AVR recommendations?

Replicant 7

Replicant 7

Audioholic Field Marshall
I wonder what @M Code thinks about the THD+N of Yamaha and Reliability? :D
Yeah, didn't @M Code post up that he changes out more Denon, Onkyo's because of heat failures? I could be wrong though,or was it Marantz units that he installs that had failure rates. I'm old man, my memory is not what it used to be. :D
 
Last edited:
Teetertotter?

Teetertotter?

Full Audioholic
@superman180, both units are nice. Make sure the selected AVR is positioned with plenty of open air exposure. Not enclosed. I'm sure that is why your current AVR has stood up so well. Good luck, when the time comes.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I wonder what @M Code thinks about the THD+N of Yamaha and Reliability? :D
I asked him about an reliability update and iirc he said he would try (something like that..), that was months ago, well before the launch of the AXA series. In any case, anything newer than the RX-AX070 likely don't have enough data for another couple of years.

If I were to bet, I would bet Yamaha is more reliable than Denon and Denon would more reliable than Marantz (only because it doesn't have the HDAMs:D. To me, from engineering stand point, those units are all comparable in terms of parts count, quality/specs and usage, so I bet Yamaha will be better in reliability because they run cooler. If that is the case, have them running cooler would be a wise trade off, because THD of both are low enough that the differences would only matter to those with golden ears, and/or crazy people/engineer type? like me, who just have to get the one with the better measurements regardless.

D+M's run warmer, an indication of higher bias, so possibly lower distortions as a result. In order to have the Denon/Marantz as reliable one can use an external fan or two.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I don’t think Gene measured the 3080 but there was a review on RX-A3000 that Gene did, however that model had all RCA pre-outs. I do remember Gene specifically saying the balanced connection issues on 5200 were not found on 5100 or 3080. I’m thinking that comment would have been on the thread for the 5200 review most likely.
I know it did not apply to the 5100, may be it is dependent on production date. If the 3080 was launched in the same year as the 5100 then that could be the reason it isn't affected as well.
 
S

snakeeyes

Audioholic Ninja
I know it did not apply to the 5100, may be it is dependent on production date. If the 3080 was launched in the same year as the 5100 then that could be the reason it isn't affected as well.
That timeframe fits. 5100 in 2015, 5200 in 2018, 3080 in 2018.

I hope that they do a 5300 at some point. :)
 
A

Am_P

Full Audioholic
If we are talking about sound quality in direct mode without using any dsp functions, then I agree with your point on the specific sound thing for some reasons people bought into. There is no logic to that at all, in fact if such specific sound/or sound signature is there by design then it won't be truly hifi, and the designers would be guessing what kind of sound most people would prefer, or the specific sound would be there just by chance. I would stick with accuracy/transparency/neutrality and if I want a different "sound" then as you said, just use EQ.

Regarding Yamaha's PEQ vs Denon/Marantz's GEQ, as you pointed out PEQ is superior. However, for those who use REQ, D+M's Audyssey is better at least in theory because its filters are FIR based vs Yamaha's IIR, both have pros and cons depending on implementation but overall, in theory FIR (FIR vs IIR filtering (minidsp.com) ) is better, and most users who use REW to check the post calibration effect tend to show Yamaha's YPAO (IIR/PEQ based) not as effective. For tweaking, users of Audyssey, would have to use the MultEQ app to do it, and Yamaha users could do some tweaking too via the manual PEQ feature to supplement YPAO. So yes one can tweak D+M vias the MultEQ app that provides tons of flexibility, more so than Yamaha's manual PEQ, but you have to buy it for $20 and for some users, there may be a learn curve.
If a user's buying a flagship receiver, nullifying everything and listening in pure direct mode, I wonder why he even bought it in the first place?! He could have stuck with a cheaper integrated amp perhaps?

It is good to know that one can buy a multieq add on tool for the D/M products. Does it offer ways to modify/customize the soundfield like the higher end Yamaha's? I personally try to rely on room correction as little as possible and try to take care of it with speaker/sub/listener positioning and room treatment (modes and sbir is mostly resolved for now). I tinkered forever with Dirac/minidsp on my 2 channel setup and could never get it to sound good. YPAO on my Atmos setup (better room to begin with) has been a very pleasant change in that regard. The tweaks for me are just the cherry on top. Currently, I have a few custom PEQ and soundfield settings saved in config files, load up a new config on my laptop and make it sound like I bought a new speaker or sat in a different room. It's mindboggling that these things exist these days.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I asked him about an reliability update and iirc he said he would try (something like that..), that was months ago, well before the launch of the AXA series. In any case, anything newer than the RX-AX070 likely don't have enough data for another couple of years.

If I were to bet, I would bet Yamaha is more reliable than Denon and Denon would more reliable than Marantz (only because it doesn't have the HDAMs:D. To me, from engineering stand point, those units are all comparable in terms of parts count, quality/specs and usage, so I bet Yamaha will be better in reliability because they run cooler. If that is the case, have them running cooler would be a wise trade off, because THD of both are low enough that the differences would only matter to those with golden ears, and/or crazy people/engineer type? like me, who just have to get the one with the better measurements regardless.

D+M's run warmer, an indication of higher bias, so possibly lower distortions as a result. In order to have the Denon/Marantz as reliable one can use an external fan or two.
No doubt about it. Not gonna lie. I would appreciate it if Yamaha would get all the new Yamaha AVR and AVP to have THD+N of 0.003% (like CX-A5100) or lower at 4V balanced/ 2V unbalanced for ALL CHANNELS.

Hopefully Yamaha will get 0.003% or lower THD+N with the 2nd Generation of A2B, A4B, A6B, A8B and next generation of CX-A5300.

Yes, THD+N of 0.03% is INAUDIBLE. But 0.003% looks much better on paper. :D
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
If a user's buying a flagship receiver, nullifying everything and listening in pure direct mode, I wonder why he even bought it in the first place?! He could have stuck with a cheaper integrated amp perhaps?

It is good to know that one can buy a multieq add on tool for the D/M products. Does it offer ways to modify/customize the soundfield like the higher end Yamaha's? I personally try to rely on room correction as little as possible and try to take care of it with speaker/sub/listener positioning and room treatment (modes and sbir is mostly resolved for now). I tinkered forever with Dirac/minidsp on my 2 channel setup and could never get it to sound good. YPAO on my Atmos setup (better room to begin with) has been a very pleasant change in that regard. The tweaks for me are just the cherry on top. Currently, I have a few custom PEQ and soundfield settings saved in config files, load up a new config on my laptop and make it sound like I bought a new speaker or sat in a different room. It's mindboggling that these things exist these days.
The reason why some people want to see good measurements of an avr in direct or pure direct mode is so they can compare the performance of the preamp, dac and the power amp.

With dsp, it will be hard to compare obviously, because people could have very different taste.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
If a user's buying a flagship receiver, nullifying everything and listening in pure direct mode, I wonder why he even bought it in the first place?! He could have stuck with a cheaper integrated amp perhaps?
There is also the appeal of owning a FLAGSHIP model - the company's BEST.

Flagship AVR vs CHEAPER amp? :D

Everyone is different. :D
 
A

Am_P

Full Audioholic
The reason why some people want to see good measurements of an avr in direct or pure direct mode is so they can compare the performance of the preamp, dac and the power amp.

With dsp, it will be hard to compare obviously, because people could have very different taste.
Manufacturers release product with subpar measurements even on relatively simple featureless integrated amps and separates.

On receivers with the level of complexity and feature sets we see these days, it should be ok to cut them some slack. They sound spectacular even when they don't measure perfectly (largely inaudible).

It isn't a fair comparison IMO.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Manufacturers release product with subpar measurements even on relatively simple featureless integrated amps and separates.

On receivers with the level of complexity and feature sets we see these days, it should be ok to cut them some slack. They sound spectacular even when they don't measure perfectly (largely inaudible).

It isn't a fair comparison IMO.
You seem to be the one who brought up "integrated amp.." not me. My comments in post#31 was just in response to your question: "If a user's buying a flagship receiver, nullifying everything and listening in pure direct mode, I wonder why he even bought it in the first place?"

And by the way, from what I can see, the OP never said anything about listening in pure direct mode. I am the one who brought up pure direct mode to make the point that the only objective measurements that could be used to compare the two AVRs he is considering, are the bench test measurements, such as those done by ASR and AH; and those are typically (if not always) done without the effects of DSPs. That doesn't mean listening with DSP is not important, of course people use DSP all the time, and that's why they use AVRs/AVPs.

May be you thought I was comparing AVR to separates when I said "The reason why some people want to see good measurements of an avr in direct or pure direct mode is so they can compare the performance of the preamp, dac and the power amp.". If so, to be clear, "the preamp, dac and the power amp" I referred to are the AVR's internal preamp, dac, and the power amps and if you look at the bench test measurements I referred to, you will see those measurements. I hope that clear things up for you.
 
A

Am_P

Full Audioholic
You seem to be the one who brought up "integrated amp.." not me. My comments in post#31 was just in response to your question: "If a user's buying a flagship receiver, nullifying everything and listening in pure direct mode, I wonder why he even bought it in the first place?"

And by the way, from what I can see, the OP never said anything about listening in pure direct mode. I am the one who brought up pure direct mode to make the point that the only objective measurements that could be used to compare the two AVRs he is considering, are the bench test measurements, such as those done by ASR and AH; and those are typically (if not always) done without the effects of DSPs. That doesn't mean listening with DSP is not important, of course people use DSP all the time, and that's why they use AVRs/AVPs.

May be you thought I was comparing AVR to separates when I said "The reason why some people want to see good measurements of an avr in direct or pure direct mode is so they can compare the performance of the preamp, dac and the power amp.". If so, to be clear, "the preamp, dac and the power amp" I referred to are the AVR's internal preamp, dac, and the power amps and if you look at the bench test measurements I referred to, you will see those measurements. I hope that clear things up for you.
Thanks for clarifying...yes, comparing the performance of DAC, preamp and poweramp sections between flagship receivers from different brands would be totally fair....but comparing them with purist featureless separates from any brand would be unfair. Since there's literally one thing offered on a separate, it better measure immaculate.

I thought sites like ASR do the "unfair" comparison a lot though.
 
Last edited:
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top