receiver output ???

[newtoitall]

Hi all,
I have at the moment a technics SADA10 powering a pair of Athena AS-F2s plus a center and a pair of Energy 3.1s as my surrounds.
when I play music( amp set to stereo )it sems to me that in order to get any quality sound from this system I need to turn the volume up to half , I was wondering if a better receiver will allow me to get better sound at lower volumes ??? I know this equipment isn't top of the line but I have read that the AS-F2s like a high end receiver, will one make a big difference?

Thanks,
Frank

 

[markw]

"Volume" has little to do with that knob's settings.

All that knob does is limit the input signal to the preamp. It'sall in how that potentiometer is designed. Some let almost all of the signal through at a low number and people (incorrectly) think this is the sign of a powerful receiver. It ain't.

(wow.. it's only up this much. This must be a real mutha (shut yo mouth!) of a receiver)

Generally, once you reach a certain point in the knobs rotation, the volume gains are less significant than they were in the low end of the rotation. So, by the time you approach 11:00 or 12:00, you're not really getting any more signal. The more you turn, the less gain is realized.

Kinda like tribbles eating that quadrotritticale. The more they ate, the hungrier they got.

I first noticed this in the late 60's wehen installing sherwood amps.
Their volune controls were designes so that a comfortable listening level was obtained when they were around 12:00 while on the (cheaper) units that same level was obtained around 9:00 or 10:00.

but, with that sherwood you could make much finer adjustments in the volume level.

Ultimately, the position of the volume control is not a valid guage of the quality or power output of an amplifier.

 

[annunaki]

Higher volumes require more power plain and simple. What are you really asking? Do you want a receiver that gets to the same volume but with the volume control at 1/4? In reality, it is still the same power level. It just looks different on the receiver. That is like arguing semantics.

If anything get more power. However, if you are already at say 100 watts rms, I believe you would have to go to 200 watts rms to get any real noticable differences. Mainly, the differences would be noticed in dynamics.(doubling output power equates to a theoretical 3db increase)

 

[newtoitall]

Thanks for the answers but I understand enough to know that the volume control is not an indication of the power of the receiver, after half my amp seems to gain volume like crazy so much so that I can't go much further than half.It just seems to me that my bass is more solid and treble more crisp at higher volumes , I just wanted to know if a better receiver would give me the same clarity at lower volumes.
Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for your help.
Frank

 

[annunaki]

A new receiver will not help you too much there. Although one with a built in EQ would make a difference. Have you experimented with speaker placement? Sometimes that can have a drastic effect on performance. You may just have some what inefficent speakers. I have listened to the Athena AS-F2's and they do seem to be somewhat power hungry, not horrible by any means, but slightly. I would suggest a better quality receiver capable of at least 100 watts rms x 2 unclipped if you want to change it. First though, I would experiment with placement.

 

[newtoitall]

Sorry it took so long to get back, visiting relatives gave me no time alone for a couple of weeks.

annunaki are you saying that a better amp like maybe a Harmon Kardon or a Marantz wouldn't give me a better sounding system at lower volumes than the Technics I have now???? If this is the case then why would anyone buy a more expensive receiver? I paid 400 Canadian for the Technics and would probably have to pay 1000 or more for one of the others.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not trying to sound flippant or cocky I just don't understand .
What can a better quality receiver do for me that a lower quality one can't????
Thanks for your time and patience, we nubies sometimes have thick heads.

Regards ,
Frank

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

MacMan put it well in another thread.

Inductive speakers are a high current load. A lot of times cheaper amps don’t deliver current proportionately throughout the frequency band (mostly due to poor feedback designs). When the volume control is turned up the bias is increased, the speakers “come to life”. It is not necessarily a linear process. Better amps and control units tend put out a more consistent signal hence, your system sounds better.

A $100 KLH (or Technics or Aiwa or Insignia) receiver will never sound like a $1200 Marantz. Don't let someone fool you into thinking it will. They give out ill advice and probably suffer from schizoaffective disorder.

 

[annunaki]

Sorry it took so long to get back, visiting relatives gave me no time alone for a couple of weeks.

annunaki are you saying that a better amp like maybe a Harmon Kardon or a Marantz wouldn't give me a better sounding system at lower volumes than the Technics I have now???? If this is the case then why would anyone buy a more expensive receiver? I paid 400 Canadian for the Technics and would probably have to pay 1000 or more for one of the others.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not trying to sound flippant or cocky I just don't understand .
What can a better quality receiver do for me that a lower quality one can't????
Thanks for your time and patience, we nubies sometimes have thick heads.

Regards ,
Frank

In blind tests amplifier sections are very difficult to differentiate, if possible at all. However, there are plenty of good reasons to buy a better receiver: Reliability would be a big one, features (room equalization, dsp, ect.), ability to handle low impedance loads, ability to perform properly with highly reactive loads, remote controls, ease of use, ect. Some of the above can account for differences in sound. As you can see, a good quality receiver can have many advantages as opposed to their inexpensive cousins.


Buckeye,

A $100 KLH (or Technics or Aiwa or Insignia) receiver will never sound like a $1200 Marantz. Don't let someone fool you into thinking it will. They give out ill advice and probably suffer from schizoaffective disorder.

I hope this was not directed at me.

 

[Resident Loser]

Since you are...

...new to it all, there may be a few things we might want to iron out...

Some of it has be said e.g. relative meaninglessness of volume control position, etc. however...the ear doesn't hear in the manner in which you might think...as the volume goes down, sensistivity to certain frequency ranges change.

Without going into all the technical mumbo-jumbo re: Fletcher-Munson curves and the like(although if you are of a mind to do a Google on the subject, feel free) you will find as volume decreases you will most likely need to apply some boost to frequency extremes in order to restore the perception of "balance" across the frequency spectrum...and I'm not referring to your "balance" control if you have one...sorry for being simplistic, but some newbies might be misdirected by the terminology...

Older gear had a "loudness" feature. On some it was a simple switch, on others it was variable control...Some newer stuff has what they refer to as a "night mode" or some such. When you want to play things at a lower level, simply apply a judicious bit of bass boost with your tone controls and see if that doesn't do the trick...possibly even a bit on the treble end...DON"T BE AFRAID OF USING TONE CONTROLS...when used correctly they can be your friend...

Perhaps this will solve your dilemma...

jimHJJ(...and it's certainly cheaper than new gear...)

 

[newtoitall]

Ahhh now those are the type of answers I hoped to get, I always thought that amps and receivers were to be run with the tone or EQ controls set to flat, and to deviate from that theory was againt an audiophile's religion.
Its nice to know that at lower volumes I can use my tone controls to enhance the sound a bit,and with that said I can get a little more time out of my receiver before upgrading .

thanks very much for your answers
Frank

 

[Resident Loser]

Actually...

Ahhh now those are the type of answers I hoped to get, I always thought that amps and receivers were to be run with the tone or EQ controls set to flat, and to deviate from that theory was againt an audiophile's religion.
Its nice to know that at lower volumes I can use my tone controls to enhance the sound a bit,and with that said I can get a little more time out of my receiver before upgrading .

thanks very much for your answers
Frank

...you can use your tone controls at any time...this will more than likely rattle the so-called "purisits" amongst us but, what the hey!...

For example...all recordings are not created equal...I find use of controls in the treble range can sometimes tame strident pieces...again I stress judicious use and as a rule I tend to use mine more in the cut rather than boost mode...

My collection consists of everything from 78s to CDs...Early 78s were not produced with the standardized RIAA response curve latter day disks were...there were no fewer than five or six different "proprietary" EQ schemes...some adjustment is required to achieve the balance I spoke of earlier. I'm not just giving a history lesson, there are many older LPs and tapes which are in need of help...as are earlier CDs that were produced before it was realized that some of the reisuues from existing analog masters didn't translate well into digital...again a little downward tweak may be in order. And of course, your own preference plays some part...and if anyone says it doesn't, why are there skatey-eight different brands of speakers, etc.?

Of course, to be fair, most of the time the controls are misused and really tend to do more harm than good...also there is some truth to fewer devices in the signal path equating to a cleaner signal, but tone-circuit design has improved over time and for gear that does it's thing while the signal is in the digital mode, I'd guess the point is somewhat moot.


Room equalization is a method employed by some, myself included. After doing one's best to provide an environment that will extract the best from your loudspeakers, I see no problem with using electronic means to push it that much further; others do, and embark on what I see as an endless search for a "magical" symbiosis of gear that will provde what they think is correct...and it very well may be...at least for them...I'd rather spend my time listening to the music and using my tone controls when required.

One other thing to consider is, there is so much equalization and/or processing involved in the production of modern recordings, what's wrong with some user input. Nobody is gonna' come along and whack you on the pee-pee for using a little salt and pepper or a shot of Tabasco, are they...well, maybe some of those pretentious chefs might try...same with audio.

When all is said and done, it's really your call...much the "audio-pile" myth and legend is just that...

jimHJJ(...enjoy!...)