PDA

View Full Version : Receivers for Dummies



donkelly
07-09-2005, 09:06 PM
That dummy in question is me!

I have an Onkyo 501 which has 6.1 channels. It is pretty good but the next logical step for me is a better receiver, I think.

I have Axiom M22s with a M2 center, some Athena surrounds that I think blend okay with the Axioms, and some cbm 170s in the bedroom (but they are currently replacing the M22s and being used as 2.1 channels - just to compare). Also a Velodyne CT8? 8 inch speaker sub (I forget which one now - but it got good reviews. It ain't a Hsu or an SVS, but it is a pretty good sub from what I have read).

Axiom surrounds would cost about $400. 2 more 170s as surrounds might cost me my marriage since the living room is VERY small. The Athena R1s are a nice small size that she doesn't mind. So a better receiver might kick everything up a few notches.

Questions:

1) What to look for in receivers? Is it really how I hear them? I have read that below about 0.08% thd it doesn' make any difference. And the Onkyo has been measured by an audio magazine as putting out about 48 watts per channel at 0.06% thd (if I remember correctly) which seems more than loud enough in my small room - and the Axioms and the Ascends are both easy to drive (ascends are easier/louder).

2) People seem to like Harmon Kardon, and even more Nad and even more Rotel, I guess. Why? And is it really subjective? How can one receiver be clearly "better" but that "better" cannot be measured? Or can it be measured?

3) So, would a NAD or a HK be a good step up? I could get a stereo receiver for cheaper than a surround one and just hook up the 170s to it in the bedroom. Sure, another sub would be great - but there is no room in that bedroom!

I hope my questions are clear - it is late.

metalaaron
07-09-2005, 09:43 PM
i think your most logical step is getting synergy throughout your surround sound. put together a system that has speakers from the same series. (the axiom qs4 is smaller than your current surrounds) then, maybe, get a hsu stf-2. axiom owners are very pleased with hsu subs. i had a hsu stf-2 with axiom m-60s and loved it. sell the old item(s) on ebay.

unless your room is very large, i don't think another receiver is going to do much for you compared to a more tuned setup.

donkelly
07-09-2005, 09:52 PM
Thanks for the tip

I thought the Q4s were larger than the Athena R1s. I will have to check it out.

The athena r1s were about $120 at bestbuy, and the Q4s are about $400 at axiom. But, if that is the next step - so be it!

metalaaron
07-09-2005, 10:01 PM
i was only guessing that this (http://www.athenaspeakers.com/modelASR1.htm) is the specific athena model you had for surrounds.

yes, i agree with you about the price jumping out. that's a significant cost change just for surround speakers. there may very well be others who would disagree with what i recommended ... most importantly your wife. hehehe


(check ebay and audiogon.com for sale references on your athena surrounds)

bikeman
07-10-2005, 05:53 AM
I have an Onkyo 501 which has 6.1 channels. It is pretty good but the next logical step for me is a better receiver, I think.
1) What to look for in receivers?


I don't believe you will receive any meaningful benefit from a new receiver. I'm going to try one of the new digital amp'ed receivers just out of curiosity.

http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4032232

Upgrade to get the features you want but don't expect much improvement in the sound. Spending the money on a new sub would make a difference. $40 for a Radio Shack SPL meter would also be a good investment. Have fun shopping.

David

BGHD
07-10-2005, 10:34 AM
I'm curious about Panny xr55 too. Please post results bikeman when/if you get it.

bikeman
07-10-2005, 02:48 PM
I'm curious about Panny xr55 too. Please post results bikeman when/if you get it.

You can count on it. In depth.

David

curtis
07-10-2005, 03:09 PM
I recommended the XR55 to a friend of mine a year or so ago, and helped her set it up. It is only powering an Aperion 2.1 setup right now, but it seems to work well with no shortcomings.

donkelly
07-10-2005, 07:07 PM
Axioms are smaller! Alright!

Athena AS-R1
----------
7.1" (180mm) H x
12.4" (314mm) W x
7.1" (180mm) D
(actually 6.4" deep by my ruler)

Axiom Q4
--------
Dimens. H W D (inches): 6.25" x 9.5" x 6 "
Dimens. H W D (mm): 159 x 241 x 152

bikeman
07-11-2005, 04:36 AM
I recommended the XR55 to a friend of mine a year or so ago, and helped her set it up. It is only powering an Aperion 2.1 setup right now, but it seems to work well with no shortcomings.

The 55 was just released this week. There are a few guys on AVS who've received theirs and I'm waiting on a bit more feedback before I order. Previous models, the 10, 25, 45, 50 and 70 are all out there so it was probably one of these that your friend has. The 45 seem to get the nod for music and the 70 for features.

David

curtis
07-11-2005, 07:15 AM
sorry....it was the XR50.

donkelly
07-11-2005, 09:00 AM
I just read an article on digital receivers. Clue me in if I am missing something, please.

Benefits
-----
HQ radio broadcasts (FM=cd quality)

Ability to get 2 or 3 broadcasts from the same radio station (choice of news or classical music or whatever)

Smaller size than analog receivers

Drawbacks
-----------
Have to buy another receiver for equal sound from cds.

Prices will drop in about a year - so not a good time to buy now.

Anything else I am missing?

Matt B
07-11-2005, 11:26 AM
I just read an article on digital receivers. Clue me in if I am missing something, please.

Benefits
-----
HQ radio broadcasts (FM=cd quality)

Ability to get 2 or 3 broadcasts from the same radio station (choice of news or classical music or whatever)

Smaller size than analog receivers

Drawbacks
-----------
Have to buy another receiver for equal sound from cds.

Prices will drop in about a year - so not a good time to buy now.

Anything else I am missing?

I don't think this information is very accurate. Where did you read this? In fact, the only thing that sounds correct is that digital amps tend to be much smaller than their analogue peers.

I use a Panasonic XR55 with my Ascend/Hsu 5.1 system, and I am extremely impressed by this little receiver. Its sounds incredible, allows me to bi-amp my CMT-340 mains, and lists for under $300, with a street price of about $250. I really can’t imagine a better deal for a receiver/amplifier. In fact, I would recommend this thing at twice the price.

Before I purchased the XR55, I auditioned a Harman Kardon AVR435 in my home. The AVR435 is an excellent receiver, and it does have advantages over the Panasonic (e.g. a better remote, OSD, more inputs/outputs, second zone control, Logic 7). But for sound quality alone (i.e. clarity, detail, soundstaging), I vastly prefer the XR55.

I think the secret behind these Panasonic digital amps is that they are dead quiet when they’re not playing. Even if you turn the volume all the way up and place your ear against your speaker, you’ll hear nothing. (N.B. If you try this, make sure no one has the remote to start a DVD/CD and blow out your eardrums.) If you try this with a traditional analogue amps, you’ll hear some background noise. If you try this with one of the Panasonic digital amps, you’ll hear nothing. Seriously, nothing. And against this silent background, every sound/instrument/voice seems to hang in its own clearly defined space between your speakers. It’s awesome.

Matt

donkelly
07-11-2005, 11:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070800288.html?sub=AR

requires registration

Maybe a digital radio receiver is different than a digital receiver.

----------

With HD Sound, the Future Is Becoming a Lot Less Fuzzy

By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 10, 2005; N01

We're driving along I-395 in Fairfax and the signal on ordinary FM radio starts "picket-fencing" -- radio-geek lingo for the fuzzy flashes of static that pop up as you pass a big truck or when you stop at a red light.

Jan Andrews punches the button on the car radio that switches the service from analog to digital and suddenly, all the static is gone. On WHUR, Prince's singing takes on a striking new clarity. Over on AM, an even more dramatic transformation occurs, and suddenly, on SportsTalk WTEM, we hear more of Tony Kornheiser's voice than anyone ever had reason to want to hear -- deeper, more resonant, without the light fuzz that's normally a constant presence on AM.

Andrews, an engineer at National Public Radio, and Mike Starling, NPR's vice president of engineering, have taken me out for a spin to listen to the next aural revolution, digital radio. Marketed as HD Radio by iBiquity Digital, the Columbia-based company that developed and owns digital radio technology, the new sound is already being pumped out by nine Washington stations, even though there probably aren't 100 digital radios in use in the region.

By this fall, the hype for digital radio will be omnipresent. Radio stations will run promotions giving away receivers; buying the units will still set you back somewhere from $250 to $1,700. By next year, when the industry expects to sell 2 million digital radios, prices may fall below $200.

The sales pitch will focus only partly on digital's superior audio quality, which makes AM radio sound like FM does now, and turns FM signals into CD-quality sound.

The big draw will be multicasting, the additional programming that digital technology creates: Every station now on the broadcast dial, whether commercial or public, will be able to add a second channel, and possibly a third. Tune, for example, to WAMU (88.5 FM), and you'd hear the current news and talk programming, but if you scanned forward on a digital tuner, you'd still be at 88.5, but would hear the station's second channel, which might offer the bluegrass music that once filled much of the station's airtime.

By summer's end, NPR plans to offer public stations five program streams to choose from for their second channels -- classical, jazz, folk, progressive rock and electronica. Public stations that have dropped music programming in recent years to focus on more lucrative news and talk shows might choose to offer listeners some of the music formats that have been vanishing from the free airwaves over the past decade.

Earth-based digital radio is coming a little late to save the day; the satellite radio providers, XM and Sirius, have won nearly 5 million subscribers in large part by offering dozens of digital audio channels of music you can't hear on terrestrial radio. But traditional broadcasters believe digital will put them back in contention for listeners' ears, especially since terrestrial digital radio, unlike satellite, has no monthly fee.

"Terrestrial radio with its local programming will be strengthened by multicasting, but we'll all be sharing time amongst a lot of new devices" as technologies keep evolving, said NPR's Starling.

Only a few stations have announced what they'll do with their second channels. A Chicago country station is using the outlet to broadcast tunes from new country artists. A San Francisco public station that now broadcasts primarily news and talk shows, will add Cantonese- and Mandarin-language programs. A public station in Pittsburgh that splits its time between jazz and news will counterprogram against itself, offering its music on one channel whenever the other is devoted to news.

Second channels will likely be jukeboxes at first, playing music without deejays or commercials, but Vicki Stearn, spokesman for iBiquity, expects more ambitious, local programming to evolve as the number of digital radios grows. Others aren't as optimistic. Satellite radio executives, for example, say free digital radio will appeal to listeners who are reluctant to shell out $13 a month for radio, but likely won't threaten satellite's success because radio companies won't want to spend money on the staff needed to create local new programs.

As with FM radio in the 1970s, digital radio will grow mainly in relation to its ability to attract listeners to new content; the cleaner sound alone didn't do the trick for FM, and it won't for HD Radio. But eventually, stations will broadcast only digitally -- Stearn says that point probably won't be reached for 15 years -- and every radio you now own will become a useless relic that you'll try to unload on eBay. It's called progress.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

donkelly
07-11-2005, 11:39 AM
So, digital receiver sound better than analog?

(I know - such a newbie question).

Only better if you listen loud to quiet passages?

Quinn
07-11-2005, 12:04 PM
That article is about XM radio or Sirius satellite radio receivers not digital amps.

On digital amps there is no background noise. It is dead quiet on pauses within a passage. No hiss whatsoever. They do it by keeping the signal digital as much as possible. On a standard analog amp a CD or DVD signal is converted back and forth from digital to analog often mupltiple times. Each of these conversions is an opportunity for signal distortion.

bikeman
07-11-2005, 12:20 PM
So, digital receiver sound better than analog?


It depends. All signals are eventually analog. There are lots of folks who prefer traditional amps, digital amps, hybrid amps and battery powered amps. There is no "best." Just different. I will be joining Matt shortly in owning a Panny 55. Later this year I'll be getting a digital battery powered amp for my two channel. I already own four receivers and have owned a bunch of others in the past. I'm not getting the new amps because I know they're better. I'm getting them because they're different. Which I wind up prefering you'll hear here first. ;)

David

Matt B
07-11-2005, 02:13 PM
It depends. All signals are eventually analog. There are lots of folks who prefer traditional amps, digital amps, hybrid amps and battery powered amps. There is no "best." Just different.


I agree with David. It's important to listen to several amps to decide what sounds best to you. For example, if you tend to enjoy a "warm" sound, check out any Harman Kardon. If you like a clean, "forward" sound, the Panasonic digital amps might be right for you.

Just make sure to purchase from a dealer with a generous return policy.



Which I wind up prefering you'll hear here first. ;)


Looking forward to your thoughts on the XR55. :)

Best,
Matt

donkelly
07-12-2005, 08:39 PM
Quinn posted:

That article is about XM radio or Sirius satellite radio receivers not digital amps."

I believe they differentiated between XM and Sirius and this new didgital radio - but essentially it is the same thing I guess - only local stations will all go that way. Some already have. 103.5 in Washington DC is already available in digital, with an opera 2nd station on the web for now.

Anyway, I guess this goes under the RADIO heading, not RECEIVER heading.

But soon, audio receivers will have digital radio reception and / or digital amplification as standard options. Both are already out there.

I hope I got it correct now.

metalaaron
07-14-2005, 07:51 AM
don,

check out this sale.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1125933414

donkelly
07-14-2005, 09:09 PM
yeah, thanks, I saw that

Trouble is - I am out of extra money at the moment and my axioms are beech color.

But the price is good.

metalaaron
07-14-2005, 09:56 PM
darn. :( post a WTB - want to buy on either audiogon or axiomaudio.com forum. there may be someone w/ a beech color qs4 that wants to change surround models? may be worth a shot when you're ready.

axiom has a b-stock waiting list. http://www.axiomaudio.com/factoryoutlet.html you may want to look at that from time to time.

donkelly
07-15-2005, 08:19 AM
I will do that. I have one posted for Q2s - but they are harded to find, especially in beech - they might not even exist.

My main question, though, is - are matching speakers for surrounds worth $350-400? How much better will it sound?

My current surrounds are decent but the trebel is tipped up more than the Q4s would be, I think.

metalaaron
07-15-2005, 08:48 AM
My main question, though, is - are matching speakers for surrounds worth $350-400? How much better will it sound?
whether or not it's worth it for X $ can become subjective. if it was me, i would eventually get axiom speakers for surrounds. remember you'd also match the color at the same time. i believe you'll have a more cohesive surround package with their speakers.

have you considered their m2i model as surrounds? would those fit? you already use this as your center, right? it's quite a bit cheaper. also, i believe direct firing surrounds are superior due to the current level of digital processing that exists these days (which your receiver already has).

it's just something that i would eventually change. you certainly have every reason to wait until you feel comfortable making the change. do you have a birthday coming up? axiom has gift certificates (http://www.axiomaudio.com/giftcert.html). :)