Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo A review of the H/K DPR 1001 vs Onkyo 502.........

This on paper doesn't seem like much of a contest does it? The MSRP of the DPR was $1499.00 a couple of years ago compared to the recently released 502 at less than $300.00. First of all, understand the listening was only in two channel stereo. Also the speakers being used in the demonstration are the M60's running through the Pioneer 563A combo DVD Audio/SACD/CD player. Here goes.... I recieved the DPR last week and immediately set it up. The first CD I played was the Remixed and Remastered Skynyrd classic "One More From the Road". I just thought the sound was outstanding. The reproduction was very clear and forward sounding. The next listen was the SACD of the Rolling Stones "Now". This also come off sounding very well with a bit of harshness to Jagger's voice and his harmonica coming across a bit "bright". I will tell you at this point when I came across this forum, words like "bright", "warm" and others were not in my vocabulary with audio equipment. I think I understand the use of these terms now. The next listen was the Outlaws CD "Bring it Back Alive". This is where the worm seemed to turn for me. All the guitar sounds in the "4 guitar army" were distinguishable but screaching in nature. It actually hurt my ears to turn it up to any volume at all. I also did turn the treble down, which I like to turn up to it's fullest potential in most cases. I then auditioned two DVD's. These were the "Rush in Rio" and REM's "Square Circle". In these two DVD's the sound continued to be what I call "tinny" to where the reproduced sound was again, piercing to my ears at the higher levels. End of test. I immediately plugged in my Onkyo 502 to the same elements. I know, to some, this might be hard to believe, but to my ears there was no comparison in units. The sound of Jaggers voice was not as forward or harsh in the Onkyo. Also, the Skynyrd CD had more of a depth to it and not as stark at related to the DPR. The Outlaws guitars didn't seem to be separated as well as on the DPR but did not have the screeching qualites at the higher levels. The DVD's also seemed to not be as forward sounding but still had good voice and sound dispersion throughout the soundstage. If I would have payed retail price for the DPR, I personally would be very pissed off right now if I could not have returned it.......as I did yesterday. I thought with the drop in price it was a fabulous deal. I know the new DPR's are coming at by HK that is why this price was dropping like a rock. One of the great things I have learned from the forum is one poster who says "trust your ears" and another comment about "everyone not knowing everything about audio" or something like that. He is right. I would never believed that a entry level reciever for under 300 dollars would sound better in my home than one for 1499.00. By the way, I got it for 427.00. I probably will have to pay a re-stock fee. But I guess it was worth that to find out about the digital path recievers. I'm not saying the new H/K's won't be good. They well might. Yours might sound fine to you. This one also only had 50 Watts and yes, from listening, I do believe wattage does make a difference if you like to listen loud without distortion. This H/K also did some "clipping" at higher volumes that my Onkyo absolutely does not. The Onkyo is 75 watts. I don't want to get into the "wattage" battle with those smarter about it than me. I will just say that the Onkyo had more robust power and not the straining the DPR had a high volumes. Lastly, I would just like to say I've had the M60's for about two months now. They are an absolutely fabulous speaker and sound tremendous through this Onkyo 502. I thought I would get an upgrade with the DPR and move the Onkyo upstairs with my M22's. Which by the way also sound wonderful with the Onkyo. This at the time was not worth it to me. I will wait and play my 22's through my old 100watt Kenwood. I'm hoping this doesn't offend the DPR users. I am talking about my ears, my house and my system.
Todd

thanks for a fair and honest review. to me , its better when 'regular' people give the reviews, rather than the professional guys. the prof guys try and get too technical, and often go in with preconcieved notions or expectations of what they are wanting to hear.

reviews like this, i think get the point across without being too nit-picky. plus, i like that the review is positive toward my brand of receiver(701). it kind of boosts my high opinion of my receiver

bigjohn

In reply to:

---

I also did turn the treble down, which I like to turn up to it's fullest potential in most cases.

---

I'm a bit confused. You usually turn the treble up all the way on your receivers? When you turned the treble down, does that mean you turned it all the way down to zero adjustment? Did you try comparing the two receivers without any treble adjustments?

It seems very possible to me that the DPR was brighter than the Onkyo primarily because the maximum treble boost on the DPR is greater than that of the Onkyo. Of course, I don't know whether that is the case at all. It might even be blatant bologna! But it seems like an intuitive possibility.

Were you using the DAC's in the recievers? Personally, I could understand different recievers sounding differently if the signal is converted and amplified through the reciever. If analog outputs are used, I believe the reciever should have almost no bearing on the sound provided it is competently built.

they both go up to +12 on bass and treble. When I turned the treble down I meant down to 10 or 8, not down to zero. I think all receivers sound flat without any enhancement. Again, that is just my ears.

not any digital inputs. Sorry to disagree, but there was a difference in the sound of these two recievers playing the same source material. I didn't change anything else but the receivers. I wouldn't have believed it either if I had not auditioned both. I, also, am not an audiophile either. But I do know what sounds "right" to my ears. The DPR just was, too
again "tinny" or "bright" in sound reproduction.

In reply to:

---

When I turned the treble down I meant down to 10 or 8, not down to zero.

---

Did you try turning it down further? My understanding of the cause and meaning of "brightness" comes from the January 2003 Axiom Audiofile, in which Alan wrote:

Words like "sibilant" mean the speaker has a midrange/treble peak that emphasizes the "sss" and "ttt" sounds of singers’ vocals. The same speaker might also be a bit "bright" (a little treble emphasis) or quite "strident" (way too much treble output, making brass and string sound shrill or harsh).

Thus, "bright" means "a little treble emphasis" and it seems to me that you could reduce the brightness by turning the treble down further, closer to (or at) zero.

I can understand if you prefer a bright sound and generally have to turn treble up all the way on your receivers in order to suit your taste, but the treble adjuster is effectively a brightness adjuster. If you have the treble at +8-10 and the sound was too bright, you should certainly turn it down further!

I'm not doubting what you heard, I'm just trying to determine the reason behind it.

when listening to SACD(multi-channel) did you use the bass management on the 563a or the DPR?

through analog. No SACD through surround process. I also use no sub because of the M60's.

you turn the the treble or brightness down on a receiver. This to me, enhances more bass which I do not want. It is all about taste I guess. To me, at the same level of treble use, the DPR was not just bright, but screeching in its high tones. When you can switch between the direct mode to the tone mode, there is an incredible sound difference to me. I have an old Kenwood with eq built into it. I have been used to that. I like to be able to have some control over my music collection and not what a reciever or company wants there receiver to sound like. I like to be able to eq some and have treble or bass control. I want control over that.
I know some audiophiles don't like that. But it is about personal perference.

OK...so you just did redbook two-channel off of that SACD and not multi-channel hi-res (which would use the 5.1 analog input)...right?

from a SACD. The sound is clearly better than the regular CD I have of the same nature played through two channel stereo. But, yes you are correct.

Todd,

No need to be sorry. I simply don't precsribe to the idea of amplifiers sounding different from one another. This doesn't mean that they don't. I approach audio with an open mind and don't believe all of the audiophile snake oil myths/ideas/spiels thats are out there. Again, although my common knowledge about audio is somewhat great, my experience is what is lacking. At my young age I haven't had the oppurtunity to hear many different amplifiers.

I don't believe in amplifiers sounding different (but this could change as in your situation), interconnects and wire making a noticeable difference in sound/video quality, vibrapod products, cable raisers (hooks which hold your cables off of the floor to reduce interference, and component break-in.

I do believe in speaker break-in, that speakers have the biggest influence on how your speakers will sound, different DACS as well as CD players sound different, that your ears also need break-in to the new sound of a different type of speaker.

This is not to say that I'm right, or anyone else is wrong just that in my limited experience, my perusing many audio forums, and speaking with the local audio shop owner (who used to be the President of the Arizona Audiophile Society) this is what I have come to believe. Now if any experiences were to change my beliefs I would embrace them with an open mind.

I'm not trying to get smart, but let me get this straight. You believe there is no difference in sounds of amplifiers right?
As I said before, the only thing I changed in my tests were the Onkyo and H/K receivers. That would, to some, mean that the only difference to one listening would be the receiver right? I guess alot of high end audio people must be awful upset that their 1,000-2,000 dollar and more amps/receivers aren't any better or sounding than my less than 299.00 Onkyo right? If I am not getting this right please explain. Or am I over simplifying your point?? By the way, most people believe in ear break-in not speaker.

You would be wrong about the people getting mad at spending $2000 on an amp. If you have the money to drop on an amp then by all means go for it. And if you hear a difference then good for you. I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong for dropping big bucks on audio equipment. With a higher end component, you get better build quality and usually more power. There is nothing wrong with buying as much power as you can afford. If you read my post correctly, if I was to hear a discernable difference between amplifiers then my stance would change, but until then I'm on this side of the fence

Todd, did you account for a possible difference in output between the two recievers? ie: using a SPL meter to ensure both are playing at the same loudness.

I remember reading here that even a small differences in loudness can have a huge influence on the precieved sound. ie: lowder will sound better. As a result its seems essential to normalize the loudness before comparing speakers, amp, recievers, ect.

Cheers, Jag