What's the best $500 AV Receiver for 2014?

[admin]

Are you in the market for a new A/V receiver? Do you happen to have roughly $500 to spend? This is the article for you. We've taken a look at five different models from Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, and Yamaha, and determined which models offer the most value to the consumer. To make it so easy even a caveman can do it, there's also a handy chart. Want to know which receivers should be on your short list?

Read our 2014 $500 AV Receiver comparison article to find out.

Read our 2014 AV Receiver Comparison article

Vote in our poll and let us know which AV receiver you think gets the best rating for the $500 category. Let us know why in this thread.

 

[j_garcia]

I'm in the market for a new AVR for the second system and sounds like the Denon would have been top of the list if it had preamp outs at least for the main channels, and I don't necessarily want to spend a bunch more just to get them.

 

[rnatalli]

Give me the Denon out of this group

 

[Adam]

If I were to pick a receiver in that price class, I'd go with the Pioneer. For my needs, MCACC beats Audyssey, and I have no use for WiFi or Bluetooth in my receiver. I do want to read up more on Onkyo's new calibration system, though.

 

[Goliath]

For my needs, MCACC beats Audyssey, and I have no use for WiFi or Bluetooth in my receiver. I do want to read up more on Onkyo's new calibration system, though.

I'm curious what testing methodology you used in order to determine that MCACC beat Audyssey. I'm guessing you did a double blind, back to back comparison. Am I right?

 

[smurphy522]

Has there been any reliable reviews or comparisons of the new Onkyo AccuEQ system. All I have seen is statements made that it is not as good as the Audyssey offering - with no real proof. Yes you can look over the spec sheet of both calibration methods but the proof is in the sound, albeit an arguable personal perception.

 

[Goliath]

I see my "reputation status" has taken a nosedive after asking a legitimate question concerning the comparison between Audyssey and MCACC. LOL.

 

[Steve81]

Has there been any reliable reviews or comparisons of the new Onkyo AccuEQ system. All I have seen is statements made that it is not as good as the Audyssey offering - with no real proof. Yes you can look over the spec sheet of both calibration methods but the proof is in the sound, albeit an arguable personal perception.

S&V reviewed the TX-NR636 and they talk about AccuEQ some:
Onkyo TX-NR636 AV Receiver | Sound & Vision

AccuEQ proceeded in familiar fashion, cycling twice through all channels with brief noise bursts. The process was smooth, the initial results a little less so: Onkyo’s system set all front and center speaker crossovers to 150 hertz (I know all three speakers to be in-room accurate to well below 100 Hz), and the surrounds to 120 Hz. (My reference crossover setting for my main-front Energy Veritas 2.2i speakers is 60 Hz; for my center, 80). AccuEQ’s distances were very accurate, but levels were off by several decibels amongst the front trio, relative to what my handheld SPL meter (and my ears) told me, and twice that on the surrounds. (To be fair, most systems get dipole-surround levels wrong.)


So I gave AccuEQ a second run with slightly different mike and speaker placements, and I got completely different results. Main-front crossovers were now set to 40 Hz (lower than any other auto routine I’ve used), the remaining channels to a sensible 120 Hz. Distances were still perfect, and levels—except subwoofer, which was as usual several decibels too hot—within a decibel or so either way to my meter, all of which is well above average. Moral: If an auto-EQ system seems confused, then reboot, reposition, and retry before condemning.


AccuEQ’s speaker/room correction proved tough to judge since defeating/enabling it passes through a four-second muting interval. But my conclusion was of a very slightly warmer mid-to-low bass, with very little impact on the upper seven or so octaves of sound. This is different from my experience with Audyssey MultEQ, gained over many runs in my room on various receivers and pre/pros, where the net results have been reliably, noticeably “tighter” midbass and “better focused” (or, perhaps, “more spatially distinct”) treble. Any road, the effect of AccuEQ was quite minimal with my room/speaker combo—which is flatter than most to begin with‐and entirely benign in any case. Obviously, any auto-cal system can and probably will yield dramatically different results and character in each different room setup. Regardless, I proceeded to do all my subsequent listening with the EQ defeated, as always.

As to whether it's better or worse than MultEQ, ultimately that's for the listener to decide as you imply. But lets face facts here: an Auto-EQ system that doesn't provide any sort of correction for the main channels and subwoofer isn't accomplishing much. Of course, if you wanted to compare AccuEQ vs Audyssey, I guess you could listen to some stereo material, and turn Audyssey on and off.

 

[Goliath]

Has there been any reliable reviews or comparisons of the new Onkyo AccuEQ system. All I have seen is statements made that it is not as good as the Audyssey offering - with no real proof. Yes you can look over the spec sheet of both calibration methods but the proof is in the sound, albeit an arguable personal perception.

While I don't think there are any reliable tests indicating the inferiority of the AccuEQ system, I do think that the probability is high that the overwhelming lack of filter resolution, the lack of .. well, anything related to EQ on the subwoofer, and the lack of mic positions, gives a reasonable overview of the type of performance that one can reasonably expect, which isn't much.

I doubt that we'll be seeing any controlled testing of these EQ systems, but suffice it to say, if I was in the market for an AVR and good quality room correction was a priority, I would skip AccuEQ.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First of all, I love Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and I don't care what anyone says.

Perhaps people could look at the graphs of each RC software and compare the graphs in terms of frequency responses.

At least one person did - same room, speakers, different AVR.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.ixbt.com/multimedia/acoustics-correction.shtml

And it looks pretty clear to me that Audyssey XT32 did a better job with the frequency response than Yamaha and Pioneer.

A lot of people love what Audyssey does even from many different seats in the room, not just one or two seats. That is the primary objective of Audyssey. Not just 1 or 2 or 3 seats. But multiple seats. Eight different positions are measured in the room.

With that being said, it's still very subjective when it comes to what a person prefers.

Whatever sounds best to them with whatever is available to them at hand is what they know and experience.

Are we comparing just $500 AVR RC software or Audyssey XT32 and higher end software from Pioneer, Yamaha, etc.?

 

[3db]

A lot of people love what Audyssey does even from many different seats in the room, not just one or two seats. That is the primary objective of Audyssey. Not just 1 or 2 or 3 seats. But multiple seats. Eight different positions are measured in the room.

This is the thing I don't understand if I understand this correctly. One averages the response across 8 listening positions so that each position gets a compromised compensation based on 8 positions as opposed to one sweet spot that is truely corrected for that spot. In any of these 8 spots, one will never hit the true sweet spot.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

But lets face facts here: an Auto-EQ system that doesn't provide any sort of correction for the main channels and subwoofer isn't accomplishing much.

I agree. I think it's funny how someone would say that the RC software is doing a great job because "it didn't affect the sound quality".

I think this is what one reviewer recently said about the Yamaha 1040 - that YPAO didn't affect the sound, which means it sounded like Pure Direct?

If there is no audible difference, then the RC software is not really doing anything.

Personally, I would use the software (whether it is Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Dirac, Lyngdorf, YPAO, Pioneer) ONLY if I could hear an improvement.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is the thing I don't understand if I understand this correctly. One averages the response across 8 listening positions so that each position gets a compromised compensation based on 8 positions as opposed to one sweet spot that is truely corrected for that spot. In any of these 8 spots, one will never hit the true sweet spot.

That's another case of theory vs. practice.

The proof is there. Thousands of people can attest to the effectiveness from multiple seats whether it is at home or in IMAX theaters that use Audyssey.

In my room, I've sat on the far Right and on the far Left at various times. It sounds great in both areas.

And I've also run Audyssey from just a single position. The single sweet spot position doesn't sound any better vs. using 8 microphone positions.

This has been researched to death for years (by Audyssey ).

 

[Adam]

In my room, I've sat on the far Right and on the far Left at various times. It sounds great in both areas.

And my parents think their Vizio TV speakers sound great. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

 

[Steve81]

This is the thing I don't understand if I understand this correctly. One averages the response across 8 listening positions so that each position gets a compromised compensation based on 8 positions as opposed to one sweet spot that is truely corrected for that spot. In any of these 8 spots, one will never hit the true sweet spot.

The problem is measuring from one single point in space can lead to very skewed results for everywhere else. Really, a single point measurement isn't even ideal to correct response at a single seat, because people can and do shift positions.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

And my parents think their Vizio TV speakers sound great. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

They think their TV speakers sound great after or before they listened to your system?

When my parents (& other relatives & friends) come to my house, they rave all YEAR long about how awesome my system sounds. I guess they think it sounds much better than their TV speakers.

But seriously, whatever works best for the individual is the right thing. No right or wrong.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm really curious to see how many votes Onkyo & Sony get.

 

[3db]

The problem is measuring from one single point in space can lead to very skewed results for everywhere else. Really, a single point measurement isn't even ideal to correct response at a single seat, because people can and do shift positions.

It perfectly fits the one suite spot but I do agree that it makes the others far from optimal. However, what I said previously holds true that no one spot in a multi position corrected facility will getthe suite spot. One could go further and argue that if the room positions were extreme enough, then the result would be terrible among the various positions

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It perfectly fits the one suite spot but I do agree that it makes the others far from optimal. However, what I said previously holds true that no one spot in a multi position corrected facility will getthe suite spot.

Perhaps not for YPAO or some systems.

But for Audyssey, everyone gets the sweet spot in my system.

 

[3db]

Perhaps not for YPAO or others.

But for Audyssey, everyone gets the sweet spot in my room.

Physics doesn't care if its Audyssey, YPAO, MMAC and other RC facility.