor & extra amps. If you want Concert Hall ambience, nothing can touch the Yamaha DSP-1. I run 2 of those (Left & Right). If you want true movie surround, there are plenty of processors for that too (Yamaha DSR-100 Pro, Yamaha DDP-1, Yamaha DDP-2, etc). I run all 3 of those. Most movie surround sound processors also provide some level of ambience synthesis for music.

MLStrand56