Moniter series vs Studio series

[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.