how about some reviews for receivers?

[wgscott]

I refuse to buy an AV receiver, much like I refuse to buy a cell phone. I recognize most people think this is nuts or Luddite behavior. My two-channel stereo speakers sit defiantly, 90° from my TV and its $300 Costco sound-bar. (I do put the HDMI hose from the Mini into the TV, however. But that is the compromise one is forced to make when sharing a house with three lunatic dwarves and a woman who seems to watch Antiques Roadshow just to put a weed up my arse, but I digress.)

 

[rom661]

Wow. So many areas, much of which interests me, so few answers, and so many things I disagree with. To those who say legitimate high end offers nothing but a way for rich people to spend their money on something that doesn't provide anything of value.... I can't think of a polite answer. Although some wealthy people take that approach, they're far more likely to buy a car or boat. If you've never experienced what a really great system can do, I'm sorry for you.

 

I have also never heard a receiver that can compete with the best of high performance seperates. I just did a demo yesterday and it wasn't close. Two receivers, two mid priced seperates, one better at audio the other better at video, and a big buck processor. It walked all over all of them and the separates were better than the receivers, in part because of the better amps used.

 

Regardless of all of that, I am flummoxed by the new generation of receivers with USB inputs and network inputs. There is no question that these are not the absolute best way to get the best sound, but I don't actually understand them and I need to so that I can best advise my customers. Not everyone is looking for state of the art sound. A customer today has a new Onkyo receiver he just bought, a PC with everything from FLAC to MP3 on it, and wanted to talk about a modestly priced outboard DAC. I don't think he needs it but the USB will not handle a direct stream from the computer. The receiver wants to see a network connection. It has graphics to allow you to manage your music from there. I'm sure it isn't great but it seems like the best solution to his situation. He was looking at a $400 DAC from me so he was going to get good, not world class, anyway. I would love some discussion on the pros and cons of this approach and how it works.

 

Older A/V receivers, to me, aren't worth discussing. Give them a signal and they do what they do, either to your satisfaction or not. But these newest offerings seem to be changing the rules and options. The first time I saw a USB input on one of our receivers I thought it was cool for that type of customer. However it wouldn't accept direct output from a PC.

 

Just my thoughts. Maybe I'm too old for some of this. Of course my personal solution is an Audio Research DAC8 into a great tube preamp. Old school in today's world, I guess. I still maintain most A/V receivers I use do many, many things at a fairly mediocre level, with the exception of video.

 

Rick

 

[Paul R]

 

Anyway, what you say makes sense doesn't it? Put a $1000 receiver up against a $1000 amp, and the amp is going to walk all over the receiver every time.

 

Not sure what a fair comparison would really be if limited to just two channel sound. An integrated amp + dac + tuner might approach apples2apples though.

 

 

[crisnee]

Yes, amazed by how many people just blithely say that there is no comparison between AVR's and separate's sound. Unless of course they mean it literally. Because no one actually does legit comparisons. But most "audiophiles," are certainly willing to overlook that minor detail when making their judgment.

 

I think one person here said they made an actual comparison. But was it a valid one? It's almost impossible to compare amps/integrateds/AVRs legitimately in a typical home. Who has a setup where they can listen to one right next to the other (not hours or days later) with levels matched exactly, everything in the exact same place, all settings identical, etc. And comparing components in shops is always suspect for reasons too numerous to go into.

 

I'll just relate an admittedly anecdotal tale involving a mid-level 100 watt or so 2009 AVR.

 

I have owned very high quality audio in the past, but due to financial issues I can no longer own them. I still have very fine speakers, but I had to settle for (you guessed it) an AVR.

 

I also still own a high quality low power (45 watt) amp which I drive direct with XXHighend and a Hiface/V-Dac using an attenuated CX cable (re jkenny).

 

Now just like your typical home listener I can't make a direct legitimate comparison. However when comparing them as well as I can (which means there's 10-15 minutes while I busily change the setup--itself not conducive to relaxed listening) and the levels are not precisely matched, everything else is pretty much the same, I find it difficult to distinguish between them.

 

Let me say that I'm only swapping the amp and AVR. I'm running the AVR in direct mode (no processing, nothing) and using the same external DAC and XXHighend. So I'm essentially comparing amps, although the AVR's amp also has the minimally active pre-amp involved.

 

And lastly let me say they both sound absolutely wonderful. The soundstage is wide and deep (much wider than the speakers), and what's particularly important to me, instruments (in decent recordings) are clearly separated and solid and the whole thing is balanced, dynamic, and musical. Listen to Alison Krauss "Lonely Runs both Ways" and ache along with her, the sheer beauty of her voice and the incredible instruments, or Gould, Goldberg 81 and hear all the lines of the piano clearly, distinctly and powerfully. The notes are just floating individually at times even while being played simultaneously (if that makes sense). And this from the amp of an average AVR.

 

These systems sound much better than the high end gear I owned previously. How could this be? Well the main reason I think is that I was really careful when I setup the acoustic space this time. Room correction in other words (physical placement etc., not DSP). It's not that I didn't pay attention before, it's that this time I REALLY paid attention to the room.

 

So what does all this prove? Nothing really, except that room setup is extremely extremely important.

 

Maybe it proves that I'm lucky and got the only AVR with a good quality amp section ever made. Or maybe it proves that at least the amp part of some AVRs can come pretty damn close to producing high end quality audio. So if you lack funds, space or whatever, maybe buying something that has the potential to sound really good, can play video and have all kinds of goodies too (whether they be quality or not) is not such a no no.

 

Now if only someone would test them for real, after all just because all good card carrying audiophiles decry them because someone once heard a bad one hardly..., Of course I jest, jest to make a point. I know for sure there were at least two bad ones.

 

Chris

 

[Audio_ELF]

First off, I'd like to make it clear that I do think AVR receivers are valid option in computer audio system... However I think if you make a valid comparison a dedicated audio device will be superior though maybe not a lot.

 

By "valid comparison" I am thinking of comparing for example a Naim UnitiQute (£1350), Rotel RSX1500 (£1200) or even Peechtree Nova (£1100) to a similar RRP AVR. Of course most AVR are available significalnty below RRP which gives them an advantage.

 

Horses for course...

 

Eloise

 

[mwheelerk]

"I think one person here said they made an actual comparison. But was it a valid one? It's almost impossible to compare amps/integrateds/AVRs legitimately in a typical home. Who has a setup where they can listen to one right next to the other (not hours or days later) with levels matched exactly, everything in the exact same place, all settings identical, etc.”

 

What the heck does this mean to you? Do you honestly believe that any judgements and decsion someone makes in their home about comparisons between two pieces of equipment to be completely invalid? If we don’t use our ears and mind in evaluating equipment within our systems how would anyone make a decision to purchase. Based on your statement it would appear that if we have failed to implement controlled scientific tests then we have wasted our time and money. I live in a real world not a lab and I use real world circumstances and trust my ears in the end to make my decision on equipment. I do not accept that A (comparison is not valid) equals B (because a controlled evalution with specific settings was not used).

 

[rom661]

"Comparing in a shop is suspect for too many reasons to go into". Quite a statement. Also quite an insult to good dealers. When we are doing these comparisons, we do level matching, including subs, etc. No games. Sorry if you don't know an honest dealer but it seems to have made you bitter.

 

We also very often loan equipment out so that side by side comparison you say doesn't happen, does.

 

As to the response to your comment, something to the effect of Charles Ives in the early 20th century when he yelled at a reviewer at a premier performance, "Stand up and use your ears like a man!". I agree. I can hear the difference in a component very quickly. I do it every day, all day. How I feel about the difference I usually determine by longer term listening and observing my emotional response to the music. However many of our customers are not as comfortable and we try to keep it as easy as possible for them. I'm not "better" than them. Some of them are extremely successful individuals. This is just what I do.

 

Still would like to better understand some of the music distribution and computer based options some of these new receivers provide. If it's a good answer for my clients, I need to know how and when to recommend and implement it.

 

[audiozorro]

How about the Emotiva UPA-2 amp for $349 and the Emotiva XDA-1 Differential Reference Balanced DAC/Preamp for $299. That's $648 total or less than $50 difference from the Outlaw RR2150.

 

Since my previous comments were specifically on AVRs and multichannel audio how about the Emotiva UMC-1 Audio Video Processor for $699. Add 3 Audioengine 5 speakers for $1047 total and 1 Audioengine S8 sub for $349, we are now up to $2095 for a 6.1 system.

 

What next, add the Oppo BDP-93 with Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D, Netflix instant streaming, Blockbuster on demand, DVD-A, SACD, and connectivity with USB and eSATA drives for $499.

 

How do you like them apples?

 

Oops, sorry - let's not forget the iPod Touch or iPad or a Mac computer.

 

[Joshua_j]

I guess it is not important though, because the finest piece of equipment ever was missed by me!!!

http://www.arcam.co.uk/products,fmj,av-amplifiers,AVR600.htm

 

But seriously, has anyone used the new features on the latest avr's that are supposed to work seemlessly with the ipads or the iphones? Since the DACs in the avr's can be good, aren't they to a higher level than what is found in the mac mini or the apple tv? Reading through the other threads here, the AppleTV2 upsamples everything to 48k. Isn't that opposed to most of what is trying to be accomplished by bit perfect playback?

I think that my "request box" inquiry is very valid and very relevant. Nowhere did I ask for a review of all the features, or a comparison of the self contained amps within the AVR's (the AV8003 has no internal amp and is used exclusively as a preamp, which is the same for the pre-outs of the ones even with internal amps).

In the end, wouldn't it be nice if we could just attach the ethernet port or the WI-FI to the device such as the AVR and circumvent the Mac mini or the AppleTV?

I think the Oppo solution is fantastic and might use it myself, but the monitor would need to be on correct? I would like to use it headless and with the iPad or Iphone and run itunes (amarra or others) in lossless with the only processing being the DACs within the AVR.

I have a separate pre-amp, the McIntosh C2300, that could be used in conjunction with an AVR or the Oppo....

There are numerous other sites on the internet that give info on the video switching, the video performance, and th other capabilities, but none have honest reviews of the wireless/wired computer friendly capabilities of the said devices.

For example, the AV8003 was hailed as such a great musical device and it has an ipod docking stand, navigating through the music is like sticking hepatitis c infected syringes into ones eyes.... not user friendly!!!! Stay away!!!! that is an honest review.

So that is the original thrust of my query and I really appreciate the other input here...and I think that many others share the same opinion.

Joshua

 

[Paul R]

How do you like them apples?

 

I like them Apples! Indeed I do...

 

A couple of things missing that add up a bit. I assume you are using the XDA-1 as a PreAmp, which is cool. (Gosh - integrated!) but I think it is missing a phono input and a tuner. Adding those doesn't cost much - $300 or so.

 

And assuming roughly equal performance - the basic price is under $1000. Pretty good match up.

 

(As an aside, I have been seriously thinking about buying one of those XDA-1s to play with, as well as a couple of those Emotiva tiny monoblock amps.)

 

I'll have to get busy to meet your initial challenge.

 

-Paul

 

 

[rom661]

Hey Chris

 

Yeah, probably. When a guy wants to compare five pieces, the store is the only way to do it and we try to do it right. If it's an existing system in his home and a piece or two of gear, we send it home with him so that he can evaluate "in context". It's how I would want to do it.

 

Sorry but sometimes I get a little worn out with the whole concept of dealers as low life. I love this silly hobby and the music it's attached to. I reacted to your statement defensively and it's not what you were saying. Sorry.

 

I worked very hard this week, actually for many weeks, to help a customer, OK, a prospect, make a decision on an expensive piece. He didn't want a loan of the gear but on three different occasions I took it to his house and spent three to four hours listening and comparing. I guess my work paid off. He bought the piece. From a dealer three hours away who hadn't done anything but gave him a 4% better discount.

 

So yeah, a bit touchy. However I should have told the prospect what to do with it rather than making the comment I made to you.

 

Best regards

 

Rick

 

 

 

 

[Ajax]

Hi Rick and Chris,

 

In my former life I was an engineer, and then a manufacturer and distributor of ceiling systems, and I well know the feeling of being "used".

 

In my case I would assist architects (sometimes clueless kids straight out of uni) with the design of ceiling systems for multi story office towers and then have those same designs shopped around the market by builders who invarably gave the supply to the cheapest price.

 

i.e. our competitors would end up taking credit for our work as well as win the job! Really frustrating and incredibily difficult to control.

 

I note that this practice has led to upfront charging for advice - e.g. in Sydney now if you want a custom fitted item such as a pair of ski boots you will be charged a $50 fitting fee as invarably the customer "uses" the ski shop to get the right boot for style, size, comfort etc. and then buys off the net.

 

It is important to remember the world is full of ars..holes(those that take what they can get at the expense of others) and good guys (people who love what they do and get a thrill out of helping others).

 

They exist on both sides of the fence, both dealers and customers, and it is our job to pick the difference and not lump everyone into the same category.

 

My two bobs worth.

 

 

[realhifi]

"Submitted by rom661 on Thu, 04/14/2011 - 22:59. Joined: 01/31/2008 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 474

New gen receivers

Wow. So many areas, much of which interests me, so few answers, and so many things I disagree with. To those who say legitimate high end offers nothing but a way for rich people to spend their money on something that doesn't provide anything of value.... I can't think of a polite answer. Although some wealthy people take that approach, they're far more likely to buy a car or boat. If you've never experienced what a really great system can do, I'm sorry for you.

 

I have also never heard a receiver that can compete with the best of high performance seperates. I just did a demo yesterday and it wasn't close. Two receivers, two mid priced seperates, one better at audio the other better at video, and a big buck processor. It walked all over all of them and the separates were better than the receivers, in part because of the better amps used.

 

Regardless of all of that, I am flummoxed by the new generation of receivers with USB inputs and network inputs. There is no question that these are not the absolute best way to get the best sound, but I don't actually understand them and I need to so that I can best advise my customers. Not everyone is looking for state of the art sound. A customer today has a new Onkyo receiver he just bought, a PC with everything from FLAC to MP3 on it, and wanted to talk about a modestly priced outboard DAC. I don't think he needs it but the USB will not handle a direct stream from the computer. The receiver wants to see a network connection. It has graphics to allow you to manage your music from there. I'm sure it isn't great but it seems like the best solution to his situation. He was looking at a $400 DAC from me so he was going to get good, not world class, anyway. I would love some discussion on the pros and cons of this approach and how it works.

 

Older A/V receivers, to me, aren't worth discussing. Give them a signal and they do what they do, either to your satisfaction or not. But these newest offerings seem to be changing the rules and options. The first time I saw a USB input on one of our receivers I thought it was cool for that type of customer. However it wouldn't accept direct output from a PC.

 

Just my thoughts. Maybe I'm too old for some of this. Of course my personal solution is an Audio Research DAC8 into a great tube preamp. Old school in today's world, I guess. I still maintain most A/V receivers I use do many, many things at a fairly mediocre level, with the exception of video.

 

Rick"

 

Rick,

 

I can not agree more with your comments above. I also agree 100% in your comments on dealers in general and the value that they bring to this industry.

 

As to your wondering about receivers and their networking ability I have been trying experiments with a few that function as you described in that they can play straight from a computer source or go out on the internet and play streams from Pandora, etc and I have to lean in the direction of the streaming over a low cost dac into a receiver. All of the functionality is built into an AV receiver so I'm not sure why someone would want to work around it with an outboard dac for very marginal (if any) improvements. Like anything, if you spend more you get more and the same goes for this new breed of receivers. The biggest question in all this is "do you need multi channel sound?". If not then by all means do NOT purchase a receiver. The all in one functionality you pay for can be easily eclipsed in performance by a simple integrated amplifier and low cost dac. Period.

 

 

PS. Sorry about the customer that found a better deal. It makes me crazy when that happens too. Luckily there are still great customers out there and you hope that they balance out the ones that simply "take".

 

 

 

 

 

[realhifi]

 

 

Chris,

 

"I believe that to get a proper perspective on and a good "listen," to a piece of gear one needs to take it home to evaluate it thoroughly over time" Just curious as to the length of time you are refering to.

 

I find that a large percentage of the time I can recommend a piece of gear or a whole system for that matter and the customer turns out not just satisfied but completly thrilled.

After acclimating themselves to the changes (the MOST important part I believe) it usually just gets better. Unless you are looking at room interactions with speakers or reallly subtle differences in components (usually fairly expensive ones), I hear the same thing in my shop as I do in the customers home. I think an overnight or weekend trial is certainly a good way to know if you can "get on" with something but going further is sounding more like a reviewer for some magazine than someone looking to listen to music.

 

My experience has been if a customer loves something in my shop then they will probably love it even more at home and if they don't like what they hear at the shop then chances are pretty good taking it home won't magically change their opinion. My advice when loaning something out is simple.

Try to listen to things you are not familier with. See if the component makes you want to keep listening to music. See if it makes you relax. Or if you are playing rock does it make you start to move. Take a different listening approach, don't think...listen.

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

I do have a price point where I get uncomfortable, but I always give my local guys a chance to meet it or even come close, and if they do, I buy from them. They do give a 3% discount for cash/check, so I tend to usually spend cash with them as well. Helps offset that rotten 8.25% sales tax we have down here.

 

They are all good people, and we have bought somewhere between $8K and $10K of gear from them in the past year or so. That doesn't make us "top customers" but then - audio is a hobby with me, not something I make any money on. If something I want is twice as expensive there as online, I will tell them, and if they cannot match it (or at least come close), I then buy online. They don't seem to have any grief with that. At least I am honest with them.

 

On the other hand, I was in Frys yesterday, and for heavens sake - no wonder people automatically get a burr up their butt about audio sales people. It took everything I could do to keep my mouth shut, and I had to quickly walk away out of earshot, when a Frys "salesman" was trying to sell some poor schmuck a much more expensive but still POS receiver because it had "better equalization" and will make $149 speakers sound just as good as the $1000/pair Polk RTi A7 speakers he originally asked the salesman about. Seriously.

 

I resolved never to go into Frys again. If I had seen that guy again without a salesman, I would have sent over to my local shop. Gads.

 

By the way, where are you located at physically? I'd love to see your store if I am ever in the area. I'll bring in a NAD Receiver and amaze your jaded ears.

 

-Paul

 

(eh- I wasn't in Fry's looking at Audio, I was in there trying to find a small Netbook that will run JRMC well. I want to really give JRMC a long listen, but I need my iTunes library to stay up and working too.

 

 

 

[rom661]

I don't know if you were directing your comment to me; I've heard the NAD.

 

More to the point, I seem to have hijacked the thread, not by design. Sorry, it's supposed to be about receivers.

 

Rick

 

[tomE]

I haven't heard this particular reciever but did hear the previous model and it sounded wonderful. Strictly 2 channel but I suspect a really great product for those who like to minimize clutter. A bit expensive though.

 

http://www.magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

 

Tom

 

[Paul R]

And I was sympathizing a bit with you. A good dealer is hard to find, and a precious resource indeed.

 

Unfortunately, they are few and far between, and most people trying to find and buy an audio system never encounter one.

 

-Paul

 

 

[realhifi]

"2 Channel

I haven't heard this particular reciever but did hear the previous model and it sounded wonderful. Strictly 2 channel but I suspect a really great product for those who like to minimize clutter. A bit expensive though.

 

http://www.magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

 

Tom"

 

Good suggestion.

Fine piece and gives receivers a good name! Seriously great company from the great white north and their equipment is all top notch.

 

I'd take one! (if I didn't have Naim...*s*)

 

 

 

[crisnee]

I don't know if you were directing your comment to me; I've heard the NAD.

More to the point, I seem to have hijacked the thread, not by design. Sorry, it's supposed to be about receivers.

Rick

 

Hi Rick and others.

It's actually my fault you hijacked the thread. I forgot to mention the main point in the original post that you responded to. (By the way thanks for your reply, you sound like a great dealer).

 

I said something like, it is difficult to make comparisons at dealers. However I forgot the key ingredient, the comparees (as opposed to Compari which one imbibes while comparing and would need loads of in this situation). Meet the comparees: mid-level AVRs and high end separates.

 

These comparees make it particularly difficult which is why I wish a legit test was available.

 

Why so difficult? Well most of you have already figured it out but for those..., How often do you find mid-level AVRs along side high end separates? I'm talking top-o-line 2nd tier main stream AVRs, like Pioneer or Sony basic (not Elite or Es) that go for $500-$600 street. Why top-o-line tier 2? Because they must have an analog direct function.) And if you did find such a shop, how many customers would feel comfortable evaluating mid-level AVRs in said environment? Much too intimidating for most I would guess, and rather awkward for the dealers too. "Well we have some pretty crappy stuff too, want some?"

 

And now imagine that when listening to the AVRs (in direct analog mode) many of the customers hear only a minimal difference or none at all (no scoffing and sneering please, remember we have no such tests or bananas). Would the customers admit it? How would the dealers deal with it?

 

And just to remind everybody. I have made an admittedly unscientific comparison in my home between a Pioneer AVR (as above), and two high quality amps, an integrated and a power amp. I listened to them sequentially with time spent between evaluations while I replaced swapped components. They did not sound significantly different, and I would be lying if I said I preferred one. They all sounded very very good. As good as my systems have ever sounded in many years of music listening. By the way, I wanted the power amp to be the clear winner.

 

Chris

 

 

 

[realhifi]

I have not found that comparison to shake down like that. I happen to carry both Yamaha and Denon in addition to some high end companies that make both seperates and a few integrated amplifiers and have always found the integrateds or seperates to be superior in all areas. The only area that I could argue the receivers do a better job would be their slight masking at times of less than ideal recordings or sources. In other words their lesser resolution can at times make them slightly "easier" to listen to with lesser components.

 

I frequently will do comparisons as you describe for customers to hear also. In EVERY case the customer can hear clearly what they are gaining whn moving up to seperates or an integrated amplifier. I don't dispute your findings, just surprised and count you as lucky to be able to have high performance without the penalty of higher pricing.

 

You are lucky!

 

PS. I have a customer that still swears by his older Pioneer receiver and has yet to find an amplifier that SIGNIFICANTLY betters it in areas he values. Maybe it's those old beautiful carbon resistors!

 

[Audio_ELF]

One of my local HiFi shops (I'm lucky in that within 3/4 hour I can visit 3 independent, 1 high end chain and 2 "budget" chains) has a wide range from Yamaha / Denon / Pioneer through NAD / Rotel / Arcam to Classe at the high end.

 

The interesting point is (I think) with the NAD / Rotel / Arcam level. Each of these manufacturers have both a high end receiver and a separates pre-pro plus power amp combo. I haven't had opportunity to have a very in-depth demo of each; but those I have I do agree the separates systems are superior. Having said that: replacing the pre-pro with a stereo pre-amp (from the same manufacturer) improves the sound further in most cases - such comparisons are perhaps flawed as you then require an additional DAC so cost is higher.

 

Eloise

 

[Terry]

I owned a Denon receiver for home theater that I gave to my son. I believe it was 3808. It is awful for stereo 2 channel so I can back up that Denon is not a good choice for music. it is fine with movies. I would but a receiver like the Arcam and the Cambridge that has a pass through for stereo that is not effected by the receivers dac and processors. I am not fond of rotel but tht is all a matter of opinion. I am just offering another choice. If you want a stereo receiver and this is for 2 channel I would thing an integrated would be a far better choice.

 

[mwheelerk]

I have made comments during this thread regarding my experiences with Denon and NAD AVR and my preference for integrated amps or separates for 2 channel audio playback. One additional point I want to make regarding my experiences and opinion is that my comparison of the AVR versus other options was not a case of good versus bad but rather, as I think it is so many times, good versus better. The Denon and NAD AVR performed well within their capabilities and provided some specific features that I needed at the time but for the same relative dollars the Cambridge Audio integrated amp and DacMagic simply out performed them on a pure audio basis and it was not close in my experiences. If you have a need and want for HT then of course the AVR is a primary consideration for you and you can still get satisfactory performance on 2 channel audio (though I would probably still push the point on at least an external DAC) but if 2 channel computer based audio is your goal them I would look elsewhere.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Remember, even with a stereo "bypass" not all audio paths are created equal in an amplifier (especially AV Amp).

 

An example is the Rotel Processor, If you connect to the 7.1 bypass, the signal is passed straight to a 2 in 1 out 7.1 chip based analogue signal switch, then volume control chip and on to the pre outs. If you connect to the normal stereo inputs, the signal passes through an additional multi-in stereo chip based switch.

 

Now arguably chip based signal switching and volume is inferior to relay based switching and potentiometers or resistor ladder volume controls so having additional switching in place may cause lower quality audio.

 

Eloise