Sierra Towers /w RAAL + Horizon amplification

[jjanosik]

Thank you for your responses. I know you are right, but I really don't know what to do...

On the one hand I want this "gear" to last for many years because it is quite expensive. On the other hand I don't know if it is worth to pay extra for something which is marginally better (and there is a possibility it is not better at all)... price difference between Marantz 7009 and Cambridge Audio CXR200 is 1000 euros, which is not a small amount of money for me...

I was thinking about Cambridge audio CXR200 because it has the most powerful amplifier among receivers as far as I know... so I thought that it would serve as an amplifier in the future when I will want a new processor/receiver (I would not need a powerful/expensive receiver, just focus on the functions I want).
I would like a receiver with pure DSD > Analog without PCM conversion, but this is quite hard to find in the specifications (this CXR200 has it).

If there is no big difference in the amplification part of the receivers then it is in the DAC and digital signal processing? And is there a way to check which receiver has better DAC or DSD? For example Cambridge audio Azur 751r has Cirrus Logic CS43122 24/192 DAC and Marantz 7009 has DAC 24/192 DAC with three 32 Bit DSPs and four 24 bit DSP (I didn't find anything more specific)... is there a way to find out which one is better?

Professional reviews are also confusing when one site says 1 is better than 2 and next one says the other way around. When we compare Marantz 7009 and Anthem 710...
AVforums
https://www.avforums.com/review/mara...r-review.10854
https://www.avforums.com/review/anth...er-review.9888

Here the Anthem looks like slightly better option, which has better sound (?) and is probably reference receiver...

SoundAndVision (I suppose 7008 is comparable to 7009 regarding sound quality)
http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...08-av-receiver
http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...10-av-receiver

here the Marantz looks a little bit better... but what does it mean that Anthem is "analytical"?

You mentioned Yamaha 3040, which is reviewed for example here:
http://www.whathifi.com/yamaha/rx-a3040/review

For somebody like me (newbie in audio world) this looks like it has some drawbacks I probably don't want, because other receivers probably don't have these problems?
"Could be punchier, tauter and more transparent,
Voices could be more direct and robust"


People in the forums have different opinions as well... look here
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/home-c...-choice?page=1

One guy - "The yamaha was very good with movies but not as musical as the Arcam 750 withy music"

Second guy - "For me the Yamaha was definitely better than the Pioneer in this regard, however I have heard some people say it is the other way around. I found the Yamaha quite easy on the ear (although the bass was still a little too woolly for me), while the Pioneer is not a very comfortable listen imo."

Third guy - "Have a listen to the Cambridge Audio 751r you may be surprised by how good it sounds with music and movies. I previoulsy had the LX86 which supposedly has oodles of power. The Cambridge is in a different league altogether."



All this is really confusing for someone who just wants to choose the best one for the money in some price-range...

[Kisakuku]

You're comparing receiver / amp characteristics that in all likelihood will be inaudible. What really matters is your room and your speakers.

[bkdc]

What Kisakuku said. Atmos has yet to prove itself. It was announced a year ago, and you can count on a few fingers the number of speaker companies that are adopting Atmos-specific speakers. I don't buy the ceiling reflection story, and an 8-foot home ceiling is not going to be amenable to effective ceiling speaker placement.

From a technology standpoint, Auro-3D seems superior for home use and also easier to implement. It is also compatible with existing sound formats. But early adopters will get burned. I will wait several years until everything shakes out in the Auro vs Atmos vs DTS-MDA war. Atmos might become obsolete the way Dolby Digital went out the door with DTS-HD

[jjanosik]

So do you think it is the best to buy the cheapest one from these which has DSD to Analog (without conversion to PCM - but it is hard to check) for sacd listening?

So maybe last year models without atmos if I'm sure that I'm not going to implement it in the following 5-7 years?

[Kisakuku]

So do you think it is the best to buy the cheapest one from these which has DSD to Analog (without conversion to PCM - but it is hard to check) for sacd listening?

So maybe last year models without atmos if I'm sure that I'm not going to implement it in the following 5-7 years?

No PCM conversion means no room correction. Unless you have a heavily treated room and perfect speaker placement, you're trading a very useful and audible feature for a very questionable and probably inaudible one.

[jjanosik]

No PCM conversion means no room correction. Unless you have a heavily treated room and perfect speaker placement, you're trading a very useful and audible feature for a very questionable and probably inaudible one.

hmm didn't know that... good to know, thanks

[FirstReflect]

Ay-yi-yi.

So I'm struggling to decide what to tell you here. The only thing that really matters is that you are happy with whatever you purchase. That's my only real goal here. But I'm trying to suss out what sort of answer is going to make you happy!

If you've been reading a lot of AV Forums and What HiFi, I completely understand how you've formed some of the opinions, beliefs, and thoughts about audio that you've mentioned. So the question becomes: will you be happier if we just give you confirmation about those beliefs, or will you be happier to "unlearn what you have learned"?

Honestly, there's no wrong answer here. There are MANY people who still hold onto the sort of advice and recommendations about audio and audio system setup espoused by the likes of the reviewers at AVForums and What HiFi. If you've already bought into their way of thinking and you're more interested in confirmation than information, then it's perfectly ok to say that that's the way you're going to be happy, and we will run with that!

On the other hand, any advice that I give is based on a pretty simple set of experiments: I've tried setting things up the way folks at places like What HiFi recommend, then I've tried setting things up the way folks at places like Harman recommend. Based on those experiments, Harman has it right. Simply put, I disagree with a lot of the advice you'll end up reading on AV Forums and What HiFi. A lot of what is being said there is very "traditional audiophile" advice. Things like recommending Full Range Front speakers, holding onto the idea that NOT having subwoofers is somehow the ultimate ideal, using spikes on the bottoms of speakers, attempting to avoid as much manipulation of the electrical signal as possible in the pursuit of some notion of "purity".

All of that older advice really boils down to a lack of understanding of one gigantic ingredient in what you hear: the room! All of those ideas would be fine if we weren't listening within the confines of an acoustically small space. But I don't know too many people who have their home theater or music listening room setup in a wide open field or an anechoic chamber. So that's where all of the Harman research comes in - as well as research from companies like Audyssey and Dirac and such.

Once we put speakers and other sound system components into a room - and in acoustical terms, a small space at that - the room itself becomes the single largest component of that sound system. To not take that into account leads to a lot of misconceptions. And the way sound works in a small acoustical space is not very intuitive - especially in the deep bass.

So, unfortunately, you've likely "learned" a whole lot of "knowledge" that is espoused by a whole lot of audiophiles that will lead you down a certain path. If continuing down that path is what will make you happy, I'm cool with it. It's your money, but more importantly, it's your happiness! On the other hand, I'm extremely comfortable recommending some things that go against those long-held audiophile beliefs for one very simple reason: anyone can experiment and try both ways. When things work, they work; when they don't, they don't. It's pretty simple. But it can be very frustrating to hear conflicting advice - especially if you've already bought into a certain way of thinking. So I'm not here to try and ruin your day - not one little bit. But I would simply say: I don't follow the advice of What HiFi and most of the reviewers at AVForums anymore. And it's not because I didn't believe them or I wanted to think that way. It's based on simple experimentation and coming to realize that Harman has it right. That's all

[jjanosik]

FirstReflect thank you very much for your response. I really appreciate it.

I understand what you are saying.. that these so-called "experts" are just normal people with opinions and that what they are saying is not exact truth, because everybody has its own preferences and every room is different.

I'm just a guy who likes to buy things which last... that is the reason I'm willing to spend more money than average person on something like this. I started to explore this audio-world 2 months ago and it really is confusing because some people say very different things (like room correction vs NO-room correction).

I know that the best option would be to test every gear in my apartment, but it is not possible. I can't test these receivers with Sierras, because nobody has them here. So I will try to listen to these receivers with different speakers and hopefully the better sounding receiver will sound better with Sierras as well. It would probably help to know which speakers are similarly sounding (for any price) so I can at least try these receivers with something close to my future speakers.

I will go to audition some speakers/receivers combos into local audio-shops in a few weeks. I know their listening room will be very different than mine and probably acoustically treated, but it is the least I can do. Can you recommend me some speakers/receivers I should try besides that Marantz 7009 and Yamaha 3040? The commonly available speaker brands here are KEF, B&W, focal, Canton, Revel, Paradigm, Piega (they have a ribbon tweeter but I have read they can sound quite different)...

And you are right I would be probably happier if I "unlearned" everything I know about audio stuff now... I would be probably happy with some 700 eur 5.1 system and have more money for something else

[Harro]

I'll voice my perceptive on this from a person that was in your shoes 3 years ago.
I am more of a movie person than music but think the scenario will fit for either.

5 years ago I had a Onkyo theater in a box 7.1 set up and thought it couldn't get much better, but after 2 years of listening to movies and music on it, things just didn't sound right anymore. I wanted clearer dialogue, more bass impact and a better emotional attachment to what I was listening to. So I started reading reviews about better speakers, amps, AVRs, cables, subs, etc... all over the place. Then I started looking at the prices on all these items and went into shock. I thought to myself spending 5-10 thousand dollars on new speakers, amps, receiver and the rest was out of my reach. But from all the research on these items I did come out with some ideas on what I wanted. One thing that stood out was the Ascend line of speakers. I ended up getting three 340's and two 170's.
Once I had these installed the sound quality was greatly improved. My Onkyo theater in a box receiver could power them cleanly and at a high spl without distortion. My first goal was accomplished.
Now onto my next goal, to improve the sound even more: Room correction software. My old receiver had an old version of Audyssey room correction that was basically a very rude correction and outdated. Going back to all the research I had picked up that an Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or the like in other brands would greatly improve the sound listening experience. So mow I started to look at a receiver with this improved room correction in it. All the new models had it, with a whole bunch of bells and whistles also. I did not need all those bells and whistles for the extra money it was going to cost. So I looked at older models. Flagship receivers that had been replaced by the newer models. These older models had great reviews from all over and had the Audyssey MultEQ XT32 in them, but for at least half the price of the new models. I bought a Denon 4311ci. Still am very happy with this purchase.

Now people would say, you need an amp to have a clean sound or to drive your speakers but I can say that this receiver can power these speakers to ear splitting levels on it's own. So much so that I ordered another two sets of 170's to round out my system to 9.2. I do at this moment have a 3 channel amp but only because I plan to go to 11.2.

My subwoofer journey is just another walk in research and purchasing. I ended up buying a SVS sub, because a local person had one for sale. But also purchased another one a year later new from SVS.

I have since moved on from Ascend speaker line but without starting with them I would not known sound quality and what I really want from my room.

So I guess what I am getting at is that start with what you have planned, The Towers and Horizon with Raal, use anything to run them with and listen to them in your room. Once you have listened to them for a while, year or so, you will know what you would like to improve upon. I, like you will buy for the long haul but you need to know what will make you happy for that long haul. And like most here that journey just keeps going. "The Rabbit Hole"

[FirstReflect]

The biggest misconception with audio is the whole, "this is a different piece of gear, so there MUST be a difference in the sound" phenomenon.

You'll notice that in the What HiFi and AVForums reviews, they NEVER just come out and say, "we didn't hear one lick of difference". They always claim to hear something different in the sound. And that leads readers to also believe that they MUST hear at least a tiny difference whenever some new piece of gear is added or swapped in the system.

It's often a bunch of bologna.

There's this sort of attitude that audiophiles must have "golden ears", that they can hear things that other people can't, that if you can't hear it, you're just not experienced or "special" enough. It's an elitist attitude, but it's also self-perpetuating; once you've made the claim that you can hear differences that "regular" people cannot hear, now you're stuck making those claims no matter what.

I believe very, very strongly in blind testing. If you are going to spend thousands of dollars on a new piece of gear, you shouldn't have to be able to see it or have prior knowledge that it is now active in your system in order to tell whether it sounds different from the piece of gear it replaced or not. And NO ONE is capable of being genuinely objective in a sighted test. Even if they make all sorts of claims about being a skeptic or "not going into the comparison wanting to hear a difference". If you know beforehand that a difference exists, you'll almost certainly end up "hearing" a difference. That's just the way our brains work in matters like this.

So blind, blind, blind.

Now, some differences ARE subtle. Some differences require something like instantaneously switching back and forth between Sample A and Sample B. Our audio memory is very short, so letting minutes, or sometimes even just seconds pass between hearing Sample A and Sample B can be enough that subtle differences would not be identified, even though those differences are genuinely real and audible. But here's another way to look at it:

if I were going from an AV Receiver that costs $200 to one that costs $2000, I'd want more than a vanishingly small difference. I'd want a difference large enough that a minute or two could pass between hearing Sample A and Sample B, but I'd still be easily able to identify which was which. I personally don't think that a difference so small that I could only identify it after instantaneous, multiple switches back and forth is worth the jump in price for most people. I certainly can't go claiming that it's a high value.

The problem with trying to compare the "sound" of AV Receivers is that there are SO many variables. If you're listening and trying to compare two AV Receivers in two different rooms, that's a lost cause. Same thing goes for trying to compare them when using different speakers. If you're going to attempt to compare the "sound" of two or more AV Receivers, then those AV Receivers must, themselves, be the ONLY variable in the sound system.

But even that is not enough. What is it about the "sound" of the AV Receivers that we're really trying to compare? Is it their built-in amplifiers? Is it the noise floor they produce from their pre-outs? Is it their DSP processing or listening modes (DTS Neo:X, for example, which is available in the Marantz SR7009, but not in the Yamaha A3040, or Cinema DSP, which is the reverse situation: available in the Yamaha, but not in the Marantz)? Is it their bass management? Is it their room correction system? And if it's their room correction system, how many times have you run the auto setup process? Small differences in microphone placement can make differences. So it's not even just Audyssey MultEQ XT32 vs. YPAO vs. no room correction at all. It's Audyssey with this particular microphone placement vs. Audyssey with a slightly different microphone placement vs. all the others. And on and on.

So this is actually where a lot of the approach that, say, What HiFi uses ends up coming from. They'll often espouse this idea of turning off every bit of processing possible - no bass management, no room correction, only using the "Pure Direct" listening mode so there's no DSP or processing of any kind happening. This is their attempt at doing an "apples to apples" comparison.

But there's a glaring issue with this approach, which is that all of this DSP and processing and bass management and EQ are there to compensate for that HUGE part of your sound system: the room!

So what if AV Receiver A sounds a little bit better than AV Receiver B when every form of processing is turned off in both of them - no bass management, no room correction, "Pure Direct" listening mode only; but, when you activate all of the processing, AV Receiver B ends up sounding better because it has the superior room correction or bass management or DSP listening mode, or whatever? Are we going to dismiss the final sound simply because - when we purposely ignore everything that AV Receiver B can do to compensate for your room - it doesn't sound quite as good as AV Receiver A when we purposely ignore everything that it can do? Or do we have to take ALL of the variables into account and ultimately decide based upon the final sound?

And then we bring it back full circle, which is doing the comparison blind and making sure we actually hear these differences regardless of whether we know they're active or not.

The real truth, though, is this: a very large percentage of the time - if we're actually listening blind and being held honest - we can't tell the difference. At one point, I went from a $200 Kenwood AV Receiver to a $2500 Yamaha. Listening blind, I couldn't tell them apart! Now I'm willing to admit that. But I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that most reviewers never ever would. I've witnessed first hand some reviewers literally start to panic and sweat when taking part in a genuinely blind speaker shootout because they were so nervous that they weren't going to be able to correctly identify which speakers were which. When it comes time to actually back up their claims of being able to hear differences, a lot of reviewers get VERY uncomfortable. I dive into blind comparisons with aplomb and proudly proclaim, "I don't hear any difference at all!" I'm interested in REAL differences - not justifying price tags.