2011 $2000 A/V Receiver Comparison Guide

[gene]

Can you explain what the power consumption label on the back of a receiver indicates? Is it not the maximum power that the device can use?

The last page of this article discusses what the power# on the back of a receiver really means

Receiver Impedance Switch

 

[smurphy522]

wow alot of misinformation here. I suggest reading this article to help clear some things up:

The All Channels Driven Test

Gene,
I was only pointing out that what is specified/claimed in the manuals does not seem to add up. As well as being grossly different from each Manuf. Thanks for pointing me to your "ACD" article which I did read back in October but obviously need to polish up on. I do realize that 90% is the absolute best efficiency you can get coming from a switching D-class amp. However I don't believe that any of these 3 use that technology.

Thanks I don't want to get off topic.



"I would have written less but I didn't have the time."

 

[rushwj]

nice little summary there Tom. however, i think there are a few differences b/w the onkyo and the integra worth mentioning as you actually drew attention to some of them - the integra has a powered third zone, and a fourth zone (can't remember if it's powered or not, i thought not, but i could be wrong) and it actually has "hdmi standby 'thru' mode", which you commented on in your lead-in. Additionally, the denon only has audyssey XT, but the integra and onkyo are xt32. but, you are correct, for the most-part, a very similar feature set. personally, i went with the integra for the higher build quality and potential increase in better quality parts (just viewing and handling the binding posts in person was a real difference for me).

also, i agree that all are very quality receivers and sound fantastic - just different flavors of a similar theme.

 

[Cruise Missile]

The 4311ci does in fact have xt32. Big deciding factor for us when we bought ours.

 

[jay21112]

Two things needed in AVR Comparison articles

Hi,
There were two categories missing from the article that are very important to me, and may possibly be to others as well. I don't think many people have realized this difference yet, but I think as more people upgrade to 11.2 surround sound it will be very important.

1.) Before, for the most part, everyone placed their speakers the same way with 5.1 or 7.1 systems. With 11.1, there are two big variations that I see.
11.1 with front and back presence
11.1 with front presence and front wide.

Because these two setups require very different speaker placement, someone who setup their theater one way (me), may be unwilling to switch to another setup. I'd like manufacturers and comparison articles to start explaining just what THEIR 11.1 setup means. From what I've been able to surmise, Yamaha is the only one with front and back presence and everyone else does front presence and front wide.

2.) Now with 9.2 or 11.2 there is another differentiation happening. Again, I believe Yamaha is the only company which separates both sub channels, so you can specify left and right or front and back subs. In truth an AVR with two sub output channels which can't be differentiated should still be called 9.1 or 11.1 in my book, because they aren't separate channels. But I THINK both Onkyo and Denon boast 9.2 or 11.2 even though the two sub outputs are the same channel.

So I'd love manufacturers and comparison articles to start specifying if 9.2 (or 9.3 or 9.9) are different outputs or are just the same channel.


I'm just tired of having to wait until a new AVR makes their owners manual available online to see if even though the AVR lists 11.2 surround sound....if that 11.2 surround sound is MY 11.2 surround sound. And even after reading the owners manuals, sometimes I'm still not 100% sure...

 

[jerrydf]

phono inputs

I enjoy listening to vinyl records but less and less receivers have a phono input. Do these receivers have phono inputs?

 

[3db]

I enjoy listening to vinyl records but less and less receivers have a phono input. Do these receivers have phono inputs?

They both do. I have an older RX-V1800 with a built in phono stage and it does sound really sweet.

 

[Cruise Missile]

But I THINK both Onkyo and Denon boast 9.2 or 11.2 even though the two sub outputs are the same channel.

Both the Onkyo and the Denon have Audyssey Multeq XT32. XT32 eq's both subs seperate and then eq's them together to reduce modal problems in room. It's stunningly good at it too. It's the same as the stand alone sub eq from SVS/Audyssey that costs $700 but added to the sub outs.

That's a far cry from just being a glorified splitter.

I am failing to grasp why being able to rename an output makes it anything other than the same signal being split into two outputs with independent trims....

Other than this one point I agree with the rest of what you're saying.

 

[highfigh]

That may be important to many in this price/feature category. I can confirm that having to run additional analog cables (for those sources that have them) is
not all that bad but labeling and getting them figured out is a pain for my second zone.

Does anyone know if the YPAO does subwoofer calibration? There is very little information, even from Yamaha on this technology.

Labeling and bundling cables is easy if you connect one source at a time.

AFAIK, Audussey XT/XT32 and Pro are the only ones that correct for subwoofers.

 

[jay21112]

Both the Onkyo and the Denon have Audyssey Multeq XT32. XT32 eq's both subs seperate and then eq's them together to reduce modal problems in room. It's stunningly good at it too. It's the same as the stand alone sub eq from SVS/Audyssey that costs $700 but added to the sub outs.

That's a far cry from just being a glorified splitter.

I am failing to grasp why being able to rename an output makes it anything other than the same signal being split into two outputs with independent trims....

Other than this one point I agree with the rest of what you're saying.

To my knowledge the Yamaha lets you distinguish Front and Rear or Left and Right subs. It doesn't just rename the output, it changes the LFE signal sent to that output. So that the LFE signal from the left speakers comes out the left sub and the LFE signal from the right speakers comes out the right sub, or vice versa for front and back.

Not sure how much actual difference it makes, but to me that's true 9.2 or 11.2.

 

[Cruise Missile]

There is only one LFE signal and it's mono. There are no left, right, front, or back LFE signals on any consumer disc available. The LFE is only recorded for the subs and not the other channels. There is no LFE info for any other speaker. There can be, and often is, bass info on the other channels.

The implementation of multiple subs is to smooth freq. response and provide dynamic headroom. Theses are the only reasons for multiple subs.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the facts.

 

[jay21112]

There is only one LFE signal and it's mono. There are no left, right, front, or back LFE signals on any consumer disc available. The LFE is only recorded for the subs and not the other channels. There is no LFE info for any other speaker. There can be, and often is, bass info on the other channels.

The implementation of multiple subs is to smooth freq. response and provide dynamic headroom. Theses are the only reasons for multiple subs.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just the facts.

To my knowledge there is no information recorded on discs for front presence, rear presence, or front width channels either. The AVR's themselves determine what signals should be processed to those speakers.

....But I may be mixing up terminology here, and causing a miscommunication. What I'm trying to say is that you specify a crossover frequency for your speakers at which all information under it goes to the subs (typically 80 Hz for THX). Well, with a true front / back or left / right sub setup whatever information under 80 Hz comes from the left or right....or front or back speakers only would go to the corresponding sub.

Does that sound like it makes sense? (Again, I don't own the receiver, this is just what I'm gathering from reading the user's manual online).

And if you wanted to smooth out bass response with a front / back sub setup I suppose you could put as many subs as you wanted across the width of the front of the room and designate as front, and along the back of the room and designate as rear, and similar for left and right - just lengthwise along the opposing walls.

 

[Cruise Missile]

I understand what you saying.

There are some receivers that let you send info from below the crossovers to one sub and the LFE to another. This is useful for things like setting up butt-kickers for just movies, as the LFE output wouldn't have any of the bass management info from the other speakers. This way the butt-kickers wouldn't run with music or TV.

Bass is non-directional to most people and this seems to be a wasted feature.

Also, I don't run presence speakers either. I've never met a dsp I liked yet.

 

[highfigh]

One thing seems to be forgotten, or ignored. LFE stands for "Low Frequency Effect" and generally, there's not much happening there- LFE is 25Hz and below. That's why most systems should have the bass management set to LFE+Main, especially with speakers that can't produce low frequencies well.

 

[Cruise Missile]

One thing seems to be forgotten, or ignored. LFE stands for "Low Frequency Effect" and generally, there's not much happening there- LFE is 25Hz and below. That's why most systems should have the bass management set to LFE+Main, especially with speakers that can't produce low frequencies well.

Okay this made me do a bit of research and this is what I found.

LFE content is from 120hz and down.

In a properly implemented bass management system the bass from all channels set as "small" is redirected to the subs. The crossover determines the point that this starts to occur. This happens with the "LFE" setting for the bass management selected.

Now if the speakers are set to "large" then "LFE+Main" may be desirable for the reason you stated. This is also referred to as "double bass".

IMHO this is not ideal because the subs are designed to handle bass better than most speakers. Running any speaker as "large" put a great deal of load on the amplifier that could be delegated to the subs.
Setting the speakers as "small" and implementing a crossover makes it easier for the amp on that channel to provide plenty of clean power to the portion it's handling.

 

[dschiller]

What is the significance (if any) of the difference in power consumption at full rated output? Is the fact that Yamaha is "only" 490W a cause for concern (e.g., that it doesn't really have the power that the "per channel" rating suggests)? Or conversely does a lower power consumption here just mean that the receiver is more energy efficient?

 

[3db]

One thing seems to be forgotten, or ignored. LFE stands for "Low Frequency Effect" and generally, there's not much happening there- LFE is 25Hz and below. That's why most systems should have the bass management set to LFE+Main, especially with speakers that can't produce low frequencies well.

I thought all bass from all channels were sent to the sub out espscially when all coorespondong speakers were set to small. I would only use sub+main for two channel.

 

[highfigh]

I thought all bass from all channels were sent to the sub out espscially when all coorespondong speakers were set to small. I would only use sub+main for two channel.

If it's set to LFE + Main, yes. Otherwise, not much is sent to the sub. If you compare the sound when set to Large vs Small, you can decide which is better. I know it's recommended that speakers should be set to Small, but in many cases, I prefer and have measured better response with most speakers with the receiver set to Large.

 

[gmichael]

My mains have built in powered woofers. I set the mains to small and then use a second output from the BFD to send LFE to the powered woofers. This way my amp gets a break and my mains are still in the mix. I do turn them down a little though to let the sub handle most of the heavy lifting.

 

[3db]

If it's set to LFE + Main, yes. Otherwise, not much is sent to the sub. If you compare the sound when set to Large vs Small, you can decide which is better. I know it's recommended that speakers should be set to Small, but in many cases, I prefer and have measured better response with most speakers with the receiver set to Large.

From this link below, my understanding is that the LFE is a seperate channel on to itself carrying only bass frequencies and this bass is sent to the sub via sub out. By setting all speakers to small, any bass in any other channel including the mains is also sent to the sub via the sub out in addition to the LFE information that is already being sent out.

http://audiodesignlabs.com/wordpress/2008/07/confusion-lfe-subwoofer-bass-management/#more-21