What receiver is everyone using w/ their Axioms??

Axiom Home Page

I ask because I am about to ourchase my Axioms. M60's, QS8'S, VP150, EP500; and I need a new receiver to power these babies.

I ask mainly because I've heard a million stories about Axiom's being too "bright", that I should find a receiver that has a more "dark", "laid back" tone.
People have told me to stay away from Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo and look at Pioneer. Alan mentioned Sherwood to me also, but I don't know much about them.

I'd like to hear what you guys are using.

My budget is between $400-$600. I am really interested in the Yamaha RX-V659 which others have talked about here. I need something that will POWER the Axioms.

I can't wait to hear what you guys have to say.

Well, generally around here, you won't hear the bright descriptor. You also won't hear that different receivers have different sonic characteristics. Of course, such sonic characteristics can be added, subtracted, (whatever) through tone controls, different processing, etc.

In short, get a receiver at the price point you can afford with the features you want.

Also, audition the Axioms to make sure they're what you want. Of course, we all think they're the bee's knees, but not everyone likes them. They are very accurate speakers, and will expose any issues with the source material. For example, we have lists of poorly mastered albums, because it matters with Axioms.

Me? I'm using a Harman/Kardon AVR-525 with my M80s, VP100, and QS4s. Works fine for me. But several people around here have had problems with H/Ks lately, so perhaps their QC has gone down.

As an aside, I'm sure you've seen that many Axiom owners swear by separates, or at least external amps. I'm not quite there yet, and I'm not convinced of the benefits at the volumes I listen at. Don't be scared off by this--you can always add one later.

HP, you can safely disregard all million of those stories because they have no factual basis(as to either Axioms or the receivers)and are total nonsense. Axioms are designed to produce relatively flat(as speakers go), accurate frequency response and any "brightness" comes from program material having that characteristic being reproduced accurately. This is true of receivers to an even greater extent; engineers design them(even relatively low-cost units)with audibly flat frequency response from 20-20KHz. So, there's no need to try to "match" non-existant sonic characteristics of receivers to your Axioms. Buy a receiver with the features you want at a price that fits your budget.

Me? I'm using a Harman/Kardon AVR-525 with my M80s, VP100, and QS4s. Works fine for me. But several people around here have had problems with H/Ks lately, so perhaps their QC has gone down.

Thanks. Question. Why did you go with the Q4's as opposed to the Q8's? I'm curious because my room is 27" long and teh viewing area will be in teh center, so my surrounds will be on teh outside walls, which are each about 13-14 feet from teh area. I figured I'd need the Q8's? So I'm curious about your experience, as well as the VP100 as opposed to the 150.

You don't really want to ask me about my mix of stuff--it's a hodgepodge, built up over the years. The M80s were a recent addition--a gift from some very nice people. The QS4s were because someone needed to sell them, the VP100 fit on top of the TV, etc.

I don't have a problem with this stuff, but I'd recommend going with the QS8s. The VP is a tougher call; the 100 is very capable.

Stick with your plan, you will love it.

I am using a Denon 1804 with my Axioms(M22's, QS8's and VP 100) and it gets loud enough for me and sounds great.

As others have said, get a unit that has the features you want at a reasonable price. If you like the Yammie and it's decently priced, I'd go with it.

Me, I was going to go with an HK cause of versatility in base management, but I found they are expensive in Canada. So I looked around a little more and found a refurb Onkyo TX702 for a great price that had everything else I was looking for (driving M22's, QS8's and vp100).

It must be a reason you posted this in the "stereo" section of the board

See my sig. for my current stereo setup. 2 channel separates are the way to go for music listening if you really want to get the most of it. That's why many people have two systems at home (those who have a single familiy home mostly): HT and a stereo system. If you can't have two (most don't, including me) you may need to add a 2 channel amp to your HT receiver for the fronts. You will achieve something. And guys, please feel free to disagree...

Just look at the bottom of my post.

I spent a lot of time researching this gear and am quite happy with it!!!!

"Bright" is subjective. One person's 'bright' is another person's 'accurate' or 'detailed'. With that said, I'd be willing to guess that if the Axioms are as accurate as everyone says (sorry, haven't has the opportunity to hear them myself, but I have no reason to doubt that this is the case), they will be quite revealing of bad source material. With the recording industry producing absolute crap recordings (over-equalized in some cases, over-compressed in others, etc.), I have no doubt that many have heard these (and other accurate speakers) speakers sound harsh and bright.

The recording will be the biggest difference, but if they are as revealing as other high-end speakers I'm familiar with, cheap electronics could potentially sound bright, as well. No one is going to hook up a pair of (using an example speaker I'm familiar with) Thiel speakers to a $300 receiver and $50 DVD or CD player. In order to get the most out of a high end set of speakers, you need a quality front end. I've heard HUGE differences between high-end receivers and high-end separates, and I'm willing to bet that there's an even bigger difference between low end receivers and entry-level separates.

I realize that everyone has a budget they need to stay within. But if you can afford the Axiom system you posted, you owe it to yourself to save up enough money to buy either a higher-end receiver or entry-level separates. Why spend well over $2K on speakers and then try to drive them on on $400-600 receiver? You will not get the most out of your high quality speakers this way, and may end up running into trouble trying to drive your speakers to reference levels. They are all 6 ohm speakers. Sure, most recievers will drive 6 ohms, but I doubt a cheap one will do so without strain at higher volumes, driving all channels at once.

I'm not trying to be downer, but you have a very nice speaker setup. Give it the quality amplification it deserves. It will be well worth the wait, in my opinion, if you need more time to save up the extra money. Save up an extra $6-700 and get the Outlaw Audio 970/7075 combo. [Yes, I am partial to separates. I freely admit this.

But I'm partial because of the improved performance I've always heard from them vs. receivers.]

This is only one person's opinion, but I'm not without a clue on this subject.

Yamaha Rx-v659 have plenty of power and are reasonably priced. Can't speak for the M60 setup, but they drive my M22/VP150/QS8 EP 500 nicely.

Driving my system with a Denon 2805 and Emotiva MPS-1 amp.

By the way, Axioms are not bright and people that say they are don't know jack.

Not everyone would be able to discern purported differences between the sonic signatures of high-quality solid state amplifier circuits. I believe that room interactions and source material are going to make a much bigger difference to most people than the difference between any decent receiver and an upgrade to separates. Any mid-level receiver from any of the major brands is going to deliver a satisfying audio experience with the M60 setup mentioned.

I think it depends on your listening habits, too. Most people are not going to need/want to get "the most" out of their systems approaching 100% of the time. I guess I'd reject the notion that "it's not worth doing without separates". Plenty of people enjoy Axiom setups with modestly priced receivers. Getting a receiver with pre-amp outputs allows a person to enjoy the Axiom sound immediately and still use that equipment in conjunction with a separate amp in the future if warranted.

I just started using a Pioneer elite VSX-84TXSI(previously had the pioneer 1015 but I wanted HDMI on the receiver). I have the 60's, vp150 and QS8s and have 2 old mission bookshelves as my back channels. Right now I have a HSU STF2 for a sub but I have a EP500 on order from the factory oulet.

Actually, even my hard of hearing Dad (has a hearing aid in one ear) could tell the difference between a high-end receiver and high(er) end separates. Granted, he didn't hear as much difference as I did, but he heard it nonetheless. With that said, he thought the compromise well worth the dollar savings. The separates in question would have run additional $3000. Pesonally, after hearing the difference, I couldn't have gone the receiver route.

It's all about your own experience and expectations. From my point of view, if you're going to spend a good chunk of money on speakers, why hamstring them will middle of the road electronics. I've rushed into purchases in the past to save a few dollars, short-changing one side of the home theater for the other, and have ended up disappointed.

While pre-amp outs on a receiver does provide an upgrade path, I'd still argue that the noise floor is going to be noticably higher with this than with a nice pre-pro and separate amplifiers. In addition to this, separates (and high end receivers) tend to have superior internals and greater flexibility (of particular note is speaker crossover settings... there is no comparison here between my existing Pioneer Elite receiver and an Anthem or even an Outlaw pre-pro). Internal components matter. D/A converters, in particular, make a difference.

I have no doubt that many people enjoy the Axioms using mid-line receivers. Many people also enjoy the Bose cube speaker surround system. It's all about individual taste and perception, and thus ultimately subjective. I also didn't mean to suggest that "it's not worth doing without separates", though I don't doubt I came across that way.

I thought it worth noting - particularly given the system mentioned - that noticably better performance can be had by spending a bit more, whether this be in the form of separates or a higher-end receiver. How many in here would try to talk someone out of the Bose setup and into a nice Axiom system, based on personal experience? This is exactly what I'm doing with the electronics side of things. Caveat emptor.

My slant on things is probably a bit different than most, but I can't imagine running a nice speaker system from a cheap receiver. If I can spend $3K for a HT speaker system (which is about what I'm planning), 50% of this amount isn't over-kill for the front end electronics (I'd argue differently if we were talking about a HT-in-a-box speaker system, in which case it's probably best matched to a cheap receiver). YMMV.

Quote:

By the way, Axioms are not bright and people that say they are don't know jack.

HEY WATCHIT!

Nicely said!

In most cases, you get what you pay for.

Quote:

From my point of view, if you're going to spend a good chunk of money on speakers, why hamstring them will middle of the road electronics.

Because we've done blind testing and can't hear a difference once the mind has been taken out of the equation.

Not wasted money, though... some big-arse amps will really allow you to annoy the neighbours without pushing them into clipping.

Or you can do some remodelling, point them at a no longer needed wall, and turn 'er up.

Bren R.

I totally agree with the above, based on my own experience with receiver and separates (both of Rotel brand). In fact, everybody should listen for themselves and make comparisons on their own houses with their own electronic. It is not nice to dismiss something as useless and waste of money without even trying.

Quote:

Because we've done blind testing and can't hear a difference once the mind has been taken out of the equation.

Not wasted money, though... some big-arse amps will really allow you to annoy the neighbours without pushing them into clipping.

Bren R.

I guess it depends on what you're comparing. The comparison I heard between an Arcam receiver and Arcam separates (level matched, but not double blind) was clearly a win by the separates. I was actually surprised by how big a difference there was. I didn't go into the session expecting to hear much at all (after all, it was a $2K+ receiver vs. the mid-tier separates - not their top of the line separates), and was hoping that the receiver would hold its own. Same speakers, cables, power, room, etc. The speakers used were Thiel CS1.6/SS1 combo, which are known for their resolution capabilities.

I'd be willing to bet that it would be far more difficult to hear the differences between sets of quality separates (even at huge price differences). There is definitely diminishing audible returns for the dollar as you go up the food chain, but I disagree that there is no audible difference between a $400 receiver and a decent pre-pro/amp combination... unless you're doing a double-blind usign Bose cube speakers.

Quote:

I guess it depends on what you're comparing.

Definitely! By that same logic, I know there are some receivers out there that would be indistinguishable from separates to even those that swear by separates. Of course some of them cost as much or more than separates would as well. It's great that there are so many choices and options, to fit each of our requirements.

Quote:

I disagree that there is no audible difference between a $400 receiver and a decent pre-pro/amp combination... unless you're doing a double-blind usign Bose cube speakers.

You keep suggesting that amp manufacturer is akin to speaker manufacturer. The big difference is... any good amp (by good, I mean suitable for HT use) these days has the specs to be in the inaudible range in distortion and SNR as long as they're not being overdriven. Technology is a wonderful thing. We're long past the 70s where S/S amplifier tech was still new, and past the 80s where big power amps were needed to drive passive subwoofers.

You'll only notice the difference blind if one's being driven into distortion. So yes, amps can sound different... trying to play the same source material through a 10WPC and a 200WPC amp can sound different... if you're driving a difficult load at high volumes. The lesser powered amp will be pushed into clipping before the greater powered amp will.

Bren R.

I'm not trying to suggest the differences between amplifiers are as great as the differences between speakers. Clearly, the speaker makes the most difference in the audio chain. The only thing I'm saying is that I'll take the Outlaw separates (970 pre-pro/7075) over a $400 receiver any day of the week, and am confident I can hear the difference in a blind test.

I do disagree that you can break down an amp to its specification. There's more to an amplifier's "sound" than power, distorition, and frequency response. There are other components that can and do make a difference in the sound that have nothing to do with distortion from clipping or reserve power. The ear is a funny animal. It can pick up things that can't be easily, if at all, measured.

That aside, since you suggest (and I agree) that clipping is the biggest culprit in sound differnce between amps, isn't this a good reason to go with the pre-pro/separate amp combination? You spend more, but you get more reserve power, the ability to run all channels at rated power, and a lower noise floor - not to mention the extra flexibility of setup and better quality D/A converters. You also end up with cooler running electronics which will likely last longer (heat is the enemy... my receiver runs very warm, even though I only drive the center and surrounds from it).

Well, more extended discussion here, but the facts remain the same: when power is supplied with flat 20-20KHz frequency response and inaudibly low noise and distortion, amplification is transparent, regardless of whether the unit cost $200 or $20,000. Relying on a naive "just trust your ears" type of analysis is hopeless, and when put to the only test(carefully controlled double-blind)in which the ears alone are trusted, a type of reverse-transmutation apparently occurs which turns ears of gold into tin. The classic Stereo Review blind listening test remains unchallenged(i.e. unchallenged by solid evidence, not just stubborn refusal to face reality), although common sense should tell us that manufacturers would be loudly trumpeting favorable results(later tests similarly failed). Note the sometimes flowery description of sound qualities which disappeared when the name plates and price tags also disappeared. A combination of wishful thinking and failure to keep all variables constant(especially volume level precisely held to within 0.1dB)can easily deceive us. As Dr. Toole, at an AES meeting where he spoke on the indispensibility in audio of controlled double-blind tests, commented in an intentional bit of hyperbole: "If you can see what you're listening to, you can't hear it."

Clean amplifier power is cheap and plentiful these days and can be bought by the audio consumer for very little outlay of cash. One notable example is a unit available as a factory refurb for around $150 and which has superb measurements which would be suitable for a $2,000(or $20,000)speaker system if the features are adequate for the buyer's needs. Money should be spent where it can make a difference, i.e. CDs, DVDs, speakers, and room treatments, not wasted in paying homage to old audiophiles' tales.

John, surely the Audio Deity frequents places of worship constructed of multiple, more costly buildings (i.e. separates, for the metaphorically challenged) much more often than s/he frequents utilitarian multi-purpose buildings (i.e. receivers). The more capital you sacrifice, the more favors of audio bliss are granted? Where else could the apparent improvements be coming from?

I'll put another vote in for something from the Pioneer Elite line. I have VSX-43TX. It's a few years old, and I bought it brand new but on close-out at my local true HT store a few years back. MSRP was like $999, I paid like $600 for it. It has worked flawlessly for years.

I like it quite a bit. It's only annoyance for me is the lack of on-screen setup, but all of the newer models have it now.

Interesting read. I'm not surprised that differences were hard to discern between high quality amps, but I'm surprised the Pioneer receiver did so well. I'm definitely in the category that there are differences between amps, but perhaps it does simply come down to available clean (and quiet) power (which is a product of the internals, of course). At low enough volumes, it makes sense that it would do okay, though I'd expect a higher noise floor with it that would be detectable. Perhaps not. Crank it up and things would change dramatically.

I guess my main sticking point is the blanket assumption that a cheap receiver is going to sound just as good as decent quality separates. This is simply not the case in real world use. A cheap receiver's amplification is generally quite limited. Even the modest Outlaw 7075 is going to trounce a cheap receiver's internal amps. Most people aren't going to listen at low volumes all the time in a theater environment, and having more clean power on hand is always a good thing when you want it loud.

Perhaps this was the biggest difference in the systems I compared. The separate amplifier had more reserve power and handled transients better (the test was not at low volume, though not at reference levels, either). Whatever the reason, it did sound cleaner and clearer to me. The differences I heard were not due to my imagination.

At low volumes, I have no doubt the difference is minimal. My recommendation for separates (or a more expensive receiver) is based on real world use. Throw in lower ohm speakers all around, and this argument makes even more sense.

And one of the reasons I'm normally pretty adamant about it is guys like my old neighbour... he had a fair midline system, someone put the seed of amps sounding different in his head, so he changed his Denon AVR (not such a bad idea, it was missing some newer decoding features) out... and loved the new, more in-your-face sound of the new Onkyo... for a day, until the newness wore off and he had the same complaints as the Denon. I don't know how many times he exchanged the receiver (and paid restocking fees) for other manufacturers, chasing his elusive sound, but each time, the new one sounded just like the saleman told him it would... for a day or two.

Poor guy got taken for probably $400 in restocking fees before settling on the original Onkyo and replacing his Pioneer floorstanders.

Bren R.

Buy your favorite, capable, affordable receiver right now...when you get a bug to upgrade, buy a separate amp and use the receiver as a pre/pro. When you get the bug again... replace the receiver pre/pro with a dedicated pre/pro...baby steps and you never get bored

Budget: not to sound rude or crude, but we have had discussions like these at least 2 or 3 times a year on these boards with individuals who may mean well, but simply do not have a technical understanding of what they are posting. They may be genuine and mean well, but they are just wrong.

We see it on amps. We see it on receivers. We see it on seperates. We see it on speakers. And, god forbid, we see it on speaker wire/ cable.

If the electrical specifications are the same and they are accurate, then the physics of the situation says that the performance will be the same.

Period!

And if the electronics are the same, why not switch video in Audio/Video Receivers or Processors?

/troublemaker

LOL!!!! Good One.

The short answer is that the electronics for video switching ARE NOT THE SAME.

The longer answer is take a good look at the specific electronic circuitry, software (drivers) and format interfaces. I think that anyone who is familiar with software, drivers and interface specifications will tell you that it doesn't take much of a difference for the performance to be really screwed up.

That is exactly why you do your video switching in your video gear and let the audio gear do its audio thing.

LOL!

Quote:

/troublemaker

I was thinking more this.

Bren R.

Quote:

Well, generally around here, you won't hear the bright descriptor.

Ah come on Ken.
I've used it a couple of times.
Give it a go.

Quote:

Of course, we all think they're the bee's knees

I've always wondered what the history is behind this saying. Why are bees knees so amazing?

Still an unsolved mystery , chess.

Bren: LOL!!!!!

You know, that is just about how I feel when I see some of the comments about speaker cable/ wire. LOL!!!!

Good One.

Well you learn something new every ding dong day eh?

Quote:

There's no profound reason to relate bees and knees other than the jaunty-sounding rhyme. In the 1920s it was fashionable to devise nonsense terms for excellence - 'the snake's hips', 'the kipper's knickers", 'the cat's pyjamas', 'the sardine's whiskers' etc. Of these, the bee's knees and the cat's pyjamas are the only ones that have stood the test of time. More recently, we see the same thing - the 'dog's bollocks'.

I see these threads all the time and I'm still not sold that all AVRs are neutral and have the same sound. Like Bren said, difference in ability to drive SPLs alone results in a difference in perceived quality.

But that notwithstanding-these things all seem to have really advanced equalizers that attempt to compensate for your room/speakers. That process simply must impact the sound. I mean, that's what it is intended to do, right?

Originally it was an NAD T561 4 years ago. About 2 years ago I upgraded to the T762.