Sierra Towers /w RAAL + Horizon amplification

[jjanosik]

Hello everyone,

I'm planning on purchasing 2 Towers /w RAAL and RAAL Horizon for 3.0 HT (sub will be added later probably) and music.

My remaining budget for the amplification is limited to 2500$ (I prefer it to be cheaper without hurting sound quality if it's possible).

I would like this to last for quite a long time because it is a lot of money compared to the salaries in my country.

Firstly I was thinking about Emotiva combo, but I have read here
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?5654-Bright-sounding-Emotiva-with-Sierra-2&highlight=emotiva
that Emotiva stuff with ribbon tweeter is too bright. I'm from Europe so I can't test it and I'm essentially without a warranty because shipping is half the price of the amp alone. So I don't know whether it is wise to try Emotiva without the option of returning it.

Other options I came up with after some reasearch are these:
Pioneer SC LX88
Marantz 7009
Anthem MRX 710
Cambridge audio azur 751r
Denon AVR-X5200W
YAMAHA RX-A3040
Arcam AVR450

Cheap receiver + 5 channel amp (Rotel RMB-1565? or is there another 5 channel amp around 1000-1500?)
cheap receiver + stereo amp... What to do with the Horizon?

I have read several reviews about all of them but opinions differ on which sound better. I would really appreciate someone with the real experience of these receivers and RAAL Towers.

Can you please recommend me something which will sound good with RAAL Sierra towers and Horizon? Right now I'm not thinking about expanding it into a 5.1 setup, but it is possible in the future (again I want this stuff to last).


Thank you very much for your responses.

[Kisakuku]

If you are planning to use room correction functions, Denon X5200 is a good receiver. Also, none of your amplification choices will have any effect on tweeters sounding bright or not.

[FirstReflect]

You might not like what I'm about to say, but I think it's a good thing to consider none-the-less:

Right now is a spectacularly good time to WAIT if you are considering the purchase of a high end AV Receiver or Pre-Pro. However, that statement only applies if you have any interest what-so-ever in keeping said AV Receiver or Pre-Pro longer than a year or two AND you think there's a possibility that you might want to get into this whole "4K" UltraHD business during your period of ownership. Waiting just a few more weeks will also allow you to find out what DTS has in store for us on the Immersive Audio front. DTS will have an announcement about their DTS:X format some time in March - very possibly this coming week. After DTS has officially unveiled DTS:X, manufacturers will be free to tell us which (if any) currently available models will be upgradeable. Right this moment, we do not know for 100% certain, although the flagship Denon AVR-X7200 AV Receiver and Marantz AV8802 Pre-Pro appear to be almost certain as getting DTS:X, plus those two models are 100% certain to be getting full 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 copy protection hardware upgrades.

The AVR-X7200 and AV8802 are both almost certainly out of your price range though. And by all appearances, NO OTHER models will be getting HDCP 2.2 or DTS:X upgrades. I could be wrong about that; I hope I am since I own a Denon AVR-X5200 myself. But that's how things are looking at the moment.

So here's the thing: if you do not care even a tiny bit about ever possibly using 4K or DTS:X Immersive Audio, then it's ok to buy something right now. But I just want everyone to be aware of these things. Because if you're planning to keep your new AV Receiver or Pre-Pro for several years, it's very likely you'll want support of one or both of these things. HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X (along with Dolby Atmos, of course) will be showing up in LOTS of 2015 AV Receivers and Pre-Pros. So if you are able to wait a few months, this summer will be a much, much better time to buy.

So, with all of that said, I happen to really like Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with SubEQ HT and Audyssey Dynamic EQ. Due to that preference of mine, I tend to favour Denon and Marantz these days. It doesn't hurt that Denon and Marantz are also pushing the hardest right now to support as many formats and features as possible. They're the only major consumer level brands offering support for Auro-3D Immersive Audio right now. And, as I said, their X7200 and AV8802 appear to be the only current models that will be offering HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X upgrades.

So in your list there, the X5200 is based on Denon's "made in Japan" platform and, on paper, has the better built-in amps. Meanwhile, the Marantz SR7009 is based on the "made in China" platform (also used for the Denon AVR-X4100 and Marantz AV7702 Pre-Pro). That said, the SR7009 has 7.1 analogue audio inputs, the AVR-X5200 does not.

As I mentioned, I own the AVR-X5200, and it powers my three custom Horizon RAAL speakers perfectly well.

All of THAT aside, though, I'm hugely impressed with the Yamaha A3040. It is a magnificent piece of gear. I am a crazy person, and I enjoy making use of Front Wide speakers. The Yamaha A3040 does not support the use of Front Wide speakers, and that is literally the only reason I did not buy it rather than the Denon X5200.

So...if you know for certain that you do not care about HDCP 2.2 so that you can use your Receiver with 4K sources, and you also know for certain that you do not care about DTS:X Immersive Audio, then I can highly recommend the Yamaha A3040 and the Denon X5200. But if either of those features is of ANY interest to you at all, then wait. It won't be a terribly long wait. It's all falling into place this year. But I'd hate to see you spend this much money only to be instantly obsolete. There's just no value in that.

I hope that's of some help,

Rob H.

[jjanosik]

FirstReflect thank you very much for your detailed response. Actually I'm aware of HDCP 2.2 and I was thinking about waiting for some HDCP 2.2 compatible receivers to be announced. But my friend told me that it is possible that most of the 4k content will be available from streaming services (Netflix) and when it comes to 4k blu-ray players they will have separate audio output probably, because it is not wise to force everyone to upgrade their receivers just because of HDCP 2.2.

With that said I'm willing to wait for HDCP 2.2 compatible receivers, but I would like buy new speakers before December (when 4k blu-ray players are announced if I'm correct?). I was planning to buy speakers and receiver in June, but I don't know whether there will be HDCP 2.2 receivers by then or not.

When the new HDCP 2.2 receivers are announced should I trust their previous iteration about sound quality (that the successor of Denon X5200 or Yamaha 3040 will be the same in the audio quality but with something new)?

Is there an audible difference in sound quality among these receivers? Because some people say that Cambridge audio 751r is the best sounding but does not have a good room correction (is it more important that sound quality?), others say that something else is better sounding etc. I'm quite new in this whole audio stuff :) so I don't know...

Thanks

[bkdc]

There is no discernible sound difference among solid state amplifiers that are driven well within their intended power envelopes. Any difference in sound will be from the the sound processing or room correction or EQ settings of the receivers. Even with less expensive amplifiers, you're looking at signal to noise ratios that are well above what is needed and crosstalk and harmonic distortion that cannot be heard. As long as your amplifier has enough power, you'll be fine. I prefer to have separate amplifiers and a pre-amp receiver, but this is a more expensive option. I will probably never need to upgrade my class-D amplifiers, but the processing technology in my pre-amp will eventually get outdated. I am overrun with spare amplifiers from all my DIY projects but I will find a way to put them to use.

[jjanosik]

bkdc do you think there is any plausible separates solution under 2500$? Besides emotiva, because I don't want to risk that without warranty...

I have just found that cambridge audio announced new line of receivers with HDCP 2.2 last month... I like that RCX200 has 170w into 2 channels or 120w into 7 channels... It does not have Atmos or any other 'ceiling' sound solution and I believe they don't use room correction software (they used Audyssey 2EQ in their last 751r receiver, but I think they just dropped it). I think their 751r was known for very good sound quality and powerful output for a receiver... so the question is, do I really need a room correction or this ceiling audio stuff? I'm sure I will not use any ceiling speakers within next 5-7 years at least, if ever... and even then it has 7.1 analogue direct so I can use new receiver for Atmos or whatever and this receiver for other 7 channels... am I correct?
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/products/cx-series

[bkdc]

7 channels under 2500? That's possible if you pick an affordable multi-channel amplifier. You definitely won't be able to get 7 monoblocks. :) Outlaw Audio or Emotiva are options for affordable multi-channel class B amplifiers. The 'audiophiles' cling to class A or class A/B for theoretical advantages, but in real life performance, there is no advantage over modern class D technology (the dominant class-D players are Hypex, Pascal, ICEpower, and Anaview) while there are a lot of disadvantages -- the primary issues being weight and power efficiency. The Outlaw 7075 or 7125 are excellent values in class B multi-channel amps. I'm perfectly happy with 5.2 channels. I've tried 7.2 channel and I didn't really notice a significant improvement. I have no experience with the ceiling channels and I'm a little skeptical about it. I also care more about sound from multi-channel SACD or HD-Audio then I do about the multi-channel from movies.

Yes, you can use any receiver/amplifier for 7 channels if you're not using ceiling speakers. The options for output will be L, C, R, Surround Left, Surround right, Rear Left, Rear Right. Sometimes, the receiver will give the option to use the extra channels as Left High and Right High. If you get a 9-channel or 11-channel receiver, the options will be there for the standard 7 channels plus high channels.

I think room correction definitely helps. It makes adjusting for speaker distance and gain differences easy. The objects in your room act like a comb filter for sound, and the setting just compensates for the room's effects. I love Audyssey XT32. I have no experience with the Atmos or ceiling channels. There are plenty of people who preach against room correction software. You can get by without it if you don't mind manual settings. I think the purists discount the fact that your room already acts like an equalizer and filters the sound coming from your speakers. There's nothing wrong with trying to compensate for this comb filtering effect.

I have an Onkyo PRSC5509 that I'm extremely pleased with. It's been rock solid but it doesn't have HDCP2.2 or the new Atmos but it is so connectivity-friendly that I use it to run my entire media library from my computer through HDMI. I play multi-channel audio SACD ISO images (on hard drive) through foobar through my Preamp. I think the only other preamp I would be willing to run my library on would be the Marantz competitor. My current preamp does have AudysseyXT32 whereas the newer Onkyo preamp with Atmos does NOT. Cost cutting from Onkyo. I'm not in a hurry to adopt the new Atmos receivers because at this point, I have absolutely no interest in buying Atmos-ready speakers or installing ceiling speakers. If you don't want the latest, you can find some great used preamps or AVRs at a great price. Even the awesome Marantz AV8801 is now being steeply discounted to make way for the AV8802. If you wait a little longer, you might see everyone clearing out their non-Atmos receiver models at big discounts.

If or when 4K video and HDCP2.2 gets well established, I will have to upgrade. But for the next several years, I think I'll be okay.

I DIY-built all my amplifiers. I have 5 Anaview AMS1000-2600 monoblocs (600W at 8ohms, 1000W at 4ohms per channel), three stereo pair ICEpower 125ASX2 amplifiers with ICExtend modules (each channel 250W and 8ohm, 450W at 4-ohms) and a single monoblock 125ASX2 for a total of 12 channels of potential amplification. I think the cost per channel for the Anaviews was around 500 (cost of the amplifier module and nice cases, LED, connectors) each, and the cost per channel for the ICE was about 300 or so... but prices have gone up a lot since then. I also spent a lot of downtime crimping and soldering cables. And there is no way I can drive those amps to their potential without damaging my speakers or melting the 15-amp rated 14-gauge electrical wiring in my home.

[jjanosik]

Wow, you built all your amplifiers? Big respect :)

Thank you very much for all the information and recommendations... I will have to reconsider about room correction and ceiling solutions. Right now I think I can live without both, but I don't know how hard is it to set it manually.

Unfortunately Outlaw and Emotiva are not sold directly in my country therefore I have to pay quite a lot of money for the shipping and warranty is almost non-existent because of that (shipping of 1 emotiva amp is around 550$). And I don't know if I want to risk this.

So I think the best solution for me is to buy some powerful receiver which has direct analog input, so I can use it for the amplification in the future. Right now the Cambridge Audio CXR200 looks like the best option for this... 7.1 direct analog inputs, 170w 8ohm 2-channel driven, 120w 8ohm 7-channels, hdcp 2.2 and their previous model was praised for sound quality... It probably doesn't have room correction and Atmos so there is the trade-off.

[FirstReflect]

Your plan makes sense for your situation, but why not opt for the Marantz SR7009 or Yamaha A3040? You'd be getting all the features you mentioned wanting, plus the ability to do Dolby Atmos (and Auro-3D, also, in the case of the SR7009), as well as excellent room correction/auto-setup in either case.

The only thing you would not be getting with either the Marantz SR7009 or the Yamaha RX-A3040 would be HDCP 2.2. But, as you mentioned, hopefully most 4K players (of all types) will include two HDMI outputs so that you can route the HDCP 2.2 protected video directly to your HDCP 2.2 4K display, then use the second HDMI output to route audio only directly to your AV Receiver.

Lots and lots of people get sucked into this idea that the bigger manufacturers like Denon, Marantz, Onkyo, Yamaha, etc. somehow have inferior sound to the slightly smaller companies. A lot of that has to do with price ( "how could they charge more if they weren't actually better?" ), and just the misconception that by going "a little bit off the beaten path" that you must be getting some sort of "secret" that "regular" folks don't know about.

I'm here to tell you, Marantz and Yamaha know what the heck they're doing, and their products sound fantastic. Why give up features just because the smaller brands cannot include them at a competitive price? That doesn't make them "better" or "special". It just means they have a profit margin to maintain just like anybody else, but due to economies of scale, they can't compete on features.

And just so you're aware on that HDCP 2.2 front - there is not a single AV Receiver out there right now that has full 18 Gbps bandwidth HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2. I know that Onkyo/Integra and a handful of other brands say they have HDCP 2.2 on some of their models. And they do. It's just that it's HDCP 2.2 on a restricted 10.2 Gbps bandwidth HDMI 2.0 connection. The lower bandwidth means it might not be able to pass along the full capabilities of UltraHD content (10 bit colour, HDR, wider colour gamut, higher frame rates - all at once). Bottom line, do not let any claims of HDCP 2.2 support sway you. NO ONE has a full bandwidth HDCP 2.2 solution on the market just yet. EVERYONE will have full bandwidth HDCP 2.2 solutions by the end of 2015, though.

Anyways, get the Marantz SR7009 or Yamaha RX-A3040 if you want to buy something right now :)

[bkdc]

I agree with FirstReflect. The AV processors from smaller makers like NAD and Cambridge Audio are not going to sound any better than ones from Marantz, Onkyo, Denon, Pioneer, or Yamaha. I wish some of the manufacturers would make a dedicated AV Preamp but most makers make AVReceiver with amplifier without a dedicated AV preamp.

[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/marantz-sr7009-av-dolby-atmos-receiver-review.10854
https://www.avforums.com/review/anthem-mrx-710-av-receiver-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/content/marantz-sr7008-av-receiver
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/anthem-mrx-710-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-cinema-av-receivers/home-cinemastereo-music-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 :D

[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.

[FirstReflect]

When it comes to AV Receivers, I've gotta tell you, they just don't sound very different from one another. Speakers can make a very large difference. Your room can make an equally large difference. AV Receivers make a much smaller difference. Amplifiers make hardly any difference at all.

But proper bass management and equalization, those can make substantial differences. Being able to position speakers overhead or in the Front Wide positions, those things make very obvious differences. Being able to adjust and control the signal with DSP, that can make a very large difference. So in my opinion, AV Receivers are not about "purity", they're about features. We could strip down two cars - no seats, no sound system, no trim or trappings. In these conditions, Car A is able to go 10 mph faster than Car B. But now Car A remains in this completely stripped down state while Car B gets lovely leather seats, a rockin' sound system, and all the bells and whistles. Which one would you actually rather drive on a day to day basis? Furthermore, what if that 10 mph difference never even existed at all? What if, in their stripped down states, both of them could go equally fast and handled and cornered equally well. But now Car B gets all the luxury features while Car A remains completely stripped down. Oh, and Car B - with all of its luxury features and completely equal performance - is actually less expensive than stripped down, not a single advantage Car A? You still want Car A? What if a reviewer told you that Car A is better because it was made by BMW while Car B was made by Toyota?

So this is the issue. To start, if you stripped all of the features out of the Marantz or the Yamaha and compared them blind to the Cambridge - or a Denon or an Onkyo or whatever, all of them with all of their features stripped out - right off the bat, they'd barely sound any different at all. You might literally not be able to tell them apart what-so-ever. That's the starting point, now we layer features on top of that baseline. So ultimately, it's the feature set that matters, because the base line performance of all of these AV Receivers is either identical sounding, or so close that the feature set easily outweighs any tiny differences in base line sound.

There's no such thing as "pure" sound reproduction. Once those sound waves leave the front of the speaker, the room takes over. And ignoring the effects of the room in the name of "purity" is just folly. If your speaker - all by itself, always created a little hump in the frequency response right around, let's say, 500 Hz, we wouldn't think twice about using some EQ to bring that little hump back into linearity. The speaker is misbehaving a little bit, and we easily correct it with some EQ. No big deal, right? So why is it that when the room creates that same little hump around, let's still call it, 500 Hz, all of a sudden, if we correct that little hump, we've somehow "ruined" the "purity" of the sound? Does it really matter whether the hump in the frequency response was caused by the speaker or the room? Or does it only matter that a small hump in the frequency response was created? And if we can easily compensate for that little bit of misbehaviour - regardless of the cause - why would we not do so? That's pretty basic logic. But in audiophile land, they'll blame that hump that was created by the room on the speakers, or on the amplifiers, or on the pre-amp. It's a nonsensical way of looking at the problem, but they're so stuck in this notion of "purity" that nonsense is the only way to continue holding onto those beliefs while acknowledging the plainly audible results.

Bottom line is this: you start by getting speakers that don't misbehave - you've already done that by getting some Ascend Sierra RAAL speakers! Now you try to make that passive acoustics of your room not misbehave. We really haven't gotten into that yet, but it's a simple idea with an often difficult execution. Very simply, a "non-misbehaving" room will not "ring" and will not "echo". It won't be a full on anechoic chamber - there will be sound wave reflections. But what we're looking for are even and uniform decay times across all of the audible frequencies. That's a simple idea with an often very difficult execution. But regardless of how close we get to that goal, your speakers won't be the things misbehaving, and any electronics driving those speakers are all going to have to contend with the same room acoustics.

So now we come to the deep bass in your room. This is almost a completely separate entity. The deep bass sound waves are going to be physically longer than at least one or two of the dimensions of your room. 20Hz bass sound waves are over 55 feet long. I don't know too many houses with 55 foot tall ceilings. So that means you are GOING to have standing waves. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You are also never going to hear those deep bass sound waves as direct sound; you are only ever going to hear them as reflected sound. The sound waves are physically so long that they will have left the speaker, gone past your ears, reflected off of one or more walls - sometimes multiple times - before ever actually completing one full cycle at your eardrum. Again, you're not sitting 55 feet away from any of your speakers, and your head is not 13.75 feet wide (which is how far apart your ears would need to be in order for you to triangulate the origin of a 20Hz sound wave in air).

So deep bass is a fluid dynamics problem. And Harman has largely solved it. If you truly only care about ONE listening position, then you can find ONE spot in your room as the origin of deep bass sound waves where the source and the listening position will have a reciprocal relationship - the ONE seat is not situated in any full peaks or cancellation nulls when the bass is originating from that ONE location in the room.

But if you care about more than ONE seat, you are going to need more than one source of deep bass sound waves. And those multiple sources of deep bass sound waves must work together with each other AND the room. You can't just stick both deep bass sound sources up and the front of your room and expect good results. So this is where the whole notion of "Full Range" front speakers completely falls apart. The source of deep bass sound waves never acts independently of the room.

So if what we want is uniform bass response across all of our seats - where no seat is situated in a full peak or null - we need to solve the fluid dynamics problem of the standing waves that are created by any single deep bass sound source within a room where at least one of the dimensions is shorter than the longest wavelength being generated. And the way we do this is by having at least two deep bass sound sources situated across the room from one another. This creates a scenario where, instead of the sound wave that would create a standing wave reflecting off the wall and bouncing back into the room where it perfectly "doubles up" or "cancels out" itself, the second source of deep bass cancels out that particular frequency right at the wall - like a "perfect" bass trap. It's a form of active standing wave cancellation.

So in a rectangular room, the ideal would be to have one subwoofer at the mid-point of all four walls. Having one subwoofer in each corner also works very well. Having two subwoofers across the room from one another delivers a good portion of these benefits while being less expensive and easier in terms of allocating floor space. But the goal is this "active standing wave" cancellation. And you can only do that if you have at least two sources of bass acting in concert with each other AND the room. Full Range speakers might give you at least two sources of deep bass, but they are not positioned correctly within the room to achieve this controlled sound wave interaction. The speakers must be positioned where they will create proper imaging in the mid-range and treble frequencies.

So the solution is pretty simple - allow subwoofers to handle the deep bass, and use bass management to prevent the speakers from producing deep bass frequencies where these interactions with the room dictate the sound you ultimately hear, not the speakers themselves. And once the bass is uniform, you can EQ it very effectively because any changes made to the frequency response will act across all seats evenly. This allows for "every seat to be a good seat". And it also means that you can achieve linear frequency response.

But none of that is possible if you're holding onto this idea of "pure" sound reproduction where nothing is done to the signal and the speakers all play Full Range. Again, that way of thinking doesn't take into account the effects of the room, which are enormous!

So this idea of having a DSD stream come off of an SACD and be converted directly into analogue. Such a process would not allow for any of this very important signal manipulation. We want to bass manage ALL recordings going through the system. We want to be able to EQ the deep bass because "uniform" bass response is not the same as "linear" bass response. "Uniform" just means uniform. There will still be some humps and dips. But because it is uniform, we can fix those with some simple EQ, and it will apply to all seats.

It would also be very, very nice to be able to compensate for the non-linearity of human hearing, wouldn't it? I'm talking about how we hear frequency response differently depending on the sound pressure level. If we play any audible frequency (from about 20Hz up to about 20,000 Hz) at 85dB SPL, we will tend to perceive any and all of those frequencies as being equally loud. 85dB SPL is where our human hearing is at its most linear. But 85dB is pretty darn loud! 85dB average with 105dB peaks is defined as full Reference Volume - for this very reason of human hearing being most linear in our perception at 85dB. But that's an IMAX or THX Certified movie theater. Many, many people find those playback levels too loud - especially at home.

So what happens when we listen at quieter playback volumes? Our hearing remains most sensitive in the mid-range. This is the range of the human voice from about 200Hz up to about 4000Hz, with the real "butter zone" being in the 500Hz to 2000Hz range. Sounds can get very quiet at these frequencies and we will still hear them quite well.

But we suck at hearing bass. If a sound is lower in frequency than about 120Hz and quieter in volume than about 65dB SPL, we might not hear it at all! 65dB in the mid-range is completely audible and easy to hear. But 65dB at 60Hz is almost inaudible to us.

So on the front of our AV Receivers is a lovely little read out of the volume. And if that readout is set to display "relative volume", you'll notice that the range of that readout is almost all negative numbers. So I called it "relative volume"; relative to what? It is relative to Reference Volume. 0dB on that volume readout should correspond to full Reference Volume - 85dB average with 105dB peaks. And that is what we are setting when we adjust the individual speaker levels or speaker "trim" levels - either during auto-setup with a microphone, or manually while test tones are played from the AV Receiver and we read the volume levels of those test tones with an SPL meter.

So most people will find 0dB on the volume dial too loud at home. Most people tend to set their volume dials at -10dB or -20dB. Maybe even -30dB. And those negative numbers are telling you how many dB below Reference Volume you're currently hearing.

So what happens if you listen at -20dB relative to full Reference Volume? Now everything is playing at 65dB average with 85dB peaks. Remember what happens at around 65dB to the deep bass due to our non-linear human hearing?

Audyssey has a feature called "Dynamic EQ". It is there specifically to address this non-linearity of human hearing. When you turn down the volume dial, Dynamic EQ adjusts the output of the deep bass and very high frequencies - as well as sounds in the Surround and Surround Back channels where our positional hearing is not the same as sound coming from in front of us - so that everything is still perceived as linear and audible. Those deep bass frequencies that might literally become inaudible at 65dB are kept audible to our ears by making them louder. Not so much that they overpower the mid-range frequencies, but just enough that they SEEM to be equally loud to our ears.

The Yamaha A3040 also has Yamaha's own version of this called YPAO Volume.

So now we're accounting for non-linearity in the speakers, non-linearity in the room, standing waves in the deep bass, non-linearity in the deep bass, and non-linearity in our human hearing! Those are a whole lot of sources of deviation away from the original signal that have nothing to do with passing along a "pure" signal! If we were to pass along a "pure" signal, it would end up all distorted and non-linear by the time it reaches our brain! So that's why this whole notion of keeping the signal "pure" doesn't really make any sense. We are compensating for all of these sources of distortion - the speakers, the room, the nature of deep bass standing waves, human hearing, etc. - none of which are the fault of the original signal!

So...what matters in the selection of an AV Receiver? Is it the ability to keep the signal "pure" so that it can be subjected to all these sources of distortion? Or is it the inclusion of many features to compensate for all of these sources of distortion? My vote is for the latter. And right now, no one is offering more of these features at affordable prices than Denon, Marantz, and Yamaha.

So forget the "purity" or baseline amplification performance. Those things are a very level playing field - if not completely inaudible. Where the current Denon, Marantz, and Yamaha models pull away are in all of these features that allow you to compensate for the many, many sources of potential distortion in your playback system . And I'm not a Denon, Marantz, Yamaha shill. Just a couple of years ago, I was recommending Onkyo and Integra more highly because at that time, they were offering the most features at the lowest price points. There was a time when Sherwood Newcastle was my go-to choice. And a year or two from now, it might be some different brand. It just so happens that right now, it's Denon, Marantz, and Yamaha. So that's where my recommendation is coming from.

This whole thread started with you saying you just ordered some excellent new speakers, and now you want a great AV Receiver to power them that will last a long time and be worth the money you'll be spending. You provided a list of options, and from that list, I'm simply saying the top choices right now are the Denon AVR-X5200W, Marantz SR7009, and Yamaha RX-A3040. I went on to warn you that NONE of them have HDCP 2.2 copy protection, and NONE of them have yet been confirmed as getting DTS:X upgrades. The higher end Denon AVR-X7200W WILL be - for certain - getting an HDCP 2.2 hardware upgrade. And all signs indicate that the X7200W will also be getting DTS:X as an upgrade - but that still isn't 100% certain.

The A3040 does not offer the option of using Front Wide speakers. The AVR-X5200W does not have 7.1 analogue audio inputs. As a result, the Marantz SR7009 and Denon AVR-X7200X have the most features.

So that's how we got to where we are now in this thread. It's gone way off into related tangents, but it all comes back to the same recommendation: if you really, really want HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X, WAIT! In a month's time, we will have confirmation of which (if any) current AV Receiver models will be getting those upgrades. And there will be a whole bunch of new models released in the summer and fall of 2015 that will have those particular features. If you don't care so much about HDCP 2.2 and DTS:X, then the Marantz SR7009 has the most features for its price category. And the Yamaha RX-A3040 and Denon AVR-X5200W come very, very close. HDCP 2.2 requiring a hardware upgrade means that I rather highly doubt that any models other than the high priced Denon AVR-X7200W and Marantz AV8802 Pre-pro will be getting HDCP 2.2 as an upgrade. But DTS:X might be possible as a firmware download. We have to wait and see, but if any brand is going to be capable of adding DTS:X as an upgrade, it's going to be Denon and Marantz. They're already the only brands in this price category offering Auro-3D Immersive Audio. So if anyone's going to add DTS:X support to existing models, it's going to be them. That just puts the Marantz SR7009 even further ahead, in my book. So to me, that's the front runner, with waiting for the 2015 models also being a really good option :p

- Rob H.

[jjanosik]

Wow thank you very much for these responses. There is a lot of useful information for me.

I suppose that it will be the best to do the blind test of these receivers with some speakers in an audio-shop.

I would like to have hdcp 2.2 for future-proofing, but there is only Denon 7200 and Cambridge Audio CXR announced to have it. They are both quite expensive so we will see whether there will be more announcements regarding this in upcoming months.

I'm planning to purchase the speakers in June/July so I don't know whether I want to wait for a cheaper hdcp 2.2 receivers until December or not.

[FirstReflect]

You're welcome!

And oh, man, if you would like to have HDCP 2.2, just wait! If you're not getting the speakers until summer, just wait. Don't buy any of the 2014 AV Receiver models. I've been saying all along how the 2014 model year is a spectacularly good time to wait. That goes for TVs, too. Once the UltraHD spec is finalized and we have a better indication of how Inmersive Audio is going to play out, then it will be a good time to buy again. But just in terms of AV Receivers, come August through the end of the year, there will be a whole crop of new AV Receivers from all the major brands. And all of these new 2015 models will have full bandwidth 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 ports WITH HDCP 2.2, plus Atmos and DTS:X decoding.

If you HAVE to buy right this second, the Denon AVR-X7200W and Marantz AV8802 Pre-pro are your safest bets. They're confirmed to be getting HDCP 2.2 hardware upgrades, and every indication is that they will also get DTS:X upgrades (they already offer Atmos and Auro-3D, of course). But as you have noticed, they are expensive.

There will be a Denon AVR-X5300 to replace the current X5200 model. It'll likely be available in October. It'll have 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2, as well as DTS:X decoding. And it'll be in the same $2000US price bracket. No, I do not actually have any official announcement of that, but I can almost guarantee that will be the case.

So just wait. What's a few extra months when you've already waited this long and you want to keep this new AV Receiver for many years to come? This is an expensive purchase, so you don't want to find yourself hamstrung by a single missing feature.

No, my friend, this one is an easy decision. By the time your speakers are arriving, we will either already have product announcements for the fall 2015 AV Reciever lineups, or we will be very close to those announcements. It's a few short months until those 2015 models arrive. So just save up for now. I promise you that's the right move to make here.

- Rob H.

[edgeh2o]

...

I come here almost every night with hopes that you've posted new replies somewhere in the forum for me to peruse. Honestly. No matter which thread I find them in, I'm always left with appreciation and awe. You're an excellent writer and communicator, and you always leave me wanting more. Not out of any sort of lacking, but pure enjoyment. Someone needs to make a random post generator for your archived posts. I'd love to work for someone like you, or Ascend for that matter. ;) :p

Please never stop posting.

[cranster]

First Reflect,
Thank you for giving the most cogent reason to not jump into atmos this year with the current crop of receivers. I'm about to purchase a Samsung js9500 because it ticks enough boxes with its WCG, and ability to read HDR metadata when 4k bluray players come out. I have 2 sierra towers/horizon raal LCR, and 3 Sierra 2's. One is my old center. I'm thinking about getting another one to add to the herd. I have a Marantz 7008, with my 2's as wides and my old swan diva 6.1's as surrounds. When I spoke to the guy at Huppins who is one calls mother store about the Samsung we got to talking about audio, and he highly recommended a separate amp for the 7008. He said it's a night and day difference. So I've been researching, and some people throw superlatives at separates like more defined mids, more sparkle on the top end... and it goes on. I live in an apartment and with the lv12r there's only a few hours a day that I will venture into 50% terrirory without the LFC enabled. I've already spoken to the neighbors and offered my phone number if it bothers them, but they both said not necessary. What has my attention is that people claim that this clean constant power makes music sound better at low volumes. Is power power? I can't imagine my current setup sounding any better than it does, and I have yet to hear hi def audio. I stream everything through apple tv. I'm considering an oppo 105. Just trying to figure the next move. You seem to be a pretty insightful person.
Thanks if you have the time to reply.

[jjanosik]

...

Thank you once again. I needed to hear it from someone, because that is was I thought... Then I was told to not care about HDCP 2.2 because 4k blu-ray players will have additional output for "legacy" equipment.

But I think that you are right and it is worth to wait for a few months for this "future-proofing".

Only downside is that Ascend speakers will be more expensive for me later this year because Euro is falling :( They are already 20% more expensive than they were in January.... :(

[FirstReflect]

Holy cow!

I quite literally just got back from a week long vacation down to Disneyland and LEGOLAND with my sister, brother-in-law and their kids. What an incredibly lovely group of messages for me to come back to! I'm extremely flattered :o

For cranster:

First up, if I were someone with an interest in UltraHD and I wanted to buy a TV right now, Samsung's SUHD models would certainly be my top pick. As you say, they "check enough boxes" with support for HDR, 10-bit panels, wider colour gamut, and the ability to accept the metadata to make use of all of those capabilities. Plus, they use Samsung's replaceable jack pack and video processing, so even if things change in the not too distant future, you might be able to swap out that section or external box, rather than having to buy an entire, new television! So I'm down with that choice - although you'll be kicking yourself if you keep watching prices in a year or two ("I paid HOW much to be an early adopter?!) haha.

As for amplification, it's a very strange topic to try and unpack. Audioholics actually just posted a decent write up about the subject of whether or not amplifiers can really sound different from one another outside of obvious things like being driven in clipping or high distortion: http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/audio-amplifiers-sound

But it isn't conclusive. It just posits a theory as to why some people can swear up and down that two amplifiers sound different from one another when the standard measurements of amplifiers show no appreciable difference.

From my own experience - this is subjective - but I would certainly say that amplifiers can sound different from one another, but for the vast majority of instances, any differences are very subtle. Occasionally, you'll get a very large and audible difference, but then it's usually quite clear that one amp is failing or exceeding its abilities in some way while the other is not. So I don't think anyone questions those types of differences. You're mostly wondering whether a high end AV Receiver like the Marantz SR7008 will sound dramatically different when the power is being supplied by an external amp - and you're wondering if that will be noticeable the majority of the time, not just 0.1% of the time when something really odd happens.

So where I've noticed differences between amps most frequently is in the extremes - the extreme quiet end, where some amps most definitely have a lower noise floor than others; and the extreme loud end, where some amps definitely have more headroom than others. The other place where I've really noticed a difference is when I've connected more than 5 speakers to a given amplifier. Having more speakers connected to any amp means you have more back wave information. It's important to remember that speakers don't ONLY make sound as sent to them by the amplifier, they also pick up sound just like a microphone, and that signal gets sent back the other way INTO the amplifier. That is what the damping factor of the amplifier helps to inform you about - a high damping factor means that any back wave information is damped by the amplifier, rather than turning into feedback and getting amplified and sent out to the speakers again in a continuous loop.

So I've certainly had AV Receivers that deliver a nice, low noise floor and plenty of headroom until I connected 9 speakers to it all at once and ended up exceeding the damping factor of the internal amps. The noise floor went way up, and the headroom and dynamics shrank dramatically. But, again, it was easy to tell that I had simply exceeded the capabilities of that AV Receiver.

So my personal experience and opinion is that all amplifiers do not sound identical. There can certainly be audible differences. But outside of cases where you are exceeding the capabilities of the amp, those differences tend to be pretty darn subtle and mostly kept to the extreme quiet and extreme loud ends of the dynamic spectrum. The vast majority of the time, there's just no real audible difference. I've gone through many, many AV Receivers and separate amplifiers, and for the most part, I couldn't tell any of them apart blind with normal content playing at a normal - or even quite loud - playback level. If I let the system sit idle, I could hear differences in the noise floor. If I connected a full compliment of 7 speakers, I could sometimes reach the headroom limits of some amps while others kept plugging along without any problem. But that whole range in the middle - which is, like, 99% of your listening? I couldn't tell any of them apart blind.

So I always say, a great separate amp is never a BAD purchase. You can always find a use for a great separate amp somewhere in your house. And if you get a lower noise floor or the ability to drive more speakers without exceeding any damping factors or headroom limits out of it, then that will be a great improvement! But I rarely push for people to buy a separate amp because I personally just don't hear the difference the vast majority of the time. I'm really, really picky about noise floor; I want DEAD silence. So I have ended up with a separate ATI brand amp, myself. But it really is for that one, specific reason: noise floor. Everything else? Doesn't sound any different to me at all vs. what my AV Receivers can do on their own.

So I typically recommend a separate amp as the LAST upgrade to your system because it makes the smallest difference. Get excellent speakers, get at least two subwoofers and position them properly within your room, and acoustically treat your room! Boom. Huge differences every time. But a separate amp? Teeny-tiny upgrade. So that's how I feel about that subject ;)

[cranster]

Thanks for the response. I need one more Sierra 2 then turn the tweeter in the Sierra 2 I was using as a center then figure out whether to get the auralex ton of small foam squares or a gik room kit. I'm waiting for the JS 9500 to drop at least grand, and the savings can go into room treatment.

[FirstReflect]

Don't get foam for room treatments. Foam is fine for damping physical vibrations - like under a platform or under your subwoofers and Tower speakers, or between a bookshelf speaker and whatever it's sitting on - but it doesn't perform nearly as well as fiberglass or rockwool insulation when it comes to airborne sound wave absorption.

So for wall panels, go with GiK. There's also ATS Acoustics, although I'd avoid their panels that have a solid back as that dramatically reduces their ability to absorb lower frequencies - an open back is pretty much always preferable on any wall panel. And there's Acoustimac - they're particularly a good, less expensive alternative for printed panels or panels with patterned fabric.