Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Receivers... how 'bout Rotel?

What about the BMW Z series vs Mazda Miata?

Granted, same type of car, but they will perform very differently.

["There's no way that a purely electronic signal going through a receiver and being amplified acquires "soundstaging" characteristics unless special processing to do that(e.g. DPLII)is intentionally applied"]

Correct... BUT, there is a way that soundstage can be impededed and/or distorted.

["Also, Japanese receivers have the same frequency response characteristics as those designed in any other country and therefore sound identical to them"]

Spec sheets and the human ear RARELY agree... which is why people audition receivers and speakers.

JohnK- can you please explain your previous statements a bit further for us? I don't agree with what you've said about all receivers sounding the same and I'd like to hear your take on it if you have the time. To me, there can be a huge variance in sound quality between all types of receivers (as well as all types of seperates) and I'm interested to learn more about your opinion on why you feel there isn't.

Much thanks,
Kevin

Are they made by the same company? No they are not. Toyota and lexus are. Like Onkyo is with Integra. That was my point.
My suggestion was clear yesterday when I said you should go test drive some of these receivers. Trust your ears.

The Miata isn't even in the same food group.

Kevin, I've gone over this several times previously and it isn't simply a matter of my take on the question. Audio engineering principles require an amp to be flat enough in frequency response and low enough in noise and distortion so that any slight differences which are measurable are inaudible. This is commonly achieved these days at low cost and that's all there is; no mysterious effect on soundstage, etc. exists.

Once labels and price tags have disappeared in blind listening tests differences which were previously described in lavish terms have likewise disappeared. As Dr. Toole once commented to an AES meeting(relating to the fallibility of human perceptions), when you can see what you're listening to you can't hear it.

In reply to:

---

when you can see what you're listening to you can't hear it.

---

Gee! I wish I'd said that! (And you can bet the farm you'll be hearing it from me, often, from now on )

John, am I correct in assuming that based on what you just stated above, there is no difference is sound quality between $10,000 in McIntosh equipment and a $100 Sony receiver? I would really have to think that the entire audio industry isn't gullible enough to purchase equipment that can cost well up into the hundred of thousands of dollars if they could simply get the same performance and sound quality from cheap entry-level electronics. If that were the case, Bose would putting companies like Mark Levinson and Wilson out of business left and right.

Just speaking from my own experience, I recently upgraded my power amp from an entry level AMC to an Acurus and I found the change to be drasticly better then what I heard before. There is more detail and higher resolution then what I previously heard. There's also a bigger soundstage and sweetspot to the music, which I can now confirm because of the fact that I don't have to be dead center on my couch to enjoy the highest quality of sound reproduction. Before, I was never really blown away by what I heard when I was running the AMC amp. I can't imagine that this is all being made up in my head. That's why I'm respectfuly asking for your own personal opinion on the matter, because you seem to know what you're talking about.

In reply to:

---

John, am I correct in assuming that based on what you just stated above, there is no difference is sound quality between $10,000 in McIntosh equipment and a $100 Sony receiver?

---

Driven within their respective limits? Yes, no noticeable difference.

Look. Nobody is saying that the two are equivalent in all aspects. I would personally much prefer the McIntosh to the Sony. But I also know that at moderate listening levels, the differences between the two are negligible. One of the things you get when you buy McIntosh is peace of mind -- in the build quality, in the available power, and in the mesmerizing BLUE LIGHTS!

The widening of the sweet spot when you switched from the AMC to the Acurus is -- I hate to say it -- may he completely cerebral. In order to find out whether or not the differences are in your head or real, you'd need to have someone else switch the amps back and forth (and ensure the volume levels were matched) without you knowing which was currently playing. There are many variables at play in audio that need to be reduced or eliminated in order to make varifiable statements about the quality of sound reproduction.

In reply to:

---

The widening of the sweet spot when you switched from the AMC to the Acurus is -- I hate to say it -- may he completely cerebral.

---

Entirely possible. One should never underestimate the ability of the human mind to deceive itself, or be deceived by one's senses.

I don't believe your'e going to win the argument about differant sounding amps with JohnK.What Pmbuko said driven within there limits is correct.No my Panasonic reciever can not reach the same levels as my Rotel amp, when drive real hard the Panasonic will run out of juice.But at low to moderate levels there is only the slightest differance.Also it has alot to do with the power supply and other quality parts used by Rotel.The Panny would not be able to push a low impedance load.So its my belief there is a differance in SS amps but it is not the way they sound.Build quality is another issue.