Integra & Onkyo New Network Class G Stereo Receivers for 2024

[MrBoat]

Per the Audioholics writeup initially, and even looking through the manual, I cannot find anything about the sub out other than how to plug the cable into it? The writeup mentions the sub out, but nothing in the way of management? Usually when information about one of today's most needed connections is so obscure, it makes me wonder if it's even worth considering when comparing it to an AVR, which I believe they use a comparison as to why one would choose these receivers over an AVR in the article. Most people are repeatedly asking about bass management and it should be an integral feature for all but the most stubborn vintage crowd.

I admit it was late when I read it but I spent enough time searching for the information via the article, and the manual. It left me thinking I'd still rather buy a comparatively powered AVR for 2.1 channel, regardless if it runs warmer. I also admit I am not the most tech savvy with these features so if I am in error, is also why I am asking here.

I'm starting to believe that the marketers know that if more people tried 2.1 with comprehensive bass management, many would forego surround sound and much of it's otherwise marketable hardware, and perhaps this is why they are not including it. People have been asking for it for a long time now to where this info should be right up front. I don't believe it's about the cost of including it anymore. I think this is mostly a marketing issue.

 

[TLS Guy]

Per the Audioholics writeup initially, and even looking through the manual, I cannot find anything about the sub out other than how to plug the cable into it? The writeup mentions the sub out, but nothing in the way of management? Usually when information about one of today's most needed connections is so obscure, it makes me wonder if it's even worth considering when comparing it to an AVR, which I believe they use a comparison as to why one would choose these receivers over an AVR in the article. Most people are repeatedly asking about bass management and it should be an integral feature for all but the most stubborn vintage crowd.

I admit it was late when I read it but I spent enough time searching for the information via the article, and the manual. It left me thinking I'd still rather buy a comparatively powered AVR for 2.1 channel, regardless if it runs warmer. I also admit I am not the most tech savvy with these features so if I am in error, is also why I am asking here.

I'm starting to believe that the marketers know that if more people tried 2.1 with comprehensive bass management, many would forego surround sound and much of it's otherwise marketable hardware, and perhaps this is why they are not including it. People have been asking for it for a long time now to where this info should be right up front. I don't believe it's about the cost of including it anymore. I think this is mostly a marketing issue.

I think there is a definite market for 2.1 receivers.

I just hope the class G rail switching power supplies don't become the downfall of those units.
Class G has been highly problematic in terms of reliability. Even Bob Carver went onto the rocks with those.

 

[Oddball]

Not that I would ever consider buying 2.something receiver, but the logical question is why would it be limited to just .1 sub? I would worry about that more than class G, D or any alphabet letter in the mix. And might have missed it but what would be the bass management and room EQ on those units?

Honestly, I would see 3.2 as being a more optimal route to go with these "limited channel count" AVRs. And obviously without some serious bass management and room EQ, these would be somewhat limited in their performance.

 

[lovinthehd]

Think that's a missed opportunity to not include bass management, as well as PEQ option instead of just basic bass/treble tone control. Guess you'll still need an avr....

 

[MrBoat]

Not that I would ever consider buying 2.something receiver, but the logical question is why would it be limited to just .1 sub? I would worry about that more than class G, D or any alphabet letter in the mix. And might have missed it but what would be the bass management and room EQ on those units?

Honestly, I would see 3.2 as being a more optimal route to go with these "limited channel count" AVRs. And obviously without some serious bass management and room EQ, these would be somewhat limited in their performance.

They should 'at least' be a genuine .1 with bass management by now as a norm, is all I'm asking from them, like baby steps perhaps, since these manufacturers are being so stubborn/stingy with it. A fully functional .1 is worlds better than just a preout with at most a single low pass preset. Perhaps these receivers have a preset low pass, which would at least be workable, but I could not find any information. Just about all of my speakers will at least work high passed at 80hz.

The problem with 2.1 (or whatever is after the ".") is that a well implemented one will often stop people from wanting more channels, even for movies. I think because of that, we will not be seeing a lot of these receivers accommodating these features, or they would have by now. There are some affordable ones with basic bass management, but they are essentially stripped AVRs that still cost about as much as one.

As dated as me and my needs are, it's just weird to see these new receivers that still don't match up to my 20 year old AVR with just a Windows/Linux pc, or even a cell phone attached to it. In my lifetime, the two most significant sonic improvements have been the invention of the CD, and subwoofers/bass management. It would seem that bass would take precedent, and the glut of fluffy 3rd party music software accommodations would just be optional.

These things are starting to look like junky 3rd party software whores, than anything technically/sonically advanced, or meaningful.

 

[Trebdp83]

These two units aren’t offering much for the money when compared to other Integra/Onkyo offerings and there is no room to grow. While AVRs from Integra/Onkyo/Pioneer and even Denon can be had for around the same money, they will lack front pre outs. If not needed, no big deal.

For around $1,500, depending on make and sales price, there are units with a bit more power and full pre outs like the Integra DRX3.4, Onkyo TX-RZ50, Pioneer VSX-505 and Denon AVR-X3800H. These units are all equipped with Dirac Live save for the Denon which features Audyssey but can be fitted with Dirac Live.

Aside from no bass management here, there is also the lack of eARC. So, with ARC, HDMI control will need to be turned ON in the TV and turned ON in the receiver for the Audio Return Channel to work. The coax/optical ports are capped at 24/96 for those who are concerned with 24/192 over those connections.

These units are also limited to PCM 2.0 and DSD 2.0 signals, though DSD will NOT be available over ARC. Dolby and DTS signals will not be decoded at all here and all externally connected devices need to output PCM 2.0. Those devices capable of outputting multichannel DSD must output the two channel variety.

 

[ban25]

I own one of these units. The use-case is not really for an AVR, hence it is not named as such despite having HDMI 2.1 and eARC (a nice bonus). This unit instead actually competes with integrated stereo amplifiers, like those from Yamaha, Rotel, NAD, Marantz, Hegel, etc. In that match up, it compares quite favorably thanks to the support for Roon, an MC phono pre-amp, and the aforementioned HDMI 2.1. For me, it replaced three boxes: a Rotel A14 MKII integrated amplifier, a Bluesound Node streamer, and an ifi Zen phono MC pre-amp.

 

[MrBoat]

I own one of these units. The use-case is not really for an AVR, hence it is not named as such despite having HDMI 2.1 and eARC (a nice bonus). This unit instead actually competes with integrated stereo amplifiers, like those from Yamaha, Rotel, NAD, Marantz, Hegel, etc. In that match up, it compares quite favorably thanks to the support for Roon, an MC phono pre-amp, and the aforementioned HDMI 2.1. For me, it replaced three boxes: a Rotel A14 MKII integrated amplifier, a Bluesound Node streamer, and an ifi Zen phono MC pre-amp.

I have no issue with it's features, or power, distortion rating etc. I have issue with lack of bass management, in an age where subwoofers are so common. I am strictly a 2 (2.1) channel user. It's 2024. Everything with a sub out, ought to at least have basic bass management, or at least an 80hz crossover for the sub out.

I have Chi-fi amps with a sub out but also with no crossover. It's essentially useless like that beyond trivial use. This causes me to use AVRs for two channel. Otherwise, I may as well use one of my vintage amps or integrated amps with full range speakers like I was back in 1977. If I am going to do that, the little Chi-fi, or other class D amps compete directly with these products for a fraction of the price. What they don't have is, Roon, Tidal, Qobuz, Spotify etc., but so what, I'm not paying an extra 7-800 dollars just to have those streaming services on board. I'd just as soon spend that on a PC with even more functionality, instead, and just choose the streaming service I want.

I can hook up my cell phone or Alexa what have you, to any of my vintage amps and have essentially the same thing. Except now I'm shopping for subs with high level inputs to do the job the integrated, come 2024, should be doing.

Echo dot on an old Pioneer. Could use the phone for everything else.

 

[PENG]

I have been making the same point, about a real 2.1, obviously 2.2 would be much better. Some may want 2.4 but if we want to stop it at one point it would naturally be 2.2 so we can one a sub on each side of the L/R speakers. The very key word is of course comprehensive bass management, those so called 2.1 are practically useless if that .1 is not a discrete channel.

The fact that there isn't any real 2.1 on the market (except for a couple like D+M's that D+M customer cannot confirm) that could not be pinged by the likes of Direct Live, Audyssey etc..

As HD said, it is a missed opportunity, I would really like @gene to at least talk to D+M, Y about this deficiency, as he has some sort of direct line to those two manufacturers powers that be.., and it seems proven that sometimes they had listened to him and we all benefited from the new/updated features (such as preamp mode, and then a separately selectable preamp mode on per channel basis, that's examples of the latest D+M feature that have long been customer wishes, via Gene).

 

[MrBoat]

I have been making the same point, about a real 2.1, obviously 2.2 would be much better. Some may want 2.4 but if we want to stop it at one point it would naturally be 2.2 so we can one a sub on each side of the L/R speakers. The very key word is of course comprehensive bass management, those so called 2.1 are practically useless if that .1 is not a discrete channel.

The fact that there isn't any real 2.1 on the market (except for a couple like D+M's that D+M customer cannot confirm) that could not be pinged by the likes of Direct Live, Audyssey etc..

As HD said, it is a missed opportunity, I would really like @gene to at least talk to D+M, Y about this deficiency, as he has some sort of direct line to those two manufacturers powers that be.., and it seems proven that sometimes they had listened to him and we all benefited from the new/updated features (such as preamp mode, and then a separately selectable preamp mode on per channel basis, that's examples of the latest D+M feature that have long been customer wishes, via Gene).

I use "2.1" because this has to be some marketing concern with regard to all the other budget levels they have to cover between bargain thru flagship, thinking that most people that buy 2-channel receivers are somewhere in the neighborhood of full range speakers, and one sub. Shelf/bedroom systems or just casual listening for the most part. I can see where a more capable 2.1 or 2.2 could really step allover these other levels of products. So at least give 2.1 vs the 2. almost 1 they are currently pushing.

I have friends with surround sound and I was the only one using 2 channels and 2 subs. A friend's wife does not like surround sound, so she only runs the LR and sub when she uses the system. Her husband has since been convinced that's all that is needed relative to their seating position for all but the most dedicated sound effect movies.

I watch movies in 2.1 or 2.2 and I am not missing anything. Panned effects come across accurately placed in the sound field regardless. When I am playing video games, I know where the effects are coming from, such as someone walking up on me and where to look for them and it is eerily spot on. This is exactly what keeps me from being curious to adding a surround system. It often even fools my dogs into looking for things that are away from the speakers.

Once people figure out they can get that kind of immersion with so much less complication and expense, the word would probably get out pretty fast and put a damper on full surround systems, which may already be in decline if the popularity of things like sound bars is any indication.

 

[Oddball]

I use "2.1" because this has to be some marketing concern with regard to all the other budget levels they have to cover between bargain thru flagship, thinking that most people that buy 2-channel receivers are somewhere in the neighborhood of full range speakers, and one sub. Shelf/bedroom systems or just casual listening for the most part. I can see where a more capable 2.1 or 2.2 could really step allover these other levels of products. So at least give 2.1 vs the 2. almost 1 they are currently pushing.

I have friends with surround sound and I was the only one using 2 channels and 2 subs. A friend's wife does not like surround sound, so she only runs the LR and sub when she uses the system. Her husband has since been convinced that's all that is needed relative to their seating position for all but the most dedicated sound effect movies.

I watch movies in 2.1 or 2.2 and I am not missing anything. Panned effects come across accurately placed in the sound field regardless. When I am playing video games, I know where the effects are coming from, such as someone walking up on me and where to look for them and it is eerily spot on. This is exactly what keeps me from being curious to adding a surround system. It often even fools my dogs into looking for things that are away from the speakers.

Once people figure out they can get that kind of immersion with so much less complication and expense, the word would probably get out pretty fast and put a damper on full surround systems, which may already be in decline if the popularity of things like sound bars is any indication.

With all due respect, with 2.1 or 2.2 you are missing a whole lot of immersion. Nothing similar to 5.2 and far cry from 7.2.4 or 9.2.6. Each additional channel is providing additional spatial resolution that you can't otherwise experience.

The fact that you are content with 2.1 or 2.2 if absolutely fine, but not to be confused with the fact that higher channel count systems will objectively provide more immersive experience, albeit at increased cost.

 

[dlaloum]

I think there is a definite market for 2.1 receivers.

I just hope the class G rail switching power supplies don't become the downfall of those units.
Class G has been highly problematic in terms of reliability. Even Bob Carver went onto the rocks with those.

Arcam / JBL have been using Class G now for a decade or so (?) - without trouble... in their AVR's

 

[dlaloum]

These two units aren’t offering much for the money when compared to other Integra/Onkyo offerings and there is no room to grow. While AVRs from Integra/Onkyo/Pioneer and even Denon can be had for around the same money, they will lack front pre outs. If not needed, no big deal.

For around $1,500, depending on make and sales price, there are units with a bit more power and full pre outs like the Integra DRX3.4, Onkyo TX-RZ50, Pioneer VSX-505 and Denon AVR-X3800H. These units are all equipped with Dirac Live save for the Denon which features Audyssey but can be fitted with Dirac Live.

Aside from no bass management here, there is also the lack of eARC. So, with ARC, HDMI control will need to be turned ON in the TV and turned ON in the receiver for the Audio Return Channel to work. The coax/optical ports are capped at 24/96 for those who are concerned with 24/192 over those connections.

These units are also limited to PCM 2.0 and DSD 2.0 signals, though DSD will NOT be available over ARC. Dolby and DTS signals will not be decoded at all here and all externally connected devices need to output PCM 2.0. Those devices capable of outputting multichannel DSD must output the two channel variety.

You could even drop down to the NR6100/6050/5100, DRX2.4, and other market equivalents - no pre-outs on the NR6100... but it comes with AccuEQ and would do a decent job of managing the sub....

I believe you might get better SINAD from a TX8470, but in terms of actual use, and sound quality, a 2.1 setup tuned with AccuEQ has a better chance of making optimal use of speakers and room... and something like the TXNR5100 is roughly the same price as the TX8470.

 

[MrBoat]

With all due respect, with 2.1 or 2.2 you are missing a whole lot of immersion. Nothing similar to 5.2 and far cry from 7.2.4 or 9.2.6. Each additional channel is providing additional spatial resolution that you can't otherwise experience.

The fact that you are content with 2.1 or 2.2 if absolutely fine, but not to be confused with the fact that higher channel count systems will objectively provide more immersive experience, albeit at increased cost.

No, I'm not missing anything. I only really care about music. I have enough surround sound references to weigh against and I still choose 2-channel. A lot of people who own surround systems, including some that I know personally, have separate 2-channel systems, arrangements or options for music. Why would they bother?

A lot of people who only use surround systems, may not have optimized 2-channel systems the same way avid 2-channel listeners have, at least not since they started on their surround journey. My system alone has certainly persuaded a couple of converts in recent history. One who thought it compelling enough to spend $8k just on speakers and subs alone to do it with. Granted, that's not a lot of money, but when he has a perfectly good 9 channel HT worth probably 10x that, there is something to it.

Some people need more. I can hear music just reading/thinking about it. I didn't say 2-channel is more immersive than multi-channel. Just that it's often immersive enough for many people if they ever get subjected to a good one.

 

[lovinthehd]

No, I'm not missing anything. I only really care about music. I have enough surround sound references to weigh against and I still choose 2-channel. A lot of people who own surround systems, including some that I know personally, have separate 2-channel systems, arrangements or options for music. Why would they bother?

A lot of people who only use surround systems, may not have optimized 2-channel systems the same way avid 2-channel listeners have, at least not since they started on their surround journey. My system alone has certainly persuaded a couple of converts in recent history. One who thought it compelling enough to spend $8k just on speakers and subs alone to do it with. Granted, that's not a lot of money, but when he has a perfectly good 9 channel HT worth probably 10x that, there is something to it.

Some people need more. I can hear music just reading/thinking about it.

Then again I enjoy multich music quite a bit and have built up a fairly good library of such. Different strokes for different folks (and rooms and gear and systems ).

 

[MrBoat]

Then again I enjoy multich music quite a bit and have built up a fairly good library of such. Different strokes for different folks (and rooms and gear and systems ).

If you have it, why not? I can see going there if that's what someone is into. I support any way someone gets enjoyment from this hobby. But I can also understand why well implemented 2-channel is the end game for so many, or how it compels them into lifelong audiophilia, even knowing there is more thorough means available.

Modern speakers have gotten so incredibly good. I have been to enough live shows to know how music and all of it's collective effects, artifacts and other sensory stimulants should sum. 2.1+ gets ridiculously close and with very little help by way of EQ, provided the room just doesn't suck.

 

[lovinthehd]

If you have it, why not? I can see going there if that's what someone is into. I support any way someone gets enjoyment from this hobby. But I can also understand why well implemented 2-channel is the end game for so many, or how it compels them into lifelong audiophilia, even knowing there is more thorough means available.

Modern speakers have gotten so incredibly good. I have been to enough live shows to know how music and all of it's collective effects, artifacts and other sensory stimulants should sum. 2.1+ gets ridiculously close and with very little help by way of EQ, provided the room just doesn't suck.

I just figure, heck I have the avrs and I have multitudes of speakers and subs, why limit myself to 2ch?

 

[MrBoat]

I just figure, heck I have the avrs and I have multitudes of speakers and subs, why limit myself to 2ch?

No reason not to. But 2-channel has had a lot of development over the years. "Band in the room" happened well before surround, though. Therefore, it's not really a limitation. It's only really a limitation if the content is mixed for more channels. So what is accommodating what? Just different approaches and goals is all. I feel fortunate not to need more.

 

[lovinthehd]

No reason not to. But 2-channel has had a lot of development over the years. "Band in the room" happened well before surround, though. Therefore, it's not really a limitation.

I like to think of it as I've put in my limited 2ch time.

 

[MrBoat]

I like to think of it as I've put in my limited 2ch time.

That's certainly valid, but a lot of people with surround sound systems that came from 2-channel still put as much effort into 2-channel, and not just for nostalgia's sake. The .1+ certainly does a lot to loosen up those limitations quite a bit. As does the lengths they have come with such things like BSC, cone shapes/materials, wave guides, distortion etc.