Modern all in one H T receivers = LAME

[quadanasaziland]

If you have seen my quad set up in the "Show us your gear thread" you know I run Sony power amps, front, back and center that are rated at 100 wpc. Doesn't sound like much as most home theater receivers are that or a little more BUT with the Sony's, we are talking 100 pre 1980 wpc which would be close to 300 wpc today. One of my Sony amps weighs nearly as much as 3 modern H T receivers. Since 2000 I have been using a Technics SA DA-10 (frisky dingo has one I saw in the background of one of the pics he posted unrelated to the unit) receiver in the home theater room which is under powered compared to my vintage Sony amps but a good hefty unit compared with the Sony STR-DG710 I replaced it with today. I know my bad I bought a H T reciever that was made by a company that is a four letter word here but with HD and hdmi I needed a modern receiver that could do the hdmi inputs. The 710 a 6.1 unit decodes every thing so that's cool and has lots of nice features, most for the least as far as I could find in comparring to other makes. So my question is for the guyz that run a modern all in one H T reciever for thier main quad/mc duties, How can you guyz deal? These things just don't crank! NO gutz! What do you guyz do when you want to rock? I run nice Infinity's up front, Wharfedale's in the rear and a JBL sub, great for movies, HD tv but wheres the balls when it comes to music? I don't care how efficient your speakers are there is no subsitute for big watts and clean power! I guess if you have a money tree you can afford seperates but they are still rated by todays wpc rating system and most can't hang with big vintage gear! I know there are exceptions but they cost what it costs to put a kid thru school to own. Lonester runs an Outlaw preamp I know but not sure what he uses for amps? Seems like the way to go, modern 5, 6 or 7 (10.1, 40.10 @ channel preamp with some serious power behind it, not 100 2007 wpc! Problem with vintage gear is it must be restored which any one who has sent Bob some gear can atest to, gets pricy too. But once restored and with some speakers that can hang, you can wake the folks down the street. Modern gear is weak!

 

[Guy Robinson]

My HT receiver is only 4 years old (as is the rest of the system except for the cabling and the Oppo) and has 110 watts per channel. I don't know whether the wattage rating is true or not but I can get the system up to clean undistorted levels where you cannot talk to people 2 feet away from you. My room is however only 17 by 12 and I sit in the middle so I am less than 9 feet away from the front speakers. The rears are on the wall midway in the room as well. So the rears are actually beside me, not behind me. So in short, I think it is a combination of room size and speaker placement in my case which allows me to get these levels. Oh and the sub with it's own larger amp adds a lot to that feeling of fullness.

 

[phydo]

Dave:

I do not have the answer you are looking for; however, I do agree with you that there are times in life there is no substitute for raw “horsepower”. My 7.1 system is a hodgepodge of vintage and modern equipment: seven JBL 4312 speakers and one JBL B-460 subwoofer (un-powered), driven by four dbx power amplifiers (350 watts per channel). When it comes to power my operating philosophy is: If the street lights don’t dim when I turn my system on then I am not pulling enough power. It has taken me almost two decades to put this system together. I have had to have three of the dbx power amplifiers rebuilt over the years and currently there is only one place in the USA (in Berkley, CA) that advertises itself as a service center. When this guy exhausts his stash of parts I will start sending them to QB – if he will work on them. Even with the shipping, parts and labor costs to maintain my amps (which I assure you is not cheap) I have not found an acceptable, affordable modern equivalent. McIntosh makes exactly what I want in the MC-602, but that is so far out of my price range it is only a dream. I have also been looking at the amps on the CROWN website. I had a lot of experience with Crown amps when I was a movie theater projectionist, but I don’t know anyone who has used them in the home audio environment. None of the HT amps I have looked at interest me - kind of anemic power wise.

As I am typing this I am thinking that this subject (powering your system) might qualify as its own forum section on the QQ site.

Justin

 

[spenceo]

For all who never knew this, the way a manufacture can rate wattage can vary greatly. there is three ways they rate wattage, Peak to Peak (p-p), Peak (p) or Root Mean Squared (rms). The RMS rating is the "Usable" power that is delivered to the speakers and is the most accurate rating. P-P and P are mostly used to sell amps. Example:



Where the vertical is wattage an horizontal is Hertz. This sine wave has a Peak to Peak wattage of 200w(from +100 to -100). A Peak wattage of 100w and a RMS value of 70.7w.

Watts RMS = 70.7% of Peak

As you can see an Amplifier manufacturer can claim this as a 200w amp or a 70w amp. Which would you buy? It's mainly the garbage equipment out there that uses a P-P rating.

Hope this may help someone.

Spence

 

[DennisMabry]

I know from personal experience that nothing besides new speakers can improve the sound of your system more than a good amp. Way back when, I had a Yamaha receiver (CR-2020) which had a very good sounding 100 w amp. In the early nineties I upgraded to Carver home theater separates. I could hardly believe the dramatic difference the Carver amp (TFM-15CB, conservatively rated at 100w) made in terms of sound quality. It provided a new level of depth, dynamic range, and warm sound that I was unaccustomed to, and this was using the same speakers. I again upgraded in 2003 to Sunfire separate components, replacing the Carver amps with a Sunfire Cinema Grand (225w x 5) and was once again astounded at the improvement in sound quality. So I wouldn't say all modern gear is weak, you just need some quality new stuff to compete with what used to be standard. The "garbage equipment" as Spence said above is sometimes tough to weed out of all the consumer choices we have. I trust publications like Stereophile and Sound & Vision magazines to recommend new products. I think the best value going these days, as far as separates go, would have to be Outlaw Audio components. If cost is no object, then the sky's the limit. For the most part, depending on your expectations, I think you get what you pay for!

Dennis

 

[timbre4]

Having followed audio since 1971, I've seen all manner of specs touted by manufacturers as being accurate; FTC standards have helped a bit to make it apples-to-apples these days.

In addition to making sure your per-channel-wattage is RMS, all channels driven (not just one) and across the stated frequency response (not just at 10K for a nanosecond), you have to reference the distorion levels in this shell game. If the THD (total harmonic distortion) is 1% instead of .01% it's ahuge difference. Oh, we measure using 6 ohms in stead of 8 ohms, etc. Headroom? It goes on and on.

Not all modern gear is trash by any means; it's ridiculous how much you get for the money these days. I've found great performance and value using Denon for the last 15 years. I'll swap one or both of mine out this fall when they add HDMI switching across the board.

For reference I run a Marantz 4140 is a separate 4.0 system and love what that sounds like. Currently not in use (but can't part with) is a Proton D940 which is a "40w p/ch" receiver. Until you FLOOR it! DPD (Dynamic Power On Demand) kicks in and handles 300w peaks, much as the NAD amps would.

I told you this is an occult science! :

 

[phydo]

Dennis:

Thanks for the lead on Sunfire amps. I was not familiar with their products.

Justin

 

[DennisMabry]

Dennis:

Thanks for the lead on Sunfire amps. I was not familiar with their products.

Justin

Sunfire is a Bob Carver company. According to urban legend he got divorced in the late 90's and had to split the profits from Carver Corp. with his ex. So he just up and started a new company, thus Sunfire. The new products retain his famous innovations, including Sonic Holography, which is remarkable in stereo, and works well with most material in PLllx.

http://www.sunfire.com/

Dennis

 

[BananaSlug]

My first 5.1 receiver was a very cheap Pioneer that boasted 100wpc with a maximum power drain of 260w. Clearly the math didn't add up. I have a HK now that is rated at 7 x 50w and it's actually more powerful and uses much more electricity. When I win the Lotto I'm going to check out the Rotel class D amp. It's gotten great reviews and is very efficient. I've never had the money to even bother looking (listening) to separates and looking at the latest report at how much less my generation is earning compared to our parents (in the news today, but it's long been obvious to us) I doubt I will - until the Lotto that is.

 

[quadanasaziland]

I'm not saying all modern gear is weak. If you can afford it, you can get big or clean power! I'm not in the Sunfire $ class, I wish I was!! I was bummed by the difference just between the Sony and the Technics power band, both rated about the same. Watts rating now just smoke and mirrors. The consevative ratings of Dennon, Onkyo and HK mass market gear always puzzuled me but less now.

Ok no jokes about my Cerwin Vega speakers please, cause I love them.

They are pretty darn efficient and the price was right. I dragged them into the HT room a couple of years ago to see how the Technics SA-DA10 could push them and was less then impressed! The Vega's give 103 db's @ 1 watt, I think, without pulling the spec sheet out. Upgrading my front speaks to some CV S-2's with 15" woofs that wiegh in at 80 lbs each and can do 120 db's @ 1 watt. The CV's up front now, flap my pantlegs in the db breeze in the quad room. They are going to the rear when the S-2's arrive.

So I have played with the Sony STR DG710 for a couple of days and for movies, tv, I like it! Lots of decoding options! The addition of the SB channel is cool! With the added decoding I was able to get a better sound/soundfield out of my Midnightspecial dvd discs which were weak at best! I thought they would be a good test for the Sony. Instead of passind the DD 5.1 and using the DPL-11x, I found better results using the DD stereo feed and decoding using the neo or cinema studio ex algo's. The Sony seems to be quirky passing the DTS signals but I'll get it figured out.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

On the home theater forums, quite a few people use professional amps like Crown and QSC in their systems & report that that to them, they sound fine. Most of these amps provide much more wattage per dollar than "audiophile" amplifiers ($500 for a stereo amp with 200 true watts of power is common), are built like a tank and can handle low impedance loads with no problems. About the only complaint is that they can sound a bit analytical and that sometimes their internal fans can be heard during quieter parts of movies. But a positive benefit of the fans for some people is that these very powerful amps are usually much more compact than a similarly-powerful home amplifier.

One system I've thought about using if I had a very large space to fill with sound and didn't have a load of cash to spend is to use these amps coupled with a basic mid-fi receiver to act as a preamp. For example, Pioneer's VSX-816 is equipped with multichannel preouts for connection to an external amp(s). This receiver has decoders for just about every format and some other nice features for a street price of only around $300. The cheapest dedicated HT preamp I know of goes for approx $900.........but also has a boatload of features I know I'll never use.

Only (possible) problem? Most pro amps use those XLR or other pro connection methods so the Pioneer's RCA phono outputs would need some sort of adaptor to work with them.

Anyhoo.......

I have a feeling along with the marketing departments coming up with those inflated power ratings* so a retail store's info card looks more impressive , the reality is that most people think any speaker with a 6.5" or larger woofer is "big" and so in turn stick to smaller more Bose-like satellites. So for them, 15 to 30 true watts of power is about all they need, since their powered subwoofers are doing all the heavy lifting as far as the bass below 80Hz is concerned.


***************************************

An off-topic note about bass around 80Hz and small sats with the typical 5.25 inch "woofer": has anyone else ever compared the sound of a sat like this to a larger speaker while the sub is turned off? I have, using a pair of those aluminum-enclosure Radio Shack "Minimus" models with a 5.25" driver and a pair of Boston Acoustics CR9s (bookshelf with a single 8" ported woofer) and even with a crossover at 100Hz, the lowest my receiver will go, the amount of bass still present was amazing, where music still sounded quite full/rich & enough to cause the couch to vibrate........at least with the Bostons. But with the $180/pair Minimus speakers (not exactly the BEST small speaker available but still...) you would never know that there was that much bass present at that frequency.

So I wonder how many people are not hearing their music/movies properly since there is very possibly a sonic gap between their sats and their sub. But using a higher xover point to lessen this problem can start causing many subs to sound boomy and cause listeners to be able to localize the origin of the bass frequencies - not good.


* when was the last time you saw a receiver, even a stereo one, with power meters to let the owner know what he is REALLY using during the typical listening session?

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

quadanasaziland: yep I'm an owner of a Technics SA-DA8 (actually its an "SA-DX1040", made just for Best Buy but essentially the same thing - confused yet? ). Your SA-DA10 has that anti-vibration base made of that funky TNRC material, special power supply capacitors w/bamboo internal separators, IIRC gold-plated jacks and a few other special features mine doesn't have. But I do own the slick remote the D10 came with (after sending fifty one bucks to Panasonic) since mine came equipped with buttons that were waaaaay too tiny!

An interesting story from Sound & Vision magazine that lets lets one know some basic receivers aren't *too* underpowered: back around 2003, they tested a Panasonic SA-DX300 6.1 channel receiver which went for @$350. To test its real-world power output they hooked up six full-range (their words) speakers, switched off the receiver's bass management and played music through all these speakers at one time. They measured a clean-sounding 70 watts from every channel at this time, until the receiver finally shut itself down after several minutes. Not too shabby for a budget receiver. Too bad Panasonic no longer makes those relatively potent "H+" power amps for their receivers anymore - now they just use those weird-n-fussy, and rather wimpy IMO, digital-based power amps.

One thing I like about Technics' receivers is that for years they used what they called a "New Class A" amp design, which eventually morphed into the "H+" amps for their last analog amp designs. While they weren't true class A amps (which would be too costly for their market segment) according to reviewers their class A/B design stayed in the class A operating mode much longer than other companies' A/B receivers, resulting in no power transistor switching distortion for a wider range of listening levels. The side effect is that just like 100% class A power amps, these Technics amps run hot as hell, even when just idling with no signal present! And their internal fans only come on when the volume is really cranked up. But despite all that heat, back in the early/mid 90s while selling their and other companies' gear, their receivers were the most reliable by far, even though those New Class A versions actually ran hotter than the later H+ versions. And I still get a kick out of "scaring" people by having them place their hand over my receiver's single vent on top (one vent results in more directed convective airflow over the heatsink) - it almost feels like the slot over a toaster while its toasting.

If I don't go the separates route, my next receiver will most probably be a Pioneer Elite in the $1500 range or if my paycheck can stand the strain, one from B&K or Arcam.

Anyway......................

 

[ssully]

I know from personal experience that nothing besides new speakers can improve the sound of your system more than a good amp.

You're forgetting room treatment. That will likely have vastly more effect on sound than switching amps.

Now, *AVRs*, which come loaded will all sorts of sound-changing features (room EQ, bass management, DPL II) can certainly cause vast changes too. But just changing amps is further down the list, unless you have quite inefficient speakers and like to play stuff very loud in a large room, and don't have a powered subwoofer.

 

[DennisMabry]

You're forgetting room treatment. That will likely have vastly more effect on sound than switching amps.

Now, *AVRs*, which come loaded will all sorts of sound-changing features (room EQ, bass management, DPL II) can certainly cause vast changes too. But just changing amps is further down the list, unless you have quite inefficient speakers and like to play stuff very loud in a large room, and don't have a powered subwoofer.

Room treatments can make a big improvement, very good point!
Switching amps, even with the same speakers, each time, did make a dramatic difference for my system (without processing).

Dennis

 

[timbre4]

General observation

Many AV receiver EQ presets and soundfield treatments are generally cycled through ONCE. Just long enough to realize how cheesy they are.

Stick to proper decoding and run flat, run true! :

 

[ssully]

Nonsense. Virtually *EVERY* room needs help. Very few ever approach 'flat and true' without work. But now we have the computing power in AVRs to take room measurements and apply rather sophisticated room correction to help get us there. This is worlds away from the old 'hall' presets.

Ideally one should 'manually' treat the room first (absorption, diffusion, etc) and then apply digital EQ.

 

[Desmo888]

Nonsense. Virtually *EVERY* room needs help. Very few ever approach 'flat and true' without work. But now we have the computing power in AVRs to take room measurements and apply rather sophisticated room correction to help get us there. This is worlds away from the old 'hall' presets.

Ideally one should 'manually' treat the room first (absorption, diffusion, etc) and then apply digital EQ.

Agreed, room treatments are the best, first application to any listening room.

Modern EQ's like the Snap, Audessy or Trinnov do a good job in not only flattening response, but relocating the focal point (listening position) of the audio.

Also, Velody's SMS-1 is supposed to be effective, but I have never used one.

Check out the Trinnov site, they have some killer demo's for download (or I could email you an ISO)!

 

[Quadzilla]

General observation

Many AV receiver EQ presets and soundfield treatments are generally cycled through ONCE. Just long enough to realize how cheesy they are.

Stick to proper decoding and run flat, run true! :

EXACTLY! It is incredibly cheap to activate a programmable $4 chip, and it just becomes a numbers game ... "Well, mine has 14 preset soundfields and yours only has 12" ... "Hey man, the reverb in that 'Spanish Inquisition Dungeon' Mode is amazing dude, you can just imagine the screams!" ... kinda like Spinal Tap's amplifiers that go to ELEVEN!

I used to use a Yamaha RX-V740 receiver as a pre/pro with three Bryston power amplifiers that are ONLY 60 wpc to the Yamaha's 90 wpc. Needless to say, the Yamaha is the weaker of the two setups. Each stereo power amp has much more power supply capacity than the entire 6.1-channel receiver. In fact, my Sansui QRX-7001 at 35 wpc has much more balls than the Yamaha ... but the Yammy is a decent receiver in my bedroom.

The real sonic difference I found was going to a proper preamp/processor with the Brystons ... an Audio Refinement Pre2-DSP ... and even the DD, PL II and DTS decoders are better than in the receiver. That actually surprised me.

It just depends on how much money you want to spend. I bought the pre/pro and all the Brystons used, at a cost of about CDN$2,500 plus another $250 for a Parasound CSE 6.1 to give me the centre rear channel. Thankfully I stayed in school and got rid of my ex-wife years ago.

My current life-partner has her own job, loves classic rock music, and can't get enough surround sound and quadraphonic music AND equipment! :banana: Mike. :banana:

 

[soundboy]

And I still get a kick out of "scaring" people by having them place their hand over my receiver's single vent on top (one vent results in more directed convective airflow over the heatsink) - it almost feels like the slot over a toaster while its toasting.

So there's a reason for only having one single tiny vent on the top?

I am currently using a Technics Dolby Pro-Logic receiver that has the "Class H+" circuitry as a headphone amp and it sounds soooooo good. This receiver came out right before the availability of Dolby Digital, but otherwise it's an amazing sounding receiver.

 

[phydo]

EXACTLY!

My current life-partner has her own job, loves classic rock music, and can't get enough surround sound and quadraphonic music AND equipment! :banana: Mike. :banana:

Mike:

Does she have a sister that is as equally agreeable?

Justin