Pioneer VSX-LX503 (or approved equal) Questions

John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
Howdy! As I posted in another thread, I am considering a Pioneer AV receiver as my "wildcard" in lieu of a 2 channel receiver or integrated. The model I am looking at is the VSX-LX503:
1575644424358.png

The ONLY reason being is that it matches my UDP-LX500. This will be used strictly in a 2 channel setup and they'll look real purty sitting next to each other!

A couple questions if I may:

1). Does anyone here on AH have any experience with the Pioneer "Direct Energy" (i.e., Class D) amplification and how does it sound to you for music reproduction?

2). Does anyone here on AH have experience with Pioneer's MCACC and how does it compare with, say ARC, Dirac and, most importantly, YPAO?

3). Is it possible to assign more than 2 channels for FL and FR duty, in essence creating an active bi-amplification scenario? It would be really sweet to have an RMS of 240WPC on tap!

I have narrowed the choices of my next purchase down to this unit or the Yamaha R-N803. Any and all input, suggestions and/or criticisms (as long as it has to do with these two chosen units or my moral character) are most welcome!

Ciao!
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
Hey John - Good to see you buddy!

Yes, the Pioneer does support bi-amping. Check it out:
1575651766605.png

Worth it to experiment...
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
Hey John - Good to see you buddy!

Yes, the Pioneer does support bi-amping. Check it out:
View attachment 32628
Worth it to experiment...
Hey dude! Thanks for the response - that's awesome! You know, this unit is getting more appealing... Any idea on audio performance? Yeah, I know, as long as it is performing within it parameters... Does that hold true for Class D as well? I got burned a while back with a T+A Power Plant. Their implementation of their own version of PWM was way too soft... What about MCACC?
 
Last edited:
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
I got burned a while back with a T+A Power Plant. Their implementation of their own version of PWN was way too soft... ?
Yes, I know - I'm you, remember?

Don't know about MCACC. Perhaps a kind soul on the AH site will chime in. Beats talking to myself!
 
M Code

M Code

Audioholic General
The respective Pioneer model uses the IR Class D solution, sonically it is very good in my humble opinion....
But I would encourage U to go and listen to a demo than decide if OK...

Just my $0.02... ;)
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
The respective Pioneer model uses the IR Class D solution, sonically it is very good in my humble opinion....
But I would encourage U to go and listen to a demo than decide if OK...

Just my $0.02... ;)
Thank you for your response, M Code, I appreciate it!
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I don't know anything about this what they called "direct energy" amplifier. I thought it was some sort of class D because Pioneer appeared to be getting good at those, but looking at the weight of the unit and size of the power supply, it looks more like the typical linear PS for class AB amps. May be the term "Direct energy" was invented by some marketing genius at Pioneer.:D

1575667342705.png


I prefer Yamaha's, but then again I don't know anything about the direct energy thing so probably should not have commented at all.
:D
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
I don't know anything about this what they called "direct energy" amplifier. I thought it was some sort of class D because Pioneer appeared to be getting good at those, but looking at the weight of the unit and size of the power supply, it looks more like the typical linear PS for class AB amps. May be the term "Direct energy" was invented by some marketing genius at Pioneer.:D

View attachment 32632

I prefer Yamaha's, but then again I don't know anything about the direct energy thing so probably should not have commented at all.
:D
From what I can glean "Pure Direct" (yeah - "Pure Marketing") is Class D, but I may be gleaning wrong...
 
ryanosaur

ryanosaur

Audioholic Ninja
Yes, I know - I'm you, remember?

Don't know about MCACC. Perhaps a kind soul on the AH site will chime in. Beats talking to myself!
Nice...
Was the biamp comment just to trigger a response? ;)
Wisht I had experience to share. Right now I'm a D&M B!tch. :p :eek: :cool:
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Seriously, I have no life.
This avr cannot actively bi-amp (your speakers particularly, of course it can offer a bi-amp between your sub/speaker), and the passive bi-amping it offers for speakers....meh.
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
This avr cannot actively bi-amp (your speakers particularly, of course it can offer a bi-amp between your sub/speaker), and the passive bi-amping it offers for speakers....meh.
So, does this not count as "active" as in a separate, amplified channel?
1575679978113.png

The owner's manual shows that the "Height 1" outputs can be designated as a "Bi-Amp" channel. IS that passive or active? I was hoping it would be another 120WPC...
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Seriously, I have no life.
So, does this not count as "active" as in a separate, amplified channel?
View attachment 32638
The owner's manual shows that the "Height 1" outputs can be designated as a "Bi-Amp" channel. IS that passive or active? I was hoping it would be another 120WPC...
No,, it does not double power. Plus that's a passive bi-amping feature in the avr; more about marketing for all the similarly marketed speakers with the bi-wiring terminals. Active bi-amping involves separate amps and active crossover (rather than the passive crossover you leave in your speaker with passive bi-amping; altho you can remove the passive network for active bi-amping it's still a matter of any actual improvement over the original design). With a single power supply an avr's passive bi-amping is pretty much useless IMO.....consensus is if you need a more powerful amp simply use one (does your avr have pre-outs?). Might want to review this article https://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
No,, it does not double power. Plus that's a passive bi-amping feature in the avr; more about marketing for all the similarly marketed speakers with the bi-wiring terminals. Active bi-amping involves separate amps and active crossover (rather than the passive crossover you lteave in your speaker with passive bi-amping; altho you can remove the passive network for active bi-amping it's still a matter of any actual improvement over the original design). With a single power supply an avr's passive bi-amping is pretty much useless IMO.....consensus is if you need a more powerful amp simply use one (does your avr have pre-outs?). Might want to review this article https://www.audioholics.com/frequent-questions/the-difference-between-biamping-vs-biwiring
Hey lovin - thanks for the response and the link. Yes, I am familiar with bi-wiring, bi-amping (passive and active, vertical and horizontal) etc., yes this AV receiver has preamp outputs and no, this is not my AV receiver (yet) hence my questions. I guess I used "active" improperly in that my question was not to include active crossovers. If the "Bi-Amp" feature does not indeed increase the power by utilizing another channel, then you are right - it is pretty useless. I also found more of the "marketing" poop in that this receiver is rated at 120WPC - 2 channels driven (which is fine by me as I will only be using the 2). Power drops to 90WPC if all nine channels are driven. No huge deal, but not reflected in the official specs and it also tells me the amplifier channels are not discreet (whether that is audible or not...).

Of course, all this may be moot as the speakers I am considering purchasing have only one set of binding posts...
 

Attachments

lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Seriously, I have no life.
Hey lovin - thanks for the response and the link. Yes, I am familiar with bi-wiring, bi-amping (passive and active, vertical and horizontal) etc., yes this AV receiver has preamp outputs and no, this is not my AV receiver (yet) hence my questions. I guess I used "active" improperly in that my question was not to include active crossovers. If the "Bi-Amp" feature does not indeed increase the power by utilizing another channel, then you are right - it is pretty useless. I also found more of the "marketing" poop in that this receiver is rated at 120WPC - 2 channels driven (which is fine by me as I will only be using the 2). Power drops to 90WPC if all nine channels are driven. No huge deal, but not reflected in the official specs and it also tells me the amplifier channels are not discreet (whether that is audible or not...).

Of course, all this may be moot as the speakers I am considering purchasing have only one set of binding posts...
Actually if an avr is 120wpc at 2ch driven and at the same spec for 9ch does 90wpc, that's a pretty nice avr.....what is it?

The amp channels are discreeet but share a common power supply. If they had conservatively rated the avr to the all channels driven spec that makes them look weaker in the marketplace....as many guys just focus on that. All channels driven with sine waves isn't something you encounter in real use either, it's a limited use spec. If it were an actual required standard everyone had to follow for advertising that might be interesting but isn't the case.

Many excellent speakers come with just one set of binding posts, some have added instead the dual ones for marketing purposes.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Samurai
Actually if an avr is 120wpc at 2ch driven and at the same spec for 9ch does 90wpc, that's a pretty nice avr.....what is it?
Yeah, that would indeed mean only slightly over 1dB less powerful with all channels driven, just a tiny bit more power than the 70% which Marantz guarantees on most of its AVRs.
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Chief
I don't know anything about this what they called "direct energy" amplifier. I thought it was some sort of class D because Pioneer appeared to be getting good at those, but looking at the weight of the unit and size of the power supply, it looks more like the typical linear PS for class AB amps. May be the term "Direct energy" was invented by some marketing genius at Pioneer.:D

View attachment 32632

I prefer Yamaha's, but then again I don't know anything about the direct energy thing so probably should not have commented at all.
:D
PENG - you are absolutely correct! After more research this weekend, I found out that this unit is indeed class AB, which is fine by me. Pioneer still refers to the amplification as "Direct Energy" - whatever that means... Anyway, my aversion to Class D is a non-issue with this receiver and it now sits at the top of my list.
 

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