Moniter series vs Studio series

[mikert456]

Im getting the upgrade bug and im looking for new speakers. Im a paradigm fan and thus I'm considering the studio series. At this time I have this setup.
Denon 3801 105 watts per channel
Arcam cd62 cd player
Paradigm moniter 90p mains powered towers three 8" woofers 175watts
two pw2200 subs 12" 250 watts
toshiba dvd player
ADP 370 surrounds
CC370 center

I find that in my present room that the bass can become muddy and imaging struggles to stay in one position. Actually ive tried this setup in three different rooms and each time the same results. Might be the denon I don't know. However it doesn't matter because I want new speakers any way(going to put one system upstairs). Heres what I want . Improved imaging, although my current system can image somewhat it not always accurate vocals shift as does kick drum and such. Bigger soundstage, moniter series can go outside the speakers but not very much or well. Better more robust bass, this setup becomes very sloppy in kick drum and there seems to be NO weight what so ever,: (however this system does go floor rattling low) . I like the drums and thus really enjoy the weight of the kick drum, the crisp snap of the snare drum and the highs of the cymbols and high hat thus my new speakers must be excellent at reproducing these sounds. As well my new speakers are going to have to be dynamic. This bring me to my question, which is are the studio series speakers more adept to reproduce what I just ask for or Im I kidding my self? Will the denon have enough power to run the studio 100's or 60's? Is there much difference in the studio version 2 to version 3. Should I look at a better sub to reproduce the kick drum I want that chest thumping experience when listening to rock? Or should I look to another make of speakers for what I want. I know a lot of you are going to say setup is my problem but trust me Ive had my system for almost two years and i've moved my speakers into every position I could and each way has failed me. Maybe my denon is to blame maybe I will replace it to. Any comments whould be much apprecited thank you.

[Woochifer]

Your system might be a case of too many cooks. You got a lot of self-powered bass drivers, and in these situations you'll typically get a lot of boom for the buck. But, your comments about lack of weight indicate that you might also have some bass cancellations going on at your listening position, which you can try to remedy by repositioning the speakers and/or the subwoofers, or moving your listening position to a different location. Another problem with four separate powered bass drivers is that you have to adjust the gain for each of them.

The Studio series is noticeably more refined and has better overall balance than the Monitors. The Monitors are brasher sounding and lot more aggressive, but also more uneven overall. I'm generally not a fan of powered tower speakers. The ones I've heard are overly boomy sounding, and the middle of the wall is usually not the best place for optimal bass performance. So, maybe just switching to a passive main speaker and more carefully setting up the subwoofers will give you the sound you're looking for.

I would actually suggest that you do some lower frequency measurements. Your bass might also sound lean because the overall level is actually lower than it should be, but peaks at certain frequencies make the overall sound boomy if you raise the levels any higher. Boominess is often caused by severe peaks at specific frequencies, and you can eliminate those peaks through room treatments and/or parametric equalizers (like the Behringer Feedback Destroyer). Once you eliminate the peaking, you can raise the overall bass levels, resulting in a fuller and more even sound in the lows.

The Studios are very versatile performers, and your Denon should have more than enough juice to really crank them through the motions. The 100 I've heard is more taxing on amps, but the 3801 should still have enough for those beasts. If you go with the 100s, you may not even need a subwoofer. Depending on the size of your room, you might also want to start with one subwoofer like the Servo-15. Going with one subwoofer makes it easier to optimally position the unit and use a parametric equalizer to correct for room acoustics.

I own the Studio 40 v.2s and did an extensive listening to the v.3 versions recently. My impressions are posted below.

http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?50@234.Q2Z2agfhlnl.40966@.ef9e447/8
http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@234.Q2Z2agfhlnl.40967@.ef9e447/0

[RGA]

If it were me I would live with what you have until you can move to a high end speaker manufacturer. The Studio Series is solid, it's certainly an improvement over the monitor line but it also shares some issues.

Sounds like you have a subwoofer so I would be looking at standmounts with a glorious mid-band and high frequency response over bass. The Reference 3a MM De Capo or The Audio Note AN K SPe represent two of many very good standmounts that are a significantly LARGE step up from what Paradigm is making...both offer up far superior high frequency response without the etched treble and the "handoff" between drivers is much better executed.

You'll find bass response from these standmounts to be very good in their own right as well. The AN K has more dynamic impact - If positioned in a corner they are rated at 93db sensitive 8ohm and 36hz-20khz - close to a wall not in a corner your looking at 90db and 50hz - 20khz. The De Capo has a sweet balance in the mid band and offers a huge scale as well. The De Capo goes for $2500.00US and the AN K goes for $1950.00US.

I would run a better amp than the Denon with any of the speakers you're talking about. After listening to the Denon 3803 the other week, I sufffered sticker shock. It was hampered by very poor dynamic impact and a totally lifeless and unengaging sound to my ear. It sounded like musicians put their hand in front of their mouth..none of the wetness and detail that should be there. The amp section is weak in most of thee devices but the preamp is the culprit.

For movies it was not much better - for the money I'm not surprised they keep trying to fix it with the new number 3801 then 3802, 3803...three times is NOT a charm it would seem.

At least look for a used power amp. You can get Rotel or Adcoms for under $400.00 used to help out...preferably a preamp from somebody else as well.

[Woochifer]

I would run a better amp than the Denon with any of the speakers you're talking about. After listening to the Denon 3803 the other week, I sufffered sticker shock. It was hampered by very poor dynamic impact and a totally lifeless and unengaging sound to my ear. It sounded like musicians put their hand in front of their mouth..none of the wetness and detail that should be there. The amp section is weak in most of thee devices but the preamp is the culprit.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you don't have any proof to infer some kind of causal link like "the preamp is the culprit." Just say you don't like how it sounds (and even then, what were you comparing it to, and were you making an effort to control for any biases?) and leave it at that. Also, keep in mind that the Canadian distributors for Denon and Onkyo (among others) charge a premium above the normal exchange rates for their receivers. In the U.S., the 3803 lists for $1,100USD. I know that Yamaha keeps their Canadian pricing roughly at the normal exchange rate. Don't know about the others.


For movies it was not much better - for the money I'm not surprised they keep trying to fix it with the new number 3801 then 3802, 3803...three times is NOT a charm it would seem.

Please spare the conspiracy theories and inneuendo. ALL home theatre processor/receiver manufacturers update their products on at least a biannual basis. Denon, Yamaha, NAD, Marantz, Lexicon, Classe, Sunfire, Rotel, Arcam, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Kenwood, Sherwood, Technics, JVC you name it, they all do the same thing. I don't know a single manufacturer that tries to stay in business by not periodically revising and updating their products. They have to anyway because the DSP processors and digital components are almost always supplied by third party OEM vendors, and those parts that are in mass production change and get discontinued very quickly as the processing power increases and new designs are introduced. On the wholesale market, you'd be hard pressed to find processor chips without DPLII or DTS decoding. It is possible through other channels to get legacy processors, but then you're paying more, that's how commodity markets work. Why do you think so many new memory chips for computers more than five years old cost more than those for computers made within the last two years? It would be like building a computer with a Pentium II chip, rather than a Pentium 4. You could, but why would you want to?

So, even if Denon has such an emotional investment in the 3801 that they wanted to keep making it the same way with no changes, they wouldn't be able to because Analog Devices no longer makes the original SHARC processor that's in the 3801 (and several other mid to high end home theatre processors from three years ago), and the Analog Devices 96/24 DACs in that model have since been replaced by newer Burr-Brown 192/24 models.

Has nothing to do with having to continually remedy deficiencies. It's just keeping pace with what the market is demanding and developing, and everybody does this.

[RGA]

Also, keep in mind that the Canadian distributors for Denon and Onkyo (among others) charge a premium above the normal exchange rates for their receivers. In the U.S., the 3803 lists for $1,100USD. I know that Yamaha keeps their Canadian pricing roughly at the normal exchange rate. Don't know about the others.

That is about $1600.00CDN. I think it would be overpriced at $1100.00CDN.


Please spare the conspiracy theories and inneuendo. ALL home theatre processor/receiver manufacturers update their products on at least a biannual basis. Denon, Yamaha, NAD, Marantz, Lexicon, Classe, Sunfire, Rotel, Arcam, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Kenwood, Sherwood, Technics, JVC you name it, they all do the same thing. I don't know a single manufacturer that tries to stay in business by not periodically revising and updating their products.

.../...
Has nothing to do with having to continually remedy deficiencies. It's just keeping pace with what the market is demanding and developing, and everybody does this.

The market are sheep...I'm not referring to the processor chip...the amplifiers are no better - it's a scam to get people to trade their 3801 for the 3803 - But then GM puts a new body and new gadgets on the same ol tired piece of badly made garbage too...and it keeps selling.

But since the big three market share has dropped nearly 20 full points in one year - Thankfully and finally buyers are catching on...and thankfully and finally, separates and integrated amp and turntable and LP sales are rising and rising. Maybe this con job will finally end and people will start buying quality over quantity. IMO.

[TinHere]

That is about $1600.00CDN. I think it would be overpriced at $1100.00CDN.



The market are sheep...I'm not referring to the processor chip...the amplifiers are no better - it's a scam to get people to trade their 3801 for the 3803 - But then GM puts a new body and new gadgets on the same ol tired piece of badly made garbage too...and it keeps selling.

But since the big three market share has dropped nearly 20 full points in one year - Thankfully and finally buyers are catching on...and thankfully and finally, separates and integrated amp and turntable and LP sales are rising and rising. Maybe this con job will finally end and people will start buying quality over quantity. IMO.

I love my new receiver. It does everything I need, and has features I don't even use. I bought into a new "gimick" they call YPAO [Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer] that does a better job than I can in calibration. For the price I paid, the needs I have, and results I'm delighted with in both 2 channel and HT I can only glean from your comments that I'm a conned sheep. Of course these are conclusions of someone "duped" into buying speakers they never heard. Turned out to be one of the best purchases in my life. Did the same thing with a subwoofer. Things sound pretty good in my fool's paradise. Even people who have spent thousands more have said there would be little to be gained. It's not the best, but I hardly feel conned. Hmmmmm could that be the best con? I'm sure some think so, but then again we all make our choices to satisfy our own criteria and what is best for us is decided by each of us.

Seperates or receivers? It depends who's asking. I think it's the overkill of speakers in my small room that maginalizes the need to have seperates. I tried a power amp [Parasound 200w] and the only difference I heard was mitigated with turning the volume up on the receiver to play as loud as the amp. No higher highs or deeper bass or quicker transients. Of course you can say that's because the receiver was in the loop. I'm very happy with the processing but most of the listening comparisons were done with "no effect". YMMV.

RGA I know I've been at this awhile not to "get it". Receivers rock to a plug and play guy like me, and even some "audiophiles" use and like them.

Nice post Woochifer.

[Woochifer]

The market are sheep...I'm not referring to the processor chip...the amplifiers are no better - it's a scam to get people to trade their 3801 for the 3803 - But then GM puts a new body and new gadgets on the same ol tired piece of badly made garbage too...and it keeps selling.

But since the big three market share has dropped nearly 20 full points in one year - Thankfully and finally buyers are catching on...and thankfully and finally, separates and integrated amp and turntable and LP sales are rising and rising. Maybe this con job will finally end and people will start buying quality over quantity. IMO.

You may think the "market are sheep" but that would make you a wooly haired critter as well since you are part of the market as well. Unless you suddenly decide to live off the land and become totally self-sufficient, you're just as tied into markets as anybody else who lives in a capitalist country is.

How's it a scam to update and make changes to products? It happens in EVERY INDUSTRY. You add value (or perceived value) to a product or service in order to induce spending, and that spending generates multiplier impacts across the economy. If one business' perceived value is greater than that of another business, then market share shifts. The whole point of operating as a business is to induce spending. It's a different type of economy if businesses did not operate this way. If customers don't see value in these changes that get made to products, then they won't buy them. If they see value, then they do. It's pretty simple.

Denon updates the 3800 series roughly every 18 months, and other manufacturers have comparable update schedules. You can question the merit of these updates, but as with anything that relies on digital technology, a manufacturer can't stand still even if they wanted to because the processor chips and other internal components evolve so rapidly. As I said, Denon would not be able to make the 3801 today even if they wanted to because the most critical digital components in that model aren't made in quantity anymore.

And why would product updates constitute a scam get someone to trade in a 3801 for a 3803? The 3803 has numerous improvements in its functionality, connectivity, and format support. Are they enough to induce a current 3801 owner to upgrade? I would guess not in most cases. But, gosh it's a criminal act to try and improve a product, I mean, someone might actually CHOOSE to buy it! You also forgot about the possibility that the changes made with the 3803 are not targeted at current 3801 owners, but at people who don't currently own a 5.1 receiver and are looking to make the jump into home theatre. And with all of the other manufacturers aggressively updating their products, Denon had better keep up if they want to maintain their market position. It's called competition.

You can rant and rave about quality versus quantity, but people make purchases out of their own personal preferences, and all of the comments about how sheepish their perspective is won't change things. Give people credit for making choices based on what's important to them, rather than criticizing them for daring to have different priorities than you.

BTW, where's your information that the big three's market share dropped by 20 percent in one year? At the start of the year, I thought they had just under a 60 percent market share, and now they're suddenly at 40 percent? That's a pretty drastic shift and unprecedented I might add, especially in light of articles that I keep reading about how GM's incentive programs have helped them stop their market share erosion even at the expense of profitability. Even if you're referring to percentage of rather than straight percent points, that still equates to a 12 percent shift in market share. Again, unprecedented and typically a trend that takes more than a decade to manifest itself. I believe that in 1980, the big three market share was roughly 80 percent. Getting that share below 60 percent took about 20 years, and you're now saying that a 20 percent shift occurred in just one year? In statistical terms, that would constitute an outlier or anomaly. Think about it logically, rather than through the filter of wishful thinking.

And what's the basis of your information about separates and amps increasing their market share? It might be true, but when you're starting from a very small base, any percentage increase would look drastic on paper even if the actual market impact is limited. Right now, the market that's keeping a lot of independent stores afloat is home theatre installations, and those do indeed specify separates. But, if anything those stores that solely rely on high end equipment sales are increasingly endangered. I know of at least two high end stores in the Bay Area that have folded in the past year. The one thing they had in common was they were slow to add multichannel equipment to their product lines, and had product lines dominated by analog and two-channel separates. I guess it was emotionally satisfying to cling to principles, but in those cases it was also business suicide.

LP sales are indeed rising, but considering that their annual sales level in the U.S. is roughly two million units, that's still pretty low considering that just one Britney Spears album alone will sell five times that volume in CDs. But, I will add that LP sales were still outpacing SACD and DVD-A as of a year ago, but with all of the hybrid SACDs that have come out this year, I don't think that trend will hold up.

[Woochifer]

I love my new receiver. It does everything I need, and has features I don't even use. I bought into a new "gimick" they call YPAO [Yamaha Parametric Acoustic Optimizer] that does a better job than I can in calibration. ... I'm sure some think so, but then again we all make our choices to satisfy our own criteria and what is best for us is decided by each of us.

I think these types of active calibration functions are the next feature that's going to make its way into just about every receiver out there. It makes too much sense to integrate things like delay timing and variable crossover settings with parametric equalization. Just about everyone on this board who's used a parametric EQ on a subwoofer will attest to how critical a difference it made in the overall system performance. This type of feature is not a gimmick because it directly addresses the effect of room acoustics, which IMO is every bit as important as the speaker itself, and a lot more variable than the differences between sources and amplification. Pioneer has had this feature on their Elite receivers for at least the past year, and Harman's research papers stress the importance of room acoustics. With them, I can only assume that the RABOS calibration system that they use with some of their Infinity subwoofers is just the beginning and something similar will show up on h/k receivers soon.


Seperates or receivers? It depends who's asking. I think it's the overkill of speakers in my small room that maginalizes the need to have seperates. I tried a power amp [Parasound 200w] and the only difference I heard was mitigated with turning the volume up on the receiver to play as loud as the amp. No higher highs or deeper bass or quicker transients. Of course you can say that's because the receiver was in the loop. I'm very happy with the processing but most of the listening comparisons were done with "no effect". YMMV. .

Well, I'm kinda in the middle here. I have no doubt that going with separates is a step up. I just don't agree that it's a night and day critical difference, unless you're playing back at concert level volumes or your system has very demanding speakers. Whatever direction you go in, I think it's much more important to first address the room acoustics. With a bad room, the overall audio performance will suffer no matter what amp is used.

[RGA]

Ok CNN said the drop was in the 70s to the 50s. Toyota went ahead of chrysler a few months back and just passed Ford in worldwide sales. Not surprising due to piss poor vehicles. Of course that is my opinion based off my driving their cars and looking at their repair histories. though yes I'm sure they accelerate better or some such drivel for the first 6 months of ownership.

As for sales of separates and LPs well you are correct in that their sales typically have nowhere to go but up and once the market is saturated with receivers then...

Similar to computers. Now that so many people have them you can buy a computer for $499.00CDN at Future shop that will make most everyhting 2 years ago look stupid...well actually not so...it's just a perceived improvement since those computers can do everything new ones can if a little slower.

I agree with you on the perception issue. People perceive lots of gadgets to be better. Too bad mostly they are not. Like receivers. One big compromise for sound quality. Though you get functionality and features. All in one printer. Does it all and nothing particularly well.

[RGA]

Seperates or receivers? It depends who's asking. I think it's the overkill of speakers in my small room that maginalizes the need to have seperates. I tried a power amp [Parasound 200w] and the only difference I heard was mitigated with turning the volume up on the receiver to play as loud as the amp. No higher highs or deeper bass or quicker transients. Of course you can say that's because the receiver was in the loop. I'm very happy with the processing but most of the listening comparisons were done with "no effect". YMMV.

RGA I know I've been at this awhile not to "get it". Receivers rock to a plug and play guy like me, and even some "audiophiles" use and like them.

Nice post Woochifer.

Hey mate if you're happy you're happy. They serve their purpose. All I'm saying is they simply don't cut it for me. Don't take my harsh words of my opinion on most gear to heart. I have owned receivers and extensively compared to very goiod separates with very good speakers. Most of which most of us will never afford.

My bias is two channel music reproduction because 99.99999% of all music is recorded FOR 2 channel music. I care about that mostly...so when I see 5k receivers that sound worse by a large margin to my ear than a $750.00 integrated then I get a little erked that they're trying to sell me a feature box over something even remotely decent. I am also a realist and understand that people want home theater on the cheap, many of whom will never hear a good 2 channel system because none of the big chains carry a decent 2 channel system and if they did don't have a proper listening facility and most buyers listen primarily to top 40 and want JBL or some other rocker. Many speakers in these chains wouldn't be helped by better equipment anyway.

But then there are Music audiophiles and home theater philes. I have oiver 200 DVDs and even some LDs. I was planning on being a film critic. Movies are huge for me. My issue is sound for two channel music must meet a certain criteria for me. That same music is a big part of motion pictures...and is utterly butchered by the majority of surround sound systems. Most of them can't accurately produce the human voice...I listened to the theme music of the Raiders of the Lost Ark disc through my 2 channel rig and I'll take it over most home theater rigs at 10 times the price. Simple reason is the amp and the speakers do it right. I lose out on sound effects etc...but that trade is no contest. And I can add later.

That said, receivers provide multi-featured options many desire - obviously because they sell more. More Caveliers are sold than Rolls Royce and Ferrari too. That doesn't mean the former is better than the latter.

[TinHere]

That said, receivers provide multi-featured options many desire - obviously because they sell more. More Caveliers are sold than Rolls Royce and Ferrari too. That doesn't mean the former is better than the latter.

That might be it in a nutshell. The point as I see it is that we all make our choices based on what we know, what we want, and what we can afford. Just because someone shows up to the party in a Cavelier and not a Rolls doesn't mean they won't have a good time. In some terms there is no comparison but on the other hand if they go from point A to B within the limits of the law they can arrive at the same time. Any differences between them may not matter, and neither one is "junk" to the passenger happy to be able to show up on time and enjoy the party.

I guess more people are casual listeners rather than critical listeners most of the time. You sometimes make the differences between receivers and seperates seem like night and day when that is not the case. More people suffer from acoustic compromises in their room that even the "best" gear won't remedy. I know I do. If I can't take the Ferrari out of the parking lot what's the point? There's a lot more to good sound than equiptment, and to some of us want more from our equiptment than just good sound [i.e. lots of options at an affordable price].

I can't imagine my dream system without seperates, but now I think I'd be giving up too much technology to have seperates that are affordable. The amp would cost more than my receiver, and the processor would be a lot more than that. I may have paid a quarter of the price, but I'm having almost all the fun.

[RGA]

TinHere

See that is what happens when I use a car analogy. I have this extreme Rolls vs Cavelier comparison.

Well let's assume we both look at the Cavelier as a piece of poop as cars go. In Canada at least a Honda Civic is basiclaly the same money. Let's assume this is a terrific car for the money. The Cavelier has more bells and whistles the Honda will last longer is better built and does the job better due to better gas mileage handling suspension the works.

Now you can pile MORE features onto the Cavelier and now you have a Grand AM and pile more on and have a Grand Prix...all of which is total junk costs more but hey you have more features. The cheap Honda is still a much better car...and when it adds on look out.

IMO this is very similar to receviers. I was looking at Marantz's line. Basically until you get to the very top of the line 9300 the units below are a series of upgrades to the features, surround chips. The 9300 finally moves to a decent transformer which would be found in a bottom of the lineRotel.

This to me makes the 9300 a bit silly. I would rather see people buy a lower unit and then add on a dedicated power amp...all of this assumes they have good speakers. I myself was looking at the Marantz 4300 because it's a cheap way to add home theater and also has jacks to add on a power amp. For $400.00CDN Who cares about the power amp section. It likely has the identical preamp section of the 9300.

But people buy expensive receivers because they sound better than cheaper receivers. And yet these same people question that integrateds and separates which use much better parts, don't suffer the interference, etc don't? If people are not hearing the difference then they have a problem with the room and or the speakers. Since 90% of the speakers I hear irritate me and most of those are sold to the most people(Bose is number 1 after all) no wonder all amps sound the same to them.

[46minaudio]

Please people understand RGA has the best ears in audio history.Dont ask him to prove his claims.He does not have to for he is RGA God of all audio, with the best ears in the world.And if he says receivers suck then dont ask him to prove it, just trust him because he is RGA God of all audio.If he says his spekers are the best ,well they are because he is RGA God of all audio.If you prefer a speaker that he does not well you are wrong,Why may you ask well because he is RGA God of all audio.No need to ask for proof because he knows all..Thanks RGA I know now I never need to look for facts on this board I just need to ask you...

[WmAx]

"But people buy expensive receivers because they sound better than cheaper receivers."

Modify the above to read: "people buy expensive recievers because they think they sound better", and I might agree. :-) Their are also details like fit & finish, pride in having the 'top of the line', etc. Some hi-end recievers have featues that others don't. Some recievers have audible noise problems-i've acutally heard this in hi and low end recievers. Of course, I don't think units that demonstrate audible noise(hiss, rf, etc.) problems are worth a hoot, personally. :-)

"And yet these same people question that integrateds and separates which use much better parts, don't suffer the interference, etc don't? If people are not hearing the difference then they have a problem with the room and or the speakers."

If they don't hear a difference, it could just be that their are NO differences that are audible. Now, I will state that things may often SEEM to sound different when their is no true audible difference, but their is more than just true audible factors at play here(read, pyschological).

-Chris

[TinHere]

TinHere
Since 90% of the speakers I hear irritate me and most of those are sold to the most people(Bose is number 1 after all) no wonder all amps sound the same to them.

The fact is that most people are going to like most of the speakers they hear. Some more than others, but most won't find them to be "irritating" even if they're not their choice. Apply that to a piece of equiptment [funtioning within its parameters] that is going to have less impact on the sound we hear [a debatable issue in any case] than speakers, set-up, and acoustics. Your tastes put you in shall we say a select group, but your attitude on this subject is often condesending. That's why the harsh responses, but I think you know that. I don't take it to heart, but I can see why some people get upset.

All that is true and yet you denigrate the choice to enjoy the convenience advantages offered by a receiver. Even to a purist as yourself, the choice to use a receiver shouldn't be veiwed as a fatal flaw. It's as I said before, about people making informed decisions based on criteria you dismiss out of hand. There is room, I hope, to respect the fact that people do what they deem best for themselves even if we don't agree with the choices they make. Enjoy what you have [we all know there is always "better"] but it isn't necessarily going to be what someone else thinks is best for them. It works for you, great. It's not about right or wrong, it's about respecting choices and not calling an alternative "junk" because you don't appreciate the virtues others see in it.

Different strokes for different folks. It's not a difficult concept no matter what car you drive. You can be sure a Cavelier is a blessing to some nice intelligent people who are happy to own one.

BTW the receiver I have isn't a flagship model, but satisfies my needs. Sheesh, if I going to spend that much I'd be nuts to get a receiver, or not.

Talk about hijacking a thread. Sorry mikert456.

[RGA]

TinHere

yes I do end to sound overly critical ... though I have also entertained buying a mid/low level receiver so I must not hate them as much as I sound.

I have gone the receiver route with regret and I try, to let others who may be picky like me, to warn them of what's in store.

Though again, the biggest plus for me and receiver buyers is the facility to upgrade. Should you never choose to great, but at least over the last few years the option is available on far cheaper units.

And most people probably don't care enough to really notice. The only time I usually try and tell people to avoid receivers is if music is the primary goal. You want it all for cheap receivers are the practical choice. The entry Marantz has the upgrade jacks...seems like a good option well under $500.00US.

[46minaudio]

The only time I usually try and tell people to avoid receivers is if music is the primary goal.

There is nothing wrong with a receiver for music.I have owned Intergrated,main and preamp,and receivers over the last 26 years.I have not seen any of this magic the seperates produce.I have what I think is a nice 2ch pre (I reckon, I need to check with RGA God of all audio to see if I really like it or not) in my system and while using direct 2ch on my Yamaha 1400 RECEIVER I cannot tell any difference between the 2...But then again I have been accused of being tone deaf because I prefered I speaker over a speaker RGA God of all audio prefered...

[TinHere]

TinHere

yes I do end to sound overly critical ... though I have also entertained buying a mid/low level receiver so I must not hate them as much as I sound. .

Now that's a scary thought. ;)

What's nice about this hobby are the many ways it can be enjoyed besides the choices of material. A nice day at the beach with a boombox playing some tunes, and acoustic compromises take on another perspective. IMHO enjoying the music is more important the sophistication used to hear it, but it sure feels good when we get to hear an improvement in sound reproduction at home. I guess that's the reason we share our experiences with others in a zealous manner. It's about good feelings we want others to enjoy, and the avoidance of what we perceive as mistakes they might make. < <off the soap box> >

[46minaudio]

Now that's a scary thought. ;)

What's nice about this hobby are the many ways it can be enjoyed besides the choices of material. A nice day at the beach with a boombox playing some tunes, and acoustic compromises take on another perspective. IMHO enjoying the music is more important the sophistication used to hear it, but it sure feels good when we get to hear an improvement in sound reproduction at home.>

Tin I could not agree more.Great post!!! My favorite is when the wind kicks up at the coast and prevents fishing.My wife and kids back the boat up to a sand bar crank some classic rock and disco, drink coolee pops(beer) and enjoy the day.

[mtrycrafts]

Good one. One must be careful how components are compared or else th eopinion is unreliable at best, worthless at most.

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE=mikert456]I find that in my present room that the bass can become muddy and imaging struggles to stay in one position.[QUOTE]

You may have speaker phase problems if imaging dances around and is unstable. Make sure youy are sending th epositive out from each channel to the positive terminal in the speakers.
If this doesn't work, you may want to reverse one side and check. Perhaps the internal wire is reversed in one speaker.

Your room should not have this effect on soundstage to make it move around.

Does this happen with all recordings or just some? Perhaps the recording is at fault?

You have to exhaust all possible causes before you jump off the bridge. :)

[RGA]

There is nothing wrong with a receiver for music.I have owned Intergrated,main and preamp,and receivers over the last 26 years.I have not seen any of this magic the seperates produce.I have what I think is a nice 2ch pre (I reckon, I need to check with RGA God of all audio to see if I really like it or not) in my system and while using direct 2ch on my Yamaha 1400 RECEIVER I cannot tell any difference between the 2...But then again I have been accused of being tone deaf because I prefered I speaker over a speaker RGA God of all audio prefered...

As I say you need a good speaker to notice a difference...no notice a difference no good is the speaker/room/hearing. Room and placement are huge. And of course just because something is way more expensive does not mean it's any better. Lots of stuff sounds pretty much the same or identical - even speakers.

Some people hear(or perceive) differences in cables. I don't. But I'm not going to get on thier case. Lots of people like speakers I don't as well...good for them - not good for me - and if It's my money ont the line then it's ME who counts. Ditto for them.

[46minaudio]

As I say you need a good speaker to notice a difference...no notice a difference no good is the speaker/room/hearing.

If thats what you have to tell yourself RGA.LMAO You really ought to try some level matched blind testing before spouting off.Oops my bad you dont need to for you are RGA God of all audio.

[RGA]

If thats what you have to tell yourself RGA.LMAO You really ought to try some level matched blind testing before spouting off.Oops my bad you dont need to for you are RGA God of all audio.

Yes you would get a much better system if you listened to your audio God - ME. LOL.

I have done Single Blind(and the tester was not present), of numerous items. And a successful variation of them, with headphones for cd players, and once with speakers.

With amplifiers I had the luxury of doing them with my speakers in my home. These were not fill in a form test protocol of course...but then it was for my own purchasing decision not to prove something to someone else. As the years have gone by and I have taken various science courses and gone in Psychology I have a pretty good understanding of Double Blind testing and their validity as it relates to "real world" listening. I have thought there was a nIght and day difference. Done a test which I proceeded not to pass statistically, then knowing this, went back and listened sighted without the "testing environment imposed" and still had the same opinion as I did before the test. And since we live in the real world and we don't normally listen in a testing envoironment - and since the two are not 100% directly correlational, then I'm going with the normal environment...current brain research supports this as well. If ten people in a room all say they think a Sony is brighter than the Pioneer, and in the test that is not found...the test does not match the observation...and it should. The first part of the test is not looked at by most.

You can pick your scientists OR engineers to follow since they don't agree on methodology and conclusion of the testing...the debates go no where.

[46minaudio]

If I recall you never level matched.

[Woochifer]

Ok CNN said the drop was in the 70s to the 50s. Toyota went ahead of chrysler a few months back and just passed Ford in worldwide sales. Not surprising due to piss poor vehicles. Of course that is my opinion based off my driving their cars and looking at their repair histories. though yes I'm sure they accelerate better or some such drivel for the first 6 months of ownership.

Sorry, but that kind of massive market share shift in a mature industry like the auto industry just doesn't happen in one year. Like I said, it's taken over two decades for the big three's market share to dip below 60 percent in North America. Their market erosion has been a long-term trend with the usual bumps and dips (the rise of the SUV briefly elevated the big three's market share above 70 percent about six years ago, but it's been on a consistent decline since then).

Also, I thought that in your view the market are sheep, yet you seem to view Toyota's ascendency as a sign that buyers know what they are doing when their preferences agree with yours. Yet, when the market chooses to go with something that you take issue with, suddenly we're all sheep?

Honda been the #2 foreign brand in N.America for at least the past decade, yet they're a nonentity in Europe, and in their home market in Japan, they're usually no better than the #4 nameplate over there. So, are the North American consumers who are so stupid for buying receivers and Bose products, suddenly Mensas for creating the largest market for Honda?

And why would a car accelerate "or some such drivel" better for only the first six months of ownership? You're applying a nonsensically broad brush on this topic.


I agree with you on the perception issue. People perceive lots of gadgets to be better. Too bad mostly they are not. Like receivers. One big compromise for sound quality. Though you get functionality and features. All in one printer. Does it all and nothing particularly well.

What you refer to as useless gadgets, a lot of people regard as necessary functionality for a modern home theatre system. You lose some refinement compared to similarly priced two-channel components, but it's hardly the "big compromise" that you perceive. And the loss of 5.1 functionality in that comparison is unacceptable for anyone who wants to hear multichannel soundtracks the way they were meant to be heard.

[Woochifer]

I care about that mostly...so when I see 5k receivers that sound worse by a large margin to my ear than a $750.00 integrated then I get a little erked that they're trying to sell me a feature box over something even remotely decent. I am also a realist and understand that people want home theater on the cheap, many of whom will never hear a good 2 channel system because none of the big chains carry a decent 2 channel system and if they did don't have a proper listening facility and most buyers listen primarily to top 40 and want JBL or some other rocker. Many speakers in these chains wouldn't be helped by better equipment anyway.

Yeah, and before home theatre came along, the big chains were selling two-channel receivers and other entry level gear. The mass market has ALWAYS emphasized affordability. It's not like they were selling high end two-channel systems and suddenly dumped those for home theatre receivers when the market shifted to 5.1. Why would it erk you to see $5k receivers that sound worse "by a wide margin" than your $750 two-channel amp? If people share your opinion and viewpoint, then there would not be a market for such products if people view them as a poor value. But, those units are out there, so there must be buyers for them. And don't assume that everyone who buys those units does so just because they "will never hear a good 2 channel system." Maybe, to them, it doesn't matter how good the two-channel performance is if it lacks multichannel capability.


But then there are Music audiophiles and home theater philes. I have oiver 200 DVDs and even some LDs. I was planning on being a film critic. Movies are huge for me. My issue is sound for two channel music must meet a certain criteria for me. That same music is a big part of motion pictures...and is utterly butchered by the majority of surround sound systems. Most of them can't accurately produce the human voice...I listened to the theme music of the Raiders of the Lost Ark disc through my 2 channel rig and I'll take it over most home theater rigs at 10 times the price. Simple reason is the amp and the speakers do it right. I lose out on sound effects etc...but that trade is no contest. And I can add later.

Why does everyone have to fit some arbitrarily defined label? Music and movies are equally important in my everyday home entertainment, so am I an audiophile or a home theatre phile?

Most home theatre systems can't accurately produce the human voice and butcher music the exact same way that most two-channel systems did before the emergence of home theatre. Why? The majority of the consumer market has always been in the entry level, which has its share of compromises.

Listening to Raiders through a two-channel rig also represents a compromise because the DVD player is doing the two-channel mixdown for you, and the channel balance is not what a professional sound engineer intended. The dialog will not be properly anchored in the center, and the balances between effects, music, and other sounds are altered when you fold down a 5.1 soundtrack into two-channels.

Playing Raiders in 5.1 is hearing it the way it was intended to be heard, plain and simple. So, for me, it doesn't matter if I got the option to hear it on an exotic two-channel system. Hearing a 5.1 soundtrack in two-channel will always represent a compromise compared to my home system, because of how the integrity and intent of the original multichannel soundtrack gets butchered when it gets funneled down to two-channels.

[RGA]

If I recall you never level matched.

First of all level matching serves one purpose and one purpose only - not to give an advantage to one of the units. Speakers cannot be level matched because speakers have different frquency levels. One spekaer will be louder in the bass and quieter in the treble than another speker. Level matching at 1khz is useless...changing the crossover of the speaker or whatever trick they want to do is not testing the natural characteristic of the speaker.

For my headphone amp trial this is not hard. I listened through a line level heaphone amp with the HD600. The headphone amp had 8 slots for 8 different cd players each with their own volume control and all connected to the HD 600s. You simply need to switch back and forth.

NORMAL listening has a person sitting on their couch in front of their stereo with a volume control. You put the disc on and you listen to your cd/lp. Typically, you adjust the volume while you listen. You do not normally(or at least not all of us do) set the volume at the 8o'clock position and leave it there. With my changer one disc's volume level is much quiter than another disc requiring me to put the volume up or down while I listen

Back to matching and advantage: You listen to one song say all the way through. You have the volume control or know in hand and as the song plays you listen quiet, then loud then very loud mix it up. Listen to the song or entire disc. Then I switched and did the same with the other amplifier adjusting the volume. There is no problem with level as BOTH units are given the entire gambit - after all if you like your music loud and one amp can't do it then it's no good for you...and this is a valid reason not to want that amp - it "sounds" worse at louder levels then it sounds worse period.

Now I never listened very loud and never drew any amp anywhere near clipping. Adding a Bryston 3B ST at 120 watts to my top of the line 125 Watts per channel Pioneer Elite A/V Receiver(VSX 95) was what got me interested in high end. I though my speakers were terrible until I brought that thing home and plugged it into my receiver. Finally non conjested sound, classical music had sparkle, and tight deep bass over the muddy flabby bass you get from stock car speakers. The term "air" was no longer a word I had just read but actually understood what the hell people were talking about.

It has absolutely nothing to do with volume, but clarity. And keep in mind this is just the power amp section because the Pioneer Preamp was the same in both cases.(BTW there was no bias because I had never heard of Bryston...and it's butt ugly compared to the Rosewood finish piano black lacquered Pioneer with copper underbelly and better spec sheets. After all the Pioneer had a long list and reviews as to how good it was. All Discrete amplifiers, .000025% THD from 20hz to 20khz continuous RMS 125Watts.

My speakers were maybe one of the EASIEST speakers out there to drive - still are. 95db sensitive 8ohm adjustable crossovers 3 way front tuned ported using horns - a very light fibre woven woofer.

Would there have been a noticeble difference with my Hitachi standmouts back then...perhaps not...but then the Hitachi's were junk and I didn't know better. Lots of junk today too at a lot more money than those Hitachi's.

That Bryston audition saved me from selling a speaker that I though was not up to par. In fact the speaker was totally fine, the receiver was not. And this was a receiver I had directly compared to the top Denon and and Marantz and Sony models of the time. Yamaha and Onkyo were at other other stores so maybe they were better but tough to say as I couldn't do a direct comparison. All the receivers basically sounded the same so I took the Pioneer because basically it had a more user friendly set-up guide a much better remote and looked better. Same price.

I have since done sessions with the 5802 versus the Arcam Alpha 10, 2 10p power amps and dedicated Canadian made processor(which I don't recall from who because I was not interested in H/T really at the time) for home theater. I listened in 2 channel. Low volume is a big teller IMO. Many amplifiers are rated and sound best at HIGH levels which is their ratings(mazimum output) but sound much worse and have higher distortion figures at low volumes. Any wonder I always had to put the volume up and up and up to hear basic dialog correctly through the receivers. With the Arcam at very low volume it was clearer and crisper(not perfect either but much better).

All of that was less money than the 5802 receiver to boot.

I would personally much rather buy a lower model receiver that has an acceptable surround processor which also has the upgradabiltiy. Like a computer that you can upgrade the ram etc. Maybe a 1k receiver with a Rotel power amp...still be a lot cheaper than a 5802 and provide more beef to the Home theater Burger. And then in 2 years when the 5802(or 18 months according to Woochifer) the 5803 comes out with a better chip and so does your 1k receiver. You can sell your receiver for $400.00 and go buy the new 1k model...you still have your Rotel power amps. Or better yet you buy a 1k dedicated proocessor which may have the best chip available. Sure is cheaper than buying and selling flagship receivers all the time. Want seven channels add a 2 channel amp...or another 5 channel amp and have ten channels of power amp...bridge the ones you're not using yet etc.

And if you're speakers are not going to tell the difference that is fine...you still get vastly superior build quality to a flagship receiver, more flexibility and save hundreds of dollars with less depreciation. And if one power amp breaks oh well you can fix and you still havve something to listen to. One thing goes in the all in one box it's all gone.

This does not workof course for sub 1K receivers. Most people own these, again I have considered the 4300 from Marantz because I have heard it run with a Bryston 3BSST and I was rather impressed by it's two channel output given that the thing is pretty damn cheap. Alone it's pretty good for $500.00CDN. ~$350.00US...Partnered with even a basic $300.00 Adcom this would probably be pretty good and more than enough for home theater I should think. The 4300 has been replaced by a newer model of course so the price may have gone up but their depreciation is high so usually the price drops about 40%-50% by the end of it's 1-2 year cylcle.

[RGA]

You lose some refinement compared to similarly priced two-channel components, but it's hardly the "big compromise" that you perceive. And the loss of 5.1 functionality in that comparison is unacceptable for anyone who wants to hear multichannel soundtracks the way they were meant to be heard.

That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion on the big compromise issue. One makes music sound like music the other sounds like a mess of smudge to my ear. You don't have to agree with it. I am not willing to soacrifice a 10 out of 10 for music for a unit that gives me 2/10 for music and still makes want to go to the movies. The director intended hios movie to be seen on a 70 foot screen or however big they are. Non a 50 inch projector with speakers that sound etchy as the vast majority sound targeted to people who value etchy over competant sound reproduction.

[RGA]

Playing Raiders in 5.1 is hearing it the way it was intended to be heard, plain and simple. So, for me, it doesn't matter if I got the option to hear it on an exotic two-channel system. Hearing a 5.1 soundtrack in two-channel will always represent a compromise compared to my home system, because of how the integrity and intent of the original multichannel soundtrack gets butchered when it gets funneled down to two-channels.

First of a all you must be missing my point. I am talking about 2 channel music through a receiver. For this sole purpose a receiver, generally, is total crap for my needs. GOT IT!!

You then want to talk about the faciltiy of surround sound which of course any and all two channel systems are going to fail(though not for the music portion of the disc). And they only fail with good receivers. A good receiver like the Flagship Marantz I heard the other day is a very nice home theater amplifier that i would be more than happy to own with my speakers for that purpose...musically still inferior but for movies is easily superior to my or any 2 channel amp.

The mix down issue is overplayed and here is why. yes the two channel version of a 5.1 mix has limitations -I have over 200 hundred DVDs and NONE of them are difficult to hear voices in 2 channels. And well spaced across the front. I can't say the same about most of the muddy sounding smudge of most entry or slightly above entry level receivers which have the advantage of playing the track correctly. Some discs like Saving Private Ryan(and the rented patriot - terrible movie) has gunfire coming from behind my head even with just two channel.

Obviosly I'm not saying you should dump your receiver for two channel and then watch movies in 2 channel. I also realize the market is going to buy cheap units that will do it all. Most people really could not care about whether something is more refined or not...does it work, does it play your 70s disc of BTO loud then great...In this sense and for these people (and I'm not knocking them BTW) the receiver is perfectly fine and much more so than a 2 channel amp. Most people are not 2 channel purists. BTW I'm not either.

I made buying decisions in 1990 when I was 18 many of which I personally regret(other people who bought the same things may not have any regrets whatsoever and that is fine). I started with a Fisher system. Bought a $650.00 receiver, traded up for the Flagship Pioneer Elite, went surround sound, went looking 2 years later at the flagship 5.1 receivers from all the names I knew Yamaha, Denon etc.

Realized that for my ear the money I would have to drop to satisfy me would run well in excess of 10k, I decided that no, i will try my Laser discs in 2 channel - also realizing that I didn't care or see the need to be anal over surround effects. Some people obviously are as anal about surround sound quality as I am about 2 channel and some could care less about the nth degree of 2 channel as I care about surround sound.

Actually that's not entirely true because my motto, after spending huge sums(to me at the time) only to be dissapointed in music and movie quality, was that if I am ever going to bother with home theater AND 2 channel from one single system then I am going to do it right. 25k is the bare minimum. 5 AN K Spe's are at 10k, 5 k worth of surround decoding and amplification, and a 55+ inch screen.

So I have dumped that idea because frankly it's insanely anal. So what I have done is built my two channel rig as cheaply as is acceptabe to me. I will then continue to listen to movies though this less than Ideal set-up. I will then build a surround sound system separately.

Something like a Marantz 4300 or new model with upgrade jacks. Perhaps a surround speaker package like the Energy Take 5 - preferably cheaper. The other route is to find something that would match reasonably well with the AN K for considerably cheaper money.

No I don't discount the value of home theater - I'm just not pleased with the sound of music or movies through most of what I hear...and If i'm going to do it I want to do it right or not waste my time or displease my ears.

[46minaudio]

First of all level matching serves one purpose and one purpose only - not to give an advantage to one of the units. Speakers cannot be level matched because speakers have different frquency levels. One spekaer will be louder in the bass and quieter in the treble than another speker. Level matching at 1khz is useless...changing the crossover of the speaker or whatever trick they want to do is not testing the natural characteristic of the speaker.

For my headphone amp trial this is not hard. I listened through a line level heaphone amp with the HD600. The headphone amp had 8 slots for 8 different cd players each with their own volume control and all connected to the HD 600s. You simply need to switch back and forth.

NORMAL listening has a person sitting on their couch in front of their stereo with a volume control. You put the disc on and you listen to your cd/lp. Typically, you adjust the volume while you listen. You do not normally(or at least not all of us do) set the volume at the 8o'clock position and leave it there. With my changer one disc's volume level is much quiter than another disc requiring me to put the volume up or down while I listen

Back to matching and advantage: You listen to one song say all the way through. You have the volume control or know in hand and as the song plays you listen quiet, then loud then very loud mix it up. Listen to the song or entire disc. Then I switched and did the same with the other amplifier adjusting the volume. There is no problem with level as BOTH units are given the entire gambit - after all if you like your music loud and one amp can't do it then it's no good for you...and this is a valid reason not to want that amp - it "sounds" worse at louder levels then it sounds worse period.

Now I never listened very loud and never drew any amp anywhere near clipping. Adding a Bryston 3B ST at 120 watts to my top of the line 125 Watts per channel Pioneer Elite A/V Receiver(VSX 95) was what got me interested in high end. I though my speakers were terrible until I brought that thing home and plugged it into my receiver. Finally non conjested sound, classical music had sparkle, and tight deep bass over the muddy flabby bass you get from stock car speakers. The term "air" was no longer a word I had just read but actually understood what the hell people were talking about.

It has absolutely nothing to do with volume, but clarity. And keep in mind this is just the power amp section because the Pioneer Preamp was the same in both cases.(BTW there was no bias because I had never heard of Bryston...and it's butt ugly compared to the Rosewood finish piano black lacquered Pioneer with copper underbelly and better spec sheets. After all the Pioneer had a long list and reviews as to how good it was. All Discrete amplifiers, .000025% THD from 20hz to 20khz continuous RMS 125Watts.

My speakers were maybe one of the EASIEST speakers out there to drive - still are. 95db sensitive 8ohm adjustable crossovers 3 way front tuned ported using horns - a very light fibre woven woofer.

Would there have been a noticeble difference with my Hitachi standmouts back then...perhaps not...but then the Hitachi's were junk and I didn't know better. Lots of junk today too at a lot more money than those Hitachi's.

That Bryston audition saved me from selling a speaker that I though was not up to par. In fact the speaker was totally fine, the receiver was not. And this was a receiver I had directly compared to the top Denon and and Marantz and Sony models of the time. Yamaha and Onkyo were at other other stores so maybe they were better but tough to say as I couldn't do a direct comparison. All the receivers basically sounded the same so I took the Pioneer because basically it had a more user friendly set-up guide a much better remote and looked better. Same price.

I have since done sessions with the 5802 versus the Arcam Alpha 10, 2 10p power amps and dedicated Canadian made processor(which I don't recall from who because I was not interested in H/T really at the time) for home theater. I listened in 2 channel. Low volume is a big teller IMO. Many amplifiers are rated and sound best at HIGH levels which is their ratings(mazimum output) but sound much worse and have higher distortion figures at low volumes. Any wonder I always had to put the volume up and up and up to hear basic dialog correctly through the receivers. With the Arcam at very low volume it was clearer and crisper(not perfect either but much better).

All of that was less money than the 5802 receiver to boot.

I would personally much rather buy a lower model receiver that has an acceptable surround processor which also has the upgradabiltiy. Like a computer that you can upgrade the ram etc. Maybe a 1k receiver with a Rotel power amp...still be a lot cheaper than a 5802 and provide more beef to the Home theater Burger. And then in 2 years when the 5802(or 18 months according to Woochifer) the 5803 comes out with a better chip and so does your 1k receiver. You can sell your receiver for $400.00 and go buy the new 1k model...you still have your Rotel power amps. Or better yet you buy a 1k dedicated proocessor which may have the best chip available. Sure is cheaper than buying and selling flagship receivers all the time. Want seven channels add a 2 channel amp...or another 5 channel amp and have ten channels of power amp...bridge the ones you're not using yet etc.

And if you're speakers are not going to tell the difference that is fine...you still get vastly superior build quality to a flagship receiver, more flexibility and save hundreds of dollars with less depreciation. And if one power amp breaks oh well you can fix and you still havve something to listen to. One thing goes in the all in one box it's all gone.

This does not workof course for sub 1K receivers. Most people own these, again I have considered the 4300 from Marantz because I have heard it run with a Bryston 3BSST and I was rather impressed by it's two channel output given that the thing is pretty damn cheap. Alone it's pretty good for $500.00CDN. ~$350.00US...Partnered with even a basic $300.00 Adcom this would probably be pretty good and more than enough for home theater I should think. The 4300 has been replaced by a newer model of course so the price may have gone up but their depreciation is high so usually the price drops about 40%-50% by the end of it's 1-2 year cylcle.

Damn RGA a simple no would have done it..

[Woochifer]

That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion on the big compromise issue. One makes music sound like music the other sounds like a mess of smudge to my ear. You don't have to agree with it. I am not willing to soacrifice a 10 out of 10 for music for a unit that gives me 2/10 for music and still makes want to go to the movies. The director intended hios movie to be seen on a 70 foot screen or however big they are. Non a 50 inch projector with speakers that sound etchy as the vast majority sound targeted to people who value etchy over competant sound reproduction.

And I'm not talking about units that make music reproduction 2/10 or whatever arbitrary scale you're conjuring up. If you're talking about the difference between a $750 two-channel amp and an equivalently priced receiver, the audible difference will not drop the subjective magnitude from 10 to 2, unless you're lumping midlevel receivers in with everything from HTIB and mini-systems to transistor radios, which would be ridiculous hyperbole. If you really believe that receivers in that price range warrant that low a rating, then what would you rate a typical clock radio or mono boombox?

Aside from IMAX and some Cinerama screens, please name me a movie theatre with a 70-foot screen. Even the showcase single-screen Grauman's Chinese and Village Theatres in Los Angeles "only" have 60-foot screens. Your typical multiplex might have a 45-foot screen in its largest auditorium, and screen sizes of 20 to 30 feet are more common, with many of them even smaller than that.

And your persistent points about "etchy" sound (whatever that's supposed to mean in real world terms) indicate to me that you don't go out to movies very often! The screen speakers for most movie theatres are designed to play loudly and efficiently. The result is usually fairly harsh sounding. And unless the auditorium has decent acoustic controls in place, the loud SPL levels coupled with bad acoustics can make the soundtrack incoherent and unintelligible. The dialog intelligibility from my home theatre is better than just about any movie auditorium out there, and waddya know, I use one of those muddy smudgy receivers! Also, DVD soundtracks do get tweaked for a typical home 5.1 speaker configuration, so not all of them are straight transfers of the theatrical soundtracks.

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that people would rather hear "etchy" sound than "competent sound reproduction". Who are you say what others prefer? You're presuming that your definition of "etchy" is definitive. Have you done any polls? Why not go to a movie theatre and ask people what they prefer: "etchy" or "competent" sound? PLEASE stay with your own opinions rather than trying presume what other people are thinking.


First of a all you must be missing my point. I am talking about 2 channel music through a receiver. For this sole purpose a receiver, generally, is total crap for my needs. GOT IT!!

Uh no, I was addressing your point about listening to a 5.1 soundtrack through a two-channel system. So, I did not miss anything.


The mix down issue is overplayed and here is why. yes the two channel version of a 5.1 mix has limitations -I have over 200 hundred DVDs and NONE of them are difficult to hear voices in 2 channels. And well spaced across the front. I can't say the same about most of the muddy sounding smudge of most entry or slightly above entry level receivers which have the advantage of playing the track correctly. Some discs like Saving Private Ryan(and the rented patriot - terrible movie) has gunfire coming from behind my head even with just two channel.

It's overplayed to you because you're willing to live with compromised reproduction with multichannel soundtracks, which is exactly what you get on the original source signal by doing that two-channel mixdown from 5.1. I own about 150 DVDs and guess what, NONE of them are difficult with dialog either! And as I pointed out earlier, I use a muddy smudgy receiver and "midfi" Paradigm speakers.

I assume that you don't like using DSP processors with two-channel sources. Well, by playing a 5.1 soundtrack into a two-channel system, you're basically doing the same thing -- applying a predefined signal alteration to the original soundtrack. The channel balances are not what the director or sound techs intended. Unlike with two-channel sources where the phantom center effect is consciously mixed in, what you get with a 5.1 mixdown is a more or less random crap shoot often with a less stable center image, and inconsistent balance between the various sound sources. Soundtracks with active surround tracks can have an overabundance of sounds from those channels steered into the front, and the outcome is random, and potentially very far from what was intended. Even if you can interpret the dialog, the background noise in those cases would still be higher than intended.



So I have dumped that idea because frankly it's insanely anal. So what I have done is built my two channel rig as cheaply as is acceptabe to me. I will then continue to listen to movies though this less than Ideal set-up. I will then build a surround sound system separately.

Something like a Marantz 4300 or new model with upgrade jacks. Perhaps a surround speaker package like the Energy Take 5 - preferably cheaper. The other route is to find something that would match reasonably well with the AN K for considerably cheaper money.

No I don't discount the value of home theater - I'm just not pleased with the sound of music or movies through most of what I hear...and If i'm going to do it I want to do it right or not waste my time or displease my ears.

Be glad that you did dump that idea! It is possible to build a surround system that will outperform what you get at all but the most state-of-the-art movie houses for MUCH less than $25k.

but, on the flip side, there's plenty of range between your proposed $25k separates system and that 4300/Take 5 pairing that you're talking about for a surround system. If financially feasible, you don't want to go lower than the Take 5 for a 5.1 system, and even that system has a pretty sizable frequency gap between where the bass unit leaves off and where the satellite takes over. Compared to what you're getting with your two-channel setup, your proposed setup would be a pretty noticeable step down in sound quality. And if you're using a DTS soundtrack, the dynamic range is higher than what CD audio gives you. So, that would be a fairly large compromise in my book. But, if it's worthwhile to you to squeeze that last bit of refinement for two-channel reproduction, then that's your priority.

[RGA]

Damn RGA a simple no would have done it..

hahahaha. yeah if the difference can't be heard...don't buy it. But do at least make sure you satisfy yourself by ACTUALLY listening. An SBT is all that is required for average people. Idon't have the funds to hitre psychologists and and 100s of people and rent thousands of pieces of equipment over a 6 month span to do many trials on each person over those months to determine the required to be valid long term listening sessions. I wish i had the money. Pioneer, RCA, JVC, Yorx and Technics wish they had the money. They'd give their right nut to be able to say that it is a scientifically proven fact that their $200.00 receiver level matched in a DBT sounds no different than a top of the line 70K Monoblock Krell in this testing environment(What an advertising campaign). But since they know the science of the testing is statistical and the conclusions drawn are sh!t - they know they'd get sued into bankruptcy.

Besides that they know their stuff doesn't sound as good. They're happy though that some believe it. 99.999% of buyers don't know anythig about amplifiers so why Marantz and Denon would waste valueable money putting in a toroid transformer in their "good" revceivers must only serve the advertising...no other reason right. Bahh...that affects profit. Hmmm, perhaps those silly misguided fools(oops they're engineers too) put it in because it's a better 'sounding amp." n'ahhh.