Using HK 335 as a 6.1 System

[Zyzzyva100]

A Marantz 4300 is an expensive (high quality?) receiver though so that seems a little odd to me. I'd be suspicious that maybe you just didn't have the tone settings optimized on the Marantz, or maybe even a bad speaker connection into the receiver.

I broke out my Sony receiver manual to try to look for anything about its specs that were inferior and I did notice something; (going off top of my head) At 8 ohms its only rated at 40hz-20,000hz at 0.09% THD. But if i'm understanding this correctly, even that shouldn't matter since i'm using a VTF-2, using the small setting, and crossed over at 80hz. Its rated at 90 watts per channel.

If i were completely honest about it, the most attractive thing to me about a receiver like a Harmon Kardon would be just to impress company with the name.

You say this and yet you have a sony? (or has the sony > * phase finally stopped in middle america) I am certainly not going to buy the H/K to name drop. I think its certainly in the relatively same class as marrantz or denon, but there are deffinitely better recievers out there, and thats before the seperates start.

As for the rating on your sony, I doubt it can truly drive all its channels at the rated wattage, but the only way to know would be to test it. Most wpc ratings are exagerated.

And given curtis' status here, and experience, I doubt he had anything hooked up wrong, and would have known if he had a bad speaker.

[azanon]

You say this and yet you have a sony? (or has the sony > * phase finally stopped in middle america) I am certainly not going to buy the H/K to name drop. I think its certainly in the relatively same class as marrantz or denon, but there are deffinitely better recievers out there, and thats before the seperates start.

I'm not sure i understand your initial question. I did say/imply that Sony is presumed to be inferior to H/K. Do you disagree? True or not, I would think Harmon Kardon garnishes more respect in their audio equipment than Sony. Granted, there are some really "high end" Sony receivers that do approach 1K dollars.

Has it finally stopped? When did it ever start? I can never recall Sony being respected as much as the likes of H/K, Denon, or Marantz in electronics.

As for the rating on your sony, I doubt it can truly drive all its channels at the rated wattage, but the only way to know would be to test it. Most wpc ratings are exagerated.

Perhaps, but I have 35 watts of breathing room before I even hit the supposed performance of a H/K 335 (H/K rated at 55 watts per channel, my Sony is 90 watts/channel). The sensitivy of the 170/340s is so high, that they just dont need a lot of power. Using Ascend's own numbers, the minimum recommended power is a meer 25 watts. This all being said, what i've heard about "cheap" receivers is that they generally DO put out close to if not the actual power they're rated at, they just do so very "hotly" and tend to be prone to just burning out. But until that happens, you're GTG.

And given curtis' status here, and experience, I doubt he had anything hooked up wrong, and would have known if he had a bad speaker.

True as that probably is, A Marantz 9300 remains a high quality receiver, and I remain skeptical that it is in any noticeable way inferior to a HK 525. Marantz is a highly respected name in audio equipment, and the 9300 is no cheap receiver. This being said, it forces me to explore alternative explanations.

[Zyzzyva100]

The comment about sony vs. h/k was more of a joke. To the average consumer, alot of sony stuff is almost like **** in that most people will blindly buy sony if people say its better.

As for power, they only want to tell would be with a sound meter. I have no idea on sony's reputation for ratings. For some manufacturers that claim 100 wpc, they are luckly to drive 100 watts with only one channel driven. From what I can tell though, H/K's ratings are very accurate, and would seem underrated when comparted with other manufacturers.

But going back to the original debate, I think between marrantz and H/k its probably a tossup anyway. Really more of a personal preference than anything.

[azanon]

Ahh ok.

Well, my personal opinion of Sony is that they generally make quality products when one considers the price you're paying. My former Sony receiver actually did have one of the channels burn out (after using it over 2 years), but still.... i paid less than 200 dollars for it. Besides, there's always some new technology coming out (like Dolby Digital, then its subsequent improvements on that), so i dont want to sink a fortune into a receiver today only to have to upgrade a couple years later. Said another way, i'd take a Sony that supports Dolby Digital over "pick your expensive old receiver" that only supported Pro-logic or worse. The jump from pro-logic to DD was so massive, that i'd think even a generic Sony that can do it would sound better in movies than a 2K dollar Pro-logic (or older) Denon.

I'm sure its quite possible my Sony cant really do 90 watts per channel, but my point is I'm confident it can at least produce well past the minimum power required for Ascends. Also, given that it doesnt have to drive much of any sound below 80hz (since i'm crossed over at 80hz (i know there's dropoff past that)), I think "she" can do the job adequately.

I think next time around, i'm going to get a H/K 135 or something like that. Folks not paying attention to detail will see that H/K name and i'll get my "cheap" respect for having a HQ receiver.

[bikeman]

This being said, it forces me to explore alternative explanations.

When Curtis stated, "I thought I heard a big difference when I went from a Marantz 4300 to a HK 525," he did in fact hear a big difference. It's the source of the difference that isn't known to us. The most important processor in the whole equation isn't in the audio rack. It's between our ears. The study of how we process our senses is relatively new and much more complicated than the study of sound itself. We generally ascribe the changes that we hear to the equipment because that's what we have some understanding of.
I'd like to see some of these studies geared more to the audio hobby but that's not where the funding is so we'll just have to have these endless discussions for the foreseeable future. I hope we don't figure it all out in my lifetime. How boring would that be?

David

[jojo]

i was playing with the 335 this weekend. you can have 6.1 exclusivly or you can have 6.1 with 7 speakers. you can also have 6/8 channel audio using dvd-a and sacd, just have to have another pair of rca jacks. as far a power is concearn, this thing has more than engouh for my room 12x14x8. volume is -80 to+8 for movies i have around - 20 for dts i have about - 35 music i have it at - 30. i use to have an entry level denon ,1803 and there is a big difference in the two. i guess because the 335 is higher up the h/k line. the 1803 got a bit bright once i kranked the volume the h/k sound is constant. even when i put the volume up to -8 on a movie scene. i love this reciever and im glad davidf recommend it. i only wish i had engouh money at the time to get the 435. on yeah david gave this reciever for about $425 i think. but in canada the 335 is selling for $1300

[azanon]

David,

Even though i understand perception of sound quality ultimately is "in our heads", I would still think there are ways we can quantitatively compare some of the differences because we do know the parts that go in them. Case in point are receiver specs, such as my Sonys "40-20K hz at 8 ohms 0.09% THD". So, for example, are you suggestion that there are people out there that actually prefer more distortion? I would think no one does. If receiver brand "a" uses parts that produce less "noise" than receiver brand "b", then can we presume that "a" is superior, at least in that respect?

But I agree, much of it is in our head. That points exactly to what and why i said im going to buy H/K next; cause i know that the average audiophile is going to assume and perhaps even think he perceives my sound is good just because he sees H/K written on the front of my receiver. The placebo effect; if you will. (an effect thats well documented)

Oh sure, i acknowlege there are even really high end names out there (multi thousand dollar receivers), but i dont hobnob with anyone that has probably even heard of these brands, much less have they heard them with their ears.
Denon/H/K is more than enough to impress my friends and family ;-)

[azanon]

i use to have an entry level denon ,1803 and there is a big difference in the two. i guess because the 335 is higher up the h/k line. the 1803 got a bit bright once i kranked the volume the h/k sound is constant. even when i put the volume up to -8 on a movie scene.

Seems like i read H/K are known for more of a "less bright" sound anyway. Maybe the 1803 wasn't doing anything techniqually wrong by sounding bright to you as you turned it up, its just that you prefer less bright, which is what you get with a H/K.

[curtis]

I will add too, that the difference in going from the Marantz 4300 to the HK 525 seemed a lot bigger than when I went to a seperate amp added to the HK, and when I went to a pre/pro. I wish I still had the 4300 so I could compare....I understand a lot more now. I wish I could tell you absolutely that it was because of power, but I don't know, and the 4300 had less adjustability as well.

It was close to two years ago when I got the HK 525. It is at my Parents' now, doing duty in a room twice the size of mine with 340's and 170's......and still sounds great.

Because of my experience with HK, if I ever need another receiver, they will be at the top of my short list. They are not without their problems, but buying from a reputable source should alleviate that concern. NAD would be up there as well.....but ofcourse, it all depends on budget, and I would try to listen to everything I could get my hands on.

[jojo]

Seems like i read H/K are known for more of a "less bright" sound anyway. Maybe the 1803 wasn't doing anything techniqually wrong by sounding bright to you as you turned it up, its just that you prefer less bright, which is what you get with a H/K.

your right Im very sensetive to high freqs. last time i could hear up to 19khz so the klipsch was killing me. then i got ascends and to me they are perfect because they arent bright to my hears unless i take it up to rediculios volumes. i think its more of the combo that makes it so good. dont get me wrong the ascneds shine on denon, but i prefer the h/k asend combo. beside h/k tamed the brightness of the klipsch some what.