"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

"boaz" wrote in message
. ..
This is getting harder to tell which one to buy now.
One is better in one area but not the other area.
But again, it is not easy to define "better". It may mean "not
better
but
not bad either".

So, would you guys tell me your opinions on the other brands
please?


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Both these companies have excellent reputations.
Yamaha has the most sophisticated DSP.
Pioneer has a line of MOSFET amplifiers that are physically
heavy,
run
hot
(which is a good thing!), and more likely to satisfy the purist
with
amplifier quality.
I use a Yamaha for DSP, but I don't use the front amplifiers,
because
they
aren't "audiophile quality." So they are hooked via the "pre-out"
connectors
to external, heavy, MOSFET amplifiers that run hot.

I haven't done a recent survey. Frankly, you'll find members of this
group
more interested in better sound than afforded by a HT receiver. Most
HT
receivers are lousy. Many of them have deliberately inaccurate
frequency
response, tailored for popular taste. None of them are as good as
good
separates.


There's no real evidence for this, but it certainly is a common
audiophile claim.

Steve, I read this on several occasions in "Stereo Review". Sorry I
cannot
provide a specific reference.

I'm don't doubt there are receivers out there with deliberately nonflat
frequency response
in the audible range -- one might even find them in the high-end range --
but the claim that there's 'many' is what I question. I'd also question
whether a claim about the market derived from a Stereo Review is still
relevant, since
there hasn't been a Stereo Review for some time now.

Where's the evidence that a random HT receiver bought today, much less
*most*
of them, would have deliberately accurate frequency response, and that
'none of them are as good as separates'?




The Pioneer unit that my friend bought is an exceelent sounding unit. The
auto EQ feature helps in making sound even better.

I'm thinking of trying to set up a cable swap DBT between the Pioneer and my
Acoustat.
Both are 120 wpc and so far asa I can tell there is likely to be no
difference in the sound quality. If it comes to pass there will be 3
participants, myself included. The other 2 are non-audiophiles but could be
if they find a reason. I plan on bringing some of what are IMO standout
recordings and have them do some training via PCABX.

The problem at this point is scheduling.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

"boaz" wrote in message
. ..
This is getting harder to tell which one to buy now.
One is better in one area but not the other area.
But again, it is not easy to define "better". It may mean "not
better
but
not bad either".

So, would you guys tell me your opinions on the other brands
please?


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Both these companies have excellent reputations.
Yamaha has the most sophisticated DSP.
Pioneer has a line of MOSFET amplifiers that are physically
heavy,
run
hot
(which is a good thing!), and more likely to satisfy the purist
with
amplifier quality.
I use a Yamaha for DSP, but I don't use the front amplifiers,
because
they
aren't "audiophile quality." So they are hooked via the
"pre-out"
connectors
to external, heavy, MOSFET amplifiers that run hot.

I haven't done a recent survey. Frankly, you'll find members of
this
group
more interested in better sound than afforded by a HT receiver.
Most
HT
receivers are lousy. Many of them have deliberately inaccurate
frequency
response, tailored for popular taste. None of them are as good as
good
separates.


There's no real evidence for this, but it certainly is a common
audiophile claim.

Steve, I read this on several occasions in "Stereo Review". Sorry I
cannot
provide a specific reference.

I'm don't doubt there are receivers out there with deliberately nonflat
frequency response
in the audible range -- one might even find them in the high-end range --
but the claim that there's 'many' is what I question. I'd also question
whether a claim about the market derived from a Stereo Review is still
relevant, since
there hasn't been a Stereo Review for some time now.

Where's the evidence that a random HT receiver bought today, much less
*most*
of them, would have deliberately accurate frequency response, and that
'none of them are as good as separates'?

I have heard the best that Yamaha has to offer, both at my house, and at
the
house of a friend where I do alot of listening. Our mutual conclusion is
that these low-bias, efficient designs are not as musical as the separates
we prefer. Between us, the majority of our preferences run hot, but the
Odyssey series of basic amps is up there with them, with certain speaker
choices.

None of this via DBT of course, so essentially non-conclusive.

Yamaha is an unusually ethical mass market company, and I don't think that
any of their offerings are nonflat. However, in the $200 to $500 mass
market
range, it really would be foolish to make a product flat, because it will
not sound as good to the average ear as one with a bit of Fletcher-Munson
built in. Although I have not read reviews of these products since Stereo
Review folded, it seems to me that it would be foolish for Technics, say,
to
make a flat product. Who would prefer it?

People who enjoy accurate reproduction.

My statement that "none of them are as good as separates", subject to your
scrutiny, must be made more precise. I should say that any receiver made
can
be bettered by some separate, because the designer has fewer constraints.
He
can work with more heat, more regulation, a better ground plane, and more
iron.

As long as the heat is disappated properly aand no unit is driven to
clipping, there's no basis for a claim that any reciever can be bettered by
some separate. The THX certifide units are as good as any separate or they
couldn't be certified.

That said, the Pioneer MOSFET receivers could be an exception. I have not
auditioned them. I do not know to what extent they surpass the traditional
problems with MOSFET design. Since I don't care for Adcom MOSFET amps, it
is
possible that a good design from Pioneer could be superior.

Please descrive the results of the DBT's you did to reach your conclusions.

In conclusion, my statement was a simplification intended to provide
useful
information to a challenged individual. I hope he reads these
clarifications
as well and finds them useful.

In short your conclusions are all based on sighted evaluations and not
reliable.

"EddieM" wrote in message
.. .

Arny Krueger wrote





I suspect that the biggest pitfall in the proposed system is how the
speakers are hooked up. I keep having these bad dreams about eight 8 ohm
speakers connected in parallel.


The biggest pitfall in Rao is that it allows spineless ******* like you
and McKelvy to still post, you goddamn retarded coward.


What cowardice would that be? We both have taken great pains to explain
things in terms you'll understand and you keep claiming we run away or don't
answer you.




OOoooooppppsss... another attack/intrusion attempt in my computer.

Goddamn Cowards.


Then go away.

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote





I suspect that the biggest pitfall in the proposed system is how the
speakers are hooked up. I keep having these bad dreams about eight 8 ohm
speakers connected in parallel.


The biggest pitfall in Rao is that it allows spineless ******* like you
and McKelvy to still post, you goddamn retarded coward.


What cowardice would that be? We both have taken great pains to explain
things in terms you'll understand and you keep claiming we run away or don't
answer you.


You are a hairball woven with tangled thread of lies.

"EddieM" wrote in message
...

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote





I suspect that the biggest pitfall in the proposed system is how the
speakers are hooked up. I keep having these bad dreams about eight 8
ohm speakers connected in parallel.


The biggest pitfall in Rao is that it allows spineless ******* like you
and McKelvy to still post, you goddamn retarded coward.


What cowardice would that be? We both have taken great pains to explain
things in terms you'll understand and you keep claiming we run away or
don't answer you.


You are a hairball woven with tangled thread of lies.
As expected you can't answer a direct question and you are a liar and a
fool.

nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote
Arny Krueger wrote





I suspect that the biggest pitfall in the proposed system is how the
speakers are hooked up. I keep having these bad dreams about eight 8
ohm speakers connected in parallel.


The biggest pitfall in Rao is that it allows spineless ******* like you
and McKelvy to still post, you goddamn retarded coward.


What cowardice would that be? We both have taken great pains to explain
things in terms you'll understand and you keep claiming we run away or
don't answer you.


You are a hairball woven in tangled thread of lies.


As expected you can't answer a direct question


Okey, you are a hairball in the toilet bowl.