Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Do you think some receivers sound better than others?

12K views 90 replies 14 participants last post by  TheHammer 
#1 · (Edited)
I asked that one time and they said it wouldn't matter what receiver you had. It's just about more options. Is that true? If you get a higher priced receiver, can that change the sound dramatically, just so-so? Hoping for opinions. Thanks.


edit: um...okay. I just saw the sticky. Sorry. I couldn't delete this.

edit: well, I looked at the thread and now I'm not sure it answers it or not.

edit: it did. I think it was because it sad "amp," and I am used to "receiver."
 
#2 ·
Hello,
For the most part, it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. On the other end of the spectrum, entry level AVR's are especially hamstrung in respect to their power supply and if using relatively power hungry speakers and or a large room, it can be a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers.
All the best,
J
 
#3 ·
Everything Jungle Jack said here is 100% accurate. But, if you plain to use a room that is not the size of an arena or listen at levels that will shift your eyeballs, it doesn't matter as much. Unless you have speakers with a sensitivity of 84db, then it's another story.

My room is about 3400ish square meter an my speakers L/C/R, are a93db. I had a Pioneer VSX 520 a few years ago and it was quite adequate power wise.

What I didn't know is what a huge difference room correction would make. I believe that what Jungle Jack said, in combination with a good room correction software being Audyssey, YPAO, MCACC, EzsetEQ, ARC, Trinnov etc is what you're looking for. On the other hand, if you have mediocre speakers in a square glass room with no acoustical treatment, no receiver of any brand at any price point will remedy to that :eek:

You budget will be the most important aspect of what you'll get.
 
#6 ·
All great comments, I will put in my two cents as well:
Receivers all should sound similar however as jack and others have pointed out that if power supply is not able to supply enough juice to the amps it does not matter what the specifications are in the manual. Many tests that are done at the manufacturer are big time flawed and the numbers that are listed might as well be guesses.
Speaker efficiency, Ohms and the room will all play a big part in what you will hear.
The room correction in most receiver as pointed out will also play a part in the final outcome.
in the end its really hard to do a comparison unless you do it in your room that your using it in with all the same gear.
 
#7 ·
Many folks get tied up in the power ratings, thinking that 140W is so much better than 100W, whereas there is actually little difference. I agree that the current output capability of any amp is a key factor on what it can actually deliver, and that is why the power supply is important. And a weak power supply shows up in "all channels driven" tests. If two channels driven gives 140W/ch and 5 channels driven gives 80W/ch, then that is evidence of a less powerful power supply.

I think that a large difference in receivers is whether or not they have room correction and auto setup features. The higher up the food chain usually gets better software/firmware for making the speaker to room interface better with resultant better overall sound.
 
#8 ·
There are very few if any receivers out there that can do 140watts into even two channels and certainly none under $1500. The issue with the manufacturers tests is that they never do full frequency tests they do it with a 1kHz test tone and thats how they get away with those over inflated readings.
Most receivers will truly output less than 25% of their rated output.
 
#9 ·
I agree with hjones. Don't get caught up too much in the power rating unless you have really demanding speakers.

There are a lot of manufactures out there that make nice receivers with room correction: Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon, pioneer/elite... Just be careful assuming that room correction software is going to turn magically turn your speakers from goats to heros. Time issues are any easy fix, but truthfully, your room and acoustic treatments are the best way to truly get good sound.
 
#17 · (Edited)
:eek:fftopic2:

As far as tonality is concerned, there are big differences between various brands due to the many variables and compromises used in its design and contruction. Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones.

For one, you do get what you pay for, the Integra DTR-8.8 used a conventional transformer but the DTR-9.9 used a toroidal transformer. More expensive units may feature better DAC chips, better quality reisstors, thick Copper Plates for shielding ($$, Sony ES, I think Marantz Too), Harman-Kardon may not give you a lot of input and gadget (pandora, etc) flexibility, but they put their money in to where it counts: stuff like over engineered-oversized amp sections and PSUs. More expensive units (frequently, Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, Sony ES) will have lower total harmonic distortion levels (THD) and beefier Constuction (Aventage). With pricier units you often find better calibration abilities (Sherwood R972 Trinnov, MCACC, Audyssey), better video/audio processing, THX certification (as if it means much), and much much more than I can pull out of my brain this early in the morning.
 
#35 ·
:eek:fftopic2:

As far as tonality is concerned, there are big differences between various brands due to the many variables and compromises used in its design and contruction. Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones.

For one, you do get what you pay for, the Integra DTR-8.8 used a conventional transformer but the DTR-9.9 used a toroidal transformer. More expensive units may feature better DAC chips, better quality reisstors, thick Copper Plates for shielding ($$, Sony ES, I think Marantz Too), Harman-Kardon may not give you a lot of input and gadget (pandora, etc) flexibility, but they put their money in to where it counts: stuff like over engineered-oversized amp sections and PSUs. .
I agree; there is a lot more to the sound quality of an AVR than just the amplification. Any element, from the RCA jacks to the Soldering methods to the purity of the copper conductors, the DACs and DSPs will have some effect on the overall sound quality. My first Dolby Digital receiver, a low-end Sony, sounded terrible. It sounded like someone had put a cloth over the speakers. I bought a JVC after that(a $500-ish AVR at the time) and the difference was night and day. Don't get me wrong; amplification is very important, but it's only one link in a very long chain from original signal to the Sound waves leaving your speakers.
 
#18 ·
toroidal transformers do not change how it will sound however they are far more efficient. If they are undersized they will still cause distortion in the amps.
 
#22 ·
Indeed. The CS Series is a decent bit cheaper than the TSi. Lower priced speakers tend to be easier to drive as they are usually used with entry level AVR's whereas the TSi's are designed with the expectation that more expensive related electronics will be used.
 
#28 ·
Hello,
What is your budget. With HDMI Boards being so expensive to replace or repair, you really are better off at least getting a refurbished or B-Stock AVR. That way you will have a 1 year warranty that can be extended to 3 years of manufacturers warranty if purchasing Onkyo. (shoponkyo.com)

For $269 you can get an Onkyo TX-NR609 from Accessories4less. This AVR has an amplifier stage comparable to other brands $1000 AVR's. This is due to the 609 being THX Select2 Certified. This being said, if you can stepup one level to the TX-NR709, it adds Audyssey MultEQ XT, Preamp Outputs, and slightly more power. However, it is the upgrade to MultEQ XT which provides EQ to the Subwoofer Channel whereas the 609 offers Audyssey 2EQ which does not apply filtering to the Subwoofer Channel that really makes the juice worth the squeeze.
Cheers,
JJ
 
#33 ·
They are mine. And I have no idea how or why they were included in your post. Thanx for the clarification.
 
#39 ·
I think it is time to step back and look at some of the statements made in this thread:

" it really boils down to the AVR's power supply in respect to being able to drive speakers to higher levels and being able to sustain it. "

True, to an extent. Higher power is better. But measure the difference not in watts, but db. A rule of thumb is 2X the power is 3 db and that is about the minimum it takes to hear a difference.

"a recipe for disaster as clipping can occur which often damages speakers."

Sort of. Running an amp into clipping creates square waves which contain harmonics that can overload and damage the tweeter, only. This can be an issue at a rock concert, not generally in a house with any reasonable amp where normal listening levels use very little power.

"As that Yamaha.... does not have a very large power supply" & " if power supply is not able to supply enough juice to the amps it does not matter what the specifications are in the manual."

Power supply capability can be inferred by the audio power output. See db, above. You will need to double the power to hear it. Power tests are regulated by the FTC.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/01/P974222amplifierrule.pdf

" If two channels driven gives 140W/ch and 5 channels driven gives 80W/ch, then that is evidence of a less powerful power supply."

True. But remember that if one tests at 80 and the other at 100, the difference is not audible. There is also controversy as to running all channels flat out is a realistic test that relates anything to real world use.

"The issue with the manufacturers tests is that they never do full frequency tests they do it with a 1kHz test tone and thats how they get away with those over inflated readings."

Not true. The FTC ", requires a manufacturer’s stated power rating must be met, with both channels driven, over the advertised frequency range – usually 20 Hz to 20 kHz – at no more than the rated total harmonic distortion (or THD)."

"Various amplifier types like Class D will produce different tones."

No evidence to support this. The difference between amp design is efficiency.
Class AB amps are 30 to 50% efficient while class D amps are 80 to 90% efficient. AB amps run hotter, need bigger heat sinks and power supplies. While many claim sonic superiority of one vs the other, this has not been demonstrated in ABX blind testing, much to the frustration of "golden ears".

" Higher quality components like capacitors, transistors, resistors, transformers (major differences) , etc do cost more and are built with tighter tolerances. Lesser quality parts can interact and alter the integrity of an incoming signal. "

Generally quality of the part equates to reliability. Higher quality resistors are tighter tolerance (+/- ohms) and do not affect sound. Similar for transistors and caps. Building an amp out of military grade components will not sound better but might last longer and will be more expensive.
Remember that blind testing has been done to compare amps of different price / quality and no one could pick out the difference. This does not include features such as room equalization.

"A rule of thumb here is, generally a good quality 50watt amp will weigh much much more than a low quality 100watt amplifier."

It depends on design. A good quality class D amp with a toroidal transformer might weigh less but sound the same as a good quality class AB with a traditional transformer. Manufacturers know that people equate weight with quality and use that to sell their products.
 
#40 ·
Some of you all must be listening to content at extreme levels if you really use 80-100wpc when listening to real world content. Especially with 89db sensitivity speakers. 10wpc would get you 100db at one meter. I dunno about you guys but in my experience 90 decibals is more than enough for most people. A serious question I have is have any of you ever put a watt meter on your system to see what your actually using? I haven't myself, but my uncle has one and if he pushes his system to two watts per channel stereo it will literally run you out of the room. Granted he's running klipsch lascalla's, but 10wpc would still be plenty if he was running a 90db efficiency speaker.
 
#43 ·
I don't want to get too far off the original topic, but isn't a bit silly to be so dogmatic over the lab test vs. listening test debate? It isn't too outlandish to think that test equipment, while invaluable, can't tell us everything about everything when it comes to the character of a sound. There is more going on in an audio chain than merely the transmission of a given set of frequencies at a certain SPL.

On the other hand, professional listeners tend to get wrapped up in their own perceived abilities. Audio reviews by these people tend to sound like love letters to their own egos.

At the end of the day, I care about how it sounds to ME. I see measurements and subjective reviews as both valuable tools to help me figure out which gear might suit my needs/tastes.
 
#44 ·
I don't want to get too far off the original topic, but isn't a bit silly to be so dogmatic over the lab test vs. listening test debate? It isn't too outlandish to think that test equipment, while invaluable, can't tell us everything about everything when it comes to the character of a sound. There is more going on in an audio chain than merely the transmission of a given set of frequencies at a certain SPL.

On the other hand, professional listeners tend to get wrapped up in their own perceived abilities. Audio reviews by these people tend to sound like love letters to their own egos.

At the end of the day, I care about how it sounds to ME. I see measurements and subjective reviews as both valuable tools to help me figure out which gear might suit my needs/tastes.
I agree. :TT:hsd:
 
#47 ·
Truly fascinating article. It's interesting to me that the results of the challenge seem to have had no particular effect on said magazine's perspective on cost vs. performance. It is often true that cults continue despite being exposed as fraudulent....

I wouldn't say the conclusions from the article condemn all modern amps, they just indicate that the peculiarities of "good" amplifiers (past a certain price-point) need not be the result of higher-priced innards.
 
#48 ·
The reasons for pricing, just like decisions to purchase, often are not directly related to performance. This is true in most products. People buy things based upon many different kinds of reasons and most of them are very subjective, whether they realize it or not.
 
#49 ·
Agreed. I have to admit that if I owned an amplifier company, and I had an amp that cost $300 to produce, and I had a choice to put it in a utilitarian shell and charge $800 or an elegant shell and charge $2700, I would go elegant.

I also have to admit that if I were to audition 2 similar-sounding amps of which I had no personal knowledge(including price), I would subconsciously want to purchase the amp described as "performing on par with amps costing 2x the price" over the amp that has "stellar performance". I know people who would veer toward an amp that cost more because they subconsciously regard expense as a quality. Lastly, I know people who will just want a product because it's cheaper, regardless of performance. We all have reasons for our subjective opinions.
 
#50 ·
What if I upgrade my Yamaha htr-5390 to a Denon AVR-1912? Will I notice a difference? I know it has more features, just sound, or maybe the ability to adjust sound would be worth it?

$200 on CL.
 
#52 ·
Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.
 
#53 ·
If you need the receiver, then go for it. Personally, I would get a 3 channel Emotiva and be done.

Focus on quality Front L+R and Center speakers. You can even skip on the subwoofer and/or surrounds since they account for only about +/-10% of the soundtrack. And that's how I would build a nice sounding system on a low budget. Quality 3 channel over mediocre 5 channel.
 
#54 ·
goodears said:
Here is part of my dilemma. If i spend my money on a receiver, I don't get a subwoofer. It is for HT, so I don't know which I'd better off with. Maybe I'll luck out and find a below 25Hz sub, maybe I won't. If the receiver will actually help me, that is I can actually hear a difference, not just a chart showing me, then I might get the Receiver (or a receiver). Hope that makes sense. Thanks.
The differences you will notice going from no sub, to a decent sub would be much greater than the minor differences you may or may not notice between any receiver. A good sub is one of the most important pieces of a home theater setup. If you need a new avr for other reasons, like then it may be better to to that route and save up money for a good sub or build one. But if your just wanting a new avr because you think 20-30wpc is going to improve your system more than a quality sub will, I am afraid you won't be happy with your upgrade.

Just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt and audition as many options as you can.
 
#56 ·
Interesting diversion of opinions. One for the sub. One for the amp. I'm more watching CL for the bargain than I can go out and buy and HSU. I just don't have it....yet. Life will happen and you know what that means. By by money :huh:
 
#57 ·
I'm also looking at some Klipsch speakers because I have to turn up my amp so much to power my polks. I think it might make them not sound as good. I thought because the polks are 89db and the Klipsch are usually 94+db, then it might make a big difference. What do you think?
 
#65 ·
If you are going from 89 db to 95 db, then that is a 6 db change in efficiency. That is the equivalent of increasing your amp power by a factor of 4. And no, the auto room EQ will not do away with that power, it will be there.

However, I think it is far more important to listen to the quality of the sound of the speakers. I have found that Klipsch are fabulous outdoors for concerts, but I have never been a fan of the folded horn Klipsch sound inside. But one person's wonderful speaker will always sound lousy to someone else.

A speaker with a sensitivity of 89 db will match up with a 100 watt amp just fine, unless perhaps your room is about the size of a large cathedral.
 
#58 ·
goodears said:
I'm also looking at some Klipsch speakers because I have to turn up my amp so much to power my polks. I think it might make them not sound as good. I thought because the polks are 89db and the Klipsch are usually 94+db, then it might make a big difference. What do you think?
Chances are if you make the switch to klipsch, your avr's room correction will trim them back so that your volume dial would read about the same as with any other speaker you use. If you have a speaker that will reach reference level with 0db trim and another that reaches it easier, it will just trim them back so they all are level matched and your volume dial will read the same.

If your able to listen at a volume level you like without clipping the amp and sending it into protection, chances of you noticing a difference in sound quality with an avr that gives you an extra 20wpc is slim to none.
 
#61 ·
goodears said:
You mean the AVR "knows" the speaker is more sensitive? And it adjusts the volume number on the screen based on it?
In a nutshell, yes. As 8086 said, its just input vs measured output. Any avr with auto calibration will do it. There are other things, such as distance said speaker is from the microphone, that will affect where your avr sets the trim level at, but it starts the process by measuring sensitivity.

My Yamaha sets reference (0db on my volume dial) right around 90db in room volume. Although it doesn't set the trim the same for any of my speakers, I have checked with a spl meter and they are level matched at my listening position. As far as power goes, my Yamaha rx-v571 has a weak amplifier stage compared to more expensive avr's, but it will drive my system for hours on end at reference level without any issues. I never listen that loud for extended periods of time when I am in the room, but do from time to time when we have guests over and everyone is in various rooms throughout the house.

When I purchased this receiver I did so just to upgrade to hdmi and 7.1, with intentions of upgrading to a nicer more powerful rig when funds were available. I have been happy enough with its power and processing that I decided to put my money into building two 15" Dayton subs and couldn't be happier. My next upgrade will be a DIY l/c/r build. Eventually I will replace my avr with a nicer one, but its not high on my list anymore.
 
#62 · (Edited)
Goodears, you never mentioned your budget. If you're attached to your speakers(it doesn't seem you are), then you need some more power. An Emotiva amp, as mentioned earlier, would likely be your best bet(although I'd go with a 5-channel in case you ever wanted to use them--one 5-channel is much cheaper than one 3 and an additional amp later).

If you're not attached to your speakers, you should dump them and go back to Klipsch, or you might consider Hsu monitors. They're both horn based and I've heard that the Hsus pack a whallop, especially considering the cost. At that point, though, you're going to need a sub.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that if your system is for HT specifically(you have said that it is), and you're not buying towers that easily play lower than 40Hz, then a sub is integral to your setup.

Another thing to consider is that if you plan on having an HT system long term, you WILL eventually need to update your AVR, regardless of whether you keep your Polks in your system forever or not. You might as well spend the money now on a good AVR and/or amp and see how your speakers sound at that point. Or maybe go fishing or something.
 
#66 · (Edited)
As a young adolescent, I thought all amplifiers were the same. But time and experience have taught me that there can be dramatic differences between A and B and it mostly comes down to what you can get in a given price range. I have had my share of Pioneers (low end and high end), Onkyo's (WRAT and pre-WRAT), Yamahas, Harman-Kardon, Denon, (auditioned) McIntosh and during my years in a dorm, we experiemented and listened to many Vintage classics from those brands as well as Marantz and many others. The vintage HK integrated was a beast and a half; probably the best one in our circle of friends.


The bad-
  • I also at one time had a couple of 50 or 75w Radio Shack integrated AMP which sounded like a opera singer with a mouth full of marshmallows. I used these on my computer back in the 90s for playing Doom in Dolby quad surround. I owned this unit up along with a 2nd newer one* until a few years ago and would often just toy around with it until I junked it for scrap.
  • The Mass Market Pioneer VSX-D710s from the early 2000s sounded gritty, grainy, harsh compared to my Onkyo Integra DTR-5.5 (WRAT).
  • Yahama's are great, but lower cost mass market (Best Buy) units of a similar era just sound dull, overly warm, slightly muted compared to their more expensive flagship models.
On all the spaeakers I own, my Integra DTR-7.6 has a broad soundstage compared to Yamaha RX-V1. But the Yamaha is much tighter and more controlled at mid volume vs the Integra.

I don't believe any more. I know there is a big difference between amps.
 
#79 ·
As a young adolescent, I thought all amplifiers were the same. But time and experience have taught me that there can be dramatic differences between A and B and it mostly comes down to what you can get in a given price range. I have had my share of Pioneers (low end and high end), Onkyo's (WRAT and pre-WRAT), Yamahas, Harman-Kardon, Denon, (auditioned) McIntosh and during my years in a dorm, we experiemented and listened to many Vintage classics from those brands as well as Marantz and many others. The vintage HK integrated was a beast and a half; probably the best one in our circle of friends.

The bad-

[*]I also at one time had a couple of 50 or 75w Radio Shack integrated AMP which sounded like a opera singer with a mouth full of marshmallows. I used these on my computer back in the 90s for playing Doom in Dolby quad surround. I owned this unit up along with a 2nd newer one* until a few years ago and would often just toy around with it until I junked it for scrap.

[*]The Mass Market Pioneer VSX-D710s from the early 2000s sounded gritty, grainy, harsh compared to my Onkyo Integra DTR-5.5 (WRAT).

[*]Yahama's are great, but lower cost mass market (Best Buy) units of a similar ear just sound dull, overly warm, slightly muted compared to their more expensive flagship models.

On all the spaeakers I own, my Integra DTR-7.6 has a broad soundstage compared to Yamaha RX-V1. But the Yamaha is much tighter and more controlled at mid volume vs the Integra.

I don't believe any more. I know there is a big difference between amps.
Ok, I know it is possible for someone to build a really lousy amp that all of can tell the difference at at the top of my list would be some (all?) built by Radio Shack.

But many people felt the way you do and those professionals who reviewed amps for a living were often called "golden ears" because they could allegedly hear what others could not.

Some time ago, there was a landmark controlled test where many of these "golden ears" participated in a carefully controlled ABX test. The amps were precisely balanced to 0.1 db (my recollection) since only a tiny difference in volume can show up as a positive difference in an ABX test. The amps tested went all the way from a $200 Pioneer to amps costing thousands. As long as the volumes were the same, and none of the amps were driven into clipping, they all sounded the same. Nobody in the ABX test could tell one from the other. I am excluding tube amps from this comparison.

I have no doubt that you are "detecting" differences between amps. But accurately comparing amps without the ability to quickly switch back and forth, through the same speakers, at identical volumes, it is impossible to have a fair listen.

BTW, I knew of one salesman who gave demos, showing the superiority of the amazingly expensive amp vs. the less expensive ones. I knew him well enough that he confessed to me that the store always set the more expensive amp and just a slightly higher volume. It always sounded better.

After the results of the double blind test was published, the "golden ears" we're furious. They claimed that something was fixed in the test and that they were duped. They went back to their magazines and continued to review amps, always knowing which one was under test, always finding differences. Every review I read, it was always the most expensive amp that sounded the best.

There are some that doubt the validity of ABX testing. To question a protocol is a good exercise and should be done. There was another test that finally convinced me that all [reasonably designed] amps sound alike. If an amp sounds different, then the output, put though a speaker load, must be different. I read about a test there the outputs of several amps were compared in real time and there was no difference. In another case, the output of one was subtracted electronically from another. It was played through a speaker and displayed on an oscilloscope. Nothing. No difference.

I believe that it is far more important to audition speakers. This is extremely frustrating since their interaction with the room makes any comparison difficult.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top