Trading Amplifier Quality for Features – A New Trend with A/V Receivers?

[admin]

With new A/V receiver models being released by the major manufacturers every 8 months or so, consumers flock to them for promised improved performance and features. But are you really getting better performance with the newer models? Or are you trading amplifier quality for features? This article will be primer for what’s to come in our verification testing to better answer these questions. Stop and think if the model you currently have meets the performance vs feature balance that is right for your needs and how the newer so called “improved” model fits into that equation. All the features in the world can’t replace clean undistorted dynamics which we believe makes up most of the WOW and magic in the newer HD audio formats.

Discuss "Trading Amplifier Quality for Features – A New Trend with A/V Receivers?" here. Read the article.

 

[Jeepers]

Great article.
In 1983 I purchased the Yamaha A-1000 stereo amp and B&W DM3000 speakers. In 2005 I decided to go the HT way and replaced the amp by the Yamaha RX-V4600 receiver driving a 5.1 B&W 700 set up. Although the 5.1 set up was OK, for 2 channel music the RX-V4600 with the 703 were to my ears no match with my previous gear. To overcome this, I purchased a Z11 and recently upgraded to the 800 series. Sounds great but expensive and I am not very keen to repeat this.

I would really like for Yamaha to release 2 series; one with compromises (amplifier quality versus features) and one without compromises with emphasis on amplifier quality.
You can indeed always go the separates way. This is what I had between 1977 and 1983 but I prefer all in one but without the features I don't need.

 

[tom67]

Yamaha weight loss

CNET noticed the RXV665 weight loss too

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10168346-1.html?tag=centerColumnArea1.1

 

[PENG]

Weight is a good indicator as long as we don't draw conclusions on it alone. Many late model 7.1 AVRs including the Denon AVR3808, 4308, Yamaha RX-V1900, 3900, RX-Z7, HKAVR-3550HD, Arcam AVR350, and equivalent Marantz and Pioneer products all weigh in between 35 to 42 lbs but are generally more powerful than some, if not all of the older models cited in the article.

Interestingly some of the older receivers, e.g. Sony STR-DA4,5,7ES weighed 21 kg.( 46 lbs )but did poorly in ACD and only did 110 to 120WPC, the HKAVR525 weighed 44 lbs but not that powerful either, the later AVR630 (42 lbs) wasn't much better and definitely tested with less output than the AVR3805.

 

[CraigV]

Isn’t it just a case of manufacturers giving the masses what they want? Most people wouldn’t appreciate the difference a beefier amplifier section would make – they just want to hook up their BD player, Xbox, cable box and occasionally listen to a sub-par subwoofer make sound go “boom”.

 

[just-some-guy]

its all about price and market share. most people could give a rats butt about quality, and wouldn't even know it if it hit them in the head. and all those "features" sell, even if they never get used.

 

[gene]

Weight is a good indicator as long as we don't draw conclusions on it alone. Many late model 7.1 AVRs including the Denon AVR3808, 4308, Yamaha RX-V1900, 3900, RX-Z7, HKAVR-3550HD, Arcam AVR350, and equivalent Marantz and Pioneer products all weigh in between 35 to 42 lbs but are generally more powerful than some, if not all of the older models cited in the article.

Interestingly some of the older receivers, e.g. Sony STR-DA4,5,7ES weighed 21 kg.( 46 lbs )but did poorly in ACD and only did 110 to 120WPC, the HKAVR525 weighed 44 lbs but not that powerful either, the later AVR630 (42 lbs) wasn't much better and definitely tested with less output than the AVR3805.

When comparing receivers with the same amplifier topology, weight is a very good indicator of power output. I can assure you some of the older models in my comparison had better capability of driving 4 ohm loads than some of the models you mentioned. As much as I like the amps of the RX-Z7, I'd take the amps in the DSP-A1 / RX-V1 anyday over them even though they are only rated to 110wpc vs 140wpc in the Z7.

 

[Biggiesized]

AMAZING AMAZING AMAZING article, Gene!

This topic has been on my mind constantly for oh... about the last month!

Trying to find a good pre-pro/amp combo (separates or integrated) at a mid price point (~$500) has been impossible for me. If you want all the latest goodies, you sacrifice additional inputs/outputs or power or BOTH! I hate the trade offs!

What I really appreciate about this article is your dead honesty concerning the latest Yamaha models. You carry Yamaha products in your store and yet in some ways you advise against upgrading to the 2009 models (which are being focused on), which can obviously hurt your business. A lot of people have been following that issue lately and I'm glad you didn't turn a blind eye to it.

Everytime you guys do an article like this, it re-instills my faith in your website and editorial integrity (not that I would impugn it). These days, you never know when a site will go "dirty" as I like to put it. You stand by your mantra of "Pursuing the truth in audio & video..." admirably.

Now that I'm through fawning, what have you heard about latest integrated amps/receivers from other big names for this year? Are they all going a similar route as Onkyo/Yamaha (killing S-Video and reducing inputs as well as cutting back on the power supply)?

 

[gene]

What I really appreciate about this article is your dead honesty concerning the latest Yamaha models. You carry Yamaha products in your store and yet in some ways you advise against upgrading to the 2009 models (which are being focused on), which can obviously hurt your business. A lot of people have been following that issue lately and I'm glad you didn't turn a blind eye to it.

I could honestly care less on how the AH store sales do with respect to the editorial side of the website. Those are two separately run businesses. I run the editorial site and others run the store and thats how it will always be.

If it were my money and I cared about audio quality first, I'd get the older 663 or a 659 over the 665 any day of the week. If I were more concerned with video performance and had a 5.1 cubed speaker system, I'd probably lean towards the 665 and wouldn't know the difference in audio quality

From what I noticed with the Onkyo 06 series over the last two years or so they really beefed up the amp sections of their receivers. Finally the Onkyo I remember from the late 90s is back!

I just noticed however that their newer 607 does seem to be a bit scaled back in size and weight from the 606:

Onkyo 607
Dimensions (W x H x D) 17 1/8" x 6 15/16" x 12 15/16"
(435 x 174.3 x 374.7 mm)
Weight 23.8 lbs. (10.8 kg)


Onkyo 606
Dimensions (W x H x D) 17 1/8" x 6 7/8" x 14 3/4"
(435 x 174.3 x 374.7 mm)
Weight 24.9 lbs. (11.3 kg)

however the 507 seems to be a step up powerwise than the 506 it replaced.

This is interesting to say the least.

I am also concerned with the industry movement towards PLIIz and the eventual introduction of 9 channels of amplification into the mid and low priced models. Personally I hope that doesn't happen. They should at best preamp out and NEVER stick more than 7 channels of amplification into anything but a flagship receiver. We shall see.

 

[anamorphic96]

I could honestly care less on how the store sales do with respect to the editorial side of the website. Those are two separately run businesses. I run the editorial site and others run the store and thats how it will always be.

If it were my money and I cared about audio quality first, I'd get the older 663 or a 659 over the 665 any day of the week. If I were more concerned with video performance and had a 5.1 cubed speaker system, I'd probably lean towards the 665 and wouldn't know the difference in audio quality

From what I noticed with the Onkyo 06 series over the last two years or so they really beefed up the amp sections of their receivers. Finally the Onkyo I remember from the late 90s is back!

I just noticed however that their newer 607 does seem to be a bit scaled back in size and weight from the 606:

Onkyo 607
Dimensions (W x H x D) 17 1/8" x 6 15/16" x 12 15/16"
(435 x 174.3 x 374.7 mm)
Weight 23.8 lbs. (10.8 kg)


Onkyo 606
Dimensions (W x H x D) 17 1/8" x 6 7/8" x 14 3/4"
(435 x 174.3 x 374.7 mm)
Weight 24.9 lbs. (11.3 kg)

however the 507 seems to be a step up powerwise than the 506 it replaced.

This is interesting to say the least.

I am also concerned with the industry movement towards PLIIz and the eventual introduction of 9 channels of amplification into the mid and low priced models. Personally I hope that doesn't happen. They should at best preamp out and NEVER stick more than 7 channels of amplification into anything but a flagship receiver. We shall see.

Acutally the 507 weighs less than the 506 and according to the specification section at Onkyo's website the power output is the same. Yet they do mention in the feature list that it's putting out 80 watts instead of the 75. The 507 is probably using the same amp section the 576 had.

 

[gene]

Acutally the 507 weighs less than the 506 and according to the specification section at Onkyo's website the power output is the same. Yet they do mention in the feature list that it's putting out 80 watts instead of the 75. The 507 is probably using the same amp section the 576 had.

you're right! I flipped them when I had both windows open.

507 – 19.4lbs
506 – 21.56lbs

PS. Back when I reviewed the Yamaha RX-V659 I stated it had a class leading power amp section at its price. By today's standard that receiver companies are setting at this level of product, it applies even more so now.

 

[ht_addict]

This is one reason I wouldn't trade my Denon 4806CI for a newer tech receiver.

 

[Hipnotic4]

Most people do not use a majority of features offered through the reciever...How many Surround sound modes does one really use?

I think as time progresses the audio industry just finds more ways to cut corners..

 

[Pyrrho]

With new A/V receiver models being released by the major manufacturers every 8 months or so, consumers flock to them for promised improved performance and features. But are you really getting better performance with the newer models? Or are you trading amplifier quality for features? This article will be primer for what’s to come in our verification testing to better answer these questions. Stop and think if the model you currently have meets the performance vs feature balance that is right for your needs and how the newer so called “improved” model fits into that equation. All the features in the world can’t replace clean undistorted dynamics which we believe makes up most of the WOW and magic in the newer HD audio formats.

Discuss "Trading Amplifier Quality for Features – A New Trend with A/V Receivers?" here. Read the article.

There are errors in the chart comparing the two Yamaha receivers. The older one is the one with 3 optical digital inputs (not outputs), not the newer one. A visit to Yamaha's web site will show this.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What about older internal parts DEGRADING over time?

Would a 10 yr old (then-$6K) receiver still PERFORM as well as a brand new $1K receiver?

I have never seen any actual measurements done on a 10 yr old receiver before, have you?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Most people do not use a majority of features offered through the reciever...How many Surround sound modes does one really use?

I think as time progresses the audio industry just finds more ways to cut corners..

Seriously, I think I use about 10% of my receiver's features/capabilities.

 

[PENG]

When comparing receivers with the same amplifier topology, weight is a very good indicator of power output. I can assure you some of the older models in my comparison had better capability of driving 4 ohm loads than some of the models you mentioned. As much as I like the amps of the RX-Z7, I'd take the amps in the DSP-A1 / RX-V1 anyday over them even though they are only rated to 110wpc vs 140wpc in the Z7.

I understand your point and I know if I compare receivers with the same amp topology by the same manufacturer, e.g. onkyo 805 vs 806, then weight is a sure fire indicator. The examples you cited such as the RX-V663 vs 665 is even more interesting and I can't wait to see the test results of the 665. I mean can we even expect it to drive anything less than 8 ohms?

The exceptions (just a few I guess) I noticed were mostly in comparing receivers/amps from different manufacturers. Specific examples: EMO XPA-2 weighs 75 lbs vs Bryston 4B SST that weighs 52 lbs yet both are class AB with very similar power specs. Another example is the Denon AVR3805 vs HK AVR630. In more than one review the Denon yielded better results across the board including power into 4 ohms, and ACD tests, yet the HK is heavier by 4 lbs.

I would think that since the power supply transformer and heat sinks are the heavy items, may be there are enough weigh variability in those components that can explain the overall weight difference in receivers/amps that gives practically the same real power output.

I am hoping that you can shed some light on this based on your experience in dissecting and testing receiver/amps.

 

[gene]

What about older internal parts DEGRADING over time?

Would a 10 yr old (then-$6K) receiver still PERFORM as well as a brand new $1K receiver?

I have never seen any actual measurements done on a 10 yr old receiver before, have you?

The electrolytic caps are typically the only thing that degrade with age. You should get a good 15-20 years out of them before having to replace them. The more you use them, the longer they will last.

Amp technology from 10 years ago was very good so a linear a/b of 10 years ago will be much better on a $6k receiver than a $1k receiver with the same amp topology from the same company today.

 

[gene]

I understand your point and I know if I compare receivers with the same amp topology by the same manufacturer, e.g. onkyo 805 vs 806, then weight is a sure fire indicator. The examples you cited such as the RX-V663 vs 665 is even more interesting and I can't wait to see the test results of the 665. I mean can we even expect it to drive anything less than 8 ohms?

The exceptions (just a few I guess) I noticed were mostly in comparing receivers/amps from different manufacturers. Specific examples: EMO XPA-2 weighs 75 lbs vs Bryston 4B SST that weighs 52 lbs yet both are class AB with very similar power specs. Another example is the Denon AVR3805 vs HK AVR630. In more than one review the Denon yielded better results across the board including power into 4 ohms, and ACD tests, yet the HK is heavier by 4 lbs.

I would think that since the power supply transformer and heat sinks are the heavy items, may be there are enough weigh variability in those components that can explain the overall weight difference in receivers/amps that gives practically the same real power output.

I am hoping that you can shed some light on this based on your experience in dissecting and testing receiver/amps.

weight is only 1 indicator that should be observed regarding build quality and parts usage. Its best to know the true KVA rating of the transformer, the size of the power caps and the type of output devices used for the amp.

The Emo XPA-2 is able to double power with halving load impedance all the way to two ohms. That requires a massive power supply to do it. Not sure if the Bryston can do that since I haven't measured it.

I mean can we even expect it to drive anything less than 8 ohms?

Yes since speakers arent 8 ohms from 20-20k. A speaker load impedance is very complex with dips and peaks across the entire power spectrum. What matters is how well an amp can deal with that and produce a consistantly good sound no matter what load it drives. Not to mention the amp with a BIGGER power supply is usually better at delivering dynamic peaks in music material which isn't always easy to measure or quantify.

 

[gene]

Guys;

I added the following statement fo my aticle regarding Denon:

One thing about Denon (as of recent) is when they don't make a direct replacement model in terms of power/performance within a series, they don't continue to increment the model structure the same way (ie. the AVR-4308CI is NOT a direct replacement for the more powerful AVR-4806CI, nor is the 5308CI a direct replacement for the more powerful AVR-5805CI). They could have easily labeled those models as AVR-4808CI, and AVR-5808CI and called it a day. Kudo's for Denon for making it a bit more obvious than some of the other brands.