![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
|
My experience has been that a good receiver can make quite a difference. I had an AMC R9 (MSRP $800) which was nice, but found an older Marantz SR18 (MSRP ~$1800) on Craigslist for $175 and bought it. The Marantz had more detail and power while sounding smoother. Both my wife and I noticed quite a difference. It does a very good job at driving my Sierra Towers.
I had a similar experience when I compared my previously-owned Rotel RA-960BX integrated amp (I bought brand new at $500) with a Marantz PM17 integrated amp (Craigslist find $125, but was originally $1200 MSRP). I only bought the Marantz because it was a good price had a remote which my Rotel didn't. Both amps are 60W, and I was not expecting much of a difference, but boy was I wrong! The Rotel was a great amp, but the Marantz just sang music in comparison. Bass was definitely much better on the Marantz as well. This was not a placebo situation where "the more expensive amp was more expensive, so it has to sound better", because I actually payed much less for the Marantz.
Like others have said, upgrading to the Towers would make more of a difference, but a better amplifier makes more of a difference than I used to think in would. I would probably go for the Towers first, and would keep in mind upgrading the electronics later.
Last edited by phlw; 09-21-2012 at 12:26 AM.
Agreed. For instance, if the speakers themselves are incapable of discerning between good quality and bad, then a receiver's quality (or components otherwise) simply wont really matter much. But if the speakers themselves 'can' tell the difference, and are even made to, then 'everything' between the source material and speaker can have a fairly obvious affect on the overall quality of the source material.
Last edited by choirbass; 09-21-2012 at 02:28 AM.
Sierra 2 Front LR PA-1 DC-1
Sierra Luna Surround LR Multichannel via UMC-1 Stereo amp via VSX-D912 AVR
DC-1 Ext 2 Ch DAC LR XLR to Mono Amps LR RCA to UMC-1 Opt
T2531 31 Band Stereo Graphic EQ XLR RCA
PA-1 LR XLR Mono Block 140Watt @ 8 Ohms Class D Amps
UMC-1 Line Stage Sub X-over @ 40Hz
L12 12" Subwoofer RCA
P3 Power Plant A/C Regenerator - Can dramatically improve sound quality realism after 350 hours or 2 weeks of cumulative burn in
40" HDR 4K TV Opt
Windows 11 Gaming HTPC HDMI
D2R
A/V Receiver - Denon AVR 4311ci
L/R - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
Center - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
Surrounds - Ascend HTM-200
Sub - Rythmik F12
TV - Sharp LC-80LE650U 80-inch
Screen - 135" STR-169135-G Silver Ticket 4K Ultra HD Ready
Projector - Epson Home Cinema 3100 1080p
SACD Player - Sony C222ES
Oops, lol. Was adding to the above comment, but it would seem to be even more so with the towers, since mid range clarity is apparently that much improved.
Personally I'm waiting to see what the Sierra-2 offers, being in a fairly small room now too. Hoping a modified RAAL can be used, so that mid-range is improved too.
Sierra 2 Front LR PA-1 DC-1
Sierra Luna Surround LR Multichannel via UMC-1 Stereo amp via VSX-D912 AVR
DC-1 Ext 2 Ch DAC LR XLR to Mono Amps LR RCA to UMC-1 Opt
T2531 31 Band Stereo Graphic EQ XLR RCA
PA-1 LR XLR Mono Block 140Watt @ 8 Ohms Class D Amps
UMC-1 Line Stage Sub X-over @ 40Hz
L12 12" Subwoofer RCA
P3 Power Plant A/C Regenerator - Can dramatically improve sound quality realism after 350 hours or 2 weeks of cumulative burn in
40" HDR 4K TV Opt
Windows 11 Gaming HTPC HDMI
D2R
I would certainly hope it's features... But realistically, why do people believe in astrology, homeopathy, bigfoot, santa claus, ghosts, angels, an invisible being living in the sky watching everything they do, etc.?
One of the most important concept in audio that you have to understand is the placebo effect. The human brain/hearing really aren't adequate to evaluate amplifiers.
Blind tests:
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm
1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage Mark Levinson No. 333
Amplifier CARVER PXM 2 -------- 450 PRO
-- No differences were found
1 ----------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage Mark Levinson No. 333 JML
2 ----------- Stage Amplifier tube
-- No differences were found
1 -------- Pre Amplifier No. 38S + ML ML No. 333 Stage
-------- Yamaha P7000S Amplifier 2
-- No differences were found
1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage MARK LEVINSON No. 333
2 -------- Amplifier YAMAHA RX-V 540 (AV Basic)
-- No differences were found
1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage MARK LEVINSON No. 333
2 -------- Amplifier NAD C 370
-- No differences were found
'crap' vs overpriced
You're giving human attributes to an audio component... You have to remember that an amplifier simply amplifies a signal. If it does so accurately, then it does so accurately... Today, year 2012, the technology of amplifiers is quite advanced (the technology is not in its infancy) and engineers have understood how to make amplifiers which will amplify a signal very accurately. There are bad amplifiers out there, but properly designed amps non clipping amps will simply sound indistinguishable from one another, as blind tests conclude.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid...mplifiers.html
For a recent non-believer, I used an Onkyo SR500 Dolby Digital receiver--purchased reconditioned for $200 (they're $250 - $300 new) against some well regarded separates. It's rated at 65 watts x 2 stereo per the FTC guidelines into 8 ohms. Distortion is 0.08% from 20-20k from 1 watt to 65 watts into 8 ohms. It has a "direct" bypass feature that supposedly bypasses all the digital/DSP for analog stereo signals.
The Onkyo was put up against the well regarded Bryston 4B 300 wpc power amp and a Bryston 2 channel pre-amp. They were driving a pair of expensive floor standing KEF speakers and the source was a high-end Marantz CD player. The person who owns this system is very proud of it and has spent a lot of time getting what he considers to be the best sound possible.
I had the Bryston owner pick the level he wanted to do the comparison at while listening to his system. I then used pink noise to level match the Onkyo to his system while he was out of the room. The Onkyo was running in its "Stereo Direct" analog mode.
I called him back in to listen, he sat down in the sweet spot and I replayed the same CD track he'd used to pick the levels. He immediately started complaining about how bad the Onkyo sounded. He said it sounded thin, compressed, harsh and a few other things. I smiled and turned the Onkyo off and the music kept playing. He'd said all those negative things about his own Bryston gear!
With him red faced, we proceeded to do at least an hour of listening with me swapping cables, or only pretending to, when he requested a switch. He listened to his favorite audiophile CDs. I did lots of swaps and fake swaps and during each would ask him which he thought he was listening to. In the end, his answers were roughly 50% correct which is the same as if he'd been randomly guessing. He even finally admitted, he couldn't tell which was which and WAS only guessing! I took his place and also couldn't hear any difference between the lowly receiver and his prized Bryston gear.Links: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=82777Tom Nousaine has set up a number of self-professed golden-eared audiophiles with an ABX comparator in their own home using their own system and allowed to run tests at their own leisure over periods of months or more.
So far, none have been able to statistically discern any differences once basic issues such as distortion, frequency response and level matching have been addressed.
Of course this isn't necessarily what I'd call definitive. But I have always been amused at how "night and day" differences tend to simply vanish once the listener is simply denied the knowledge of which component they're listening to.
They're absolutely sure they hear a difference when switching between A and B. And they're often just as absolutely sure when they compare to X. Yet when the results are examined, no statstically significant correct (or incorrect for that matter) responses seem to manifest.
I would like to think that anything described as "night and day" should be able to be distinguished 100% of the time seeing as there are many "subtle differences" which are easily distinguished by certain individuals 100% of the time in such tests.
Anyhow, I'll let George Carlin sum things up:
But yeah not all amps sound the same. Some sound different by design or maybe just because it's not a competent amp... Some have more power and will distort sooner/later than others, etc.
Last edited by GirgleMirt; 09-21-2012 at 06:19 AM.
Pianist 718... perhaps home-loan, or purchase off of Craigslist a different receiver and see what you think. I suggest that the receiver be from a different company and cost well more than twice the price of your current receiver. An older, but high-quality receiver can be picked up for pretty cheap nowdays! If you don't hear much of a difference, then you have saved quite a bit of money.
IMHO, the differences in amplification quality is usually not as discernible at lower volume levels. Since you do not play that loud, and have a smaller room, it may turn out not to be a worthwhile investment.
Simply just give it a try and see what you think.
Have fun![]()
I can share this in reference to the 465, it has the guts and power with that signature Yamaha sound but lacks advanced video processing, any kind of volume processing, guided on screen display, more audio options, advanced adjustability, various surround adjustments, bi-amping abilities, multi point standing wave measures to name a few. I was shocked at the difference going to a different receiver with all the mentioned features added. With all the same and plugging new rec. in the video was dramatically better (DirectTV), the default HD Dolby Digital was dramatically clearer, just everything was so clean and clear. That alone was the realization of just because it can decode the same all the added processing abilities added so much more and made the 465 seem so lacking. I loved my 465 but it was until I experienced a higher level of precision and adjustability that gave me a appreciation of all these added programs. My 465 is still for sale and in the garage for someone to snag it. It is a great product with great amplification but lacks all the added features now available.
GirgleMirt... I agree that the outcomes of these studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between amplifiers, but my experience has shown otherwise.
I see two issues with these listening sessions...
1) They are really testing the person, and not the electronics. The fact that a person knows that he/she is being evaluated on their accuracy to pick out the better electronics is a placebo effect in itself that distorts the study (read Test Anxiety).
A better test would be either...
A) The person sitting in their own living room relaxing with a shot of fine scotch and nobody around.
or
B) A study with people that could care less about audio or the outcome.
2) I know this is cheating when trying to normalize out variables in a test, but the test taker should have full use of the volume control at all times. This is more realistic to the listening environment.
I'm going to give you my subjective belief on specific improvements.
1) Speakers & Listening Room
I consider this duo to be yin-yang and to provide a majority percentage of audio improvements. Speakers have a very difficult job to do: they must convert electrical signals into sound waves. The better your speakers are at doing this, the better sound overall you will get.
The listening room is the receptive or destructive partner of the speaker. If the room thwarts the speaker's energy and accuracy in certain areas, the listener will (likely) pick up on these arguments and overall quality will be diminished. However, if the listening room is treated such that it resolves the conflict and fully supports the speaker's strengths, then a harmonious and satisfying listening experience will ensue.
2) Electronics (pre/pros, amplifiers, receivers, analog source like turntables, and digital to analog sources like SACD players)
This area is where the source electrical signals are handled, processed, and amplified. If the input signal is degraded here in any way, the final content delivered to the speakers will suffer.
3) Source recording
Some folks believe the source recording should have priority above the electronics. In my experience, the best recordings cannot be played back accurately unless the entire system is capable of resolving subtle details. I believe in the Garbage In, Garbage Out concept, and I believe that listeners should purchase high-quality recordings. Nevertheless, in my experience, the difference between a high-quality recording and a low-quality recording is much more apparent in a system with upgraded electronics.
4) Digital sources
This category includes devices like CD transports, Squeezebox, iPods, etc. As long as the signal stays within the digital domain from input to output, there is minimal negative impact to the overall sound quality.
5) Cables and interconnects
I believe one should purchase quality, well-made cables for several reasons. Poorly-made cables can be more susceptible to external noise and interference. With speakers cables, small gauge wire can restrict current/voltage delivery over longer runs. There are very minimal sonic improvements to be made here. Focus on build quality instead of sound quality in this area.
With all of that said, if I had to choose between upgrading to Sierra Towers and upgrading a receiver, I would pick the towers hands down. It's an absolute no-brainer. In my experience, there is little difference in sound quality with most low- to mid-fi receivers. Buying a receiver is more about features than it is sound quality in my opinion. A receiver is an all-in-one device designed with compromises. You typically give up performance in the amplification and analog section (although most flagship receivers do better) compared to true separates. The brand new receivers continue to improve the overall sound quality compared to older models, so upgrading an aging receiver very well could help you there.
If you really want to try a receiver upgrade, I'd recommend you figure out what features you need/want. Get a model that suits your checklist, and see what improvements it offers. If you aren't happy, bring it back and get the Towers instead.
My fifty-two cents.![]()
-Jacob