Best $1000 (or cheaper) Musical Receiver (Pre/Amp)?

[Stump909]

I'm the new owner of 3 Sierra-1 NRT's. I got them at a steal, but I'm worried I'll waste their potential. While music only makes up about 20-30% of my listening, I'm a huge sucker for film and television scores/soundtracks. Output/power/loudness or whatever you want to call it easily comes behind detail, resolution, and soundstage for me. My setup will be in a average size apartment living room, so I don't want to get disturbingly loud. I do, however, want to be immersed in pristine sound that will amaze me time and time again.

I fear audiophile snake-oil. Not since browsing a voodoo shop in New Orleans have I seen so much mystical nonsense surround an industry. Placebo affect seems to have a strong impact on a large amount of audiophiles. I've looked at a few receiver reviews, but its really hard to tell what needs to be taken with a grain of salt and what doesn't. For instance, there are many people who claim Marantz and Denon sound the exact same. They're both technically Denon, so why shouldn't they? However, a specific website that reviewed comparable offerings from the two brands clearly gave the victory to Marantz.

Then there's the Pro/Amp group. The new Emotiva offerings are very tempting, but have the benefits of such a system really been documented or is more talk from the easily fooled? Currently I'm looking at the Denon 3312, Marantz 5007, and Emotiva UMC-200+amp. Are there real differences between these setups? Do the price jumps justify the possible benefits? Are there better ones for the price range? I need help.

 

[PENG]

I fear audiophile snake-oil. Not since browsing a voodoo shop in New Orleans have I seen so much mystical nonsense surround an industry.

As long as you are aware of their existence, you should be safe.

Placebo affect seems to have a strong impact on a large amount of audiophiles.

Seems? Or factual?

I've looked at a few receiver reviews, but its really hard to tell what needs to be taken with a grain of salt and what doesn't.

I would say everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

or instance, there are many people who claim Marantz and Denon sound the exact same.

I bet if they are comparing apple to apple (such as the 3312 vs 6007 or even 7007), they are likely correct in their claims.

They're both technically Denon, so why shouldn't they?

Not totally true, there are differences, not long ago they were two different companies.

However, a specific website that reviewed comparable offerings from the two brands clearly gave the victory to Marantz.

Its like stock analysts, they go with hearsays, keep making after the fact kind of comments and are quite influenced by Placebo. Marantz has a long history of making audiophile class amps, established themselves as an Audio first kind of manufacturers, so those reviewers had to say they sound better. I would definitely take those reviews with a grain of salt. If you swap the guts of the two they are going to review, they would still give the "victory" to Marantz, I mean the box, with the Denon guts in it. Though I am just guessing, obviously.

Currently I'm looking at the Denon 3312, Marantz 5007, and Emotiva UMC-200+amp. Are there real differences between these setups? Do the price jumps justify the possible benefits? Are there better ones for the price range? I need help.

Not sure about the Emo, the 3312 should be one notch above the 5007. In terms of features and specs, I would guess Onkyo does offer "better" ones for the price range, but then there seem to be more claims of reliability issues. It seems to me the 3312 is a safe bet.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

In direct mode (bypassing room EQ/ DSP) there should be no significant difference in sound quality.

My Denon 3312 does a great job in 2.0 powering my 4ohm/ 85dB sensitive Phil3 towers to clean loud music. It measures 225wpc x 2ch into 4ohms @ 1% THD.

All you really need is 100wpc. I do think power requirement is overrated. As far as measurements (SNR, Crosstalk, THD) they are all about the same.

 

[ImcLoud]

I say start with a decent avr then do the free ttrial of an emotiva amp and see for yourself, if you dont like it, no harm done return the amp... I like the sound of separates, and I like the reliability of the amp/pro systems, since I have had my share of avr problems when pushed to their limits.. What is going to be built better, a 40lb avr that performs all the tasks of a processor and amplifier, or a 100lb amplifier and a separate processor? they arent filling them with lead thats for sure... Its heavier duty separate components overbuilt for reliability and strength...

 

[3db]

How large is your listening area and hwo loud do you intend to drive them?

A competently designed AVR midline and up from the major reciever manufacturers( stay away from all the bottom line AVRs from all the brands) will serve you very well unless you afre trying to fill an overly large room with high volume and low efficieny speakers. I have two AVRs on the go, a Technics SA DX930 which is over 10 years old (which drove an entire suite of PSB Image speakers with a nominal impedance of 6 ohms and shows no sign of giving up any time soon and a Yamaha RXV-1800 which has taken over the duty of driving the PSBs for the last 5 years without strain or fuss and is still going strong. Good ventilation of AVRs is the trick and you should be able to keep them running for many many years.

 

[Stump909]

In direct mode (bypassing room EQ/ DSP) there should be no significant difference in sound quality.

My Denon 3312 does a great job in 2.0 powering my 4ohm/ 85dB sensitive Phil3 towers to clean loud music. It measures 225wpc x 2ch into 4ohms @ 1% THD.

All you really need is 100wpc. I do think power requirement is overrated. As far as measurements (SNR, Crosstalk, THD) they are all about the same.

I do notice an improvement in direct mode with my current AVR in terms of clarity, but I would like the added benefit of Audyssey or a similar EQ without a loss in quality. Is that impossible? Do they do much beyond adjusting the SPL at a range of frequencies? I know the Emotiva has an auto-EQ, but apparently you can adjust beyond the auto-corrections (with a meter of course).

As for 100WPC, any reason you selected this number? The Emotiva meets that requirement but the separate I'm looking at is only 80WPC. I know manufacturers take a lot of liberties with that number, but 80 should be enough for a speaker rated 55-200 watts correct?

 

[Stump909]

I say start with a decent avr then do the free ttrial of an emotiva amp and see for yourself, if you dont like it, no harm done return the amp... I like the sound of separates, and I like the reliability of the amp/pro systems, since I have had my share of avr problems when pushed to their limits.. What is going to be built better, a 40lb avr that performs all the tasks of a processor and amplifier, or a 100lb amplifier and a separate processor? they arent filling them with lead thats for sure... Its heavier duty separate components overbuilt for reliability and strength...

I agree the quality of the components is probably of a higher grade, but with so many years backing the technology, shouldn't reliability be well managed at this point? What part of the sound stands out to you the most with separates? Is there less manipulation of the signal with separates?

 

[Stump909]

How large is your listening area and hwo loud do you intend to drive them?

A competently designed AVR midline and up from the major reciever manufacturers( stay away from all the bottom line AVRs from all the brands) will serve you very well unless you afre trying to fill an overly large room with high volume and low efficieny speakers. I have two AVRs on the go, a Technics SA DX930 which is over 10 years old (which drove an entire suite of PSB Image speakers with a nominal impedance of 6 ohms and shows no sign of giving up any time soon and a Yamaha RXV-1800 which has taken over the duty of driving the PSBs for the last 5 years without strain or fuss and is still going strong. Good ventilation of AVRs is the trick and you should be able to keep them running for many many years.

Just under 1200 cubic feet. It's an apartment living room, so I'm not trying to get extremely loud (just loud enough so detail shines ). The Sierra's are fairly efficient based on the measurements I've read. If I were to take volume out of the equation, would a higher end AVR or separates still have an added benefit?

 

[Stump909]

I bet if they are comparing apple to apple (such as the 3312 vs 6007 or even 7007), they are likely correct in their claims.



Not totally true, there are differences, not long ago they were two different companies.

So do any of the differences relate to sound quality?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I do notice an improvement in direct mode with my current AVR in terms of clarity...

I think 80wpc is also just as good. I say 100wpc because most mid price AVRs have 100wpc or more.

Some people say RC (Audyssey & others) is good, some people say it does nothing for them. I also think bypassing RC gives me the clearest sound. Thus I never use RC or any EQ/ DSP.

Crystal Clarity is the most important thing to me when it comes to music & movies.

When people (HTM, SVS, Stereophile, etc) measure the AVR/ pre-pros, they measure in Direct Mode, not in Audyssey or EQ mode because Direct Mode gives them the best measurements.

When you compare in Direct Mode, the sound will be about the same with most AVR/ pre-pro if level matched. But when you compare with EQ, all bets are off.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just under 1200 cubic feet. It's an apartment living room, so I'm not trying to get extremely loud (just loud enough so detail shines ). The Sierra's are fairly efficient based on the measurements I've read. If I were to take volume out of the equation, would a higher end AVR or separates still have an added benefit?

The key is how far you listen (distance from the speakers) and volume from that distance. For most of us, 90-95dB is more than we will ever listen to. So most AVR, like the Denon 3312, will be able to power most speakers. 80wpc of real power (measured 20Hz-20kHz @ < 0.1% THD) should do the job.

I can play 95dB from 20ft distance just fine with my Denon 3312 + Phil3 speakers in 2.0 Direct mode.

 

[Stump909]

When you compare in Direct Mode, the sound will be about the same with most AVR/ pre-pro if level matched. But when you compare with EQ, all bets are off.

Sadly that's what I've read and it's a major part of my dilemma. 2.0 listening is quite rare for me since I prefer bass management. I would like RC/EQ on, but not at the expense of clarity. My only hope is that Marantz or Emotiva offerings (being marketed as "audiophile") take the necessary steps to minimize signal degradation when EQ is enabled. It's a hope, and a hope based on nothing...

Does the DAC have anything to do with the apparent quality loss? Would there be any way of finding out the quality (or cost) of the DAC in various recievers/pro's?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Sadly that's what I've read and it's a major part of my dilemma. 2.0 listening is quite rare for me since I prefer bass management. I would like RC/EQ on, but not at the expense of clarity. My only hope is that Marantz or Emotiva offerings (being marketed as "audiophile") take the necessary steps to minimize signal degradation when EQ is enabled. It's a hope, and a hope based on nothing...

Does the DAC have anything to do with the apparent quality loss? Would there be any way of finding out the quality (or cost) of the DAC in various recievers/pro's?

Well, I said "2.0", but I mean 2.1 & discrete 5.1 as well. The key is discrete 5.1 (SACD, DVD-A, DD, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HD).

I listen to Stereo 2.2, not 2.0, but I turn off all EQ (including Audyssey). However I have tried 2.0 as well.

DAC has very little to do with it. I would say DAC is a total non-issue.

 

[Stump909]

Well, I said "2.0", but I mean 2.1 & discrete 5.1 as well. The key is discrete 5.1 (SACD, DVD-A, DD, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HD).

I listen to Stereo 2.2, not 2.0, but I turn off all EQ (including Audyssey). However I have tried 2.0 as well.

DAC has very little to do with it. I would say DAC is a total non-issue.

Hmmm, does your direct mode utilize bass management or are you handling that yourself? I'm 90% sure direct mode on my mid-range Yamaha disabled my subwoofer...

 

[3db]

Just under 1200 cubic feet. It's an apartment living room, so I'm not trying to get extremely loud (just loud enough so detail shines ). The Sierra's are fairly efficient based on the measurements I've read. If I were to take volume out of the equation, would a higher end AVR or separates still have an added benefit?

An AVR will more than adequately fulfill your sound needs. Furthermore, the components used in AVRs are of good quality and should serve you well. Both my AVRs were/are getting used quite hard and are stuill going wihout any glitches..a testimony to quality components. Getting an additional power am at this point doesn't buy you anymore reliability nor sound quality. You are well with in an AVRs design goals.
Higher end AVRs will give you more power but you will not gain any additional benefits given your speakers and room size. What higher end AVRs will give you are added features such as network connectivity, multichannel outs that allow you to front-end a power amp in the case you move to a much bigger room and or difficult to drive speakers, etc.

 

[3db]

Pure direct mode does disable bass management facilities on an AVR. It does on my Yamaha as well.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hmmm, does your direct mode utilize bass management or are you handling that yourself? I'm 90% sure direct mode on my mid-range Yamaha disabled my subwoofer...

Yes, Direct Mode disables the subwoofer for use of Full Range speakers.

I use Stereo Mode, but I turn off Audyssey (RC) and all EQs. Stereo mode allows Bass Management.

So by bypassing RC/EQ/DSP, Stereo Mode is almost like Direct Mode with full bass management. I really cannot tell any difference in sound quality between Stereo vs Direct as long as all RC/EQ/DSP are bypassed (turned off).

 

[Stump909]

Thanks for your help fellas. As of now, I'm leaning towards a refurbed Marantz 5006 for $499...the 5007 is out of stock and the only benefit I can note is 4K upconversion (not needed) and a color GUI. I'm hoping the "audiophile" label of the Marantz puts it a half-step above a comparable Denon.

 

[3db]

Thanks for your help fellas. As of now, I'm leaning towards a refurbed Marantz 5006 for $499...the 5007 is out of stock and the only benefit I can note is 4K upconversion (not needed) and a color GUI. I'm hoping the "audiophile" label of the Marantz puts it a half-step above a comparable Denon.

The only thing the audiophile label gives you is added cost.

 

[PENG]

So do any of the differences relate to sound quality?

Not in pure direct mode but with EQ you could probably hear some differences. I mostly refer to the difference in features and gadgets. For example, Marantz has MDAX, Denon has "Restorer" and AL24/32 etc., that they claim can enhance lower qualtiy audio such as MP3.