Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Receiver Sound Quality?

I was just reading this post and it reminded me of a discussion I recently had with a friend of mine about the sound quality of one brand name AVR versus another... a partial quote is pulled below to provide a frame of reference without reading the entire other thread.



My friend's experience... his H/K receiver produced the best sound "hands down" over a similarly-priced Onkyo and Pioneer receiver. He did the A/B/C testing in his house and thought (but couldn't remember for sure) that he was just playing them with out of the box settings (i.e. no-auto-room EQ's were run, just XO frequency and the very basic small/large speaker setup).

I can definitely see where, if used, one AVR's auto-room EQ could be superior to another, but in this type of a scenario, running the receiver "out of the box," is it normal that the components used and sound processing performed in an H/K (or any of the receivers) versus a similarly-priced Denon/Onkyo/Pio, etc. would produce vastly different sound from one another at normal listening volumes? When I was shopping for my AVR, I really didn't pay much heed to comments about one AVR playing better sound than another as long as the receivers were from any recognizable brand name and generally in the same price class I was shopping in. I was purely looking at the combination of the ability to handle a 4-ohm load for the 80s and the features I was looking for.

Do others here believe (or better yet have you heard) that there is a clear difference in sound between these receiver models in a similar price class (i.e. the Onkyo 805 vs the 3808) or does it end up being largely subjective?

Looking forward to your thoughts...

Jason

It more a religion/cult thing than anything else.

You can get into detailed discussions about any number of aspects of a receiver and argue that it colours sound and you can hear it, but from what I remember, in any properly conducted blind testing, nobody could tell the difference. Alan Loft can probably cite you the studies chapter and verse. Me, I'll just take his word for it.

Tell that to your friend. He will remain unconvinced.

Puzzle me this though. The room in which you place your system will have a huge effect on the sound you get, yet almost nobody talks about this, its effects, and what to do about it.

On this site, there has been a fair amount of discussion about this as it relates to subs, but your room can also have a significant effect on other parts of the spectrum.

Has your friend ever made any mention of room effects to you?

Agreed, SQ driving an easy (8 ohm) stereo load should be pretty uniform. I think in an A/B/C test, the preference often will go to the unit that happens to be set very slightly louder. The listener might not be able to rank them by volume, but the effect can still be there. Choosing by features and price is reasonable.

I too have seen notes of the effects of room character, with perhaps advice to do "acoustic treatments" but very little indication of how to assess a room and what to do about it once one does.

I have only seen one reference on how to assess and that involved an A/V consultant with expensive equipment. Actually, you can probably get a good idea of what is happening in your room with bass using an SPL meter and REW, and there are inexpensive mikes that will measure from 30Hz-8kHz, but I suspect measuring higher frequencies would be quite a challenge.

There is lots of info on what to do to treat specific issues.

Fred, I agree. The REW software + SPL meter gave me a pretty good idea what my room was doing to the sound. Once I had the sub set up, I ran a full sweep of the entire room with all speakers connected and found the results pretty interesting. I realize the SPL meter isn't good enough to accurately measure the entire spectrum, but I still felt it gave me a good enough idea that I didn't have major response problems in my room. My ear confirms this as it sounds awesome to me, but I wanted to check just to see if there were any major anomalies in the response curve.

Hey Jason--

Haven't compared the latest generation -- I went on features, reputation, and recommendations for my Denon 3808 this time out.

But last time I did listen to a couple of different receivers in my home. I cannot say that I did a scientifically controlled experiment, but tried to keep things reasonably comparable. I definitely heard differences among receivers (Marantz, HK, and Pioneer). For the most part I attributed it to different DACs since most of the comparisons were for music. If I recall correctly, when I went to analog in on the CDs, I heard fewer differences, though I distinctly remember the Marantz receiver being "flatter" sounding.

Just my $.02.

Rich

As long as you use high end Monster brand speaker wires and cables, properly break in the speakers and use Bose cubes, it’s highly unlikely that you will ever detect any sonic differences between modern AVRs. Don’t concern yourself with power either, 2 watts is more than enough.

The dark side weighs in... or is that comes out with both cubes swinging...

Rich. I followed a long thread on DACs over at audoiholics that was very interesting. It turns out that there is not that much difference in cost between the mid price and high end DACs anymore. I have often wondered what difference the DAC would make. Needless to say, it was hard to conclude who was right.

I wonder if anyone has ever done any blind testing?

Jason, there'd be no reason to expect a "clear difference"(or any audible difference at all)between receivers(regardless of price differences)when their amplifiers are operating within their designed limits. This of course doesn't apply when processing circuits which are specifically intended to change the sound, e.g., tone controls and room equalization, have been put into effect. So far as basic amplification, competent and conscientious engineers apply basic audio design principles which have been well-known for years to achieve transparent amplification, which results from audibly flat response from 20-20KHz together with inaudibly low noise and distortion. One of the great things about the modern audio scene is that this has been accomplished with even receivers of quite modest cost and listeners have no good reason to be concerned about their "sound quality".

Of course, reports to the contrary abound, but these lack the reliability of a carefully controlled blind listening test. In particular trying to "listen" to different receivers at a store is essentially meaningless even if the salesman hasn't taken steps to favor a particular unit. The volume between the different units will always vary at least slightly and the louder one will sound better, although it won't be apparent as a level difference, but will be described as "clarity", "soundstage", etc. This is why in blind listenibg tests a basic requirement is to adjust the overall levels to be identical within 0.1dB.

A good summary statement of this reality is found in the Audio Critic article "Electronic Signal Paths Do Not Have a Personality!" .

DACs were also brought up, and it should be kept in mind that DACs are a mature technology, as Alan among others has pointed out several times. Excellent chips which perform the conversion without audible flaws are bought by manufacturers for as little as $1 each in very large quantities. The small measurable differences which still exist don't have audible consequences.

As always John, your clear method of explaining technical matters in easy to understand dialog and taking the time to include references makes me wonder if you may or may not be a Vulcan and I mean that in a very complimentary manner.

I always enjoy reading your posts.

He does tend to channel Spock, doesn't he?

John, thanks for the reply. I thought about addressing my question directly to you when I posted as I really wanted to hear your opinion, but I knew you'd find the post sooner or later.

Great informative response, thank you.

Damn green blooded Vulcan!

I appreciate that everyone handled their discussion of DACs in a civil manner. So I'll try to not sound defensive.

I knew it would draw some doubts. I was deliberately pointing out that this was a while back, about 6 years ago when I think about it. I suspect they were pretty mature even then, but within my abilities to keep volume levels consistent (and any processing being done) they didn't sound the same to me.

Of course, I did just get diagnosed last week with Meniere's Disease and realize now that I have suffered from this for a long time so I'll take my lumps.

Rich

Great post JohnK, when I wrote mine up I was hoping you would ellaborate

I mentioned it on my other post about the Sherwood NC amp, but I did a limited blind test at Magnolia a little while back. At the time, I was fairly set on the Denon 3808. After countless hours of scouring the internet I concluded the Onkyo overheats and has lip syncing issues, the Sony has handshaking and firmware issues, the Yamaha doesn't allow for whiter than white or blacker than black to pass through (my tv is compatible with this feature so it was an issue for me), and the Pioneer had a crappy UI and an outdated video processing chip (faroujda).

Anyways, the blind test was between the Yammy rx-v3800 , Denon 3808, and Pioneer Elite vsx-94txh. The differences were very slight, and not discernable until reasonably loud (which I listen to). Being played through the speakers I was going to buy (Sonus Faber Concertino Domus) I noticed an audible difference between the receivers on the same Audioslave song in the vocals primarily. Chris Cornells voice was (to my vastly untrained and unprofessional ears) more smooth, lifelike and less sharp on the Pioneer than either of the other two. I was not informed of which receiver I was listening to each time, but only privy to the monicker 'Receiver a/b/c.' I was also surprised to find out it was the cheapest of the three.

I'm not sure if he purposely slanted things in the Pio's favor, I find it hard to believe due to the price in comparison to the others (more money, bigger sale) and the only slight difference in sound (would probably be more dramatic if it were a 'set-up'). But I will admit that anything is possible. I can say I am happy with my decision and I hope I didn't come off as a 'know-it-all' fanboy. I really have no brand loyalty whatsoever, so I hope this was of some help to someone.

max

Higher price doesn't always mean higher profit margin. Stock levels and better bulk rates can also slew to the cheaper brand. People also like to be shown that they are getting high quality at a bargain price. Not saying, or even implying, that this is the case for the Pio. Just throwing it out there as a generalization.

There's also the question of what processing was being done on those receivers; this is why receiver comparisons, even blind tests are so difficult.

On the a/v sync issue ... anyone know if having the source and the AVR support HDMI 1.3 is enough, or does the display need to support it too? I plan on upgrading to an AVR anyway, but my 61" DLP only does HDMI 1.2 and I'm wondering if a new optical player and AVR will make any difference in the sync issue that's plagued me.

Like I said, the difference was very, very slight but noticeable (if you looked for it) at high volume. If I were supposed to get 'steered' in one way or another I can't see how creating such a minuscule difference would be advantageous. I don't remember being told directly, but I seem to remember something about a 'direct' setting without using any stereo/dd/dplII/dts/THX processing at all. Again...who knows...

p.s.- as a side note, I did informed him that although I WAS going to buy the Sonus Fabers from him, I was NOT going to buy the receiver from him. I said I was going to buy it off the internet for much less than MSRP, regardless of what conclusion I draw.

I'm not aware of a study regarding DACs but my experience with them over the years is that there is a significant audible difference between a low end and better performing DAC.

The audible quality difference manifests itself in the specs. Better sounding DACs have higher n signal to noise ratios, flatter FR linearity, better clocking, less data rounding and therefore more resolution as well as lower jitter. It continues to be an area of considerable development with price points dropping for older DAC designs. DACs like all audio equipment exhibit diminishing incremental performance as you pay more for smaller improvements.

I recently spent several months auditioning standalone DACs before settling on a Benchmark USB DAC to go with a Squeezebox Duet I recently purchased. The Squeezebox comes with a reasonable Wolfson DAC but it isn't nearly as transparent, detailed and smooth sounding as the Benchmark.

Spendy DAC, but I'd love to hear it.

I don't want to beat this to death, yes this was blind which is good. But it doesn't take in to account whether the receivers were calibrated to be played back at the exact same volume. Most times when there's a slight increase in volume during comparisons the louder one is chosen to be better...

By the look of your write up you were comparing the receivers in depth and did your homework on them. As long as anyone gets the receiver that fits their needs and are happy with it is all that matters.

Regardless of where you fall into this discussion, I agree, happiness is the real key.

Do the research, listen and compare using the best methods that are available to you, then get what makes you feel happy within your budget. Nothing worse than that "what if?" feeling. I usually give into it later on anyways so it ends up costing me twice as much.

If you are ever in these parts let me know and I'll demonstrate how different the Wolfson and Benchmark DACs sound.