Pioneer Elite 2012 SC Series Reciever Offerings Preview

[admin]

The new Pioneer Elite SC line for 2012 is truly full featured. The question you need to ask yourself is what you really need in a receiver. They are all great but you'll pay a premium for specific features that you might not need. Even the SC-68, the top of the line offering, is only $2500. Even in this economy, that seems pretty reasonable. Pioneer has made a name for themselves on making sure their receivers work with your phone. With these Elite receivers, they are making sure they work with your custom installer and all your high-end music files. If you are on the market for a receiver, you owe it to yourself to take a look at these new Elite receivers.

Discuss "Pioneer Elite 2012 SC Series Reciever Offerings Preview" here. Read the article.

 

[oat07]

Pioneer

Glad to see Pioneer is still competing well.

 

[DS-21]

In many respects, the Pioneers look like the top of the market on paper. Most modern amps, connectivity up the wazoo, and so on.

But...their room correction software is still third-tier.* Of all the things in an AVR above a certain power level room correction is sonically the most important feature.

Also, they seem to be missing a modern loudness compensation program, such as Dolby Volume's volume modeler or Audyssey DynamicEQ. For people who regularly listen to music (or, I suppose, other program material) at less than ideal volume levels, good loudness compensation is a godsend.

So overall one's left to ask, what's the point?

*First tier: ARC, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro, Audyssey MultEQ XT Pro
*Second tier: Audyssey MultEQ XT32, Audyssey MultEQ XT (neither one is first tier because the "crappy speakers compensation" midrange dip is not defeatable)
*Third tier: MCAAC, YPAO

 

[jcl]

In many respects, the Pioneers look like the top of the market on paper. Most modern amps, connectivity up the wazoo, and so on.

But...their room correction software is still third-tier.* Of all the things in an AVR above a certain power level room correction is sonically the most important feature.

Also, they seem to be missing a modern loudness compensation program, such as Dolby Volume's volume modeler or Audyssey DynamicEQ. For people who regularly listen to music (or, I suppose, other program material) at less than ideal volume levels, good loudness compensation is a godsend.

So overall one's left to ask, what's the point?

*First tier: ARC, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro, Audyssey MultEQ XT Pro
*Second tier: Audyssey MultEQ XT32, Audyssey MultEQ XT (neither one is first tier because the "crappy speakers compensation" midrange dip is not defeatable)
*Third tier: MCAAC, YPAO

A very interesting perspective. I have to agree that room correction is something that one can definitely hear a difference, good or bad.

Just wondering about your list - if you've heard Trinnov and where you would place it? The closeout Sherwood has had me pondering a purchase. A good bit cheaper than a Denon 4311 for the MultEQ XT32.

 

[DS-21]

Just wondering about your list - if you've heard Trinnov and where you would place it? The closeout Sherwood has had me pondering a purchase. A good bit cheaper than a Denon 4311 for the MultEQ XT32.

First tier. I should have included it above. I wish it were in wider use.

A license from Trinnov would IMO vault Pioneer (or Yamaha) to the top of the market, given the reliability issues with Denon and Onkyo, the pathetic after-sales support provided by D&M Holdings for even purchasers of expensive Denon and Marantz gear, and the requirement for Anthem that one visit a shop where someone is more likely than not going to try to get you to "listen to" magic wires.

I've thought about picking up a Sherwood R-972, too. If it had been on closeout when my old Denon 4308 fried its digital board, I may have tried one instead of the Anthem part I ended up buying. (Though maybe not; our AVR is hidden, so an on-screen display that overlays volume was an important feature to me.) Only reason there isn't one in our bedroom is that it's huuuge. I have some perspective on its size: it has the same dimensions as the Sherwood A-965 amp that powers my speakers. Something that big...I'm not even going to bring it up. Better to fight battles that can be reasonably won!

 

[canelli]

Thought I would chime in since I have owned both the 4311 and SC-05 at the same time.

I was able to do an A/B comparison using the same gear and within the same room. I went OCD on comparing the two receivers and I spent countless hours setting up and recalibrating. With both units setup properly (or the best I could do), there not much difference between the two. The SC-05 lacked the type of room corrections the 4311 had for the sub, but I felt my F112 did a much better job than the 4311. So that feature added little benefit. The SC-05 takes some finessing or it will really focus the vocals but at the expense of sound stage.

Also, they seem to be missing a modern loudness compensation program, such as Dolby Volume's volume modeler or Audyssey DynamicEQ

The SC-05 has loudness compensation and looking over the details I believe the newer ones also include it. I found this feature hit and miss on the 4311. For some things it offered improved low volume sound, but when it missed it missed badly and ended with a very dark coloring. Eventually, I turned it off while using the 4311 since it became much more of a distraction.

Overall, I didn’t find much difference between the two so I eventually returned the 4311. The on screen feature is nice, but I felt spending the money on a separate amp offered a much needed improvement. My only complaint is about the amplification section of the SC-05. At high volumes with moderately sensitive speakers, the SC-05 loses all composure. Would love to hear how the near amps behave.

 

[Adam]

Third tier or not, I've been very happy with the MCACC in my past two Pioneers. The 2009 model has a more advanced system then the 2005 model, but both do an excellent job in my house. Auto calibration is a must to me after having it. Maybe I'd like the other algorithms even more, but just my two cents that MCACC isn't a bad system.

 

[gene]

Overall, I didn’t find much difference between the two so I eventually returned the 4311. The on screen feature is nice, but I felt spending the money on a separate amp offered a much needed improvement. My only complaint is about the amplification section of the SC-05. At high volumes with moderately sensitive speakers, the SC-05 loses all composure. Would love to hear how the near amps behave.

Great comparison thanks for sharing it!

If you look at my review of the Pioneer SC-07 you will see why this is the case. The ICE amps implemented by that generation of Pioneer receivers had issues with 4 ohm loads. I showed this in my test results and was crucified on AVS forum as a result. Pioneer engineers confirmed my findings and told me their next generation amps (the new receivers coming out now) should be much better in that regard. I look forward to testing one.

 

[TLS Guy]

First tier. I should have included it above. I wish it were in wider use.

A license from Trinnov would IMO vault Pioneer (or Yamaha) to the top of the market, given the reliability issues with Denon and Onkyo, the pathetic after-sales support provided by D&M Holdings for even purchasers of expensive Denon and Marantz gear, and the requirement for Anthem that one visit a shop where someone is more likely than not going to try to get you to "listen to" magic wires.

I've thought about picking up a Sherwood R-972, too. If it had been on closeout when my old Denon 4308 fried its digital board, I may have tried one instead of the Anthem part I ended up buying. (Though maybe not; our AVR is hidden, so an on-screen display that overlays volume was an important feature to me.) Only reason there isn't one in our bedroom is that it's huuuge. I have some perspective on its size: it has the same dimensions as the Sherwood A-965 amp that powers my speakers. Something that big...I'm not even going to bring it up. Better to fight battles that can be reasonably won!

I received first class warranty service for my Marantz AV8003 when the power supply developed a problem. I documented it on these forums.

 

[mrpaul]

Elite Qualities

Having sold Pioneer Elite, Yamaha Adventage, Denon, and Marantz, there are many sound and tonal differences in high, middle and low sound reproduction. I found the Elite receivers the easier of the 4 for a consumer to tune to their likes. Such as pure direct, auto surround, optimum surround etc. Also, the Marvel Qdeo processor does a great scaling job. Class D amps do run cooler, and very distortion free. One really has to listen to the type of music or videos they use the most while switching back and forth to truly determine "which" model or brand sounds best to their ears. Overall, I think the SC Elites surpass most Denon and Yamaha for total sound quality, but again, that is to MY EARS, not everyones. Let your ears do the choosing, not the specs.

 

[DS-21]

Having sold Pioneer Elite, Yamaha Adventage, Denon, and Marantz, there are many sound and tonal differences in high, middle and low sound reproduction. ***

Did you actually match levels (using a multimeter on the binding posts) and compare on the same loudspeakers?

And are you talking before or after room correction?

 

[Fowl]

I was leaning towards buying a Marantz SR6006 or the Denon 3312 as I am upgrading my HT system. However after this preview I have decided that I am going to try the Pioneer SC 61.

So my speakers will be the Ascends Sierra Towers, with the SC 61. Just have not made up my mind if I should get a Emotiva XPA 3.

I gave my dealer a call today and my new receiver should get here within the next 4 weeks. It should definitely be an upgrade to my 10 year old Marantz, which surprisingly has never given me any trouble.

 

[Ziontrain]

In many respects, the Pioneers look like the top of the market on paper. Most modern amps, connectivity up the wazoo, and so on.

But...their room correction software is still third-tier.* Of all the things in an AVR above a certain power level room correction is sonically the most important feature.

Also, they seem to be missing a modern loudness compensation program, such as Dolby Volume's volume modeler or Audyssey DynamicEQ. For people who regularly listen to music (or, I suppose, other program material) at less than ideal volume levels, good loudness compensation is a godsend.

So overall one's left to ask, what's the point?

*First tier: ARC, Audyssey MultEQ XT32 Pro, Audyssey MultEQ XT Pro
*Second tier: Audyssey MultEQ XT32, Audyssey MultEQ XT (neither one is first tier because the "crappy speakers compensation" midrange dip is not defeatable)
*Third tier: MCAAC, YPAO

Gotta agree. I dont know what Pioneer are thinking by continuing with MCACC as it is. They either need to redevelop it from the ground up (probably cant afford the investment) or licence something.

The answer seems obvious what they need to do.

 

[MRAudio]

Pioneer no phono Elite

I also noticed that there is no phono input on any of pioneer's new receivers.
I think this is a strategic mistake because there are many of us out here that like throwing on a compression free record album now and then and enjoy the full dynamic range of our music.
Unless they forgot to print it in the specs which I strongly doubt, they did away with phono inputs which drives me back to purchasing a new Denon when they release in the next 30 days or so.

 

[Adam]

Welcome to the forum!

You could always consider getting a phono preamp, if you like the Pioneers better except for that one feature.

 

[slipperybidness]

I also noticed that there is no phono input on any of pioneer's new receivers.
I think this is a strategic mistake because there are many of us out here that like throwing on a compression free record album now and then and enjoy the full dynamic range of our music.
Unless they forgot to print it in the specs which I strongly doubt, they did away with phono inputs which drives me back to purchasing a new Denon when they release in the next 30 days or so.

I concur, that was one of the needed features on my VSX-82TXS from a few years ago.

 

[CadenceSound]

Seems like all the new receivers are having less and less connections..so far pioneer, Denon & Yamaha seem to be all on par...

 

[DS-21]

I also noticed that there is no phono input on any of pioneer's new receivers.
I think this is a strategic mistake because there are many of us out here that like throwing on a compression free record album now and then and enjoy the full dynamic range of our music.***

I agree with that.

I don't see the need for many analog line-level stereo inputs. Maybe one on the front and one on the back would suffice; I know I use precisely one pair in three systems, and that's only because that integrated doesn't have digital inputs, so I have to use an outboard DAC with analog outputs.

So maybe instead of all those analog inputs they could cut them to 2-3 and replace the extras with a phono preamp.

After all, the audio industry really seems to moving to a digital + vinyl world, with nothing in between. (Or is some luddite hipster gonna bring back the cassette tape?)

 

[slipperybidness]

After all, the audio industry really seems to moving to a digital + vinyl world, with nothing in between. (Or is some luddite hipster gonna bring back the cassette tape?)

I rejoiced at the end of the cassette tape era!
Here's a quick "age test", most of yall are probably older than me, but I'm no youngster. I do have 2 tapes in a drawer that I've kept, not available on vinyl and very hard to find on CD.

 

[MRAudio]

SC-68 Phono input?

hmmmmmmm.. The literature and specs on the SC-68 and the models below in the Elite line do not show a phono input however, the Sc-68 back panel picture shows phono in and it is located right about in the middle of the chassis and a ground lug there as well. The other models do not have the phono input connection in their back panel pictures.
It appears if pictures are worth a thousand words that the SC-68 has a phono input but that is the only model that has it.