to ICE or not to ICE ? Pioneer SC05 or Denon AVR-3808CI ???

[WATCHIN]

Need to buy a new reciver for music and home theater, will be powering B&W 684 front towers with HTM61 center, sub and rears to come, 2 channel stereo music listening quallity is important, need help deciding between the Pioneer SC05 or Denon AVR-3808CI ???

I have a pioneer plasma and love it but know little of the audio equipment reputation, currently have an old denon 2 channel amp I have had for 20 years and got great perfomance from it

I am Intrigued by the claims Pioneer makes of the ICE amp technology and the SC05 is a flashy looking unit

can someone with more knowladge help me decide?

 

[3db]

Need to buy a new reciver for music and home theater, will be powering B&W 684 front towers with HTM61 center, sub and rears to come, 2 channel stereo music listening quallity is important, need help deciding between the Pioneer SC05 or Denon AVR-3808CI ???

I have a pioneer plasma and love it but know little of the audio equipment reputation, currently have an old denon 2 channel amp I have had for 20 years and got great perfomance from it

I am Intrigued by the claims Pioneer makes of the ICE amp technology and the SC05 is a flashy looking unit

can someone with more knowladge help me decide?

test results from Ultimate Audio Magazine.

http://ultimateavmag.com/avreceivers/pioneer_elite_sc-05_av_receiver/index7.html

This is somewhat higher than what Audioholics tested. If I understand this correctly, it may have to do that Audioholics tested with one channel being loaded instead of a pair which class D amps apparently do not like and causes them to go into protection mode.

 

[jostenmeat]

I would choose the Denon for the Audyssey MultEQ XT, because I have fallen in love with this RC as provided by my Onkyo.

HOWEVER, the Pioneer also has time domain RC, which also allows adjustment of EQ post calibration, unlike the Audyssey.

OTOH, I do know the XT provides hundreds of filters.

Also, there are some 3808 owners here who have had bad luck with the Audyssey. For me, the XT was a godsend.

YMMV! good luck...

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I was in the same shoes as you and had to pick between the SC-05 and 3808. I went with the 3808 simply based on the GUI and onscreen volume display. I use outboard amps so I didn't care about the power. All my crap is 1080p so I didn't care about the video section. Heck, now that I think about it, I am not being helpful at all.

 

[WATCHIN]

thanks for the feedback, i too run all 1080p stuff so if the reciver does not downgrade the 108op with switching the vid proccessor is of no interest to me

I had also considered the Rotel RSX-1560 for audio quality as it is a true class d amp but it was too much $,

I am replacing an old denon 2 chanel amp that still sounds great with my B&W 600 series speakers and the Denon quallity is good for the $ but the Pioneer new ICE technology seemed interesting and the SC05 looks good.

I will probebly stick with the Denon.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
This is somewhat higher than what Audioholics tested. If I understand this correctly, it may have to do that Audioholics tested with one channel being loaded instead of a pair which class D amps apparently do not like and causes them to go into protection mode.

I think AH uses full bandwidth signal whereas your link used 1kHz, hence the greater power with the same .1% THD

 

[Gov]

With either of these two receivers you cannot go wrong. Basically it should boil down to what features you like best.

 

[gene]

This is somewhat higher than what Audioholics tested. If I understand this correctly, it may have to do that Audioholics tested with one channel being loaded instead of a pair which class D amps apparently do not like and causes them to go into protection mode

No, it has to do with what I wrote in the review. Most magazines, especially Ultimate A/V, do instantaneous power vs distortion tests at 1kHz where I do continuous full bandwidth tests in accordance to FTC. The FTC way is much harder and more realistic measure of how much power an amp can deliver while the former way of testing is a great way to overstate power and inflate power #'s. It can also hide power supply and amplifier design limitations as amps with inadequate supplies usually can't deliver full power down to 20Hz and amps with slew induced issues or intentional protection circuits to protect the amp against sustained power levels tend to limit power at high frequencies.

Hence one of the reasons why power #'s are often exaggerated by manufacturers and the press and people walk away thinking a 100wpc Rotel is less powerful than a 140wpc less expensive A/V receiver.

Also in my test results I note how the amp performed with 1 and 2 channels driven into 8 and 4 ohm loads.

 

[3db]

I think AH uses full bandwidth signal whereas your link used 1kHz, hence the greater power with the same .1% THD

Good catch. I missed that. However, bandphann did read an article that left him with the impression that the class D amps should be tested out with both channels loaded, not just one. Thats why I mentioned it.

 

[Buckster]

question please - have the testing methods (which I think are superb - and really appreciated) - been consistant over the last few years - ie can I compare a review from now to one in the past ?

was just say comparing the Denon 5803 flagship vs the mid-range older 4306 - and the damping factor of the amps was approximately just over 80 on the 5803 and 200+ on the 4306 - wheras when you look internally the 5803 is far higher quality construction.

I know damping factor is not the whole picture but its one element, and the above surprised me so I wondered if the testing methods had changed ?

thanks, MArk.

No, it has to do with what I wrote in the review. Most magazines, especially Ultimate A/V, do instantaneous power vs distortion tests at 1kHz where I do continuous full bandwidth tests in accordance to FTC. The FTC way is much harder and more realistic measure of how much power an amp can deliver while the former way of testing is a great way to overstate power and inflate power #'s. It can also hide power supply and amplifier design limitations as amps with inadequate supplies usually can't deliver full power down to 20Hz and amps with slew induced issues or intentional protection circuits to protect the amp against sustained power levels tend to limit power at high frequencies.

Hence one of the reasons why power #'s are often exaggerated by manufacturers and the press and people walk away thinking a 100wpc Rotel is less powerful than a 140wpc less expensive A/V receiver.

Also in my test results I note how the amp performed with 1 and 2 channels driven into 8 and 4 ohm loads.

 

[Dan Banquer]

To ICE or Not to ICE

You may also wish to read this article from the audioholics archives.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/the-high-instantaneous-current-spec
d.b.

 

[gene]

question please - have the testing methods (which I think are superb - and really appreciated) - been consistant over the last few years - ie can I compare a review from now to one in the past ?

was just say comparing the Denon 5803 flagship vs the mid-range older 4306 - and the damping factor of the amps was approximately just over 80 on the 5803 and 200+ on the 4306 - wheras when you look internally the 5803 is far higher quality construction.

I know damping factor is not the whole picture but its one element, and the above surprised me so I wondered if the testing methods had changed ?

thanks, MArk.

Yes I always measure amps the same way unless otherwise noted. Damping factor is a nebulous # beyond a certain range. Certainly a measure of 80 across an entire bandwidth into an 8 or 4 ohm load at full power usually means the amplifier output impedance is low enough to behave well under a wide range of loudspeaker load impedances.