The reason why receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction

VR3

All the freaking processing and adjustments and room correction BS is a musical tone sucker...

Listening to music on the Pioneer Elite at the helm is like taking a serrated blade to my ears... and this is even using pure direct settings

Went straight to the Parasound from the Squeezebox and it was night and day - not saying it was awesome but definitely a huge improvement.

leroyjr1

Try a better receiver and you'll get better results.

VR3

To what extent? Are we talking 1.5k?

There is not a receiver I have ever seen or heard and I have heard quite a few high end ones in shops and other folks houses that can compare to a solid 2 channel preamp, particularly a tube one. There simply is just no contest...

heiney9

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Try a better receiver and you'll get better results.

Not likely. In fact no.

H9

newrival

Sunfire Cinema Grands do quite well, and by extension the Sunfire Ultimate Receiver
Bel Canto had an exceptional pre/pro that was awesome with music.
But Tony is right in that your dislike for this one particular receiver doesn't exactly prove receivers can't work for two channel.

leroyjr1

I do agree a pre amp/amp combo is the way to go but I've never heard a serrated blade to my ears in my HT setup with my receiver.
What speakers were you running?

Drenis

Since I own the same receiver, I can say that what has been said is true. While the Elite sounds good in its own, especially for HT. Going to my Parasound 2100 was night AND day. Even my old lady noticed the difference.

polkfarmboy

I am doing a shootout right now between my anthem avm40 hooked to an emo upa with an anthem mrx300 and a pioneer elite vsx01 thx. All are being hooked up to the amp and right now I will be unboxing the MRX300 shortly. I just sorted out my arc mic serial problem and think I may run into this problem again once I try install arc for the MRX as the pre and receiver programs slightly differ in the upper registry

VR3

Yeah for HT it is great, but music is seriously lacking...

I honestly had never thought about it before because for the last 6 years or so I have always ran a preamp with my HT system in like a bypass setting....

AsSiMiLaTeD

heiney9 wrote: »

Not likely. In fact no.

H9

How can you possibly say that? Of course a better receiver would sound better, what the hell?

Would it sound better than a proper 2 channel preamp? No of course not, but that doesn't mean that a Sunfire Theater Grand Cinema or a B&K receiver wouldn't sound better than a $500 Pioneer....

polkfarmboy

I think ARC running on the MRX300 may punish the pioneer for music as ARC is the only correction system that works for music to my ears. I think ARC sounds great and if you dont have room treatments this may be the best way to go?

cnh

I have to agree with VR3 on this one! As I am particularly sensitive to the high end and most receivers I've tried do hurt my ears when I turn the Pure Direct two channel mode up! So I stay away from that or just use it as background at lower volumes--which is passable.

I think I've heard all the usual suspects where AVRs are concerned.

cnh

BlueFox

One of the problems with having better gear is you get spoiled. So, instead of enjoying the music on a good system, you nitpick it to death because it is not as good as a better system. I am as guilty as the next person on this, but I do try to keep things in perspective. Unless the gear is truly bad, I listen to the music, and, mostly, ignore the fact that it could be better.

Of course, that does not mean I will not try and make my AVR based surround sound/HT system better. This week I upgraded my two-channel speakers to Aerial Acoustics 7T speakers (review coming), and moved my PSB Synchrony One towers into the HT where they replaced a pair of LSi15s in the front. Now, the AVR (Sony 7100ES) and amp (Sunfire TGA-5400) system has moved up a notch. I can spend hours enjoying it, even if the two-channel system is 'better'.

polkfarmboy

I was talking with a guy on the ML forum this week who recently ditched his Logans and brought in the Aerial Acoustics 7T speakers and have heard great things about them

gdb

VR3 wrote: »

All the freaking processing and adjustments and room correction BS is a musical tone sucker...

Listening to music on the Pioneer Elite at the helm is like taking a serrated blade to my ears... and this is even using pure direct settings

Went straight to the Parasound from the Squeezebox and it was night and day - not saying it was awesome but definitely a huge improvement.

Did you not realize that stereo receivers (good ones too!) have been around long,long before all this home theater junk surfaced ? I've got a Kyocera R-851 that sounds so sweet it would "knock your di@k into the dirt" ! Pio, Sansui, Yammie etc all put out great recievers for 2channel-only reproduction. Think "multiple systems" !

Lan077

Arcam's are about the best you are gonna get receiver wise for 2 channel. They are on another level. Maybe Cambridge Audio although never heard any of them.

Turbota

Nowdays, when we think of "recievers", we think of Home Theator recievers. What are they up to 9.2 or something now?

But those big 2-channel audio recievers back in the 70s were certainly a different animal from the HT recievers nowdays. Back in the hay-day of 2-channel audio, a big, powerful and heavy reciever like the Pioneer SX-1280 sounded every bit as good as some of the best separate components of the day ... in most cases, better. But again, those 70s recievers were nothing but a pre-amp, a power amp and a radio tuner all rolled up in the same big and heavy box.

These recievers today are really made for watching HD movies and not listening to just 2-channel audio. At least that's the way I look at it. So, in my mind, the OP is right. Maybe these Home Theator recievers do "color" 2-channel music too much.

I bought a new reciever that's not a "Home Theator Reciever", nor is it a 70s era reciever either ... It's a cheap Onkyo 2-channel "Network Stereo Reciever". Model number is TX-8050. It basically allows you to play/stream music from your home computer without needing to buy something like a Squeezebox. Got a radio tuner in it too ... Basically like a 70s era "Reciever" and a Squeezebox all rolled up into one unit.


I haven't hooked it up yet, but you can see that Onkyo is still making "Recievers" in the year 2012 that have nothing to do with watching movies.

heiney9

Turbota wrote: »

But those big 2-channel audio recievers back in the 70s were certainly a different animal from the HT recievers nowdays. Back in the hay-day of 2-channel audio, a big, powerful and heavy reciever like the Pioneer SX-1280 sounded every bit as good as some of the best separate components of the day ... in most cases, better. But again, those 70s recievers were nothing but a pre-amp, a power amp and a radio tuner all rolled up in the same big and heavy box.

What were you smoking back in the 70's. Simply not a true assessment.

H9

sda2mike

straight to the amp is a step in the right direction...get some tubes in between to tame some of the 'digital' harshness.

mantis

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Try a better receiver and you'll get better results.

Completely agreed.
In this case here it sounds to me like the above system is unbalanced. There is nothing wrong with listening to 2 channel music on a receiver at any level. From Entry to high end , given speakers will sound excellent on a receiver that is of adequate power and sound quality.
Building a double duty system is quite difficult.

Room calibration will help tame some issues your room maybe providing , but treatments are a better way to go first , then running a calibration system will help fine tune in the end. MCACC is a excellent tool to do so. At your level receiver , you simply are under classed for your tastes. As nice of a receiver the vsx23txh is , it's an entry level model. Night and day difference between the vsx models and SC models. SC is where the closer gap to separates will be found.

But to agree I never heard a receiver outperform a good quality pre and amp.

sda2mike

heiney9 wrote: »

What were you smoking back in the 70's. Simply not a true assessment.

H9

there is some truth to what he's smokin'...the top line stuff had discrete circuitry...i don't know about them bettering the separates of the day....receivers were designed by marketing teams, not audio guys...there was bound to be packaging compromises...some of the old stuff, imho, can't be touched..by SOME of the new stuff today...i'm talking mid-fi

tonyb

Flagship receivers from the likes of B&K, Denon, Arcam, can get pretty close as far as SS goes, tubes are another animal. With the timely fashion that technology keeps changing, it's almost silly to drop 3-5 g's on a flagship receiver. Though I can agree that on the music side, a 500 buck receiver will leave you wanting more. Plus not everyone can do 2 seperate systems. So we are left with making one sound as good as possable with HT/music.

heiney9

there is some truth to what he's smokin'...the top line stuff had discrete circuitry...i don't know about them bettering the separates of the day....

That's what my comment was about...........them being better than separates. But for full disclosure, unless it's vintage tube gear, I am not a vintage gear guy from the 70's. I've listened to some of that stuff today and I just don't understand all the fuss. Compared to stuff of today (what would have been comparable to stuff back then) it all sounds mediocre to me. Even some of the syrupy sounding tube gear of back then doesn't really do it for me.

But then again there is an apples to oranges type comparison since audio today is much different than it was back then as far as it's listened to.

H9

tonyb

VR3 wrote: »

Went straight to the Parasound from the Squeezebox and it was night and day - not saying it was awesome but definitely a huge improvement.

Hows that noisy volume control in the SB working out for ya ? Have you tried using the analog connections from the SB to the Pioneer ? Fudge around with different cables maybe ?

pearsall001

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

Erik Tracy

But, its an internet fact that without digital room correction and bass management you are not achieving true calibration for a flat room response, phase correction, and saving your poor front speakers and amp from scary/dangerous bass (cuz no speaker in the known universe can do bass properly like a sub can). :rolleyes:

And more speakers nowadays are known to be better than just two - c'mon - get with the modern program and drink the koolaid! :cheesygrin:

sda2mike

heiney9 wrote: »

That's what my comment was about...........


could also be our EARS memory of what sounded good at a certain period of our lives...sh-t the music was better, the good quality audio products had character...the recordings weren't hot..twas a simpler time

pietro944

pearsall001 wrote: »

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

+1....be carefull,the Alchemists are always watching(fortunately,they are never listenining!)...lol:eek:

mdaudioguy

pearsall001 wrote: »

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

Thread title should have read:

The reason why (MY) receiver cant work for two channel music reproduction (FOR ME)

Nobody's arguing that typical receivers compete favorably with separates... The problem is that it's such a blanket statement. I'd prefer better, but the all-in-one convenience is what I need right now. I know HT bypass is an option, but my setup needs to be family-friendly, as in KISS. To me, it's fine as it is right now. A dedicated music rig with separates is coming... I won't try and use a receiver for that...

Face

pearsall001 wrote: »

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

Try some quality separates for music, you'll never go back.

nooshinjohn

pearsall001 wrote: »

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

Nobody ever said that a receiver cannot sound good(or stellar) in two channel. What is being said is that a low end to mid level AVR may not be the best choice for two channel listening, and I would have to agree. I have my Pioneer SC-37 set up as a pre and power coming from a Sunfire Sig 425/5, and it performs well in both two channel and surround.

Two channel gear of old tends to be romantisized a bit to much, BUT there are some notable exceptions out there... the Sansui G33000 and the AU 20000 were simply in a class by themselves back in the day, and I would have no trouble putting them up against some of the best today. The Pioneer SX 1980 is another that was head and shoulders above the rest that could compete favourably with some of today's best. With all the examples above however, you are looking at well north of 2 grand to find one that has been maintained at a level where they perform their best. for that kind of coin, there is plenty of more modern gear to be had that is just as good.

Try some quality separates for music, you'll never go back

Times to infinity and beyond... Separates trounce a receiver every single time.