Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one of the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

So... I am doing research on a Pioneer and a Yamaha. I check out their
website. Pioneer's sale pitch is that they have been in the audio business
for so many years. They know the stuff. At the Yamaha, they say that they
build their own chips to drive the pro audio equipments (keyboards and
stuffs like that) and many other companies use their chips.

So...
Pioneer - we know the stuff for so long - So buy us.
Yamaha - everybody use our stuff - it must be good - So buy us.

I know the Pioneer company has been around for a long long time (since I was
a little kid).
And in the good old day, HK was one of the best (according to some of my
older relatives.)
Yamaha was known with their keyboards (when I was a kid)

So after listening to my own 2cents... I head to the reviews in Amazon. One
of the reviews says that
Pioneer is good but the unit has a cooling fan that makes nosie all the
time. So, Pioneer is bad.


so, what is your opinion?



--
There is no answer.
There has not been an answer.
There will not be an answer.
That IS the answer!
And I am screwed.
Deadline was due yesterday.

There is no point to life.
THAT IS THE POINT.
And we are screwed.
Bush is not bring home any oil.

I bought my brother a Pioneer home theater receiver earlier this year. I
didn't have a chance to really test its quality of music, but I was
surprised that the receiver was very light. My Harman Kardan, whatever you
think of it, is really really heavy.

That actually means something to me when considering power amplifiers.

C

Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of those
amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)





"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I bought my brother a Pioneer home theater receiver earlier this year. I
didn't have a chance to really test its quality of music, but I was
surprised that the receiver was very light. My Harman Kardan, whatever you
think of it, is really really heavy.

That actually means something to me when considering power amplifiers.

C

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)

No, there are a lot of parts of the power amp that can be made cheaper or
more substantial, even in a transistor based amplifier.

I like the sound of my H/K AVR55, but I find it slightly underpowered for
music (though fine for movies), which is why I'm trying an NAD instead.

C






"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I bought my brother a Pioneer home theater receiver earlier this year. I
didn't have a chance to really test its quality of music, but I was
surprised that the receiver was very light. My Harman Kardan, whatever
you think of it, is really really heavy.

That actually means something to me when considering power amplifiers.

C

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)


Hmmmm....french?

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those
amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)


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.

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.

My HK is the opposite. Music is fine (to me) but movie is horrible.
Do you think it is my speakers? I don't have a matching speaker set.
I have a tiny 3" center speaker but with a pair of 6" 2-way JBL floor
speakers and a pair of 4" 2-way Sony for the rear.


"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)

No, there are a lot of parts of the power amp that can be made cheaper or
more substantial, even in a transistor based amplifier.

I like the sound of my H/K AVR55, but I find it slightly underpowered for
music (though fine for movies), which is why I'm trying an NAD instead.

C






"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I bought my brother a Pioneer home theater receiver earlier this year. I
didn't have a chance to really test its quality of music, but I was
surprised that the receiver was very light. My Harman Kardan, whatever
you think of it, is really really heavy.

That actually means something to me when considering power amplifiers.

C

Speakers are a very personal thing, but I'm personally not a fan of your
speaker choices. The rears ought not to matter a lot for movies: I've
spent some fairly serious money on audiophile rears, and for movies, they
still mostly cover a very small range of sounds. But if you don't like the
sound from the rears, say so, and maybe it is the speakers. Also, JBL's are
power hungry if I remember correctly.

For the fronts, I've never liked JBL's. They tend to have "big" American
sound, meaning far too colored and recessed for me. I prefer neutral
speakers which reproduce sounds as accurately as possible, so I like brands
like Mission and Castle. Were I buying speakers, I'd lurk on Ebay for a few
months running search on "Mission speakers" and waiting for something like
the 773e's or 774's to show up. But that's my taste. Even the large
bookshelf speaker 701's have impressive sound, in my opinion. There's a
pair of 703's for sale, but they're pickup only in Kentucky or someplace.
The 701's and 703's tend not to sound great at low volumes, but theys how
their stuff when run louder: the 701's can be boomy if not positioned
properly. The 773/774's/77c are more refined [aerogel midwoofers instead].
But speaker preference is really variable.

The center channel will only handle dialogue, so you'd have to tell us if
that's a problem. I just bought one of Mission's best ever center channels,
the 77c, which has two midranges and three tweeters. It's a model I
recommend. I picked it up for a song on Ebay. There are none for sale at
the moment (except one in England), but they pop up every few weeks.

Which model HK do you have?

C


"boaz" wrote in message
.. .
My HK is the opposite. Music is fine (to me) but movie is horrible.
Do you think it is my speakers? I don't have a matching speaker set.
I have a tiny 3" center speaker but with a pair of 6" 2-way JBL floor
speakers and a pair of 4" 2-way Sony for the rear.


"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)

No, there are a lot of parts of the power amp that can be made cheaper or
more substantial, even in a transistor based amplifier.

I like the sound of my H/K AVR55, but I find it slightly underpowered for
music (though fine for movies), which is why I'm trying an NAD instead.

C






"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I bought my brother a Pioneer home theater receiver earlier this year.
I didn't have a chance to really test its quality of music, but I was
surprised that the receiver was very light. My Harman Kardan, whatever
you think of it, is really really heavy.

That actually means something to me when considering power amplifiers.

C

"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.

However, there appear to be two companies that have historically been a cut
above the rest: Yamaha and Pioneer. The sound of a HT receiver is
compromised, because the package is small and hard to cool. Therefore, most
manufacturers avoid designs that run hot in order to produce better sound.
The sole exception to this is Pioneer. Yamaha does the best they can, within
the limits they have given themselves for power consumption. OTOH, Yamaha
are in a class by themselves with respect to DSP. They have been the world
leaders in consumer DSP for quite a number of years now. They also
manufacture musical instruments, and have a corporate committal to sound
quality. You could buy a Yamaha receiver, and, sometime in the future,
purchase a separate amplifier for the front channels. Yamaha receivers make
it easy to configure for this, and make it possible to reallocate their
front channels to back channel duty. The built-in back channels of a
receiver are always the worst.

MOSFET sound can be good or bad; I have not sampled the Pioneer sound. In
order to dissipate the heat, Pioneer receivers that feature MOSFET
amplification (check that they do!) are built to a high standard. Most
Pioneer equipment is notable for superior performance.

Other companies have waxed and waned. Onkyo was noted in the past for
superior quality and reliability. As much as I admire Sidney Harmon,
president and CEO of Harmon International, I have never liked HK receivers.
Sony built innovative products years ago, but seems to have become
noncompetitive; there are also quality issues.

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Possibly, but DSP recreations of different sonic environments is a touchy
thing. Proper set up and timbre matching are important. Frankly I just
don't find them all that useful or entertaining for more than a few moments.

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one of
the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The
Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

So... I am doing research on a Pioneer and a Yamaha. I check out their
website. Pioneer's sale pitch is that they have been in the audio
business
for so many years. They know the stuff. At the Yamaha, they say that
they
build their own chips to drive the pro audio equipments (keyboards and
stuffs like that) and many other companies use their chips.

So...
Pioneer - we know the stuff for so long - So buy us.
Yamaha - everybody use our stuff - it must be good - So buy us.

I know the Pioneer company has been around for a long long time (since I
was a little kid).
And in the good old day, HK was one of the best (according to some of my
older relatives.)
Yamaha was known with their keyboards (when I was a kid)

So after listening to my own 2cents... I head to the reviews in Amazon.
One of the reviews says that
Pioneer is good but the unit has a cooling fan that makes nosie all the
time. So, Pioneer is bad.


so, what is your opinion?


Both make very good equipment, and so does HK. I don't know that there's
any reason they would sound differnt driving normal speakers and not
clipping. DSP is a matter of tatse IME. Don't base your decision on DSP
unless you're making every possible effort to properly set up for it.

Check into digital EQ for all the speakers being used, assuming that room
treatments have also been utilized. The room and its interaction with
speakers is the single biggest area that make or break the sound you hear.

Some HT receivers have an EQ built into them, Pioneer and Yamaha both have
models that do this. The number of bands is limited and may not be
sufficient to solvbe whatever problem you may have.

If you don't have an SPL meter, you need one.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow
doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those
amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)


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."

Define audiophile quality.

So they are hooked via the "pre-out" connectors
to external, heavy, MOSFET amplifiers that run hot.

Why is running hot a good thing?

boaz wrote:
Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Could be . Could be your room too. Could be you just don't like the
way the particular DSP sounds. What are you using the DSP for?

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one of the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

Are you comparing apples to apples? DSP settings to DSP settings?






--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Robert Morein wrote:

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those
amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)


Both these companies have excellent reputations.
Yamaha has the most sophisticated DSP.

Depends on what you mean by DSP. If you mean room emulations, perhaps.
If you mean digital room correction, or speaker settings, I wouldn't say
one is more sophisticated than another.




--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Personally, I think all DSP modes like "Cathedral" and "Stadium" simply
suck. Why not listen to the music just in stereo mode? There is a
"surround off" on all HK AV receivers.

C

boaz wrote:
My HK is the opposite. Music is fine (to me) but movie is horrible.
Do you think it is my speakers? I don't have a matching speaker set.
I have a tiny 3" center speaker but with a pair of 6" 2-way JBL floor
speakers and a pair of 4" 2-way Sony for the rear.

You really need to describe how you are using your gear in more
detail. Are you comparing 2.0 sound to 5.1 sound? What DSP are
you using and for what material?

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.

"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.

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

"boaz" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Yes, my HK is very heavy too... BUT... So does a cow. And the cow
doesn't
sound anything good either. So... with my not-so-vulcan logic, the
weight of a AV may not direct proportional to the quality of the sound.

I think if something that is heavy and sound good. It must be one of
those
amps that use vacuum tubes. ($3000+)


Both these companies have excellent reputations.
Yamaha has the most sophisticated DSP.

Depends on what you mean by DSP. If you mean room emulations, perhaps.
If you mean digital room correction, or speaker settings, I wouldn't say
one is more sophisticated than another.


I would assume he was referring to the room emulations, since Yamaha was the
comapny responible for most of those measurements being done so they could
be recreated.

I would like to hear a demo from Yamaha of those effects in a room they set
up.

--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Hi,

I listen to music with just stereo. And it sounds very good with the JBL...
hmm... actually, it is a pair Infinity... well same thing I guess.

However, if the receiver switches to DTS or Dolby Digital when watching
movie, it is usually sound bad (to me).

I am thinking maybe I don't have a matching center speaker. I am going to
find a bigger center speaker to match my 2 front JBL to see if there is any
different. I think I have a spare Mirage center (or something like that - I
have never heard of this brand though).





"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
boaz wrote:
Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening
to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Could be . Could be your room too. Could be you just don't like the
way the particular DSP sounds. What are you using the DSP for?

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one of
the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The
Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

Are you comparing apples to apples? DSP settings to DSP settings?






--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Hi,

I listen to music with just stereo. It is when I am watching movie, the
movie just doesn't sound good to me.

I am thinking that either my speakers are not good or HK does not know how
to make good AV receiever. I am sure the HK stereo receiver is good.



"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening
to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Personally, I think all DSP modes like "Cathedral" and "Stadium" simply
suck. Why not listen to the music just in stereo mode? There is a
"surround off" on all HK AV receivers.

C

Have you played around with the "speaker" setup under digital mode? Make
sure your fronts are set to LARGE, and the rest of your speakers
accordingly. You may also want to add or subtract db's from your center to
make it louder or softer, relative to the front speakers.

I like Mirage. They're sorta' like Paradigm.

C

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I listen to music with just stereo. And it sounds very good with the
JBL... hmm... actually, it is a pair Infinity... well same thing I guess.

However, if the receiver switches to DTS or Dolby Digital when watching
movie, it is usually sound bad (to me).

I am thinking maybe I don't have a matching center speaker. I am going to
find a bigger center speaker to match my 2 front JBL to see if there is
any different. I think I have a spare Mirage center (or something like
that - I have never heard of this brand though).





"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
boaz wrote:
Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening
to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Could be . Could be your room too. Could be you just don't like the
way the particular DSP sounds. What are you using the DSP for?

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one of
the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The
Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

Are you comparing apples to apples? DSP settings to DSP settings?






--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

I set the center speaker to SMALL +10 db. (HKTS... something)
The front speakers to LARGE -10 db. (Infinity Entra Two)
The Subwoofer to LARGE 0db. (HKTS... something)
The rear speakers to LARGE -2 db. (Sony)

I am also having problem hearing the dialogue in a movie.

P.S.
How comes the Mirage is SOOOOOO heavy even it is only about 4 feet tall and
very small? I can't even lift it up with my bare hands. I need to ask
someone to help me.

"Cordovero" wrote in message
nk.net...
Have you played around with the "speaker" setup under digital mode? Make
sure your fronts are set to LARGE, and the rest of your speakers
accordingly. You may also want to add or subtract db's from your center
to make it louder or softer, relative to the front speakers.

I like Mirage. They're sorta' like Paradigm.

C

"Tom" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I listen to music with just stereo. And it sounds very good with the
JBL... hmm... actually, it is a pair Infinity... well same thing I guess.

However, if the receiver switches to DTS or Dolby Digital when watching
movie, it is usually sound bad (to me).

I am thinking maybe I don't have a matching center speaker. I am going
to find a bigger center speaker to match my 2 front JBL to see if there
is any different. I think I have a spare Mirage center (or something
like that - I have never heard of this brand though).





"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
boaz wrote:
Hi,

I post this to the alt.audio.equipment but got no response.
So... here I go again.

I am using a Harman Kardon. I really hate this AV recevier. Listening
to
music is ok but anything else is bad. Bottomline is as soon as the DSP
kicks
in, the sound is bad. (will that be the speakers?)

Could be . Could be your room too. Could be you just don't like the
way the particular DSP sounds. What are you using the DSP for?

I also have an old Pioneer Elite reciever (not AV). The music is one
of the
best coming from this unit. My friend has a Yamaha AV HTiB set. The
Yamaha
is very good with both music and movie.

Are you comparing apples to apples? DSP settings to DSP settings?






--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

I listen to music with no DSP; only stereo and the sub.

When watching movie, usually it will set to DTS or Dolby Digital
automatically. None of these sound any good to me.

Sometimes, the movie is DTS but only stereo (no sub). That doesn't sound
good either.



"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
boaz wrote:
My HK is the opposite. Music is fine (to me) but movie is horrible.
Do you think it is my speakers? I don't have a matching speaker set.
I have a tiny 3" center speaker but with a pair of 6" 2-way JBL floor
speakers and a pair of 4" 2-way Sony for the rear.

You really need to describe how you are using your gear in more
detail. Are you comparing 2.0 sound to 5.1 sound? What DSP are
you using and for what material?

"Tom" wrote in message
m...
I listen to music with no DSP; only stereo and the sub.

When watching movie, usually it will set to DTS or Dolby Digital
automatically. None of these sound any good to me.

Have you gone through the speaker management setup on the receiver WHILE IN
THE DTS/DD mode? Most receivers, and all the HK's, "remember" your speaker
management settings for each individual input. Thus, you can setup your
speakers for "CD", but the if you switch to "DVD" you have to set them up
all over again. So make sure while you're in the dvd mode and playing a
digital stream like DTS, that you setup the speaker management settings
there.

Also make sure your DVD player isn't set to "Dynamic Range Compression" or
whatever they call it in its setup menu.

C


Sometimes, the movie is DTS but only stereo (no sub). That doesn't sound
good either.



"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
boaz wrote:
My HK is the opposite. Music is fine (to me) but movie is horrible.
Do you think it is my speakers? I don't have a matching speaker set.
I have a tiny 3" center speaker but with a pair of 6" 2-way JBL floor
speakers and a pair of 4" 2-way Sony for the rear.

You really need to describe how you are using your gear in more
detail. Are you comparing 2.0 sound to 5.1 sound? What DSP are
you using and for what material?

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'?




--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

Tom wrote:
Hi,

I listen to music with just stereo. And it sounds very good with the JBL...
hmm... actually, it is a pair Infinity... well same thing I guess.

However, if the receiver switches to DTS or Dolby Digital when watching
movie, it is usually sound bad (to me).


Ah. Well, might I suggest then that you haven't set your speaker level,
delays , or placement optimally for surround sound? Or that some
room calibration is in order?

I am thinking maybe I don't have a matching center speaker.

Ah. Well, yes, that will often have a negative effect on multichannel
sound.

I am going to
find a bigger center speaker to match my 2 front JBL to see if there is any
different. I think I have a spare Mirage center (or something like that - I
have never heard of this brand though).

Your best bet would be to contact JBL to find out what center speaker
they recommend as a match for the mains. Matching disparate brands
across the front is hit or miss at best.

Bottom line is, I highly doubt the receiver is the main problem.


--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

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.

I've measured the frequency response of a number of receivers, mostly of the
low-buck persuasion, and none of them were off by more than 0.5 dB in the
normal audio range.

As far as no receiver being as good as separates, that all depends on what
you call good, and which separates you're talking about. For example there
are lo-buck so-called separate-style power amps that are pretty much a
receiver without the tuner or preamp. There are separate-style preamps that
aren't much more than the control section of an old analog receiver without
the tuner or power amp.

For example, I seriously doubt that there are many receivers with power amps
that are as robust as one of my QSC power amps. It's right there on the
ratings sheets - how many receivers are rating for driving 4 ohm bridged
speakers (i.e., 2 ohm load)?

But not all separates are as robust as QSC power amps - indeed its pretty
hard to find many audiophile separates outside the Krell class that are
rated to drive 2 ohm loads.

OTOH, the requirement that all receivers be capable of driving 2 ohm loads
is bogus in most cases. Most receivers when operated properly ever see 2 ohm
loads. Most receivers, even those that are not rated to drive 4 ohm loads
will in fact operate well with 4 ohm loads if all other requirements (e.g.,
ventilation) are attended to.

I can see where someone whose chosen speakers are among the toughest
amplifier loads sold in the history of audio will find *all* commercial
receivers to be disappointing. OTOH, most people have conventional speakers
that aren't an obstacle course for power amps.

What it comes down to is that most receivers are suitable for their intended
purpose.

The rationale of the receiver was kinda edgy in the days of tubes, because a
decent amp, tuner, and preamp was a lot of circuitry and a lot of heat to
put in one box using the technology of the day. Receivers didn't come into
their own until SS got pretty well perfected. But, that was all over about
30 years ago.

The basic idea of the receiver was that with separates, you pay a lot of
money for connectors that a receiver doesn't need, and a lot of chassis and
power supplies that can be successfully combined into one box.

These days, a FM tuner is a few tiny chips that dissipate milliwatts. An
analog preamp is a chip or two with similar or less heat output. The power
amp can be a couple of chips that may need to dissipate a fair amount of
power, but only if you run the receiver at high power levels. Most receivers
spend most of their lives playing some FM station at low levels. This isn't
rocket science and it doesn't take a terribly expensive, robust box to do
the job very nicely.

"arny krueger" wrote in message
...

Nice post.

The situation is complicated enough that everything you say is true some
percentage of the time. However, you apparently believe that QSC amplifiers
are good sounding. They are robust, but they do not sound good, at least to
these ears. Part of my advice is based on what I consider a fact, which is
that although many amplifiers do sound similar, there are significant
variations between classes of amplifier designs, and these differences are
significant to sound quality.

You make the point that the preamp and tuner circuitry of a modern receiver
consume negligible power. This is also true. However, I did not use that in
support of my statement that separates tend to beat receivers.

Rather, it appears that, perhaps because of where they are made, or who they
are made for, the vast majority of receivers do not have the heat
dissipation, and the iron, required to use high bias techniques. For those
of us who believe that amplifier designs make a substantial contribution to
sound quality, this is unacceptable.

Almost every receiver I've ever seen was designed for rapid assembly
techniques with minimum mechanical complexity. This means that heatsinks are
internal, and usually positioned close to other parts, many of them heat
sensitive. More often than not, they abut the electrolytic filter
capacitors, which are the most heat sensitive components in electronics --
besides thermal fuses . In order to get a decent average lifetime out of
a receiver, this requires that the heatsinks not be constantly scalding.

One could take a well made two channel amplifier, with external heatsinks,
slap a control faceplate on it with a tuner and preamp, and have a no -
compromise product. Conversely, I would have to agree with you that many
basic power amps, such as low end offerings of Rotel and Sony, have all the
bad characteristics of receivers.

As I said to Steve, my advice was simplified in order to be useful to a
person unfamiliar with the marketplace. Perhaps it was not complete enough
to save him from all the pitfalls. I hope he reads all of this.

Can you type it one more time in English... huh... make it American
English... please? Thanks!


Ok... bascially what you are saying is that you don't like any of them. And
it depends on the individual taste.

So, Do you know what AV receiver some of your friends are using? What do
they think?




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

"Tom" wrote in message
.. .
Can you type it one more time in English... huh... make it American
English... please? Thanks!


Ok... bascially what you are saying is that you don't like any of them.
And
it depends on the individual taste.

So, Do you know what AV receiver some of your friends are using? What do
they think?

In my small circle of friends, we don't use receivers in our main systems.
We love good sound. But I have five systems in my house, and I use a Yamaha
DSP-A1 as a surround processor. I also have an office HT system that uses a
Yamaha RX-V990.

These all-in-one box solutions do a very decent job for movies. They fall
down with music.
If music is your thing, try the Pioneer Elite series of receivers. They use
MOSFET power amplification. But you will have to ventilate one of these very
carefully. Do not put it into a rack with enclosed sides or back, or the
heat will kill it one day after the warranty ends

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"arny krueger" wrote in message
...

Nice post.

You've got me fooled!

The situation is complicated enough that everything you say is true some
percentage of the time.

Try almost all of the time. First you say nice post and you damn it with
faint praise like this Robert?

However, you apparently believe that QSC amplifiers
are good sounding. They are robust, but they do not sound good, at least
to
these ears.

Noting your gratuitous slam of QSC elsewhere on the group, I'd say you have
a thing about QSC, Robert.

Part of my advice is based on what I consider a fact, which is
that although many amplifiers do sound similar, there are significant
variations between classes of amplifier designs, and these differences are
significant to sound quality.

There's enough hedge words in there to make any response a bad risk.

You make the point that the preamp and tuner circuitry of a modern
receiver
consume negligible power. This is also true. However, I did not use that
in
support of my statement that separates tend to beat receivers.

OK.

Rather, it appears that, perhaps because of where they are made, or who
they
are made for, the vast majority of receivers do not have the heat
dissipation, and the iron, required to use high bias techniques.

Where is it written in stone that an amp must use high bias techniques to
sound good?

For those
of us who believe that amplifier designs make a substantial contribution
to
sound quality, this is unacceptable.

I thought I was writing for the benefit of a person who was interested in
getting a job done, not joining a techno-religious group.

Almost every receiver I've ever seen was designed for rapid assembly
techniques with minimum mechanical complexity.

The same can be said of most modern power amps, even your deified Haflers,
Robert.

This means that heatsinks are
internal, and usually positioned close to other parts, many of them heat
sensitive.

No.

More often than not, they abut the electrolytic filter
capacitors, which are the most heat sensitive components in electronics --
besides thermal fuses . In order to get a decent average lifetime out
of
a receiver, this requires that the heatsinks not be constantly scalding.

If the heatsinks of *anything* are scalding, that would be a sign of bad
design.

One could take a well made two channel amplifier, with external heatsinks,
slap a control faceplate on it with a tuner and preamp, and have a no -
compromise product. Conversely, I would have to agree with you that many
basic power amps, such as low end offerings of Rotel and Sony, have all
the
bad characteristics of receivers.

Believe it or not, a system of the scale described by the Restaurant system
OP is likely just for background music. We're not talking a system for a DJ,
we're talking background music.

As I said to Steve, my advice was simplified in order to be useful to a
person unfamiliar with the marketplace. Perhaps it was not complete enough
to save him from all the pitfalls. I hope he reads all of this.

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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"arny krueger" wrote in message
...

Nice post.

You've got me fooled!

The situation is complicated enough that everything you say is true some
percentage of the time.

Try almost all of the time. First you say nice post and you damn it with
faint praise like this Robert?

I don't have to agree with everything it says for, in order to like the
post.

However, you apparently believe that QSC amplifiers
are good sounding. They are robust, but they do not sound good, at least
to
these ears.

Noting your gratuitous slam of QSC elsewhere on the group, I'd say you
have
a thing about QSC, Robert.

I don't like the way they sound. Other than that, I have no problem with the
company. There are lots of amplifiers I dislike for the same, functional
reason.

Part of my advice is based on what I consider a fact, which is
that although many amplifiers do sound similar, there are significant
variations between classes of amplifier designs, and these differences
are
significant to sound quality.

There's enough hedge words in there to make any response a bad risk.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to have modified your stance.
Instead of claiming that all properly amplifiers sound the same, I get the
impression you have modified this to "all properly operating amplifiers tend
to sound the same." This is almost acceptable to me. We can leave it at
that. But my small hifi circle makes a pasttime of running different
amplifiers through our systems. We simply do not classify all of the
differences we hear as small.

You make the point that the preamp and tuner circuitry of a modern
receiver
consume negligible power. This is also true. However, I did not use that
in
support of my statement that separates tend to beat receivers.

OK.

Rather, it appears that, perhaps because of where they are made, or who
they
are made for, the vast majority of receivers do not have the heat
dissipation, and the iron, required to use high bias techniques.

Where is it written in stone that an amp must use high bias techniques to
sound good?

For those
of us who believe that amplifier designs make a substantial contribution
to
sound quality, this is unacceptable.

I thought I was writing for the benefit of a person who was interested in
getting a job done, not joining a techno-religious group.

Almost every receiver I've ever seen was designed for rapid assembly
techniques with minimum mechanical complexity.

The same can be said of most modern power amps, even your deified Haflers,
Robert.

Yes, but the heatsinks on the convection cooled Haflers point outwards.
Unlike a typical receiver, they are not located near the electrolytics.


This means that heatsinks are
internal, and usually positioned close to other parts, many of them heat
sensitive.

No.
Yes.

More often than not, they abut the electrolytic filter
capacitors, which are the most heat sensitive components in
electronics --
besides thermal fuses . In order to get a decent average lifetime out
of
a receiver, this requires that the heatsinks not be constantly scalding.

If the heatsinks of *anything* are scalding, that would be a sign of bad
design.

Not at all. MOSFET designs run hot because it causes no problem with the
stability of these designs. But the heatsinks are positioned so that it
causes little internal heat rise. The most notable example I am aware of is
the Acoustat TNT-200, where the heatsinks get to at least 140 degrees under
heavy load, while the caps are mounted far away, near the front of the
chassis, which remains very close to ambient.

One could take a well made two channel amplifier, with external
heatsinks,
slap a control faceplate on it with a tuner and preamp, and have a no -
compromise product. Conversely, I would have to agree with you that
many
basic power amps, such as low end offerings of Rotel and Sony, have all
the
bad characteristics of receivers.

Believe it or not, a system of the scale described by the Restaurant
system
OP is likely just for background music. We're not talking a system for a
DJ,
we're talking background music.

Could be. I was taking him at face value. At low levels, any amplifier can
drive any impedance.


As I said to Steve, my advice was simplified in order to be useful to a
person unfamiliar with the marketplace. Perhaps it was not complete
enough
to save him from all the pitfalls. I hope he reads all of this.

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.

So do I. But we would have to dialog with him quite a bit more to find out
whether he wants high-quality relative to typical background systems, or
something more.

Robert Morein wrote:

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to have modified
your stance. Instead of claiming that all properly
amplifiers sound the same,

I never claimed such a thing since as written, its a
meaningless statement.

I get the impression you have
modified this to "all properly operating amplifiers tend
to sound the same."

Well, dooh.

Do you have any of those vaccum tube thingie?
Are they really that "good"?

It is expansive here but it is cheap if I order it directly from China.

While I was searching the web for different type of recievers, I found this
site. The guy there collects Vinyl records. And he has pictures of all
kind of equipments and the direction of the stores. Do you think if any of
these is a better buy than any Yamaha or Pioneer?


The number of collection he has is amazing!

http://www.vinylparadise.com/




"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Tom" wrote in message
.. .
Can you type it one more time in English... huh... make it American
English... please? Thanks!


Ok... bascially what you are saying is that you don't like any of them.
And
it depends on the individual taste.

So, Do you know what AV receiver some of your friends are using? What do
they think?

In my small circle of friends, we don't use receivers in our main systems.
We love good sound. But I have five systems in my house, and I use a
Yamaha
DSP-A1 as a surround processor. I also have an office HT system that uses
a
Yamaha RX-V990.

These all-in-one box solutions do a very decent job for movies. They fall
down with music.
If music is your thing, try the Pioneer Elite series of receivers. They
use
MOSFET power amplification. But you will have to ventilate one of these
very
carefully. Do not put it into a rack with enclosed sides or back, or the
heat will kill it one day after the warranty ends

"Tom" wrote in message
.. .
Do you have any of those vaccum tube thingie?
Are they really that "good"?

A close friend of mine went into tubes. I spent a lot of time listening to
them. I never liked them, and he got tired and sold them. But this is highly
individual. I cannot argue with personal taste. Maybe you will like what you
hear.

For me, the best sound usually comes from one of the big solid state
amplifiers: Hafler, Parasound 2200ii, Acoustat, Krell, Mark Levinson,
Plinius, and many others. They have big heatsinks, big iron, and very
precise circuitry.

It is expansive here but it is cheap if I order it directly from China.

While I was searching the web for different type of recievers, I found
this
site. The guy there collects Vinyl records. And he has pictures of all
kind of equipments and the direction of the stores. Do you think if any
of
these is a better buy than any Yamaha or Pioneer?


The number of collection he has is amazing!

http://www.vinylparadise.com/




"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Tom" wrote in message
.. .
Can you type it one more time in English... huh... make it American
English... please? Thanks!


Ok... bascially what you are saying is that you don't like any of them.
And
it depends on the individual taste.

So, Do you know what AV receiver some of your friends are using? What
do
they think?

In my small circle of friends, we don't use receivers in our main
systems.
We love good sound. But I have five systems in my house, and I use a
Yamaha
DSP-A1 as a surround processor. I also have an office HT system that
uses
a
Yamaha RX-V990.

These all-in-one box solutions do a very decent job for movies. They
fall
down with music.
If music is your thing, try the Pioneer Elite series of receivers. They
use
MOSFET power amplification. But you will have to ventilate one of these
very
carefully. Do not put it into a rack with enclosed sides or back, or the
heat will kill it one day after the warranty ends

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.





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

Goddamn Cowards.

"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.

Eddie, please remind us again about how a childish
name-caller posting under made-up name an untracable server
is demonstrating his wisdom and bravery.

Robert Morein wrote:
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.

er..yeah, well, given the conditions you probably took that test under...
*whatever*

Why do you bother offering such anecdotes to me as evidence?

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?


Thanks for admitting you haven't actually got evidence from measurements,
for these claims. As receivers in this range have been bench-tested
dozens, if not hundreds of times in Sound & Vision and other audio
magazines since Stereo Review folded, I don't imagine
it would be that hard to gather it.

In fact, here's what a minute or two perusing S&V's website turns up.
A featured receiver is Yamaha's ~$350 RX-V657 7.1 channel AVR

DOLBY DIGITAL PERFORMANCE
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, €“0.4 dB

MULTICHANNEL PERFORMANCE, ANALOG INPUT
Frequency response: 10 Hz to 104 kHz +0, €“3 dB

STEREO PERFORMANCE, DIGITAL INPUT
Frequency response: 20 Hz to 20 kHz +0, €“0.1 dB
(96-kHz/24-bit signals: 5 Hz to 42 kHz +0, €“1.9 dB)


looks pretty *flat* to me.


--

-S
"God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under'