A/V Processor/Receiver Checklist

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>In order to more objectively gauge the performance and feature set of A/V Receivers and Processors, we have formulated a feature checksheet listing metrics indicated by (*) we deem critical for achieving the highest level or performance and operational flexibility to accommodate all potential user applications as well as “Bonus” features that simply add icing to the cake. With that we have tabulated our most recently reviewed high end and midfi receivers and processors. Except all forth coming reviews of such products to include this tabulated data. If you feel we left off any critical or desired bonus features, please feel free to submit your suggestions to us via email or forum feedback.

A/V Processor / Receiver Checklist</font>

 

[av_phile]

<font color='#000000'>It would be interesting to have a review of the flagship models of Harman Kardon and Rotel AV receivers as well.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I like the idea of the check list, however, it can not give us an indication of sound quality. &nbsp;For example, a Theta Cassablanca or a top of the line Meridian processor might not score as high as a top shelf Denon, Yamaha, or Pioneer Elilte receiver because of the omission of a feature or two, but sound quality, build quality and pride of ownership should far exceed anything the receivers could hope for. &nbsp;

I know receiver sound quality is getting better and better, and perhaps many preamp processors are over rated and over priced. &nbsp;But I do not believe things like sound stage, transparency, midrange clarity, top end sweetness, openness, air, etc, can be appreciated by only evaluating the number of bells and whistles. &nbsp;

I remember the old days when a high quality preamp was simply a box with nothing (no tone controls or anything else) but a volume nob and costing thousands of dollars. &nbsp;I think the idea of clean and pure signal passthroughs is still a high end goal, and it would seem to me that some of those companies would deliberately omit a few fancy features for the sake of their primary goal; pristine sonic reproduction. &nbsp;

I imagine that old saying, &quot;you get what you pay for&quot; might still be relevant. &nbsp;At least when it comes to cars, steaks and sound quality.</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>I agree with you the checksheet does not necessarily indicate overall fidelity.  However, if a product lacks the key features listed (for example bass management options, and channel trim set ups) then it is unlikely an accurate home theater setup can be achieved.  The point of the checksheet is to objetively compare critical features and those features users deem important in their shopping decision.  Fidelity of the product is evaluated in the actual review, not the checksheet.

We have found that the old saying &quot;you get what you pay for...&quot; doesn't usually apply with audio, namely high end audio, and more specifically exotic cables &nbsp;

[edited: spelling]</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

gene : We have found that the old saying &quot;you get what you pay for...&quot; doesn't usually apply with audio, namely high end audio, and more specifically exotic cables  

[edited: spelling]

In the audio world, it is full of hype, snake oil and the buyer's vanity plays a big role in exploiting all this. A big company has immense resources to pool together and offer products at an amazingly low cost because most of the components inside it are in house manufactured, same is not the case with a hyped $$$$ brand working out of a small facotry which has to source everything from outside, most of the times from the same big name conglomerate and then package it with a fancy name and depend upon the power of suggestion. I have kept my fair share of $$$$ names like Krell, B&amp;K, Audio Research, Mobile Fidelity, Martin Logan and have driven myself to the point of bankruptcy many a times. In the end I have ended up with a relatively cheaper but better performing mass market brand and couldnt have been more happier.

I take full pride in my low end, cheap Yamaha receiver and the fantastic cheap(around $1200) power amplifier as well as low end, low tech berrilyum drivered speakers and I am sure Gene, Hawke and others here do for their cheap Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Marantz etc. I also am quite satisfied with my low cost cheap Rat Shack gold patch cables for that matter.

BTW: having owned prestige named mega $$$$ cars and average middle ranged mass produced cars I can tell you with assertion that the mass produced car proved to be way more reliable and better value for money.

For steak and food items I have to agree to a certain extent, when my credit limit was good, my wife and I would occasionaly splurge on Kobe steak at Benihana or Palm Too in NYC and it was well worth the $100 per steak

</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I agree to a point. &nbsp;What you failed to consider is that much, if not most of the technology that the lower cost hardware benefits from what trinkles down from the higher end equipment; whether it be professional gear or consumer. &nbsp;Early adopters take the risk of purchasing high priced newly developed technology with expensive internal components using premium materials. &nbsp;It's them that pave the way for that technology to end up being massed produced and included in lower priced gear (with lessor quality materials). &nbsp;Sometimes the high end manufactures will cease to continue a particular technology because it effects the sonic character of the piece or it does not appeal to early adopters. &nbsp;

I think high end companies generally take the initial beating and the mass market companies reap the benefits. &nbsp;The latter companies can sit back and see how well the new technology is received and reviewed with the faithful, before deciding the invest in it for themselves. &nbsp;A high end manufacturer might be criticized for adding a perceived improvement or criticized for not adding the new stuff. &nbsp;Both effect sales. &nbsp;If they do nothing (like not adding the six analog rca connectors for multi-channel music as fast as some) they're damned; if they included it right away, it adds to the cost and it may not satisfy the finicky attitudes of audio or videophiles and their damned. &nbsp;Somebody has to bite first. &nbsp;

So I think the high end guys have a tendancy to sometimes play it safe with new features, and go out on the limb with improvements that mainly effect sound qualilty and appearance, like newer DAC's, better internal compartmentalization, or more heat resistant internal shielding, etc. &nbsp;But face it, who wants to spend $10,000 on something that will be obsolete in a year or seemingly lags behind a $1000 piece of equipment in features. &nbsp;The high end boys and girls have to rely on offering something to its buyers that is not dependent on the ever evolving bell and whistle; I think it has to be sound quality, build quality, style and company legacy (pride of ownership/pedigree). &nbsp;But in the end everybody benefits.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>Speaking of features checklist. &nbsp;Check out this link for the new Integra Research RDC-7.1 &quot;Build to order&quot; Preamp Processor to replace the current RDC-7. &nbsp;

http://www.gspr.com/iresearch/rdc71.html

.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>One more thought. &nbsp;As I think about it. It seems that flagship receiver manufacturers are probably the companies that drive the most innovative new features in processors and such. &nbsp;They have a need to put out a new and improved model every year and they need something new to drive sales. &nbsp;So, I think they come up with new stuff by research or customer feedback or reviewer suggestions or even installer needs. &nbsp;

Maybe I have too much time on my hands lately. &nbsp;

</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#728FCE'>Hi

I understand the need to evaluate the features of receivers. It is a sure way to organize the evaluation of a A/V component. Actually, the document presented by the company presenting the product is usually built that way.

Is it possible to do the same thing about the sound quality? Even limitng the comparaison to stereo.

The test could involve for example doing a blind test between a reference (Denon AVR-5803) and the other receiver being tested. Being an amateur, I can only propose a few criterias like:
Presence, Mid-frequencies, Low-frequencies, High-frequencies, Power, Dynamic, Emotion (after all isn't that all we are after), Detail, Smoothness.
Of course your list will probably be more detailed and better than mine. All these criteria could be given a weight and a score that same way the actual checklist is done. It would be a simple form added during your current tests.

This kind of analysis could prove to be very good about the most important end result of a given audio equipment: How does it sound?
The same can even apply with cables and interconnect (using a receiver with two CD in and a DVD with two CD out).

I am sure that on purely sound (Close your eyes and listen) the Integra Research and the Sunfire could be getting better scores facing the Denon than the one they actually did. Actually, I would expect that the sound of a RX-Z1 should be better than the sound of the RXV-2400.

Thanks</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Pam;

Having heard both the RX-Z1 and RX-V2400 I would definately give stereo performance to the RX-Z1. &nbsp;However, the purpose of this tabulated comparison is to objectively rate critical and desired features as a benchmark for future products to compare against, NOT sound quality. &nbsp;The idea here is to ensure companies are designing their latest products with the critical features necessary for flexible and intelligent home theater to serve a wide variety of user applications (IE. proper bass management, trim accuracies, video features, etc).

What you propose about comparing sound of all of these various pieces is next to impossible giving that these units under test are not all in the same set-up at the same time to conduct such tests. &nbsp;Even if they were, this would be an enormous undertaking likely to become a full time job for the person wishing to do this.</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#728FCE'>Hi Gene

I am just looking for a place where you can give an opinion of the sound quality of a given receiver.

I was sure that the RX-Z1 is giving better sound than the RXV-2400, but their respective scores was 1570 vs 1995. With a score 27% higher, it could be assumed that the RXV-2400 is better sounding than then RX-Z1.

One last request, could you please give a subjective evaluation of the stereo sound of all these receivers with an approximate score (From best to worst)?

For example, what I have heard of Sunfire should be able to compete with AVR-5803 or Integra Research on sound quality only.

Thanks for your help.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>It seems, from what I've read, that one key indicator of a processor's electrical performance (hence oveall quality and value) is the quality of the various processor chips and opamps, etc, used in the unit. A ranking of the quality of these active components at key places in a unit according to what can be expected at a given price point might be something to consider in the future. In other words, did they use the best quality DAC chip, for example, you could expect at the price, or did they go cheap and overcharge us?</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Rip;

I believe the row we have titled &quot;Dac Quality&quot; covers some of what you are saying. &nbsp;We list the model dac's when we have that info and compare their specs to other dac's competing products within the price class use. &nbsp;finding out details of types of opamps used and other circuitry can be rather difficult. &nbsp;I usually only request schematics on flagship products and rarely get all the info I need to do a proper analysis.

Thanks for your input.</font>

 

[pam]

<font color='#000000'>Hi

Will the existing equipment be re-calculated with the new grid?</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>No Pam since the existing equipment hardware reviewed came out at a time when many of the new listed features were not commonly available. &nbsp;Going forward from this time all new receivers/processors shall be reviewed under the updated scorecard.</font>