The Perfect Receiver ... Marantz SR7005, Yamaha RX-A2020 ... or is Denon 4311ci the best??

[AcuDefTechGuy]

In the analog domain too

Well..................I didn't want to brag and all.

 

[3db]

Well..................I didn't want to brag and all.

too funny

 

[bizmord]

I guess you found your perfect receiver then I presume you will be sticking with the 3900

I watched an old movie yesterday "Trading Places" in bluray .... sound was horrible. Dialog was too low and then when music or sound effects come in, it would be too loud. I wish I'd be able to quickly hook up the Denon 4311 and see if it would handle this old movie sound better.

The only thing that kept me calm is that I know how awesome dialog is in new bluray movies I tested this Yamaha 3900 with. I did play with Dynamic DRC and it did absolutely nothing ... I think it works only for truehd movies. I am just curious if Denon 4311 would handle bad recorded sound better than Yamaha did. I still have the 4311 at home in a box. I may just do a quick test to see if it would do better with the oldie movies.

For me the perfect receiver is one that fills my room with sound competently, has the switching and connectivity I need to use my components and the most popular AV decoding schemes. It should be reliable and affordable. I don't want to pay for things I don't need or use just because they are cool. I'm not that fussy I guess. It seems unnecessary to spend more than $600 on a receiver in this day and age unless the buyer needs something really unusual that I don't need. I'd rather spend the money on the TV screen and speakers which matter infinitely more to me. I currently use a 6 year old receiver that has separate inputs for XM and Sirius radio. Never used them. XM is now obselete. My receiver doesn't connect to the internet. I don't care. It only has 4 HDMI inputs. That's enough for me. It has some entertaining features like phase control. Never wanted it. Never used it. never even understood it. It has a 100 page manual. Haven't read it. In other words, the perfect receiver for me is the whatever is currently running reliably in my system. If I had to replace one, I'm positive I wouldn't spend over $600. I might choose one of the brands in the OP, but certainly not those models.

I wish I was like you. My life would be so much easier.
I hear what you're saying and for a person who is not tooo paranoid on sound, your approach works great. However, after testing 4-5 different receivers in different price ranges, I did notice a difference in clarity, bass management, dialog control, etc, etc. Are these huge factors? For some are and for some not.

When you have awesome speakers that are able to produce greatness, you feel bad shorting on the last component (receiver) and not get that maximum sound quality you know your speakers can produce. If on the other hand your speakers are $400 for a pair of towers, well then maybe giving them a $3,000 receiver won't give you any improvement over a $600 receiver.

 

[slipperybidness]

I watched an old movie yesterday "Trading Places" in bluray .... sound was horrible. Dialog was too low and then when music or sound effects come in, it would be too loud. I wish I'd be able to quickly hook up the Denon 4311 and see if it would handle this old movie sound better.

The only thing that kept me calm is that I know how awesome dialog is in new bluray movies I tested this Yamaha 3900 with. I did play with Dynamic DRC and it did absolutely nothing ... I think it works only for truehd movies. I am just curious if Denon 4311 would handle bad recorded sound better than Yamaha did. I still have the 4311 at home in a box. I may just do a quick test to see if it would do better with the oldie movies.




I wish I was like you. My life would be so much easier.
I hear what you're saying and for a person who is not tooo paranoid on sound, your approach works great. However, after testing 4-5 different receivers in different price ranges, I did notice a difference in clarity, bass management, dialog control, etc, etc. Are these huge factors? For some are and for some not.

When you have awesome speakers that are able to produce greatness, you feel bad shorting on the last component (receiver) and not get that maximum sound quality you know your speakers can produce. If on the other hand your speakers are $400 for a pair of towers, well then maybe giving them a $3,000 receiver won't give you any improvement over a $600 receiver.

I think you still seem to be missing the point that some people have tried to make. If you do comparisons in pure direct mode (ie absolutely no signal processing), then you will likely find that all these receivers you are auditioning will sound more similar than different.

You aren't exactly comparing receiver hardware, but rather signal processing capabilities. Of course, in the end it is ultimate sound quality and experience that matters and that might include signal processing capabilities in the equation.

For example, in my living room rig I prefer pure direct 2.1 for music and use the RC for movies ONLY. On music, the RC just seems to suck the life out of the recording.

 

[little wing]

I think you still seem to be missing the point that some people have tried to make. If you do comparisons in pure direct mode (ie absolutely no signal processing), then you will likely find that all these receivers you are auditioning will sound more similar than different.

You aren't exactly comparing receiver hardware, but rather signal processing capabilities. Of course, in the end it is ultimate sound quality and experience that matters and that might include signal processing capabilities in the equation.

For example, in my living room rig I prefer pure direct 2.1 for music and use the RC for movies ONLY. On music, the RC just seems to suck the life out of the recording.

I know the consensus on this forum is that there is no difference in sound between receivers when using pure direct mode. And that probably is true. But, the issue for me at least, and I suspect a few other people, is that, how often do you use pure direct mode? I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't use it often. It makes a lot of recordings sound kind of anemic (for lack of a better word). The sound is very clear and detailed, but there is not much fullness to it. I use it occasionally for bass heavy music, or just to play around with the sound a bit, when I am listening to music. Also, I can't engage pure direct with anything accept an analog signal. So cable TV and blue ray are out. I realize no sub out-put for pure direct is a limitation on my particular receiver. But my point is, I like a little processing most times. And that, to me is where receivers do sound different. This is the processing I use most ( Straight, 2-channel stereo, DPLII movies and music, and sometimes 7-channel stereo, when I am cleaning or exercising

 

[3db]

I know the consensus on this forum is that there is no difference in sound between receivers when using pure direct mode. And that probably is true. But, the issue for me at least, and I suspect a few other people, is that, how often do you use pure direct mode? I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't use it often.

My AVR is used for both home theater and 2 channel listening. When listening to two channel, aka vinyl or CD, I use pure direct ONLY as I want to run my PSB speakers full range. Its a personal thing I know and we all have our preferences. A lot more people use pure direct than one would initially think.

 

[panteragstk]

I can't use anything other than pure direct for music or it just makes it sound terrible. Movies will use RC and everything else and they sound great. The OP doesn't really understand that the way a receiver is set up will DRASTICALLY alter the way it sounds. I could take a single receiver and make it sound 15 different ways just be changing the settings around, and most of those ways would be terrible. A properly configured receiver or processor should (should is the keyword) sound similar if not the same. DSP of any kind will alter the sound whether it be a THX, Dolby, or DTS DSP mode. All off them process things in their own way and everyone has their own preference about how they sound. I prefer Dolby Pro Logic IIx for movies, but Pure direct for 2ch. Straight decode works well for movies as well. I can guarantee that some people wouldn't like the way my system sounds while others would love it.

If you want more insight into why those receivers sound different from one another we would need a very detailed list of all your settings to be able to tell you why it's happening. Maybe the Yammy's are putting the center 2db hotter than the others hence the "clarity". Maybe not. You can't just say "this one sounds better" without details or it is a worthless comparison.

 

[bizmord]

I can't use anything other than pure direct for music or it just makes it sound terrible. Movies will use RC and everything else and they sound great. The OP doesn't really understand that the way a receiver is set up will DRASTICALLY alter the way it sounds. I could take a single receiver and make it sound 15 different ways just be changing the settings around, and most of those ways would be terrible. A properly configured receiver or processor should (should is the keyword) sound similar if not the same. DSP of any kind will alter the sound whether it be a THX, Dolby, or DTS DSP mode. All off them process things in their own way and everyone has their own preference about how they sound. I prefer Dolby Pro Logic IIx for movies, but Pure direct for 2ch. Straight decode works well for movies as well. I can guarantee that some people wouldn't like the way my system sounds while others would love it.

If you want more insight into why those receivers sound different from one another we would need a very detailed list of all your settings to be able to tell you why it's happening. Maybe the Yammy's are putting the center 2db hotter than the others hence the "clarity". Maybe not. You can't just say "this one sounds better" without details or it is a worthless comparison.

How do you know if I understand or not that receivers sound different based on settings? I do understand it and before reporting on sound I play around with settings and tweak things to try to optimize the sound to the best of my abilities.

That's quite an arrogant assumption.

Or are you a bit angry with me because I poo pooed on set ups that use cheap speakers?

 

[panteragstk]

How do you know if I understand or not that receivers sound different based on settings? I do understand it and before reporting on sound I play around with settings and tweak things to try to optimize the sound to the best of my abilities.

That's quite an arrogant assumption.

Or are you a bit angry with me because I poo pooed on set ups that use cheap speakers?

Maybe read more completely. It's not that I don't think you understand, it's that you don't seem to realize that it may not be the actual hardware that is altering the sound, but the huge assortment of settings that could be the difference. It just seems like you are putting a lot of effort into this without a strict way of testing the equipment. That's why I said the results are worthless. If you have a strict way of performing your tests, you should tell us so we can all benefit from know the differences in the way your receivers are working.

Also, the cost of equipment is irrelevant. How it is set up is vastly more important (which is why we want to know what you've done in the setup). I like to use a golf analogy in cases like this. If you are an amature, $4000 set of clubs won't make you play any better than a $250 set. Same with all other equipment. How you use it is more important that the cost.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I use Pure Direct 2.1 for 2Ch music and Pure Direct 5.1 for movies 100% of the time, even for karaoke.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It makes a lot of recordings sound kind of anemic

Because Pure Direct doesn't have bass/LFE/Subwoofer output ?

 

[panteragstk]

I use Pure Direct 2.1 for 2Ch music and Pure Direct 5.1 for movies 100% of the time, even for karaoke.

That brings up an interesting question. Since you don't like any for of RC, how do you do your calibration? I use spl meter and measure distance. Any more to it than that for you? I've tried PD for 5.1, but it seemed to be "missing" something on my 809.

 

[slipperybidness]

Because Pure Direct doesn't have bass/LFE/Subwoofer output ?

One way around this would be to use the full-range L/R pre-outs and use the subs built in crossover.

 

[little wing]

Because Pure Direct doesn't have bass/LFE/Subwoofer output ?

Yes, I am sure sub out-put would help

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes, I am sure sub out-put would help

Yes, it would. That's why PD 2.1 (PD w/ Sub output) is really great for me.

You could do what slipperybidness recommended (much more economical), or just try a Denon/Marantz the NEXT time you are in the market for an AVR. I would not recommend wasting money on new gears just because of this feature. Would not be prudent.

Turing over a new leaf now. More judicious spending.

No more frivolous spending.

What's happening to me?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That brings up an interesting question. Since you don't like any for of RC, how do you do your calibration? I use spl meter and measure distance. Any more to it than that for you? I've tried PD for 5.1, but it seemed to be "missing" something on my 809.

Yes, good old fashion SPL meter to level match all speakers and subs from listening position. Pure and simple as that.

The best things in life are free, pure, and simple, right?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

One way around this would be to use the full-range L/R pre-outs and use the subs built in crossover.

That's exactly what I did for a long time back in the days when I had my NHT speakers and sub - before I knew that "Pure Direct 2.1" was possible. It worked fabulously.

Denon/Marantz seems to be the ONLY one who understood this little desire and effectuated.

 

[slipperybidness]

That's exactly what I did for a long time back in the days when I had my NHT speakers and sub - before I knew that "Pure Direct 2.1" was possible. It worked fabulously.

Denon/Marantz seems to be the ONLY one who understood this little desire and effectuated.

Another way around this is getting full range speakers with built in subs. i.e. DT of GE

 

[little wing]

Yes, it would. That's why PD 2.1 (PD w/ Sub output) is really great for me.

You could do what slipperybidness recommended (much more economical), or just try a Denon/Marantz the NEXT time you are in the market for an AVR. I would not recommend wasting money on new gears just because of this feature. Would not be prudent.

Turing over a new leaf now. More judicious spending.

No more frivolous spending.

What's happening to me?

In the immortal words of Tony Montana "I gotta hand it to you, You have everything a man could want" (in terms of audio equipment)

I am looking at the Marantz 7008 as my next receiver. If I don't go the seperates route.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Another way around this is getting full range speakers with built in subs. i.e. DT of GE

Alright. What's going on here. That was my next progression when I changed from NHT to DefTech BP7000SC.

Those BP7000 had 14" built-in subs that shook my room like a rag doll.

Oh, the nostalgia!

I loved those BP7000SC, until I was subsequently corrupted by all the DefTech bashers.