The reason why receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction

Toolfan66

leroyjr1 wrote: »

And was that SC-37 hooked up to your RTI a7's? If so that was your problem.

He hooked them up to his SDA 2.3tl's, I did the same with my SC-07 the receiver does not hold a candle to my pre's..

gdb

leroyjr1 wrote: »

And was that SC-37 hooked up to your RTI a7's? If so that was your problem.

I don't think that's it. LMAO !!!!

tonyb

Drenis wrote: »

Those aren't exactly comparable to a VSX-23. Not even in price. Not even close.

I understood what VR3 meant and understand from first hand experience at some of the aspects he experienced. That's not to say that you can't get a better offering for 2-channel enjoyment from an AVR, but did I notice and applaud the change when I went from my AVR as a pre/pro to a dedicated pre-amp? Yes. The Pioneer still sounds better then many other contenders for the price. Now that I've experienced what I have now, I'm hooked.

What a ridiculous thread this turned out to be.

Missed your post Drenis, sorry about that man. Agree on all fronts too. Thing is, you ventured outside your comfort zone to discover a new realm of sound quality. You could have stayed in the "my receiver is good enough" catagory, but then you discover little.

Like I said before, there are many levels audio is played on. If your happy at your level, rock on, but it doesn't mean other higher levels don't exist. You just have to venture out and see for yourself.

Welcome to another level Drenis, happy listening. Now close your wallet before the bug bites again.:cheesygrin:

mdaudioguy

An interesting point that most seem to have missed is that the in the OP he says he tried bypassing the AVR altogether and went straight from source (Squeezebox) to amp - and the difference was night and day.

Anybody else trying this??

heiney9

mdaudioguy wrote: »

An interesting point that most seem to have missed is that the in the OP he says he tried bypassing the AVR altogether and went straight from source (Squeezebox) to amp - and the difference was night and day.

Anybody else trying this??

Yes, it's not that great. The digital volume control is far from audiophile quality. I always recommend people leave the vol setting at 100% on the SQB for best linearity and results and use a pre-amp for control.

leroyjr1

Toolfan66 wrote: »

He hooked them up to his SDA 2.3tl's, I did the same with my SC-07 the receiver does not hold a candle to my pre's..

I thought his "dedicated HT rig" was RTI a7's not SDA's.

Toolfan66

leroyjr1 wrote: »

I thought his "dedicated HT rig" was RTI a7's not SDA's.

It is but what I got is he tried it in 2 channel for S&G I took it as he tried it in his 2 channel rig and after looking at his post I might be wrong, but I did try my Pio in my rig.. Sorry if I read his post wrong I'm sure he will fill in the blanks..

mdaudioguy

heiney9 wrote: »

Yes, it's not that great. The digital volume control is far from audiophile quality. I always recommend people leave the vol setting at 100% on the SQB for best linearity and results and use a pre-amp for control.

Exactly what I was thinking. I always set my SB volumes to 100 with my receiver and my integrated. Only with my outdoor zones, where they're connected straight to amps, do I use the the SB to adjust volume.
So he claims eliminating the AVR altogether was an improvement?? Hard to fathom, particularly when he was essentially bypassing processing already, by using Pure Direct.

Syndil

mdaudioguy wrote: »

An interesting point that most seem to have missed is that the in the OP he says he tried bypassing the AVR altogether and went straight from source (Squeezebox) to amp - and the difference was night and day.

Anybody else trying this??

Not "trying it," that is my 2-channel rig and has been for years. 'Cept I use my CD-player with variable outputs as the source. I've tried putting a preamp in there for convenience (listen to radio, other sources, etc.) but it isn't worth the tradeoff IMO. Just sounds so good with no preamp--IF you have built a system from components that compliment one another without any tweaking of the sound. I have zero tone controls, EQ, etc.

F1nut

leroyjr1 wrote: »

And was that SC-37 hooked up to your RTI a7's? If so that was your problem.

I also hooked up my 4.1TL's, of which I have a very good baseline. Didn't matter, I won't try the AVR again for 2 channel.

Larry, you were close. :cool:

FTGV

For pre-amplification in a 2 ch rig my preference is for the minimalist straight wire with gain approach.I have a hunch the simple gain path within my pre(consisting of only 3 transistors, a few resistors ,Noble volume pot,high performance power supply etc.)will alter the signal less than if routed through a miriad of cheap opamps and electrolytic coupling capacitors ,digital volume controls,noisy power supplies etc. typically found in the preamp stages of AVR's

reeltrouble1

^^^^^^^^^^^yes^^^^^^^^^^^^wise advice there.:arrowu:

RT1

leftwinger57

I also tried it w/ just the avr in 2-chl and it was weak beyond description.Here I thought I had a good honken 90 watts and surely that would be enough to satisfiy me for the music side of things.Well, guess what, the Yamaha clipped a few times and I barely aired it out and made the switch for the Adcom and eventually the p-301 for my pre and now we are getting somwhere.Yes my speeks need an upgrade but at least I can play at levels w/o distortion or haveing the amp shut down.Pre/outs are essential to bail you out if not sure you want to go w/ total seperates.

leftwinger57

I also tried it w/ just the avr in 2-chl and it was weak beyond description.Here I thought I had a good honken 90 watts and surely that would be enough to satisfiy me for the music side of things.Well, guess what, the Yamaha clipped a few times and I barely aired it out and made the switch for the Adcom and eventually the p-301 for my pre and now we are getting somwhere.Yes my speeks need an upgrade but at least I can play at levels w/o distortion or haveing the amp shut down.Pre/outs are essential to bail you out if not sure you want to go w/ total seperates.

tonyb

mdaudioguy wrote: »

An interesting point that most seem to have missed is that the in the OP he says he tried bypassing the AVR altogether and went straight from source (Squeezebox) to amp - and the difference was night and day.

Anybody else trying this??

Nah,I caught that on the first page. VR3 and I have almost the same receiver so I understand his frustration. Though you will never get a 500 buck receiver to perform on the level of a good standard pre amp, there are things to do to make it better at least which is what I was trying to get at. Trey uses a SB, I use a Sonos, both of these units have noisy volume controls at mid to higher spl's and hooked straight to an amp has to make that more apparent. I've tried it and it was god awful. Phil has had some good results by adding a tube buffer in the chain and a seperate dac which are 2 things off the bat Trey could try. While that receiver he has has a decent built in dac, as with the SB too, still no comparison to a stand alone unit of decent quality. A quality digital cable can also make a good improvement with these units.

If Trey would have worded his OP better, we would have avoided this mess. Plus we need to know some additional info. Trying to squeeze decent 2 channel out of a cheap receiver takes some playing around, adding a SB into the mix makes it even harder and we have many threads on getting good sound out of the SB/Sonos units.

Trey,
Depending on your listening habits/needs, if your trying to use one system for HT/Music, my advice to you is to go the tube buffer route and check out Phils thread on the Yaqin. Another option is to forgo the buffer and just get a pre, maybe a Dared for under a nickel. Has 2 sets of outs so you can use a subwoofer with it. You could also go used and save some coin. People also seem to like the Parasound pre's and on the used market might be more up your alley. Personally, with a SB, I'd shoot for a tubed pre but thats just me. If you want to climb back into this, some of us can help you with getting better sound out of all this, but we need you to participate bro, otherwise we'll get 10 pages of speculation.

pearsall001

Right on the money Tony, there's a huge difference in the quality of AVR's & their commitment to sound quality. NAD has a "Music" first philosophy in all of their designs & it really shines thru, no BS just fantastic musical performance. Now I've taken it a few steps further by adding an external amp, a CA DacMagic with a Pangea outboard power supply, Veloce Black Cat digital cable running from my Sonos to the DAC, then the Yagin Tube Buffer CD-1 with an EAT ECC 88 tube (pricey buy boy oh boy is it ever so sweet). Then into the NAD.

Another major improvement in sound quality is my extensive room treatments through out. Talk about raising the bar!!! Also my room itself has a tremendous effect on sound quality...it has near perfect dimensions for music reproduction (13x33x7) the 33' lenght gives the bass notes their full extension without bouncing all over the place which in itself is a big plus. Plus both of my Velo subs are EQ'd with an Anti-Mode 8033 which does one fantastic job. The subs blend in effortlessly for both 2 channel & HT. All of these combined aspects bring the whole picture into focus for me. I can understand where some guys might be underwhelmed with an AVR pulling 2 channel duties but there's a whole lot more at play that makes up the final sound one hears other than simply blaming everything on the AVR. Without a doubt I recognize the room as being the biggest contributer to overall music reproduction, without a good room everything drops off in performance. Now my setup in another room with different dimensions would result in an all together dfferent musical presentation. But I'm working with my particular room & have maximized it & the results are "Stellar" (had to throw that one in for Jesse). Bottom line...AVR's can rule!!!!

tonyb

Cool Phil, and I'm glad you got your grove on, but lets face it, you've gone some extra steps over and above just plugging a SB into a 500 buck receiver. Don't know if Trey is willing to go that far, but baby steps might be in order. Different strokes and all that. I do however like your approach to it all and think Trey can benefit some from reading up on some of your old threads or even more recent ones that we discussed getting better sound from these SB/Sonos units. Point being, instead of pissing on each others legs over receivers/seperates, how about we help Trey get better sound. That is the crux of the matter, no ?

pearsall001

tonyb wrote: »

Cool Phil, and I'm glad you got your grove on, but lets face it, you've gone some extra steps over and above just plugging a SB into a 500 buck receiver. Don't know if Trey is willing to go that far, but baby steps might be in order. Different strokes and all that. I do however like your approach to it all and think Trey can benefit some from reading up on some of your old threads or even more recent ones that we discussed getting better sound from these SB/Sonos units. Point being, instead of pissing on each others legs over receivers/seperates, how about we help Trey get better sound. That is the crux of the matter, no ?

Trey seems like a nice enough guy but doesn't he change up gear as often as we do our socks? You have to stick with what you have & work it to it's fullest potential. There's a lot of great info even in this thread that he can plug into. Maybe he just likes swapping out gear, which is cool if that's what one likes to do. Great sound comes to each of us in different ways. One's journey can travel down many different roads.

heiney9

pearsall001 wrote: »

Right on the money Tony, there's a huge difference in the quality of AVR's & their commitment to sound quality. NAD has a "Music" first philosophy in all of their designs & it really shines thru, no BS just fantastic musical performance. Now I've taken it a few steps further by adding an external amp, a CA DacMagic with a Pangea outboard power supply, Veloce Black Cat digital cable running from my Sonos to the DAC, then the Yagin Tube Buffer CD-1 with an EAT ECC 88 tube (pricey buy boy oh boy is it ever so sweet). Then into the NAD.

Another major improvement in sound quality is my extensive room treatments through out. Talk about raising the bar!!! Also my room itself has a tremendous effect on sound quality...it has near perfect dimensions for music reproduction (13x33x7) the 33' lenght gives the bass notes their full extension without bouncing all over the place which in itself is a big plus. Plus both of my Velo subs are EQ'd with an Anti-Mode 8033 which does one fantastic job. The subs blend in effortlessly for both 2 channel & HT. All of these combined aspects bring the whole picture into focus for me. I can understand where some guys might be underwhelmed with an AVR pulling 2 channel duties but there's a whole lot more at play that makes up the final sound one hears other than simply blaming everything on the AVR. Without a doubt I recognize the room as being the biggest contributer to overall music reproduction, without a good room everything drops off in performance. Now my setup in another room with different dimensions would result in an all together dfferent musical presentation. But I'm working with my particular room & have maximized it & the results are "Stellar" (had to throw that one in for Jesse). Bottom line...AVR's can rule!!!!

And in this rig which the NAD is better as a pre compared to the other higher end pre's you have owned, the set-up and components were exactly the same? If not, then you don't know if the other pre's in the same set-up aren't still an improvement over the NAD.

No one is denying that you think your rig sounds fantastic, but if all the things you've done to improve the room, digital correction, high end tube, high end cable weren't present when you had your other pre-amps, then how can you say the NAD sounds better as a pre comparatively? You can't.

H9

maximillian

Just posted my thoughts on a B1 pre-amp in the DIY forum.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?77072-B1-Buffer-Preamp/page3

Found out that the Pioneer Elite was choking the highs and lows when used as a pre alone (GFA6000 amp and LSi9's). This is with the AVR set to "stereo" and all the EQ settings set flat or off. I have changed cables and added a Dacmagic to my system lately. The improvements have only been slight. The Dacmagic was a better improvement than the cables. But by far the biggest improvement was to add the B1. Now I can't wait to complete this DIY project so I can add it to the system.

George Grand

F1nut wrote: »

So, you've graduated from box cutter to doorman, congrats!

This was worth the eight pages of reading.

heiney9

maximillian wrote: »

Just posted my thoughts on a B1 pre-amp in the DIY forum.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?77072-B1-Buffer-Preamp/page3

Found out that the Pioneer Elite was choking the highs and lows when used as a pre alone (GFA6000 amp and LSi9's). This is with the AVR set to "stereo" and all the EQ settings set flat or off. I have changed cables and added a Dacmagic to my system lately. The improvements have only been slight. The Dacmagic was a better improvement than the cables. But by far the biggest improvement was to add the B1. Now I can't wait to complete this DIY project so I can add it to the system.

Yeah, that Nelson Pass guy might know a thing or two about audio reproduction.......

marly421

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.

98 percent of the audio listeners would say you're nuts. If your Pioneer Elite is working properly (and it's setup properly) then you have other issues. You may be one of the 2 percent, but you're complaining to the elites choir here.

PS I like nothing from Parasound! Adcom isn't any better to me.

heiney9

marly421 wrote: »

98 percent of the audio listeners would say you're nuts. If your Elite is working properly then you have other issues. You maybe one of the 2 percent also.

How did you come by that ridiculous statistic? Care to share the proof or the study that was done? Thanks for crawling out of the woodwork to make a one sentence, generalized statement that addresses nothing specific pertaining to this thread.

H9

Joe08867

marly421 wrote: »

98 percent of the audio listeners would say you're nuts. If your Pioneer Elite is working properly (and it's setup properly) then you have other issues. You may be one of the 2 percent, but you're complaining to the elites choir here.

PS I like nothing from Parasound! Adcom isn't any better to me.

And that is the point exactly. Maybe not 98% of audio listeners but its the last few percent that audiophiles represent. To us there is a difference between mediocre and awesome. I have never heard any AVR that sounded as good as a decent pre and amp separates. Even at the same price point. The problem isn't always the amplification side of the coin. I would gather it is all the processing software and equipment built into the AVR. The audio signal is run around in circles and through many filters and such before it is spit out. Considering the best sounding audio equipment is usually the equipment with the smallest path this would make the AVR a worst case scenario for pure audio.

I don't know why there is an argument about this. If you are happy with your AVR powering your speakers than be happy.
I have seen the light and heard the power of separates. I will never do 2ch critical listening through an AVR again.

chumlie

Better hang on to that picture Rick. A few other threads need it.

decal

All this

and

is really

. Let's see some more Caddy pics.

steveinaz

...happens everytime you debate "opinion" and we're somehow surprised?

brgman

Somebody start a new topic/thread we can opine on.This ship has sailed.
BTW,do cables matter in a hifi system?

VR3

I figured I should re-enter this thread.. lol

The biggest issue with my receiver is my sweet spot for music and movies is different. I dont sit in the center of the room to watch a movie but on the couch. The receiver in direct bypass does not remove the distance settings. I also do not believe that setting removes all the processing, based on what I hear I have a hard time believing that.

As far as improving this system I am running now - this is a home theater/gaming rig I am building, music is not really my concern - I am just playing around with my new mains to see what they are about, testing the waters. I ran the Elite as preamp on the Tyler rig before and that was incredibly awful... levels of awful not known to man... that is no joke. lol

But as far as improving this rig - unlikely....

I plan in the next two years on gutting my den and going with a complete in wall home theater - from there build a completely separate 2 channel from scratch... more so testing the waters on all of these thoughts.

This thread was meant more in jest than anything - I am sure there are great receivers out there