[[email protected]]

I have a Kenwood home theater receiver. It has a stereo mode but I have
never been able to get the stereo sound for music from it. Is this
receiver capable of GOOD stereo music? It sounds really good for music
but doesn't have the true stereo separation as far as my ears can tell.
The sub and center speakers sound so good by themselves, but the sound
comes mainly from one direction. I am thinking of buying an amp, and
speakers but now I wonder if maybe I may already have what I need in my
Kenwood receiver. My home theater is the Kenwood HTB-503 if that tells
you anything.

Bill

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 9 Oct 2006 03:37:23 GMT, wrote:

I have a Kenwood home theater receiver. It has a stereo mode but I have
never been able to get the stereo sound for music from it. Is this
receiver capable of GOOD stereo music? It sounds really good for music
but doesn't have the true stereo separation as far as my ears can tell.
The sub and center speakers sound so good by themselves, but the sound
comes mainly from one direction. I am thinking of buying an amp, and
speakers but now I wonder if maybe I may already have what I need in my
Kenwood receiver. My home theater is the Kenwood HTB-503 if that tells
you anything.

Such inexpensive HTIB systems are rarely worth dirt for stereo music.
Getting a decent receiver and a decent pair of speakers is a start to
good sound.

Kal

[eric]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:37:23 +0000, Bill.K9KZ wrote:

I have a Kenwood home theater receiver. It has a stereo mode but I have
never been able to get the stereo sound for music from it. Is this
receiver capable of GOOD stereo music? It sounds really good for music but
doesn't have the true stereo separation as far as my ears can tell. The
sub and center speakers sound so good by themselves, but the sound comes
mainly from one direction. I am thinking of buying an amp, and speakers
but now I wonder if maybe I may already have what I need in my Kenwood
receiver. My home theater is the Kenwood HTB-503 if that tells you
anything.

Speakers, their placement and the room acoustics are the main factors in
the stereo image.

[JimC]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:



Such inexpensive HTIB systems are rarely worth dirt for stereo music.
Getting a decent receiver and a decent pair of speakers is a start to
good sound.

Kal

In general, do you think the audio from a "decent receiver" (such as a
HK, Denon, Outlaw, Onkyo,or Rotel in the $700-1,200 range) will be as
good as that from a mid-range(?) pre/processor (such as the Outlaw 990
or the Rotel PSP-1068 or 1098)? I'm hoping to get a pre/processor that
would be used for both stereo and surround and that would have good
audio in both modes.

Thanks,
Jim

[bob]

wrote:
I have a Kenwood home theater receiver. It has a stereo mode but I have
never been able to get the stereo sound for music from it. Is this
receiver capable of GOOD stereo music? It sounds really good for music
but doesn't have the true stereo separation as far as my ears can tell.

There's a setting on most DVD players that's designed to improve the
audibility of dialogue when using only two speakers, without a center
channel (where most of the dialogue lives in multichannel). It's
possible you've got that turned on, and it's limiting stereo
separation. Just a guess.

The sub and center speakers sound so good by themselves, but the sound
comes mainly from one direction.

What do you mean? Left, right, front, back? When you listen to just a
two-channel source, does the sound seem balanced, at least?

I am thinking of buying an amp, and
speakers but now I wonder if maybe I may already have what I need in my
Kenwood receiver. My home theater is the Kenwood HTB-503 if that tells
you anything.

Since you've got it, plug the computer in and see how it sounds. Can't
hurt. Assuming it sounds OK, you might still want to get some better
speakers, at least. The ones the came with your system are probably
nothing to write home about.

bob

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 11 Oct 2006 01:35:55 GMT, JimC wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:



Such inexpensive HTIB systems are rarely worth dirt for stereo music.
Getting a decent receiver and a decent pair of speakers is a start to
good sound.

Kal

In general, do you think the audio from a "decent receiver" (such as a
HK, Denon, Outlaw, Onkyo,or Rotel in the $700-1,200 range) will be as
good as that from a mid-range(?) pre/processor (such as the Outlaw 990
or the Rotel PSP-1068 or 1098)? I'm hoping to get a pre/processor that
would be used for both stereo and surround and that would have good
audio in both modes.

I do not know as (1) I have never used an AVR in that range and (2) I
have never used pre/pros in that range. Perhaps someone else can
comment.

Kal

[JimC]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 11 Oct 2006 01:35:55 GMT, JimC wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:



Such inexpensive HTIB systems are rarely worth dirt for stereo music.
Getting a decent receiver and a decent pair of speakers is a start to
good sound.

Kal

In general, do you think the audio from a "decent receiver" (such as a
HK, Denon, Outlaw, Onkyo,or Rotel in the $700-1,200 range) will be as
good as that from a mid-range(?) pre/processor (such as the Outlaw 990
or the Rotel PSP-1068 or 1098)? I'm hoping to get a pre/processor that
would be used for both stereo and surround and that would have good
audio in both modes.


I do not know as (1) I have never used an AVR in that range and (2) I
have never used pre/pros in that range. Perhaps someone else can
comment.

Kal

Thanks for your contributions to the ng. - Just to make sure I
understood your reply, I'm assuming that your comment about having never
used an AVR or pre/pro in this price range meant that you had never used
any priced that low, not the other way around. The Rotel 1098 pre/pro
sells for around $2,500, for example. When you recommended a "decent
receiver," what price range did you have in mind?

Jim

[[email protected]]

I guess the best thing for me to do would be to get an amp, sub, and
Atoms or Titans since all my music listening is from my computer. But
there are soooo many out there. I think I'll drop by Ovation in Indy.
They sell Paradigm and many others. Hope they don't laugh when I say
"something under $800 : ) Anyone know of some really nice used stuff?

Bill

[record hunter]

JimC wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:



Such inexpensive HTIB systems are rarely worth dirt for stereo music.
Getting a decent receiver and a decent pair of speakers is a start to
good sound.

Kal

In general, do you think the audio from a "decent receiver" (such as a
HK, Denon, Outlaw, Onkyo,or Rotel in the $700-1,200 range) will be as
good as that from a mid-range(?) pre/processor (such as the Outlaw 990
or the Rotel PSP-1068 or 1098)? I'm hoping to get a pre/processor that
would be used for both stereo and surround and that would have good
audio in both modes.

Thanks,
Jim

I don't have any home theatre components because it's not something I'm
interested in, but I do like music, and I got a new system consisting
of a Rega P3 turntable, a pair of Paradigm Studio 20s (v.2), and a
Denon DRA395 receiver. The receiver is what the Paradigm dealer
recommended for these speakers. It cost under $300, because it's being
replaced by a new model, and it sounds nice.

I imagine you could find a Denon HT receiver at a price point that's
comfortable for you.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 12 Oct 2006 03:00:57 GMT, JimC wrote:

Thanks for your contributions to the ng. - Just to make sure I
understood your reply, I'm assuming that your comment about having never
used an AVR or pre/pro in this price range meant that you had never used
any priced that low, not the other way around. The Rotel 1098 pre/pro
sells for around $2,500, for example.

Yes. The only pre/pros I have used are a Myryad MDP 500 (back in June
2001 and about which I remember nothing), Fosgate FAP-V1, Meridian
861, Bryston SP-2 and, right now, the NHT Controller (which probably
is in the same range as the Rotel). Thus, I cannot really offer any
useful comment about the category. (Oh, I also have a Technics
SH-A500D processor, but it's not in the same category.)

When you recommended a "decent
receiver," what price range did you have in mind?

Again, I have limited experience with AVRs. The only one that I have
had long-term, hand's-on use is the Denon 4806 (about $3500). It's a
great unit but I cannot put it in the context of others since I know
no others.

Mostly, I deal with separates.

Kal

[JimC]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 03:00:57 GMT, JimC wrote:



Yes. The only pre/pros I have used are a Myryad MDP 500 (back in June
2001 and about which I remember nothing), Fosgate FAP-V1, Meridian
861, Bryston SP-2 and, right now, the NHT Controller (which probably
is in the same range as the Rotel). Thus, I cannot really offer any
useful comment about the category. (Oh, I also have a Technics
SH-A500D processor, but it's not in the same category.)


When you recommended a "decent
receiver," what price range did you have in mind?


Again, I have limited experience with AVRs. The only one that I have
had long-term, hand's-on use is the Denon 4806 (about $3500). It's a
great unit but I cannot put it in the context of others since I know
no others.

Mostly, I deal with separates.

Kal

Thanks. Seems to me that this general subject might be a good one for a
feature article in Stereophile,TAS, SS, etc. - That is, a comparison of
the audio qualities of "decent" AVRs with those of several midrange
pre/pros, perhaps three or four of each, with one or more reviewers
giving their opinions as to how they compare.

This kind of a review would be useful to audiophiles who are considering
purchases of such components but who don't have any practical means for
comparing the response of one to another, or that of one class of
components (such as mid-range pre/pros), with another (such as "decent"
AVRs). This subject is of interest to those of us who are experimenting
with integrating surround sound and HT into our audio systems, but who
don't want to sacrifice audio response by the use of an AVR or pre/pro
rated highly for its video capabilities, for example. IMO, such an
approach (comparing several components within a given class) would be
more useful to the readers than the typical pattern of articles, which
for the most part seems to consist of reviews of recent models
(amps,speakers, preamps, players, etc.) considered independently of
other available options. Is "newly released" the most important or
critical factor?

As to the costs and reviewer time required for conducting such a
comparative evaluation, why does a magazine such as Sterephile, for
example, which relates to a special interest, high-dollar hobby and has
a high-income, highly educated readership, thinks it has to price its
subscriptions at $12 per year. A few more cents per issue shouldn't hurt
readership stats and would be within the budgets of audiophiles buying
$20,000-plus systems, which I understand is average for Sterephile
readers. This delta income could perhaps be used for providing bonuses
to the reviewers for their extra work, or used to fund other expenses.

If you agree with the above, perhaps you would be in a position to make
a suggestion to JA.

Jim

[bob]

JimC wrote:

Thanks. Seems to me that this general subject might be a good one for a
feature article in Stereophile,TAS, SS, etc. - That is, a comparison of
the audio qualities of "decent" AVRs with those of several midrange
pre/pros, perhaps three or four of each, with one or more reviewers
giving their opinions as to how they compare.

The general advantages of separates are pretty well known. They include
great system flexibility and upgradability, more features (or at least
different feature sets), and more power (especially into difficult
loads). Perhaps others can fill in a few more that didn't occur to me.

At any rate, comparisons of specific units won't shed much further
light on this issue. What they will do is create losers, and losers is
what the advertisers do not want the magazines to create. So comparison
articles are quite rare in the audiophile press.

This kind of a review would be useful to audiophiles who are considering
purchases of such components but who don't have any practical means for
comparing the response of one to another, or that of one class of
components (such as mid-range pre/pros), with another (such as "decent"
AVRs). This subject is of interest to those of us who are experimenting
with integrating surround sound and HT into our audio systems, but who
don't want to sacrifice audio response by the use of an AVR or pre/pro
rated highly for its video capabilities, for example. IMO, such an
approach (comparing several components within a given class) would be
more useful to the readers than the typical pattern of articles, which
for the most part seems to consist of reviews of recent models
(amps,speakers, preamps, players, etc.) considered independently of
other available options. Is "newly released" the most important or
critical factor?

As to the costs and reviewer time required for conducting such a
comparative evaluation, why does a magazine such as Sterephile, for
example, which relates to a special interest, high-dollar hobby and has
a high-income, highly educated readership, thinks it has to price its
subscriptions at $12 per year. A few more cents per issue shouldn't hurt
readership stats and would be within the budgets of audiophiles buying
$20,000-plus systems, which I understand is average for Sterephile
readers. This delta income could perhaps be used for providing bonuses
to the reviewers for their extra work, or used to fund other expenses.

Quite wrong. Consumer magazine demand is quite elastic--a little change
in price can make a big difference in sales. Doesn't matter how rich
the readership is. And any loss of readership not only results in lower
subscription income, but also decreases your ad base, so there's an
even bigger loss in ad revenue.

So, no, they couldn't finance these more expensive articles even if
they wanted to. Which, as I noted above, they don't.

bob

[JimC]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 12 Oct 2006 03:00:57 GMT, JimC wrote:



Again, I have limited experience with AVRs. The only one that I have
had long-term, hand's-on use is the Denon 4806 (about $3500). It's a
great unit but I cannot put it in the context of others since I know
no others.

Mostly, I deal with separates.

Kal

Kal, ignoring considerations such as costs, logistics, etc. for a
moment, would you agree with my suggestion that a review of audio and
other qualities of several AVRs and pre/pros would be helpful for
readers thinking of adding surround-sound and HT capabilities to an
audio system?

Jim

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 15 Oct 2006 23:17:51 GMT, JimC wrote:

Kal, ignoring considerations such as costs, logistics, etc. for a
moment, would you agree with my suggestion that a review of audio and
other qualities of several AVRs and pre/pros would be helpful for
readers thinking of adding surround-sound and HT capabilities to an
audio system?

Sure but by whom? I do a pre/pro from time to time but receivers are
not of great interest to me, to say nothing of their greater
difficulty.

Kal

[JimC]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 15 Oct 2006 23:17:51 GMT, JimC wrote:


Kal, ignoring considerations such as costs, logistics, etc. for a
moment, would you agree with my suggestion that a review of audio and
other qualities of several AVRs and pre/pros would be helpful for
readers thinking of adding surround-sound and HT capabilities to an
audio system?


Sure but by whom? I do a pre/pro from time to time but receivers are
not of great interest to me, to say nothing of their greater
difficulty.

Kal

By whom? You must know the reviewers better than I, but what about Art
Dudley, Brian Damkroger, Wes Phillips, Michael Fremer, or John A.? Or,
from the Home Theater group, Chris Lewis, Mark Fleishmann,or Geoffrey
Morrison? Perhaps more than one.

My point was that this suggested approach - providing an overview of
several comparable components of a general class rather than reviews of
respective components considered independently would be more helpful to
readers. Again, why does "newly released" seem to be nearly always
necessary? (The Bozak review was an interesting exception to the "newly
released" policy, but what's of interest to me is what components
provide the best performance and a good value, whether or not they have
been on the market for a given amount of time.) The question of how
audio quality from AVRs compares with that from pre/pros seems to be one
of general interest, since it has been discussed on this and other
forums. Yet only anecdotal comments seem to be available.

As to the possibility of a loss of advertising revenue, as suggested
above, if several components were deemed "losers," I'm confident that
'phile reviewers have the skills and expertise needed to avoid such a
result. - Like, "amps A and B have qualities 1, 2, and 3, but amps C and
D have more of qualities 4 and 5, so if you are looking for 4 and 5, you
might consider one of amps C and D." In other words, a little creative
writing should do the trick. (I'm not suggesting anything about your
reviews, which I have often found helpful.)

Jim

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 17 Oct 2006 04:05:26 GMT, JimC wrote:

By whom? You must know the reviewers better than I, but what about Art
Dudley, Brian Damkroger, Wes Phillips, Michael Fremer, or John A.? Or,
from the Home Theater group, Chris Lewis, Mark Fleishmann,or Geoffrey
Morrison? Perhaps more than one.

My point was that this suggested approach - providing an overview of
several comparable components of a general class rather than reviews of
respective components considered independently would be more helpful to
readers. Again, why does "newly released" seem to be nearly always
necessary? (The Bozak review was an interesting exception to the "newly
released" policy, but what's of interest to me is what components
provide the best performance and a good value, whether or not they have
been on the market for a given amount of time.) The question of how
audio quality from AVRs compares with that from pre/pros seems to be one
of general interest, since it has been discussed on this and other
forums. Yet only anecdotal comments seem to be available.

As to the possibility of a loss of advertising revenue, as suggested
above, if several components were deemed "losers," I'm confident that
'phile reviewers have the skills and expertise needed to avoid such a
result. - Like, "amps A and B have qualities 1, 2, and 3, but amps C and
D have more of qualities 4 and 5, so if you are looking for 4 and 5, you
might consider one of amps C and D." In other words, a little creative
writing should do the trick. (I'm not suggesting anything about your
reviews, which I have often found helpful.)

I only answered that way because I thought you were addressing me
directly. In any case, given several points of Stereophile's
editorial policy, it is not likely that there will be such a survey.
I do not entirely agree with that policy. You must address this
proposal to JA or, for the HT guys, propose this to Maureen Jenson.

I do agree that this would be of interest.

Kal

[bob]

JimC wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On 15 Oct 2006 23:17:51 GMT, JimC wrote:


Kal, ignoring considerations such as costs, logistics, etc. for a
moment, would you agree with my suggestion that a review of audio and
other qualities of several AVRs and pre/pros would be helpful for
readers thinking of adding surround-sound and HT capabilities to an
audio system?


Sure but by whom? I do a pre/pro from time to time but receivers are
not of great interest to me, to say nothing of their greater
difficulty.

Kal

By whom? You must know the reviewers better than I, but what about Art
Dudley, Brian Damkroger, Wes Phillips, Michael Fremer, or John A.? Or,
from the Home Theater group, Chris Lewis, Mark Fleishmann,or Geoffrey
Morrison? Perhaps more than one.

Not the question. Who would pay for it? Certainly not Stereophile,
which obviously doesn't see this sort of thing as part of its editorial
mission.

My point was that this suggested approach - providing an overview of
several comparable components of a general class rather than reviews of
respective components considered independently would be more helpful to
readers. Again, why does "newly released" seem to be nearly always
necessary? (The Bozak review was an interesting exception to the "newly
released" policy, but what's of interest to me is what components
provide the best performance and a good value, whether or not they have
been on the market for a given amount of time.) The question of how
audio quality from AVRs compares with that from pre/pros seems to be one
of general interest, since it has been discussed on this and other
forums. Yet only anecdotal comments seem to be available.

Yes, anecdotal comments appear to be the only thing available on the
subject of differences in sound among amplifiers. Reviewing six at once
isn't going to change that, at least not the way the high-end rags do
reviews.

As to the possibility of a loss of advertising revenue, as suggested
above, if several components were deemed "losers," I'm confident that
'phile reviewers have the skills and expertise needed to avoid such a
result. - Like, "amps A and B have qualities 1, 2, and 3, but amps C and
D have more of qualities 4 and 5, so if you are looking for 4 and 5, you
might consider one of amps C and D." In other words, a little creative
writing should do the trick. (I'm not suggesting anything about your
reviews, which I have often found helpful.)

Well, creative writing is about all there is to subjective reviews
(once you get beyond feature lists, which really are the major
distinguishables in this category). So today you have individual
reviews written to make a product sound good. You're proposing instead
that there be multiple-product reviews written to make all the products
sound good. Where's the added value?

All this is pointless. Subjective reviews, as currently practiced, are
meaningless. It won't matter how many you are reviewing at one time.

bob

[JimC]

bob wrote:
JimC wrote:


By whom? You must know the reviewers better than I, but what about Art
Dudley, Brian Damkroger, Wes Phillips, Michael Fremer, or John A.? Or,
from the Home Theater group, Chris Lewis, Mark Fleishmann,or Geoffrey
Morrison? Perhaps more than one.


Not the question. Who would pay for it? Certainly not Stereophile,
which obviously doesn't see this sort of thing as part of its editorial
mission.


My point was that this suggested approach - providing an overview of
several comparable components of a general class rather than reviews of
respective components considered independently would be more helpful to
readers. Again, why does "newly released" seem to be nearly always
necessary? (The Bozak review was an interesting exception to the "newly
released" policy, but what's of interest to me is what components
provide the best performance and a good value, whether or not they have
been on the market for a given amount of time.) The question of how
audio quality from AVRs compares with that from pre/pros seems to be one
of general interest, since it has been discussed on this and other
forums. Yet only anecdotal comments seem to be available.


Yes, anecdotal comments appear to be the only thing available on the
subject of differences in sound among amplifiers. Reviewing six at once
isn't going to change that, at least not the way the high-end rags do
reviews.


As to the possibility of a loss of advertising revenue, as suggested
above, if several components were deemed "losers," I'm confident that
'phile reviewers have the skills and expertise needed to avoid such a
result. - Like, "amps A and B have qualities 1, 2, and 3, but amps C and
D have more of qualities 4 and 5, so if you are looking for 4 and 5, you
might consider one of amps C and D." In other words, a little creative
writing should do the trick. (I'm not suggesting anything about your
reviews, which I have often found helpful.)


Well, creative writing is about all there is to subjective reviews
(once you get beyond feature lists, which really are the major
distinguishables in this category). So today you have individual
reviews written to make a product sound good. You're proposing instead
that there be multiple-product reviews written to make all the products
sound good. Where's the added value?

All this is pointless. Subjective reviews, as currently practiced, are
meaningless. It won't matter how many you are reviewing at one time.

bob

You're missing the point Bob. Which was that I and others have wondered
whether surround sound pre/pros in general have better audio response
than good quality (decent) receivers. Even in Sterephile, reviewers
could comment on the audio response of different units and offer
evaluations of the audio qualities of receivers vs pre/pros. Maybe the
results would be inconclusive, or maybe a pattern exists. In either
case, the information would be helpful to audiphiles considering such
components. Subjective reviews may be of limited value (and I would
prefer dbt), but such a review would at least indicate whether there is
a significant difference between the two classes of components in the
opinions of the reviewers.

As to the extra costs, do you really thing Sterephile readers (median
incomes in the six figures and well above average) would cancel or
switch to TAS or SS if their subscription rates were increased to $1.30
to $1.50 per issue? - Give me a break.

And even if 90% of the article consisted of discussions of differing
sets of features, the fact that 'phile could publish a review comparing
several components in one article would be a significant "first step".

Jim

[bob]

JimC wrote:

You're missing the point Bob.

Not hardly. But my response seems to have zipped right by you.

Which was that I and others have wondered
whether surround sound pre/pros in general have better audio response
than good quality (decent) receivers.

Yes, you and others have. I, on the other hand, suspect that separates
won't have audibly better response than receivers (assuming adequate
power and all sound processing options turned to "flat"), but that any
comparative subjective review will inevitably determine that separates
DO sound better, because that is the received wisdom of subjective
reviewers--as well as the result most in the business interests of the
publisher. That's why the comparison you ask for would be meaningless,
in my view.

Even in Sterephile, reviewers
could comment on the audio response of different units and offer
evaluations of the audio qualities of receivers vs pre/pros. Maybe the
results would be inconclusive, or maybe a pattern exists. In either
case, the information would be helpful to audiphiles considering such
components. Subjective reviews may be of limited value (and I would
prefer dbt), but such a review would at least indicate whether there is
a significant difference between the two classes of components in the
opinions of the reviewers.

DBTs? We can be pretty sure what DBTs would tell us. But that's not
something Stereophile readers want to be told. Anything else won't tell
us anything at all. See above.

As to the extra costs, do you really thing Sterephile readers (median
incomes in the six figures and well above average) would cancel or
switch to TAS or SS if their subscription rates were increased to $1.30
to $1.50 per issue? - Give me a break.

Do you really think you know more about the magazine business than the
people who publish magazines? (And I used to, by the way.) Give me a
break.

And even if 90% of the article consisted of discussions of differing
sets of features, the fact that 'phile could publish a review comparing
several components in one article would be a significant "first step".

I'm not against comparative reviews, properly done. I'm against
subjective reviews, badly done, which they always are. Badly done
comparative subjective reviews will be bad, period.

bob