Mid-Upper-level AVR owners

garypen wrote: »

The 3808 is a nice piece, that's for sure. And, adding an external amp to it is certainly one direction I could take. I'm sure that would take it up anotch in regard to improved sound quality.

But, in addition to the HDMI standby pass-thru in the Yamaha that I already mentioned, there's a couple of other new features I wouldn't mind having. HD Radio is one. More inputs/outputs is another. Better video processing. iPod/iPhone via USB. Bluetooth. Better network media sharing. Possibly better amp section, if I stay with an AVR-only solution. Stuff like that.

BTW, did you find the upgrade for the 3808 was worth the $100? I'm thinking of doing it, if I decide to keep it for a while. OTOH, I don't use the Audyssey program it came with, in the first place. And, I subscribe to XM, so the Sirius add-on is moot. Probably wouldn't be interested in Rhapsody. So, it may not have much value to me, other than the dynamic volume deal.

I found the upgrade wothwhile for the audyssey stuff alone, but then again i'm a believer in audyssey. Love it for my system. i've got a denon dock for the ipod. I don't what i'd upgrade to if i did. I'd suppose i'd come up with something if I found an extra 20k kicking around!:rolleyes:

garypen wrote: »

The Pioneers do seem awesome from what I have been reading from both professional reviewers and users alike. However, the Yamaha 3900 also gets some good ink, and I keep being drawn back to that HDMI standby passthru, as well as HD Radio. Then, I get get drawn back to the Class D ICE amp of the Pioneers, or the amp stage of the NAD for that matter.

If I had hair, I'd be pulling it out.

Don't get so caught up in the bells and whistles, you can drive yourself nuts.
Identify what you need or may need then it's all about power and sound quality....and budget. Most with receivers that have a million bells and whistles never use half of them. With in a year, whatever you buy will become outdated anyway. Thats why there are soo many model numbers in any given brand. To me, the most important features to look for are, multiple hdmi inputs, analog inputs and outputs, power, sound quality,build quality.

Pioner Elite SC-27 is the best out of the 3 in my opinion. It's warm and clean . It's sound quality can compete with low end separates. It's dynamic range is probably the best in it's class, no is the best in it'c class. It's the only one out of the 3 that has Ipod direct connect with cover art. It's the best all around performer.

Denon avr4310. I installed a few already and I was as of late unimpressed. It's like compression is on all the time. What the hell happened to this great company and I scratch my head every time I put one in. It doesn't perform on an array of speakers and rooms so it's not like the room or speaker package. It's a global opinion. Most people get caught up in what it can do which is a lot. It's features and control are awesome but it's dynamic range is terrible. I judge all receivers by there dynamic ability and if it falls on it's face I don't go any further. Denon is one of those companies. I'm sorry as I wish this was different as I could use many of it's features.

Yamaha I'm done with. They also started to cheap out on there amp sections. I would choose it over the Denon as it still retains some dynamics and for theater it's pretty good with careful speaker selection. They have been behind for so long they can't find there way to the show. There remotes suck not that it matters any to me other then just a show of hands from the get go , there preamp sucks as there menu system is horrible and I don't like there room correction system. It sound worse after you use it. Only receiver company I feel this way about.

So in my opinion the SC-27 is a clear winner here.

let me add something here. Sound quality is personal and as many agree it's a personal choice. No one can tell you what sounds good. I don't really care for Integra receivers but they are so much better then years past. They have come out to play with the big boys and do a fantastic job at that. I would put them in my 2nd class of receivers I would personally own myself. With the right mix of speakers on e would have a seriously good receiver. Don't pass them by. You could be missing out on the very receiver for your system. I plan on a serious shoot out with there receivers with Pioneer Elite. For every detail. I'm hoping they come out close or better as they have much I would like to use. Love em.
I'm a sound quality guy before features but I have to get my ears on the brand new models. I have heard so many good things about them in our industry I have no reason not to give them a serious listen. I owe it to myself and out of respect for my Fellow friends in the Industry.

The Sony would fail a number of other tests and doesn't have a large dynamic curve when a single channel is given between 8 and 4 ohms. The ACD test doesn't identify anything that meaningful tests can already do. The ACD test gives a false impression that an amplifier is properly built, in some respects it's outright dangerous as they never measure heat output and liner responses.

Garypen,

Why would an ACD test be important?

Hi Gary,

I would encourage you to do a google search of "All Channels Driven" to see a number of written articles explaining the test and why it is more or less a meaningless test. I will try to explain as best I can in short manner.

The test is usually conducted under unrealistic conditions which don't illustrate a receivers ability to drive power for real world use. The ACD test is usually always performed using a VARIAC device to stabilize voltage and impedance is always a straight 8 or 4 ohm load. No speaker on the planet uses these loads over an entire frequency range. The receiver is then measured on full output using a sweeping test tone from 20hz-20khz until the receiver begins to track distortion and hard clipping. The result is the number that is outputted but what this test fails to realize a number of different variables including heat output (is the receiver on the brink of thermal shutdown) does the receiver still maintain a linear response. Some manufactures purposely have protection circuits built-in in order to protect the unit. This should be considered a positive as it ensures the long term usability of the amplifier under such torture tests. Not having protection circuits built in could result in a much shorter life span. One could build an amplifier to meet this test under a 8ohm load or a 4ohm load but the receiver/amplifier might shut down during the transition between a number of loads and shorten the life span on the power supply.

I agree with you that all manufactures spec's are iffy at best. What is important for a receiver then? Well a number of things often which aren't represented in the spec's. A receiver/amplifier in the real world should be designed with the ability to meet large dynamic shifts in power at a number of different impedance levels (2-4-6-8ohm) and how quickly the amplifier can swing power from one channel of amplification to another. Therefore how much power can be delivered with one or two channels being driven at 8 or 4 ohm loads (RMS and Dynamic power reserves and how closely the 4ohm output doubles the 8ohm) and how quickly can the power supply provide power to the individual channels. Music and movies are dynamic in nature as are the speakers connected to the electronics. What we want to figure out is how well the amplifier section can swing power during dynamic shifts and still remain linear in response and stable for every day use. A ACD test is the antithesis of real world power in that everything is setup using static numbers resulting in what an amplifier can do (but might not be safe) but not how it performs.

The best comparison I could draw for now would be two cars. One car is rated at 300bhp and can be driven every day and was designed to be used at any RPM. The other car is spec'd at 500bhp but only at 8,000 RPM and is on the verge of overheating with pistons nearly on the verge of blowing through your hood. This analogy isn't quite true in nature but I think you can see a comparison.

Most music and movies rely on the amplifiers ability meet these dynamic shifts with only a single or two channels being driven. What disturbs me is that people buy into this test forcing manufactures to build product to meet this test, when the reality is it's much more important to see how an amplifier meets the criteria mentioned above and build product that is meant to last with the safety features noted.

I truly believe that all numbers can be manipulated and will be when consumers focus on a specific measurement, which doesn't ensure a better sounding product but one that meets a phony baloney spec. So what are we to do? I would look past the numbers and listen. Mantis is keen on Pioneer because he listens and likes what he hears. True dynamics can be experienced through listening and not through numbers. It is almost impossible these days to judge a receiver through any type of written specification. Your ears will do a better job. I can close in saying however that I would put more stock in an amplifiers ability to drive both a 4 or 8ohm load under dynamic swings before distortion before an ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN test knowing what I know now.

Google it for further reference.

Cheers.

Fair call but I think most people gravitate to numbers even the reviewers who use flawed methods, and believe me they use flawed methods, which manufactures will pickup on and design product for.

Hi chn,

I believe the ACD test is the most inaccurate of them all and to use it misinforms end users. It's no different then when people tell me their amplifier delivers 30 amps of current to their speakers. All multi-channel amplifier manufactures have a common goal, build a good power supply that can swing current to any give channel in the fastest time possible dealing with a number of different reactive loads. The ACD is the complete opposite of this principle, manufactures aren't stupid and will eventually build product which 'pushes' the limit in order to achieve a number target while potentially limiting the life span of the power supply. It's a good thing to have a limiter built into the product even if it registers a lower number.

Why would a third party publication use such tests and for what gain? I believe time above all others. Testing dynamics over a wide range of frequencies under various impedance levels requires time and most publications have to pump out issues. A ACD is quick. Take a receiver connect a VARIAC device ensure a static 8 or 4 ohm load is used and crank it till you register clipping. It's an easy way out, suggesting to the reader that the higher the level the better the power supply. What they don't tell the readers are all the problems you could encounter by not having a limiter and how dynamic shifts from 1 or 2 channels driven are much more important.

Some companies spec very nicely in the ACD driven test but when you listen to them in the real world with music or movies they sound flat or muted, lacking in dynamics. Conversely another amplifier manufacture might test poorly in the ACD test but is much more dynamic sounding when the media requires it to be.

I truly believe that all numbers can be manipulated and will be when consumers focus on a specific measurement

This is so true!! Several years back that magic number was 100wpc. now it seems to 130wpc. If you look at most Harmon Kardon gear it has always been a much lower number than most of the other gear, but could hold it's own against much higher wattage claims. Some manufactures rate their products at rating that sells like the 100wpc for instance but what they don't say is that it will only hit that number at 1 kHz for 1 nanosecond and only when the moons gravitational pull is in line with your speakers. I started this rant only to make a point that Yamaha's power supplies have seemed to be much much weaker than earlier models that to me seemed very underrated by Yamaha in the past. I truly would like to see manufactures step up to the plate and understand that a lot is in the ear of the beholder and you can't have every sale or make false claims to the fact that your is better that theirs because it has 3 3/10ths more wpc. I also do understand that the ACD test is not real world performance, but for me it gives me a guide even if by a little bit that maybe that product has a better power supply but that doesn't mean i rest my complete bases on that it's just a start for me. Sooner rather than later that also means that as a manufacture you will find a way to cheat this test. I wouldn't put it past them to send models of the product that are only built to be tested and reviewed that are significantly built different than the model that well be sold just to get a good review, once again it's up to us to go and give a good listen to.

What we need out there is a real reviewer not one that sells ad space to the companies their never going to bad mouth the product because they need the ad revenue. Something like a magazine i subscribe to called "Gun tests" They review firearms have no ads take no money from any of the manufactures at all. They go buy the Firearms off the shelf and give an HONEST review of the sample. If the gun has problems,excessive tool marks from the manufacturing process that will become a problem they tell you. If the firearm has a glowing review they tell you why it's a better buy than the other 6-7 in the same category. I have saved a lot of money by taking their recommendations but in the same sense I always go and look at the product myself so i can have my own opinion also. Once i did go against their advice and bought something they had all kinds of problems with but my sample looked very good and i got an unbelievable price on it..well sure as the sun comes up everyday I was sending it back to the manufacture because they never properly heat treat the firearms parts one of the things they had suspected was the problem.