Wish list for a stereophile receiver: Thread killed due to rude replies.

[jeannot]

I just killed this thread.

People don't like to be told they may not be audiophiles.

They react with rudeness, I'm done with that.

 

[Pyrrho]

People who buy a Stereo Receiver rather than an AVR are more serious about their sound, and flexibility.
...

That is nonsense. The number of channels desired and the seriousness one has about the sound (or the desire for flexibility) are not related as you imagine them to be.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If that is the reasoning, you might as well just get an analog stereo preamp, an analog stereo amp, and an analog FM tuner.

But don't waste your money because a good AVR receiver will measure just as well if not better.

 

[jeannot]

That is nonsense. The number of channels desired and the seriousness one has about the sound (or the desire for flexibility) are not related as you imagine them to be.

Why is it that just hitting the Back button, or stating a polite disagreement is just not an option for some people?

How is rudeness necessary?

 

[walter duque]

People who buy a Stereo Receiver rather than an AVR are more serious about their sound, and flexibility.
Who knows if a manufacturer will ever see this, but here I go. Feel free to append.

A Stereo Receiver should have these features:

-A Variable loudness control.
-A real Tape Monitor switch (or an EQ loop).
-A High-blend switch for weak FM signals.
-A 3+ band independent L/R Parametric Equalizer
-Pre-out and Amp-in connectors.
-Provisions for Bi-amping with programmable low-pass and high-pass cross-overs, each of them with its outputs in the back, and assignable to the internal amp.
-Trigger output for external amps that follow main power and turns OFF when headphones are inserted.
-Option to power down the internal amp.

I was careful to keep the manufacturing cost for each of these under $2.

I think you have a valid point. What made you start this thread is this http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73755 for a couple of dollars everbody could be happy.

 

[sholling]

Why is it that just hitting the Back button, or stating a polite disagreement is just not an option for some people?

How is rudeness necessary?

I wouldn't call Pyrrho's response rudeness - just an honest statement of fact. On the other hand the premise postulated in the thread ("People who buy a Stereo Receiver rather than an AVR are more serious about their sound, and flexibility") is incredibly condescending, not to mention wrong. I generally enjoy your postings but I've been around long enough to realize that the choice of stereo receiver over an AVR is often driven by a false sense of elitism (or lack of funds) rather than technical superiority. I'm not accusing you of that, just stating my opinion.

 

[jeannot]

I wouldn't call Pyrrho's response rudeness - just an honest statement of fact. On the other hand the premise postulated in the thread ("People who buy a Stereo Receiver rather than an AVR are more serious about their sound, and flexibility") is incredibly condescending, not to mention wrong. I generally enjoy your postings but I've been around long enough to realize that the choice of stereo receiver over an AVR is often driven by a false sense of elitism (or lack of funds) rather than technical superiority. I'm not accusing you of that, just stating my opinion.

You have a point. A better choice of words in my post would have been "musicality" rather than "sound". And I can see how it could be perceived as condescending, I did not intend it that way. But you know what, something tells me there would still have been rude replies.

However, I do not think that calling a post "nonsense" and telling someone he "'imagines" reality qualify as "statements of fact". They are harsh, rude judgments of someone's opinion. I could have continued the spiral down and called that poster an *******, now that may actually have been a statement of fact, or not. But it would not have been constructive.

I would entertain a discussion about the musical qualities of an AVR, but not in this context, I'm pretty turned off right now.

Thanks for a civil reply.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You have a point. A better choice of words in my post would have been "musicality" rather than "sound". And I can see how it could be perceived as condescending, I did not intend it that way. But you know what, something tells me there would still have been rude replies.

I would entertain a discussion about the musical qualities of an AVR, but not in this context, I'm pretty turned off right now.

Thanks for a civil reply.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

I don't think it's about rudeness, and I don't think it's personal.

It's just a matter of honest opinion either way.

My opinion is that whether it is a 2.0-receiver or a 9.2-receiver, if they measure the same, they will sound the same in Direct or Pure Direct mode.

The only time they will sound differently is if you use EQs (like Audyssey, etc.) or DSPs (like Movie mode, game mode, THX mode, etc.).

In direct mode, they will sound the same if they measure the same.

For example, I think your Denon 3808 will sound as pure and musical as ANY pre-pro or preamp out there regardless of price in Direct or Pure Direct mode.

 

[GranteedEV]

My ideal MUSIC system would NOT use a stereo receiver.

The controller would not be a stereo pre-amp, but a surround processor such as the AV7005 (or AV8006 ). It would have a DEQX Express line level in front of every speaker pair, plus the center and subs. And it would need around 7 MA-9S2's somewhere in the mix for amplification.

So no, stereo =/= more serious

 

[sholling]

My opinion is that whether it is a 2.0-receiver or a 9.2-receiver, if they measure the same, they will sound the same in Direct or Pure Direct mode.

The only time they will sound differently is if you use EQs (like Audyssey, etc.) or DSPs (like Movie mode, game mode, THX mode, etc.).

In direct mode, they will sound the same if they measure the same.

For example, I think your Denon 3808 will sound as pure and musical as ANY pre-pro or preamp out there regardless of price in Direct or Pure Direct mode.

I agree completely. As long as the specs are the same they should sound the same in pure/direct mode. That assumes quality control keeps their products in spec. I'm not convinced that every receiver or amplifier is in spec when it leaves the factory but that has nothing to do with 2 channel vs 9.2 channel or receiver vs separates.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My ideal MUSIC system would NOT use a stereo receiver.

The controller would not be a stereo pre-amp, but a surround processor such as the AV7005 (or AV8006 ). It would have a DEQX Express line level in front of every speaker pair, plus the center and subs. And it would need around 7 MA-9S2's somewhere in the mix for amplification.

So no, stereo =/= more serious

Anyone drooling yet?

 

[GranteedEV]

If i ever make that hypex amp, here's the chassis i'm planning on using:

But even that's not half as pretty as the marantz.

 

[its phillip]

Those are beautiful

 

[TLS Guy]

Why is it that just hitting the Back button, or stating a polite disagreement is just not an option for some people?

How is rudeness necessary?

You are at it again aren't you?

For others on this thread, you and I have already had words about you being the self appointed arbiter of language.


We all have our different personalities and are used to to a wide variety of idiosyncrasies, within limits.

You need to lay low on the forum a little longer before you interfere with long term relationships. In other words inhale the flavors for a while.

As you know you have already irritated me, and I admit that is not difficult.

 

[highfigh]

I just killed this thread.

People don't like to be told they may not be audiophiles.

They react with rudeness, I'm done with that.

Why would anyone tell someone that they aren't an audiophile and why would someone use 'audiophile' as a statement, to help their ego?

 

[highfigh]

I would entertain a discussion about the musical qualities of an AVR,...

Is the goal to assemble a system that sounds good enough for all practical purposes, or to assemble a system for the specific purpose of massaging one's ego and/or impressing others?

IMO, enjoying the music should come first. Then, the sound of that music can be considered and if necessary, improved upon. Discussing "musicality" and other audiophile words/terms is like the saying that I'm paraphrasing, "Talking about music is like dancing about food". It can be different for each listener, on several levels and this should be allowed. Granted, some us us will cringe when we hear what others consider to be a great sounding system or great music, but it's in the ear of the listener.

FWIW, I use a Denon AVR in a 2.1 system. Stereo receivers don't have the video capabilities of an AVR and, while I hadn't used a receiver for my own system since 1978, it does sound very good. If this makes me a non-audiophile, so be it- I really don't care if someone says I'm not because after talking with as many who consider themselves the consummate 'phile, I really don't want to be one of them. The self-importance and BS they spout is incredible and ranges from using the green magic marker on CDs to putting Cramolin on AC power plugs because it makes the bass tighter.

Personally, the rehashing of the same old tired issues is getting annoying. How many times can we debate the sound quality of a receiver vs separates, different power amps and cables? Speakers are different, to me. They can be modified and tweaked to sound different and they make more difference in the sound of the system, along with their interaction with the room. The rest is of less importance, IMO.

 

[Pyrrho]

Why is it that just hitting the Back button, or stating a polite disagreement is just not an option for some people?

How is rudeness necessary?

So you think that insulting people with multichannel systems isn't rudeness?

When you start off insulting people, they tend to take it amiss.

... A better choice of words in my post would have been "musicality" rather than "sound". ...

No, that would not be any better. It is still condescending balderdash.

The simple fact is, there is no necessary connection between the number of channels and the level of fidelity of the reproduction of the recording. And it is an obvious fact that should be realized by anyone who has any understanding of audio and who bothers to think about the matter at all.

So, what you are saying is completely wrong, as well as rude. And that means that you are being hypocritical as well, as you expect others to ignore your rudeness, and complain if they respond in kind.