I bought a second hand Denon avr3805 and a marantz pm6002 for a total of ? 400, but it still does not sound as good as my stereo nad c320bee nad. How can people use these avr's sometimes with stereo speakers that cost more then 1000 pounds? A stereo amp for 100 pounds will sound better ha
steven123:I bought a second hand Denon avr3805 and a marantz pm6002 for a total of ? 400, but it still does not sound as good as my stereo nad c320bee nad. How can people use these avr's sometimes with stereo speakers that cost more then 1000 pounds? A stereo amp for 100 pounds will sound better ha
That is really a shame taking into account the price of the Denon 3805 when it was released.
Again, if I was WHF or any other mag, I would not give more than 3 star (and that being generous) to any receiver unless it performes well in stereo, and WELL is with capital letters. Therefore, I would probably never give more than 3 starts to any receiver. The companies need to fix this once and for all. They had the excuse that it was new technology 10 years ago when the first home cinemas appeared but now, 10 years later there is no excuse sorry. A receiver of any price need to be musical, maybe less feaures, less power, etc. but they have to be musical, period.
That is really a shame taking into account the price of the Denon 3805 when it was released.
Again, if I was WHF or any other mag, I would not give more than 3 star (and that being generous) to any receiver unless it performes well in stereo, and WELL is with capital letters. Therefore, I would probably never give more than 3 starts to any receiver. The companies need to fix this once and for all. They had the excuse that it was new technology 10 years ago when the first home cinemas appeared but now, 10 years later there is no excuse sorry. A receiver of any price need to be musical, maybe less feaures, less power, etc. but they have to be musical, period.
professorhat
Well-known member
Hang on, folks, I think everyone is getting a bit carried away here in an idea. Yes, it's a lovely idea that all AV amps should also sound fantastic for music, but there are practicalities which mean they can and never will sound as good as a stereo amp. The main issue, as David had already pointed out, is that AV amps need to do a lot more. Even if you cut this right down to the basics i.e. just HD audio decoding for potentially 7.1 channels, standard DD and DTS decoding, built-in DAC for digital audio conversions and video switching / upconversion for all your AV inputs, you've still got a lot of circuitry going on in there which isn't required in a stereo amp and which, like it or not, is going to interfere with the audio performance. Short of completely separating out the two different sides of this i.e. by having a separate AV processing unit / video switching unit and a separate audio amplification unit, this is inevitable. And you are not going to get this in an AV amp which costs £400 or even £600. Think about hifi - why do the pre-amp and the power amp get separated out into two different units? It's because audio performance can be increased that way over an integrated amp - very simple.
And let's not get confused with one person's priorities meaning everyone else agrees. Ultimately, this is a hifi forum, so undoubtedly most people here are absolutely interested in music. However, in my living room setup, I'm a home cinema fan first and foremost. Give me a choice of two AV amps - one which is good with home cinema and music and one which is great with home cinema and okay with music and I'm going to choose the latter. The whole raison d'ˆtre of my AV amp is to provide stunning home cinema. I also use it to provide music on occasion, and it does this admirably, but probably not as well as some other amps. However those other amps don't do home cinema as well (or at least they didn't when I purchased). It's a choice and you're free to choose which is more important to you.
So to say all amps at any price should provide both stunning music and AV performance and music performance is a lovely idea, but it's just not practical. And ultimately, it comes down to priorities - most people want their AV amp to provide great surround sound home cinema - it's what it's designed for. They'll also probably want to play music through it, but this is a secondary concern for a lot of people, otherwise they'd simply have a hifi system and watch movies in stereo.
And let's not get confused with one person's priorities meaning everyone else agrees. Ultimately, this is a hifi forum, so undoubtedly most people here are absolutely interested in music. However, in my living room setup, I'm a home cinema fan first and foremost. Give me a choice of two AV amps - one which is good with home cinema and music and one which is great with home cinema and okay with music and I'm going to choose the latter. The whole raison d'ˆtre of my AV amp is to provide stunning home cinema. I also use it to provide music on occasion, and it does this admirably, but probably not as well as some other amps. However those other amps don't do home cinema as well (or at least they didn't when I purchased). It's a choice and you're free to choose which is more important to you.
So to say all amps at any price should provide both stunning music and AV performance and music performance is a lovely idea, but it's just not practical. And ultimately, it comes down to priorities - most people want their AV amp to provide great surround sound home cinema - it's what it's designed for. They'll also probably want to play music through it, but this is a secondary concern for a lot of people, otherwise they'd simply have a hifi system and watch movies in stereo.
professorhat
Well-known member
rendu:Thanks for all replies and input. It definetly is a bleak prospect. You only have to look into ebay and do a search on receivers and you will find thousands and thousands of entries for receivers which are no more than one year old. My old hi-fi system lasted more than 20 years... until I decided it to replace it with a receiver and I oppened the "pandora box".
And I also find this an unfair comparison - what changes have occurred in stereo technology over the last 20 years? Very few. So if you're happy with your stereo's performance and nothing breaks, there's very little incentive to change.
Now, what changes have occurred in home cinema in the last 5 years (let alone 20!!)? We've had the introduction of HDMI and thus the need to incorporate these to allow video switching. We've had the introduction of the first 720p displays, and then Full HD 1080p displays, each with a new iteration of HDMI - so a further update possibly necessary there. We've had the introduction of HD audio and a further iteration of the HDMI standard, plus the requirement for onboard decoding of the Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio formats - so that's another requirement for upgrade. And just recently, we've seen the introduction of 3D and a further iteration of HDMI, requiring another potential upgrade if you're interested in that. With all this going on, it's hardly surprising that many people are finding they're having to sell on their old kit whilst it's still relatively new to keep up with the changes!
And I also find this an unfair comparison - what changes have occurred in stereo technology over the last 20 years? Very few. So if you're happy with your stereo's performance and nothing breaks, there's very little incentive to change.
Now, what changes have occurred in home cinema in the last 5 years (let alone 20!!)? We've had the introduction of HDMI and thus the need to incorporate these to allow video switching. We've had the introduction of the first 720p displays, and then Full HD 1080p displays, each with a new iteration of HDMI - so a further update possibly necessary there. We've had the introduction of HD audio and a further iteration of the HDMI standard, plus the requirement for onboard decoding of the Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio formats - so that's another requirement for upgrade. And just recently, we've seen the introduction of 3D and a further iteration of HDMI, requiring another potential upgrade if you're interested in that. With all this going on, it's hardly surprising that many people are finding they're having to sell on their old kit whilst it's still relatively new to keep up with the changes!
I think we should not be trying to give the companies excuses to not meet their promises and the usersïs expectations. I read from my Arcam manual the following:
"In addition to the built-in tuner, the AVR280 allows switching and volume control of seven analogue and
six digital sources, making it an ideal companion for both home cinema and two-channel stereo systems".
Another sentence from the brochure:
"A host of audiophile quality components and
design techniques are used within the AVR280,
making it perfect for a combined movie and music"
I bet yours will say the same or something similar. If, as you say the focus of these is not as we all expect 50/50 music/cinema then:
1) They should make it very clear in their publicity that they are no good for music or as musical to be considered hi-fi product. Stop fooling people.
2) They should not have a radio which to me clearly indicates that there is trong focus in music.
At this point I am really more on the possition of no excuses really. They need to meet what they promise or make it clear to the buyers.
"In addition to the built-in tuner, the AVR280 allows switching and volume control of seven analogue and
six digital sources, making it an ideal companion for both home cinema and two-channel stereo systems".
Another sentence from the brochure:
"A host of audiophile quality components and
design techniques are used within the AVR280,
making it perfect for a combined movie and music"
I bet yours will say the same or something similar. If, as you say the focus of these is not as we all expect 50/50 music/cinema then:
1) They should make it very clear in their publicity that they are no good for music or as musical to be considered hi-fi product. Stop fooling people.
2) They should not have a radio which to me clearly indicates that there is trong focus in music.
At this point I am really more on the possition of no excuses really. They need to meet what they promise or make it clear to the buyers.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
rendu: A receiver of any price need to be musical, maybe less feaures, less power, etc. but they have to be musical, period.
Mine doesn't, very rarely gets used for music, gets used every day for AV duties though.
Mine doesn't, very rarely gets used for music, gets used every day for AV duties though.
professorhat
Well-known member
rendu:I think we should not be trying to give the companies excuses to not meet their promises and the usersïs expectations.
I'm not making any excuses - I'm explaining why this can't be done as simply as you assume it can be. I'm also pointing out that not everyone has the same expectations as you do.
rendu:If, as you say the focus of these is not as we all expect 50/50 music/cinema then:
1) They should make it very clear in their publicity that they are no good for music or as musical to be considered hi-fi product. Stop fooling people.
2) They should not have a radio which to me clearly indicates that there is trong focus in music.
Why would they do this? No company is going to put things like, "Sorry, this product isn't good for music" - good is a subjective term. For someone who's only ever listened to music on an old 50s wireless radio, music produced through an AV amp would sound fantastic! And does including a radio indicate a strong focus on music? Does a clock radio indicate that the device should be considered a piece of hifi, or does it serve as a nice feature to have to give a different experience when waking up?
rendu:At this point I am really more on the possition of no excuses really. They need to meet what they promise or make it clear to the buyers.
What promises have they specifically made to you concerning music quality? And how have they not met them? Remember, proving or disproving subjective terms is an impossible process.
As I say, I love the idea, but unfortunately, we live in a world where lovely ideas are not always feasible. And there is a very simple workaround which is to buy an AV amp with pre-outs and use a stereo amp for your stereo sources - as you've pointed out, this costs the same as the all-in-one box that you're willing to pay for and does everything you need.
I'm not making any excuses - I'm explaining why this can't be done as simply as you assume it can be. I'm also pointing out that not everyone has the same expectations as you do.
rendu:If, as you say the focus of these is not as we all expect 50/50 music/cinema then:
1) They should make it very clear in their publicity that they are no good for music or as musical to be considered hi-fi product. Stop fooling people.
2) They should not have a radio which to me clearly indicates that there is trong focus in music.
Why would they do this? No company is going to put things like, "Sorry, this product isn't good for music" - good is a subjective term. For someone who's only ever listened to music on an old 50s wireless radio, music produced through an AV amp would sound fantastic! And does including a radio indicate a strong focus on music? Does a clock radio indicate that the device should be considered a piece of hifi, or does it serve as a nice feature to have to give a different experience when waking up?
rendu:At this point I am really more on the possition of no excuses really. They need to meet what they promise or make it clear to the buyers.
What promises have they specifically made to you concerning music quality? And how have they not met them? Remember, proving or disproving subjective terms is an impossible process.
As I say, I love the idea, but unfortunately, we live in a world where lovely ideas are not always feasible. And there is a very simple workaround which is to buy an AV amp with pre-outs and use a stereo amp for your stereo sources - as you've pointed out, this costs the same as the all-in-one box that you're willing to pay for and does everything you need.
I am not going to argue with anyone about opnions. Mine is stated clear and it seems not to be the only one if you read through this thread.
The only question I am going to answer to you is about the promises regarding music quality. In my post I have added some quotes from the manual and the broucher. They are explicitely indicating promising "audiophile quality for music". It may be subjective to you but, to me "autdiophile" is quite strong promise regarding music performance.... Of course, I would find it difficult to sue them if this is what you mean...
I have to leave in 10 min so, sorry if I do not reply. In any case it was not my purpose to start a debate.
The only question I am going to answer to you is about the promises regarding music quality. In my post I have added some quotes from the manual and the broucher. They are explicitely indicating promising "audiophile quality for music". It may be subjective to you but, to me "autdiophile" is quite strong promise regarding music performance.... Of course, I would find it difficult to sue them if this is what you mean...
I have to leave in 10 min so, sorry if I do not reply. In any case it was not my purpose to start a debate.
professorhat
Well-known member
rendu:I am not going to argue with anyone about opnions. Mine is stated clear and it seems not to be the only one if you read through this thread.
I understand, and I'd hope that this was considered a discussion rather than an argument
But yes, a lot of people do agree that they want such a product - I too would love one, but just because I want something, that doesn't suddenly make it something which is possible. My posts were really to try and answer your question - why does this product not exist and hopefully that's a little clearer.
rendu:The only question I am going to answer to you is about the promises regarding music quality. In my post I have added some quotes from the manual and the broucher. They are explicitely indicating promising "audiophile quality for music". It may be subjective to you but, to me "autdiophile" is quite strong promise regarding music performance.... Of course, I would find it difficult to sue them if this is what you mean...
But "audiophile" is a subjective term - there's no way to measure when a product becomes something which produces "audiophile quality". And you haven't really explained what promise they're not fulfilling for you. For many people, the Arcam AV amps provide an excellent music amp, as well as a home cinema amp. If you don't like the music performance you're getting, could it be you just don't like the Arcam sound that this amp produces? After all, many people don't like the musical performance produced by many expensive stereo amps, simply because it doesn't suit their musical taste. This doesn't make the product rubbish for music, it just means they need to listen to some other amps and find one which better suits their tastes.
I understand, and I'd hope that this was considered a discussion rather than an argument
rendu:The only question I am going to answer to you is about the promises regarding music quality. In my post I have added some quotes from the manual and the broucher. They are explicitely indicating promising "audiophile quality for music". It may be subjective to you but, to me "autdiophile" is quite strong promise regarding music performance.... Of course, I would find it difficult to sue them if this is what you mean...
But "audiophile" is a subjective term - there's no way to measure when a product becomes something which produces "audiophile quality". And you haven't really explained what promise they're not fulfilling for you. For many people, the Arcam AV amps provide an excellent music amp, as well as a home cinema amp. If you don't like the music performance you're getting, could it be you just don't like the Arcam sound that this amp produces? After all, many people don't like the musical performance produced by many expensive stereo amps, simply because it doesn't suit their musical taste. This doesn't make the product rubbish for music, it just means they need to listen to some other amps and find one which better suits their tastes.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I've not had a chance to read this whole page, so forgive me if I repeat anything.
Generally speaking, AV receivers are used as just that - and AV receiver, for watching movies, playing games etc. Quality is more critical for music than movies, so audio quality isn't going to be the top of the list for a manufacturer. To some extent, the list of things it HAS to have is actually more important. It doesn't matter how good that receiver sounded for music, if it didn't have video upscaling, room EQ, THX, input conversion, etc etc, it's not going to sell, at least not in the sort of numbers that's needed to make it worthwhile for the manufacturer. Any manufacturer will do what they can for the given budget, but with everything a receiver needs to do, it's always going to be limited.
Although, I'd start by taking the analogue radio out....it might cost peanuts, but really, who uses it?
Generally speaking, AV receivers are used as just that - and AV receiver, for watching movies, playing games etc. Quality is more critical for music than movies, so audio quality isn't going to be the top of the list for a manufacturer. To some extent, the list of things it HAS to have is actually more important. It doesn't matter how good that receiver sounded for music, if it didn't have video upscaling, room EQ, THX, input conversion, etc etc, it's not going to sell, at least not in the sort of numbers that's needed to make it worthwhile for the manufacturer. Any manufacturer will do what they can for the given budget, but with everything a receiver needs to do, it's always going to be limited.
Although, I'd start by taking the analogue radio out....it might cost peanuts, but really, who uses it?
All these people saying that a 30 year old amp sounded better than an amp today is just a victim of deteriorated hearing over the last 3 decades.
Thats why nothing will ever compare
Thats why nothing will ever compare
It's not about a 30 year old amp sounding better per-say. It's about having a standard. When you make a product that sounds good and then add all sorts of stuff and it sounds worse. It doesn't help. and that has been happening with the AVR's. They seem to not sound that good.
Why don't stereo receivers have room correction? to me the answer is they don't need it, it sounds good already.
Question: If I have a AV receiver then add a 2 channel stereo to it what about the sound of my center channel? won't it sound off when I watch a movie? It is the most important part when you watch a movie.
It might be me but I actually find myself watching TV in direct ( allows for room correction but if the sound is coming in stereo it sounds better vs dPLII )
I hope we can stir up more of a debate. on this as it has my interest.
edit. Maybe the manufactures don't want to make a AVR that is good in both AV and Stereo. It would kill their stereo equipment sales.
Why don't stereo receivers have room correction? to me the answer is they don't need it, it sounds good already.
Question: If I have a AV receiver then add a 2 channel stereo to it what about the sound of my center channel? won't it sound off when I watch a movie? It is the most important part when you watch a movie.
It might be me but I actually find myself watching TV in direct ( allows for room correction but if the sound is coming in stereo it sounds better vs dPLII )
I hope we can stir up more of a debate. on this as it has my interest.
edit. Maybe the manufactures don't want to make a AVR that is good in both AV and Stereo. It would kill their stereo equipment sales.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
You are correct Boca. While adding a hi-fi amplifier to a receiver improves stereo performance, it can imbalance the AV side of it if it's too good as the centre won't sound as good - and as you say, it's THE most important speaker. Ideally, the front three should be equal in every way.
Thanks David, I figured it would can't blame a guy for wishful thinking.
on a side note... I'll add the reason I bring this up is What causes me the upgradeitus is that you here the stereo sound and you try to get it in the AVR so movies have the same sound but you don't achieve it. maybe it's time to try separates.
Now to find a AVR Tube Preamp...thats for another thread.
on a side note... I'll add the reason I bring this up is What causes me the upgradeitus is that you here the stereo sound and you try to get it in the AVR so movies have the same sound but you don't achieve it. maybe it's time to try separates.
Now to find a AVR Tube Preamp...thats for another thread.
I use my amp for music and films, and to be honest I find it pretty good, using PLII. I've found both my current Denon 1911 and Marantz SR6001 to be as good as if not better than my Marantz 4200 stereo amp, (though appreciate that's not a high end amp).
From initial experimentation the DACs in my Sonos are better than those in the 1911, but with that setup the sound is very musical and detailed to me. I certainly don't feel short-changed.
Regardless if people only use an amp for films, music is such a big part of films it needs to be good. I always start off an AV amp demo by giving it some music to sort. If it can't hold a tune, push the detail, or deliver some nice articulate bass I don't even bother listening to it with a film.
As I'd had faults on my previous amp, and used my stereo amp in between, I considered getting another 3 stereo amps instead of an AV replacement, to use with a player with analogue outs. It was only the space and lack of equalisation that stopped me.
The thing is, having read a fair bit about sound recently the benefits of multiple speakers ans equalisation seem compelling, so it's hard to understand why the AV amps are seen as falling so short in comparison to stereo counterparts. Surely a reasonable portion of the cost of an AV receiver must be on the amps.
It's sad that for AV amps a lot of the preceived value seems to be in add-on features rather than the core sound.
From initial experimentation the DACs in my Sonos are better than those in the 1911, but with that setup the sound is very musical and detailed to me. I certainly don't feel short-changed.
Regardless if people only use an amp for films, music is such a big part of films it needs to be good. I always start off an AV amp demo by giving it some music to sort. If it can't hold a tune, push the detail, or deliver some nice articulate bass I don't even bother listening to it with a film.
As I'd had faults on my previous amp, and used my stereo amp in between, I considered getting another 3 stereo amps instead of an AV replacement, to use with a player with analogue outs. It was only the space and lack of equalisation that stopped me.
The thing is, having read a fair bit about sound recently the benefits of multiple speakers ans equalisation seem compelling, so it's hard to understand why the AV amps are seen as falling so short in comparison to stereo counterparts. Surely a reasonable portion of the cost of an AV receiver must be on the amps.
It's sad that for AV amps a lot of the preceived value seems to be in add-on features rather than the core sound.
I have the sound on my amp as Direct when watching TV and it always sounds better via stereo speakers. I find the sound is a million times better when using Pure Direct Mode. Otherwise it does too much processing on the sound before it arrives at the speakerrs
I use PL11 on mine for music and watching TV which I prefer to all the other settings.
I remember well when I 1st bought my Onkyo 875 how disappointed I was with the sound when playing music.
David at Frank Harvey hit the nail on the head when he points out the complexity and interaction/interference within AV units which degrades music.
I found massive improvements gained by feeding the AV amp with a unpolluted, stable power supply. Internal signal paths become clean again with depth, timing and detail being uncovered.
Just plugging in any AV amp into a wall socket will handicap them, so sort out your mains if you want a decent performance which compares to a stereo amp.
I remember well when I 1st bought my Onkyo 875 how disappointed I was with the sound when playing music.
David at Frank Harvey hit the nail on the head when he points out the complexity and interaction/interference within AV units which degrades music.
I found massive improvements gained by feeding the AV amp with a unpolluted, stable power supply. Internal signal paths become clean again with depth, timing and detail being uncovered.
Just plugging in any AV amp into a wall socket will handicap them, so sort out your mains if you want a decent performance which compares to a stereo amp.
trevor79:I use PL11 on mine for music and watching TV which I prefer to all the other settings. I remember well when I 1st bought my Onkyo 875 how disappointed I was with the sound when playing music. David at Frank Harvey hit the nail on the head when he points out the complexity and interaction/interference within AV units which degrades music. I found massive improvements gained by feeding the AV amp with a unpolluted, stable power supply. Internal signal paths become clean again with depth, timing and detail being uncovered. Just plugging in any AV amp into a wall socket will handicap them, so sort out your mains if you want a decent performance which compares to a stereo amp.
Trevor, I have not tried myself but honestly it would be very strange that companies could solved this huge problem affecting so many custormers just by changing the mains. If that is the only problem for not being musical then, I understant it even less now.
Regarding all other coments about the features, yes, there is no doubt that most features are not needed and that they pay against sound. But, let me tell you something;
I have an Alpine radio in my car..... 4x45 W connected to the speakers that came with the car, it has IPOD connection, bluetoth with parrot, USB, FM and even CD player. I go singing to work every day. It is so musical and it costed 170 Eur. Once more, I am of the opinion that all receivers should be musical otherwise they should take them out of the hi-fi departments and shops and sell them in the suppermarkets.
Trevor, I have not tried myself but honestly it would be very strange that companies could solved this huge problem affecting so many custormers just by changing the mains. If that is the only problem for not being musical then, I understant it even less now.
Regarding all other coments about the features, yes, there is no doubt that most features are not needed and that they pay against sound. But, let me tell you something;
I have an Alpine radio in my car..... 4x45 W connected to the speakers that came with the car, it has IPOD connection, bluetoth with parrot, USB, FM and even CD player. I go singing to work every day. It is so musical and it costed 170 Eur. Once more, I am of the opinion that all receivers should be musical otherwise they should take them out of the hi-fi departments and shops and sell them in the suppermarkets.
I too use my 3310 in prologic 2 and it sounds pretty musical to me, once set up correctly!!
I used have Lexicon processing and Parasound power amps and that was amazing but the old denon with Audyssey is not bad at all. Again set it up properley.
I used have Lexicon processing and Parasound power amps and that was amazing but the old denon with Audyssey is not bad at all. Again set it up properley.
steve_1979
Well-known member
Do AV receivers really need to have so many inputs and functions?
Most receivers now have 7.2 surround sound, video upscaling, are 3D ready, have dosens of HDMI and optical inputs, a radio tuner, internet radio, wifi, multi room setup options and god knows what else but the sound quality sucks. Personely I would happily pay the same price for a 'basic' 5.1 receiver that has good sound quality and do without all of these extra functions which most people don't even use.
Wouldn't a receiver that does just the basics well be better than one that can do everything but badly?
Most receivers now have 7.2 surround sound, video upscaling, are 3D ready, have dosens of HDMI and optical inputs, a radio tuner, internet radio, wifi, multi room setup options and god knows what else but the sound quality sucks. Personely I would happily pay the same price for a 'basic' 5.1 receiver that has good sound quality and do without all of these extra functions which most people don't even use.
Wouldn't a receiver that does just the basics well be better than one that can do everything but badly?
I think I have got the answer! We could buy Active Speakers for the front pair. What do you think? At least it's better then the 2 box route.
Paul.
Well-known member
What percentage of the AV buying public actually demos their receivers in a dedicated listening room? I would be surprised if it was as high as 10% outside of the high end kit. The general public buy based on numbers, the more hdmi's and video codecs the better. How can the manufacturers afford to operate any differently in this environment?
Secondly, how can you expect a unit with 7 amplifiers to sound as good as a unit with two amplifiers for the same money? My Onkyo 805 retailed at £800 ish (3 years ago), so logically it would need to sound as good as a unit which cost £230 (800/3.5), thats assuming you ignore the cost of the dacs and video processing etc.
It took alot of fettling, but it now sounds as good as something in the £300 category, I'm confident in that, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable standard to aim for in an av amp.
A low end Elise and a high end Mondeo are similar money, but you wouldn't expect a Mondeo to corner like an Elise, and you wouldn't expect to fold the seats down and gently pop a grandfather clock in an Elise. You definitely wouldn't catch Ford claiming the Mondeo doesn't handle like a sports car in the literature. No, the purchaser is expected to take responsibility for their decision and weigh up the compromise they need to make.
Secondly, how can you expect a unit with 7 amplifiers to sound as good as a unit with two amplifiers for the same money? My Onkyo 805 retailed at £800 ish (3 years ago), so logically it would need to sound as good as a unit which cost £230 (800/3.5), thats assuming you ignore the cost of the dacs and video processing etc.
It took alot of fettling, but it now sounds as good as something in the £300 category, I'm confident in that, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable standard to aim for in an av amp.
A low end Elise and a high end Mondeo are similar money, but you wouldn't expect a Mondeo to corner like an Elise, and you wouldn't expect to fold the seats down and gently pop a grandfather clock in an Elise. You definitely wouldn't catch Ford claiming the Mondeo doesn't handle like a sports car in the literature. No, the purchaser is expected to take responsibility for their decision and weigh up the compromise they need to make.
Paul Hobbs:
What percentage of the AV buying public actually demos their receivers in a dedicated listening room? I would be surprised if it was as high as 10% outside of the high end kit. The general public buy based on numbers, the more hdmi's and video codecs the better. How can the manufacturers afford to operate any differently in this environment?
Secondly, how can you expect a unit with 7 amplifiers to sound as good as a unit with two amplifiers for the same money? My Onkyo 805 retailed at £800 ish (3 years ago), so logically it would need to sound as good as a unit which cost £230 (800/3.5), thats assuming you ignore the cost of the dacs and video processing etc.
It took alot of fettling, but it now sounds as good as something in the £300 category, I'm confident in that, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable standard to aim for in an av amp.
A low end Elise and a high end Mondeo are similar money, but you wouldn't expect a Mondeo to corner like an Elise, and you wouldn't expect to fold the seats down and gently pop a grandfather clock in an Elise. You definitely wouldn't catch Ford claiming the Mondeo doesn't handle like a sports car in the literature. No, the purchaser is expected to take responsibility for their decision and weigh up the compromise they need to make.
As many quoted in this post already most users do not see so many needs in features, amps, power, channels, etc. What we see a need is in musicallity.
From my side what I am claiming more than anything else is consistency. If, as you have mentioned, they offer so many features that they can not offer good quality sound for music then, they should sell the receivers as "only for cinema" products but, not Hi-Fi. Unless they can really be considered hi-fi products, they should be taken out of the hi-fi shops and be sold in the supermarkets for example.
Also, as you well mentioned, most people can not test receivers with their other equipment and in the same conditions as they would have it at home. In most cases we have to rely on reviews from magazine, this is why I would find it very important that hi-fi magazines do not give more than 3 starts to any product that is not a real hi-fi and performs well in stereo. I have mentioned before that my car radio has lost of features; bluetoth, ipod, cd, radio, 4 channels, even pre-outs and it costed 170Eur and it is so so musical that I enjoy more playing music in the car than at home. I maintain that there is no excuse and we should claim all the receivers to be musical.
What percentage of the AV buying public actually demos their receivers in a dedicated listening room? I would be surprised if it was as high as 10% outside of the high end kit. The general public buy based on numbers, the more hdmi's and video codecs the better. How can the manufacturers afford to operate any differently in this environment?
Secondly, how can you expect a unit with 7 amplifiers to sound as good as a unit with two amplifiers for the same money? My Onkyo 805 retailed at £800 ish (3 years ago), so logically it would need to sound as good as a unit which cost £230 (800/3.5), thats assuming you ignore the cost of the dacs and video processing etc.
It took alot of fettling, but it now sounds as good as something in the £300 category, I'm confident in that, and I think that is a perfectly reasonable standard to aim for in an av amp.
A low end Elise and a high end Mondeo are similar money, but you wouldn't expect a Mondeo to corner like an Elise, and you wouldn't expect to fold the seats down and gently pop a grandfather clock in an Elise. You definitely wouldn't catch Ford claiming the Mondeo doesn't handle like a sports car in the literature. No, the purchaser is expected to take responsibility for their decision and weigh up the compromise they need to make.
As many quoted in this post already most users do not see so many needs in features, amps, power, channels, etc. What we see a need is in musicallity.
From my side what I am claiming more than anything else is consistency. If, as you have mentioned, they offer so many features that they can not offer good quality sound for music then, they should sell the receivers as "only for cinema" products but, not Hi-Fi. Unless they can really be considered hi-fi products, they should be taken out of the hi-fi shops and be sold in the supermarkets for example.
Also, as you well mentioned, most people can not test receivers with their other equipment and in the same conditions as they would have it at home. In most cases we have to rely on reviews from magazine, this is why I would find it very important that hi-fi magazines do not give more than 3 starts to any product that is not a real hi-fi and performs well in stereo. I have mentioned before that my car radio has lost of features; bluetoth, ipod, cd, radio, 4 channels, even pre-outs and it costed 170Eur and it is so so musical that I enjoy more playing music in the car than at home. I maintain that there is no excuse and we should claim all the receivers to be musical.
professorhat
Well-known member
rendu:If, as you have mentioned, they offer so many features that they can not offer good quality sound for music then, they should sell the receivers as "only for cinema" products but, not Hi-Fi. Unless they can really be considered hi-fi products, they should be taken out of the hi-fi shops and be sold in the supermarkets for example.
Most hi-fi shops sell TVs these days - not sure you can classify any TV these days as offering good sound quality for music. Should we be banning these also therefore? If so, I expect many hi-fi shops will go out of business - it might be a good idea to consult these shops before dictating what they can and cannot sell...
Most hi-fi shops sell TVs these days - not sure you can classify any TV these days as offering good sound quality for music. Should we be banning these also therefore? If so, I expect many hi-fi shops will go out of business - it might be a good idea to consult these shops before dictating what they can and cannot sell...
professorhat:
rendu:If, as you have mentioned, they offer so many features that they can not offer good quality sound for music then, they should sell the receivers as "only for cinema" products but, not Hi-Fi. Unless they can really be considered hi-fi products, they should be taken out of the hi-fi shops and be sold in the supermarkets for example.
Yes we should ban them all and also request them to get the hair driers and washingmachines from the hi-fi department.
rendu:If, as you have mentioned, they offer so many features that they can not offer good quality sound for music then, they should sell the receivers as "only for cinema" products but, not Hi-Fi. Unless they can really be considered hi-fi products, they should be taken out of the hi-fi shops and be sold in the supermarkets for example.
Yes we should ban them all and also request them to get the hair driers and washingmachines from the hi-fi department.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Watch your movies as the director intended with this stellar Black Friday Panasonic OLED TV deal- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram