how about some reviews for receivers?

[rom661]

I agree with you completely regarding Chris' comment. I need to know the pros and cons of the approach, what it's capabilities are, etc. so that I can recommend appropriate solutions to my clients.

 

This is what keeps me coming back to, and supporting, the site. Not much interest in pissing matches about this or that receiver, processor, whatever. Everyone ultimately has to make up their minds on that kind of thing. But the kind of insight that Chris and some of the great contributors provide is invaluable. I'm looking forward to reading more of it.

 

By the way, Chris, I came to the conclusion that I was making things too difficult in the issue we were discussing. Letting him use a Mac mini and a Halide USB/SPDIF into his receiver gives hime the interface he wants and doesn't waste any of his money.

 

 

 

Cheers, everyone.

 

Rick

 

[Paul R]

Both right?

 

I would suggest that we are both right, probably because what I listen to and treasure in audio is slightly different than what you do. That sounds weasel worded, but it really isn't.

 

People do train themselves to hear music in a particular way, specifically to pay attention to different aspects of what they hear. I will, invariably, almost automatically, choose/prefer sound that is beneficial to brass instruments over woodwinds and strings. (Especially Baritone and French horns.)

 

Whatever aspects of sound that make a wonderful horn presentation can be unbearable in say, amplified acoustic guitar.

 

In other words, I am not being dismissive or snide in saying that I honestly do believe you, and for the segment of the music listening public who hears similar to the way you do, you are absolutely right.

 

I also have no hesitation at all in saying that to me, and to people who hear like I do, the DacMagic is not really any better.

 

I am looking back over my notes now, and I like Cambridge Audio a lot. I can consciously find little or no fault with the sound they produce. But the sound from it did not excite me, and from my notes, that is pretty clear. I have lots of words in there like "pleasant", and "clean" and "clear" - but not many words like "impact", "dynamic", and "presence."

 

All of which is to say, that to me, CA sound is very good indeed, but it doesn't really connect with me the way sound from NAD, Bryston, Bel Canto, Krell, and a few other brands does. I haven't decided if I like tube amps all that much either.

 

So again, I do not see any disagreement on our parts, other than we disagree on how particular equipment sounds to us.

 

I am sure by now everyone is aware we disagree on it.

 

I will say that, within my rather tight time limits recently, I have listened to what you (and others) have said and tried to listen to the gear we talked about with a second reserve. I have certainly learned a few things.

 

-Paul

 

 

[wappinghigh]

Sub $1000 NADt747

Sub $2000 Marantz SR 7005

Sub $3000 Arcam AVR400

 

The standout here was the Arcam

 

But don't forget folks if you have a really good stereo set up, and it happens to have Home Theatre bypass, you can incorporate that into the receiver, so that your 'premium' stereo gear( including speakers) can be still used for just that, for stereo, but also can be inorporated at the flick of a switch into the Home theatre sountrack or surround music track.

 

This is the best of both worlds, and has an added advantage that with pre-outs on your receiver, you take some of the pressure off the receivers amps..

 

Dont forget the sub is also powered. So in a 5.1 setup, like this, the receiver is just powering the centre and surround channels...

 

In this combination the NAD747 at $599 was a complete bargain.

 

So my advice is spend the 'good money' on the front two channels and speakers. Stereo will never be obsolete. Then shop around for a good quality lower priced receiver that you can turn over easily and upgrade without too much cost as the home theatre and TV formats inevitably change..

 

YOU TOO can have the best of both worlds in a setup, if you put your mind to it...

 

Cheers

 

[Paul R]

Hah- just as I hit the send key, an email came in from a friend who has had exactly the same kind of experience you have. He set out to audition a NAD receiver and found he really like a Cambridge Audio setup. (He didn't send details on the units.)

 

Dane plays acoustic guitar for a living, and is super sensitive to strings. He finds the 4th of July Brass Bands in the park rather hard to tolerate too, while I love em.

 

Perhaps I guessed more correctly in the previous message than I thought I did!

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul R]

Hey Wap! Would you be so kind as to share more details about the Arcam '400 sound? PM if you want to, or feel it inappropriate here.

 

-Paul

 

 

[wappinghigh]

Chris

 

If you can confirm the Marantz SR7005 can stream 5.1 Flac and wave files that would be real cool....

 

Wap...

 

[wappinghigh]

Paul

 

The Arcam was a beautiful receiver. Just about perfect IMHO. Clear unrestrained sound. It had everything. Even features the more upmarket 500 didn't have like pre-outs on all 7 channels. It was perfectly powered too at 90W per channel. Thats 90W true to every channel.

 

I just didn't need the pure stereo mode, or the 90W power with my setup which takes the pressure of the front channels. Also I dont think the DLNA is quite as developed as yet like the Marantz7005. So I wasn't prepad to pay for this, and the HDMI 1.4 extra 'bling'

I'd rather sit back and wait for the streaming technology to be tried and tested...

 

So all in all, for me, it wasnt worth the sub 3K spend. But if you were starting from scratch, without ANY stereo gear, then the Arcam would be an excellent "all in one" setup IMHO.

 

With a combined HT bypass set up, my rule is spend about 15-25% on the surround receiver vs the stereo amp. So if you have a 10k plus front channel setup(and alot of people on this forum would), then the Arcam with it's pre-outs would NOT disappoint at this price for these folk.

 

But my stereo amp is 4k, so the NAD 747, at around 1K (what I had to pay), made more sense...

 

Cheers

 

Wap

 

 

 

[rom661]

Ok, computer audiophile. Yeah, interesting. I need that. It's pretty unique. Focused. Sometimes over my head, but it makes me stretch. I am very comfortable with high end reproduction but need to learn and try to stay current on new approaches and technology. What a great site for that! So great that I've been a member for 3 years and contribute to it.

 

Receivers that can interface with computers. Interesting. Not sure of the capabilities but probably need to learn. Both how well it can work and what the interface is like. Customers have different needs, desires and budgets. I have a responsibility to help them find the right solution so I should be open to learning more about it. Got it. It's a good thing.

 

Discussions ad nauseum about comparisons between AVR's, not as regards computer based music but the kind of discussions you can find on about 25 other sites... Sorry, don't get it. Yes, yes, I know, I can kill my notifications. Just did. But I hate to see the site turned into another one of those. Sometimes there are other interesting things that come up and bear discussion. I've even hijacked a thread or two in my time to interject something I found interesting. Usually apologize afterwards. I've been in the business 25 years. I never, ever venture onto sites having the kind of discussions that have been going on in this thread. In fairness, the post that started it asked a pertinent question about the role of the new receivers in computer based music. He has since protested that it has turned into something totally different.

 

Hopefully a one off. I have tremendous respect for Chris and he is garnering great respect in the industry, based on his knowledge and the focus of the site. Oh well. To each their own. I just hope the site remembers it's purpose.

 

 

 

[wappinghigh]

Dear Rom

 

Keep an open mind.

 

Suround receivers are NOT necessarily purchased JUST to play movies..

 

There has always been (since the advent of quad) a little niche. A sub branch of audio...that is multi channel music.

 

And often the surround format (on SACD and DVD-A disc) has raised the bar in quality over the previous released redbook disc

 

Now to argue that this site cannot entertain the opinions of how computers might be added as a multichannel source (in the same way as they are a stereo source) seems a bit one eyed to me.

 

Hidden in this thread is a little bit that definitely should be of interest to any audiophile

The (unconfirmed) ability of a receiver to stream hi rez multichannel tracks.

 

Since when is multichannel music not audiophile quality music?

 

The site is computeraudiophile.com

NOT computerstereoaudiophile.com

 

Just sayin...

 

Wap

 

 

 

[bleedink]

Personally I think thats what the gentleman who posted the original thread was referring to. As many of you know, I am using Jriver as a DLNA server for my Oppo for all kinds of audio, but in particular my multichannel and high rez stuff (for which an AV receiver works well). I had originally envisioned my Yamaha receiver as doing the same thing but in 2009 streaming was just not quite where it is now and the Oppo has more versatility. One thing that also gets skipped in the discussion of these receivers is their ability to decode DSD directly from the transport. Yep its over HDMI, so I've already lost a few of you right there, but it does sound pretty impressive, more so than a PCM conversion though I admit the difference is quite subtle. Were there more external DACs that could do essentially the same as my receiver, I would absolutely go that route. But as a multichannel guy...well at least there's me and Wap!

 

[Paul R]

CA

 

Wow.

 

I will link this message to a new topic, but essentially:

 

I am quite willing to pay for this site. I certainly don't blink an eye at paying for magazine subscriptions, and I think this site is quite worth supporting.

 

Financially.

 

Without any conditions, and especially with no input into the editorial content.

 

Chris, if you put up a subscription button, I would be willing to immediately subscribe for a year. It would be worth up to about $100 to me. I am fairly sure that about 2-5% of the current subscribers would be willing to pay a subscription cost between $12-$99 too.

 

Certainly, that would help you support the costs of the site, and as well, give you more leverage with advertisers. Paid circulation is a bit thing. And just as importantly, it would also help that you are never pressured to give up the impartial editorial stance you have so staunchly maintained.

 

You can continue to do what you do so well. No strings attached.

 

Paypal, credit card, or I will send you a check.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Paul - Thanks so much for the kind words. Your comments really launch the week off to a great start :~)

 

I am working on some premium content as we "speak". Some very in depth articles available nowhere else and a very cool CA Buyer's Guide is close to being finished. All the reviews and 99% of the articles will always be free.

 

 

 

[James1776]

I would be interested in how the receivers built in DAC stacks up to common DAC's as separates...simply noting they use the same chip does not say much about how well that is implemented.

 

In other words, does the DAC in the $1000 AV receiver actually sound like a V-DAC, the DACman, or something else entirely?? Is the DAC in this $1K receiver better sounding than the DAC in another $1K receiver.

 

(in case you have not figured it our, to me the heart of music quality in the digital world is the DAC, not the amp or other bits in the music chain.)

 

[jhwalker]

Same comment here. The newest Onkyo AVR flagship, for example, has 192/32 Burr-Brown DACs throughout. How does the sound compare with any of the standalones, especially the Onkyo DAC-1000? I'm sure they're using the same chips and 90%-100% of the same circuitry - is the DAC-1000 simply the AVR minus switching and amp? Or something different? Etc.

 

[Terry]

I have a novel idea, Why do you not go and listen and research the question. I love this thread if we can get a sound design receiver with a dac it will be perfect sound forever! Well maybe not! I think some research you can find all this info and come to your own decision,

 

[Audio_ELF]

An interesting comparison (not using a DAC vs Reciever but a CD player vs Amp with built in DAC)...

 

XTZ have a CD player and a Amp both of which use the same DAC chip and have the same design. The difference is the CD player has a Class A output stage vs Op-amps in the amp's built in DAC. Which sounds better? Well apparently there is a lot of debate...

 

Eloise

 

[Paul R]

 

Or in the amplifier? Just confirming, as that seems odd to me. I think it would be more orthodox to use a linear power supply in an amp, and differential op-amps in a CD player's line out module.

 

Not questioning - just confirming. I couldn't find it with a quick google search.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul R]

I wonder if we could...

 

do something like a distributed panel of testers somehow or another?

That way we could perhaps, get a range of opinion.

 

Not sure how that could be worked out to give measurable and/or reliable results, but perhaps something could be figured out.

 

-Paul

 

[realhifi]

 

From rom661:

 

"Discussions ad nauseum about comparisons between AVR's, not as regards computer based music but the kind of discussions you can find on about 25 other sites... Sorry, don't get it. Yes, yes, I know, I can kill my notifications. Just did. But I hate to see the site turned into another one of those. Sometimes there are other interesting things that come up and bear discussion. I've even hijacked a thread or two in my time to interject something I found interesting. Usually apologize afterwards. I've been in the business 25 years. I never, ever venture onto sites having the kind of discussions that have been going on in this thread. In fairness, the post that started it asked a pertinent question about the role of the new receivers in computer based music. He has since protested that it has turned into something totally different.

 

Hopefully a one off. I have tremendous respect for Chris and he is garnering great respect in the industry, based on his knowledge and the focus of the site. Oh well. To each their own. I just hope the site remembers it's purpose."

 

 

 

Amen, amen, amen.

 

 

 

[Terry]

Amen

 

This thread imo should have been killed 100s of posts ago. I hope this site does not become what this thread is. I do not know how to turn off notifications but I will be looking for sure.

 

[jhwalker]

You said many hours ago you had turned off notifications, yet you continue to respond to this thread. Now you say you don't know how to turn off notifications - which is it? (PS - It's not difficult - hint: My account, Subscriptions, Pages/Threads . . . )

 

And why are you so resistant to the idea that some good AVRs can be a valid component of an computer-based, audiophile system? There are many levels of audio equipment discussed on this site - I'm pretty sure some of the sub-$1,000 DACs are substantially inferior to some of the best AVRs. Should we stop discussing them, too? What level is the appropriate level of "audiophile" equipment that should be covered here?

 

If you are so unhappy about this *one* thread (out of hundreds of others on the site), please just stop reading it and let the rest of enjoy our conversation. Your ongoing negativity is not adding to the ambience of the site you say you're trying to preserve.

 

[Paul R]

 

 

We have one guy who has been on the system for 3 weeks and 4 days and a very few other people complaining that this topic - this one single topic - is taking the entire site off topic and ruining the site's content.

 

It is interesting that this particular subject, isolated as it it to a single thread, is generating so many reactions, most of which are friendly even when in disagreement.

 

I moderated conversations for 12 years or so on BIX, and invariably, when this situation happened and the unofficial topic police came out, there was some interesting motivations behind it.

 

We have a topic hear about a hunk of gear that at least in it's AVR form, is one of the most digitally connected devices that is used in audio systems today. And it generates that reaction from a tiny segment of the online population.

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

[bleedink]

many of these so called AV sites actually do not go into the sort of details I would like in making a decision on a piece of equipment. For example, I chose my receiver because it garnered good 2 channel reviews and that it was more musical than theatrical. Supposedly. Anyway, the particular system I chose has a DAC for each channel, a Burr-Brown DAC at that. Well, everything in the world now carries a Burr-Brown DAC so what does that tell me? In fact if you try to research varying receivers you can come up with the brand of the chip, but not WHICH particular Burr-Brown chip they are using, is there one per channel, one per pair, one per 7? Is the DAC reasonably new? Has it been replaced recently by a better one? Does this BB chip perform reasonably well, and how well is it electronically isolated from the other components? Perhaps they use the same BB chip in (pick a DAC model) so that I am perhaps getting something akin to the same sort of signature sound--the point is I don't know, nor am I able to find out on the internet. I believe I may have isolated the particular chip number, but again it tells me nothing really specific except that BB is generally regarded as a fairly good chip maker. Anyway my point is I can't find anything but the most obtuse information on the types of DACs commonly used except for the esabre chip.

 

[jfrye]

These discussions always seem to end up focusing on the DAC and the implementation of the DAC and the never ending search for the holy grail and mother of all DAC's. After frequenting this site and wanting to better my system I was almost taken over by the DAC bug. I posted a question here regarding if I should connect an external DAC to my AVR to improve SQ, to no real avail. I've since concluded not to buy into the DAC merry-go-round, much to the chagrin of the merry-go-round ticket sellers I'm sure, but instead to improve my system with speakers since that's where the real improvement lies. And I would suggest that's generally the case assuming you haven't maxed out your amp or you already own the world's best speakers in which case go ahead and start a collection of DAC's.

 

 

[wappinghigh]

To the couple of posters who continually seem to be in denial that Receivers can't be set up as "computeraudio" let me say that I am currently listening to a pure unprocessed 5.1 multichannel PCM album in 24/96 of Rachmaninoff which I have paid for and downloaded off the iTrax website from the other side of the world... and am now streaming the music from an iMac to a Dune Base 3.0 connected to my NAD 747. This is playing in "pure audio" mode (no Audessy or "processing") so each channel is being sent unprocessed straight to each 5.1 separate speaker the original way the sound engineer intended (Thanks Mark W !..it sounds wonderful BTW)

 

Now you can't get more "computeraudiophile" than that.

 

How dare you say receivers can't be set up as computeraudio components in this way. And that this sort of discussion is somehow unwarranted on this site.. or that what I am doing isn't somehow being worthy of an "audiophile"

 

So go away and have a good think about your snobby attitudes, and outdated ideas of what being a "computer audiophile" really is. And stop insulting other members of this thread with your attitude that "our directly connected stereo separates approach" is somehow the ONLY possible way you can do computer audio

 

And show me where and and what other "Home Receiver" site can you find this sort of discussion.

 

There, Now I feel better