The reason why receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction

gdb

Kinda funny/hilarious that the praises of integrateds can't be sung high enough round here, yet, a receiver, which is an integrated with a tuner thrown in.....can't be demonized enough !!! If fire were just discovered today, would you be in the hate or love camp ???? JHFC !!

Serendipity

I guess the engineers at Pioneer don't know what they are doing, because the algorithm for room correction is so complex, and the years spent doing research, hours spent every day in acoustic chambers and in front of CAD software is all a waste of time...

Never mind that they actually listen to (and use) the products extensively, test and re-test before shipping, identify the cause of failures and work with dealers... not to mention a lot of Audio Engineers are also musicians...

I may or may not work for Pioneer Electronics USA... hmm

pearsall001

F1nut wrote: »

Stellar two channel and receiver in the same sentence.......hilarious!

This place is going down the toliet, fast.

This forum is doing just fine...it's the handfull of audio snobs that really need to get a grip. They bring absolutely nothing constructive to the table. It's really a shame.

Conradicles

What a nice car thread.

sucks2beme

Most HT receivers aren't all that great for music. Room correction is kinda like
fully automatic photography. Sorry, I don't like the results. We all know what
receivers are going to cut it. And they don't sell them at Best Buy.
2 channel for me is where it's at. I also rolled a bunch of vintage 70's stuff through here.
I'll stick with what I have.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Stellar two channel and receiver in the same sentence.......hilarious! .

"Stellar" being the key word here.

Keep in mind, right now, I use a cheap receiver to do double duty. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm missing, just don't have the funds right now to get back there. Also, just an observation, sometimes "good enough" becomes the standard, the benchmark, that some can live with and never seek better. Thats were the difference comes in between the so called audio snobs that seek better beyond an AVR. Just because you don't have the funds to explore it, seek it out, doesn't mean in doesn't exist. Some still don't see the value in it, dollar wise, to chase down what they think is diminishing returns. Thats all well and good, but no need to brush off those who seek better sound.

I like to compare this arguement to wine. Funny, everything I compare to wine, go figure. In certain circles, the new find of the month everyone in your neighborhood raves about maybe a bottle of 15 buck zinfidel, or 12 buck bottle of some Cab. It's better because your comparing to 2 buck Chuck. When you finally get to the good stuff in the 50-150 buck a bottle range, there's no comparison, no going back to the ugly stuff at 15 bucks. The wine that was once OK, is now garbage going from a 100 buck bottle back to the 15 buck one. But it wasn't garbage until you sought out better, right ? Audio is the same, once you experience better, it's hard to go back to a receiver for 2 channel listening. Really boils down to a matter of taste. If your tastes are satisfied with a receiver on 2 channel, knock your socks off and enjoy. Me, I like fine wine, fine food, and better audio which I will get back to one of these days.

F1nut

pearsall001 wrote: »

This forum is doing just fine...it's the handfull of audio snobs that really need to get a grip. They bring absolutely nothing constructive to the table. It's really a shame.

Just because you chose to go backwards is no reason for others to make the same mistake. Seriously Phil, have you had your hearing checked lately?

tonyb

I also think, this thread can be intertwined with the other thread on testing and critical listening. We so called audio snobs tend to do more critical listening which seems to be becomming a lost artform. Once your used to doing critical listening, you find yourself doing it when your casual listening too. Can be a benefit or a draw back, depending.

None of this really matters much, listen to what you want, on what you want, as long as your happy with it, who the 'eff cares ?

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

I also think, this thread can be intertwined with the other thread on testing and critical listening. We so called audio snobs tend to do more critical listening which seems to be becomming a lost artform. Once your used to doing critical listening, you find yourself doing it when your casual listening too. Can be a benefit or a draw back, depending.

None of this really matters much, listen to what you want, on what you want, as long as your happy with it, who the 'eff cares ?

I agree with this.. just doing a bit of critical listening right now, and I heard something on the "Somewhere in Time" soundtrack LP I have never heard before... the footwork of the pianist as his foot moves from one pedal to the other and back! These big Maggies continue to suprise me every time I get the chance to listen. Gear used, Sunfire Signature amp, Yamaha PX-3 with Sumiko BPS EvoIII and Pioneer Elite SC37 as a preamp!:eek: The system has been calibrated using the MCCAC or whatever they call it:cheesygrin:...

There is good stuff.. damn good stuff out there if you are open to it. Right now, I am listening to a random assortment of streaming music thanks to Pandora from my I-phone into the Burr-Brown DAC in the Pioneer and it sounds DAMN good too.

Turbota

I think we are not all on the same page when talking about "Recievers" here.

Some are talking about the early Revievers which were a pre-amp, a power amp, and a radio tuner all rolled up into one. Strickly used for 2-channel audio (ie: Pioneer SX-1280, etc)

Others here are talking about modern day Recievers that are not at all dedicated 2-channel audio machines, but dedicated to processing HD home theator movies.


BTW ..... Very nice looking Caddy "starships". I think one of the members of ZZ Top bought one of those finned beauties for his wife and had it turned into a street rod.


I am partial to Corvettes myself ... my 2011 Grand Sport

heiney9

Face wrote: »

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

Ding, ding...........we have a winner!

H9

heiney9

Serendipity wrote: »

I guess the engineers at Pioneer don't know what they are doing, because the algorithm for room correction is so complex, and the years spent doing research, hours spent every day in acoustic chambers and in front of CAD software is all a waste of time...

Never mind that they actually listen to (and use) the products extensively, test and re-test before shipping, identify the cause of failures and work with dealers... not to mention a lot of Audio Engineers are also musicians...

I may or may not work for Pioneer Electronics USA... hmm

Their receivers still don't come close to matching decent separates, let alone really good separates. I even owned Pioneer Elite separates back in the day when the Elite brand actually meant something, even then it wasn't close to the top of the heap. Pioneer is the Chevy of audio and never will be the Porsche of audio no matter how much of the above they do.

H9

leroyjr1

^^^^^^ Have you even heard any recent receivers or are you just guessing again? You seem to be missing the point. No one said receivers were better than separates. What we're saying is receivers can sound good if setup correctly.

pearsall001

F1nut wrote: »

Just because you chose to go backwards is no reason for others to make the same mistake. Seriously Phil, have you had your hearing checked lately?

Hearing is just fine. No mistakes here, my system sounds "stellar" & there's no need for separates in my book. Just because you feel the need for separates doesn't mean others simply follow suit. I can't believe how you guys just assume that separates equal better sound. Total hogwash.

gdb

Hey 62 caddy.......you're in "great company" ! I think that goofy old **** on Pawn Stars has a ride just like yours !

gdb

I wonder..... would a MF receiver be considered a "POS" too ?

Toolfan66

gdb wrote: »

I wonder..... would a MF receiver be considered a "POS" too ?

Nobody has called a receiver a POS, I like my receiver it just won't ever see my 2 channel rig. When I first got into this hobby I tried many receivers and not one of them can hold a candle to the pre's I have tried or still own..

Can a receiver sound good? Of course it can!! I have a set up with one SC-07 it does a great job. I just prefer separates for music, and the audio shows I have been to I don't recall seeing one receiver, it seems to me that most prefer separates for music listening,


In the end it's you're system and you're money so enjoy what you have and what you spend..

Erik Tracy

leroyjr1 wrote: »

^^^^^^ Have you even heard any recent receivers or are you just guessing again? You seem to be missing the point. No one said receivers were better than separates. What we're saying is receivers can sound good if setup correctly.

I'll agree with this. AVRs can sound good, but dedicated audio separates will sound better at a given price point because they are not burdened with the all the other non-audio circuitry, features, etc which must force a cost/compromise design.

gdb

pearsall001 wrote: »

This forum is doing just fine...it's the handfull of audio snobs that really need to get a grip. They bring absolutely nothing constructive to the table. It's really a shame.

Wisdom personified in pearsall001 ! Thumbs Up !!!! Since when did Polk stuff become so high falutin in audio gear anyways ??? Maybe the know it all, arbiter elegantiarums here would find themselves more comfy (and revered) at someplace like a Sonus Faber forum !?!? :rolleyes::cheesygrin:

heiney9

Some of you guys have a HUGE chip on your shoulders and read WAY too much in many of these discussions. In the context of the original post of Trey stating he prefers his separates to the AVR; thats the spirit in which my posts were written. No one said AVR's are a POS, no one said they can't sound good or that their aren't certain models/brands that are better performing. In the end moderately well chosen separates trump almost all AVR's. When you get to the heavy hitter AVR's that money, IMO, is better spent on separates because they will perform better. Even though it's assumed exceptions exist, I better spell it out lest one of the "big chip on their shoulder members" start blabbering about how a certain brand or model receiver is better......yada, yada, yada.

Some of you guys that run with these threads and starting misinterpreting the underlying idea really need to simmer down now.

H9

gdb

Word HAS been handed down now !!!:razz:

gdb

?????

heiney9

gdb wrote: »

?????

That's what I say to myself almost every time you post something. You are one wacked dude sometimes.

H9

gdb

Bite me Polkie of the Year

gdb

!!!!!!!!

Toolfan66

On the the edge of Trolling are we??

gdb

Hey....he started it !!! I'm telling Mom !

heiney9

Toolfan66 wrote: »

On the the edge of Trolling are we??

More like on the edge of the looney bin.

H9

Face

Toolfan66 wrote: »

On the the edge of Trolling are we??

Way over the edge.

disneyjoe7

This is why I use a Pre-amp for my 2 channel and not the avr. My system is this.


2 channel
Player
Pre
Amp
Speakers

HT
AVR
Pre
Amp
Speakers

The Pre has a relay to bypass the pre when its off. When on the relay bypasses the avr inputs.