$2,500 Recommended 5.1 Surround Sound System

[3db]

We offered good non Class D amp receiver alternatives to the Emotiva Separates. You really need to move on. Your opinion has been stated many times and I'm tired of hearing it. IF you want to suggest alternative $2500 systems do it in another thread. You're also welcome to start your own website and produce content that I can come in and criticize

No worries.

 

[Steve81]

Can't help but think of this:

Some thoughts and musings about making things for the web - The Oatmeal

 

[avnetguy]

Looks like a pretty good $2500 system to me. I haven't heard the Pioneer speakers so I can't comment on how they sound but buyers should always audition first anyways.

As others have mentioned, lots of alternatives here and so many directions to go but it is nice to have a "suggested" system tested for good solid operation.

Personally I do agree with many here that a mid-level and up AVR unit (with full preouts) would better suit most in this price range. If indeed the speakers benefit from a more solid amp output one could either move up the AVR line or stick with the mid-level and use a 2-3 channel amp for the front speakers.

Steve

 

[gtpsuper24]

We need to see a new blind test from Audioholics covering this topic of amps/separates vs. receivers.

Set it up similar to the last $1000 tower shootout. Use a budget receiver ($200-400) Mid level ($600-900) Mid level separates (XMC1-XPA5) High End separates (NAD Master or Anthem Statements maybe?) and Uber High End. Just a rough idea.

This debate keeps coming up almost everyday here, AVS and a few others. Should they go with $5000 on speakers and use a $1,000 receiver or go with $2500 speakers and $2500-3000 on separates with power amps? Always two groups one who believes that amps sound better than receivers and the other camp that believes there is no difference between a receiver vs amps.

So we really don't offer any help to the person who is asking the question. They don't get an answer other than just even more confused about what to do. This article could be a big help and a guideline for future reference.

 

[gene]

We need to see a new blind test from Audioholics covering this topic of amps/separates vs. receivers.

Set it up similar to the last $1000 tower shootout. Use a budget receiver ($200-400) Mid level ($600-900) Mid level separates (XMC1-XPA5) High End separates (NAD Master or Anthem Statements maybe?) and Uber High End. Just a rough idea.

This debate keeps coming up almost everyday here, AVS and a few others. Should they go with $5000 on speakers and use a $1,000 receiver or go with $2500 speakers and $2500-3000 on separates with power amps? Always two groups one who believes that amps sound better than receivers and the other camp that believes there is no difference between a receiver vs amps.

So we really don't offer any help to the person who is asking the question. They don't get an answer other than just even more confused about what to do. This article could be a big help and a guideline for future reference.

A blind test for amplifiers makes no sense. You can very easily level match and switch amps with a switcher without knowing which one you are listening to. No need to do it blind.

For those that think all amps sound the same, I salute them as in the long run it will save them a lot of time and money. I have little desire to change their mindset since they are happy as is. thanks.

 

[Steve81]

Always two groups one who believes that amps sound better than receivers and the other camp that believes there is no difference between a receiver vs amps.

I don't think that any properly informed person believes there are no differences to be had among amplifiers (including those built into receivers). To quote Peter Aczel:

As I have said, and written, innumerable times, any two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, and sufficiently low distortion and noise will sound exactly the same at matched levels if not clipped.

There are a heck of a lot of caveats in that statement, and they are made pertinent by the fact that while we have a good idea of how a lot of equipment will perform into 8 ohm test loads, nobody is really putting amplifiers to the test and measuring how they'd perform in terms of distortion and frequency response into 4 and 2 ohm reactive loads, which is what speakers can actually present. Without that kind of data, I'd say there's some room open for differences to be had. In the end though, everything hinges on the loudspeaker you're using, and what you plan on doing with it.

 

[gene]

I don't think that any properly informed person believes there are no differences to be had among amplifiers (including those built into receivers). To quote Peter Aczel:



There are a heck of a lot of caveats in that statement, and they are made pertinent by the fact that while we have a good idea of how a lot of equipment will perform into 8 ohm test loads, nobody is really putting amplifiers to the test and measuring how they'd perform in terms of distortion and frequency response into 4 and 2 ohm reactive loads, which is what speakers can actually present. Without that kind of data, I'd say there's some room open for differences to be had. In the end though, everything hinges on the loudspeaker you're using, and what you plan on doing with it.

Steve your posts are an absolute treasure, especially the Tip of the Day ones. You're hired. PM me

 

[Steve81]

Steve your posts are an absolute treasure, especially the Tip of the Day ones. You're hired. PM me

Appreciate the recognition Gene

 

[MinusTheBear]

I don't think that any properly informed person believes there are no differences to be had among amplifiers (including those built into receivers). To quote Peter Aczel:



There are a heck of a lot of caveats in that statement, and they are made pertinent by the fact that while we have a good idea of how a lot of equipment will perform into 8 ohm test loads, nobody is really putting amplifiers to the test and measuring how they'd perform in terms of distortion and frequency response into 4 and 2 ohm reactive loads, which is what speakers can actually present. Without that kind of data, I'd say there's some room open for differences to be had. In the end though, everything hinges on the loudspeaker you're using, and what you plan on doing with it.

Exactly! Aczel must also cavaet the speaker the amp is tested on as well. As you mentioned what happens on the bench and the actual reactive load a speaker will present on the amplifier are two different beasts. This is where real world experience with the amp and speaker are important over extended time.

 

[jinjuku]

BTW,

Generally people in the know don't say all amps sound the same. They say that amps are going to be indistinguishable from one another when they represent a flat FR and aren't driven past their limits. Be it impedance, phase angle of the x-over etc...

That puts that statement in a box. It's qualified.

Now amps will sound different when one amp can climb out of that box and another can't.

I still to this day (including $7500 of Classe) haven't heard an amp that made me want to cover the gap. Simply hasn't happened. Hoping it will. Not holding my breath. John Curl and Nelson Pass, while great engineers, are simply better self promoted in a field of great engineers IMO.

I think if you dropped Mr. Pass into the advanced engineering team at Lab Gruppen where they have pioneered things like Digital Look Ahead feedback and even Accelorometer based feedback that is implemented in a servo circuit His head would be spinning.

 

[lesser evil]

For the record, I'm not lesser evil, who first made the statement about each LCR speaker as a percentage of total system cost.

It was just my opinion...
(everybody's got one you know).

My 5.1 system (of 12+ years) includes Elliott's DIY Cabasse MTM speakers (components alone cost me $700+ per LCR unit).
They are driven by a B-stock Nakamichi 100W Class A type Integrated amp (1A-1Z costing me $750+).

The section may demonstrate the opposite extreme.

Maybe I'm over invested in speakers but I'm not inclined to replace them.

(go ahead - take some pot shots - I'm about ready for new amp / pre / pro)

 

[utopianemo]

The article implies that Audioholics reviewed the Pioneer floorstanders. Is a review forthcoming?

 

[agarwalro]

The article implies that Audioholics reviewed the Pioneer floorstanders. Is a review forthcoming?

Yup, also one for the UMC-200 and the Oppo BD player .

 

[cantonguy]

With that kind of budget you need to spend more on speakers and less on pre/pro, blu ray and especially f'ing cables. Taking that money you just blew on cables and putting it toward a higher quality speaker will make a bigger sound quality difference.
I want to add that I do appreciate these articles, even though I may not agree with you. If you didn't write them at all...we wouldn't have anything to argue about. So for that, I say thanks.

 

[africord]

nope the Boston Acoustics line is a very good one and prettier than the Pioneers.

Thanks, Gene. I'm still curious about the other question in my post: Would you build this out differently if you were spending the same amount on a 2.0 or 2.1 system that you would eventually fill in with the center and surrounds with an additional investment of some amount?

 

[norml4721]

The $2500 5.1 system

Hi Guys/Girls :

The pioneer system is an O.K. entry level system for someone who knows very little about audio equipment. The electronics(Emotiva processor and amp.) Would typically be used with much, much better speakers.

I would go by this or rule of thumb 25% to 30% for electrononics and 70 to 75% for speakers. And the 20 to 25% would include cables etc. If you do not have to finance used would be the way to go. There are some incredible deals on line for used equipment. You can find a great Pioneer Elite, Denon, etc etc. receiver for about $400 to $500 used and I am not talking entry level. Seperate electronics are normaly chosen after your 3rd or 4th upgrade.

Then you have about $2000 plus for a great 5.1 speaker system. Do you know what you can get on Ebay or Audiogon for that kind of money. The list is long and the quality is like comparing a Ford Focus to a Mercedes Benz.

I picked up a used Focal( JMLabs) 5.1 speaker system. (A high end French speaker company) for about 35% of its original cost on line. I am not saying anything bad about Pioneer but usually you buy speakers from a speaker company and electronics from an electronics company. There are some exceptions pioneer does make some excellent higher end speakers.

THere are also many audio video forums where you can find help in selecting equipment. Some sites that sell new equipment tend to promote. But most of
forums are very helpful and many of the members are helpful to newbies.

Go to a higher end store just to listen to some quality speakers to know what they sound like then spend time asking questions. Size of your room. Do you listen to more music or movies. Etc Etc.

I am getting long winded. Any way you get the idea.

Good Luck,

Norm L

 

[Ivan S]

Hi everyone!

I bought the Pioneer 5.0 set around two months ago before returning a pair of Sony ss-f7000 which made my teeth grind (for some reason) and the lower frequencies sounded boomy as hell. So far I think the Pioneers are better as they play details I didn't hear before in albums I have heard for years (and they don't make me feel as if I am having a heart attack).

I started with a cheap $260 sony receiver and then moved to the onkyo 616 which I'll be returning in the following days as I bought the Emotiva separates recommended in this article. If I am lucky the Emotiva separates will arrive at least one day before I have to return the Onkyo receiver so I can do a (totally subjective and not sophisticated) listening comparison between the two. Maybe I can give you my impressions later.

I started with a Polk PSW10 sub, but later moved to a Bic F1 that I returned last week as it was very good for movies but inefficient for music (I think it added some distortion to above the 80 hz, sounded 'one-dimensional', and didn't enhance the bass guitar as much as I was expecting). I may not be buying the recommended SVS as I am planning to buy the SVS SB12-NSD instead as the difference in price is not that much. I'll use my system for (rock, metal, jazz, classical) music 70%, movies 30% so that's why I am opting for a sealed sub instead (correct me if I am making a bad decision, please).

So, here are my questions:
Have you heard/measured the ss-f6000 or ss-f7000?
I've found reviews saying that the f6000 have 'an excellent 90-20kHz' frequency response, though no charts as the ones you post in your reviews. I've heard them in a friend's house and they do sound very different from the f7000: no boominess, and the snare and cymbals were very detailed, even more than the pioneers. I haven't had the time to do a thorough audition though, and the audio sources and rooms were different (small apt. with hard floor using a BD-player with CDs for the Pioneers, medium sized apartment with carpet and 96khz 'upscaled' FLAC files for the f6000), but there's something I still don't like about the Sonys: I think they emphasize the snare and cymbals and some section of the lower frequencies just to grab your attention disregarding other details. I may be wrong.

What could be a good step-up from the Pioneers given that one already owns the SB12-NSD and the Emotiva separates?
I know this might happen in 15 years or more but I keep thinking that a lot of people (subjectively, with no audition, as Gene said) complained that the Pioneers were overkill for the electronics.

Thanks a lot for your time!