Frankly, it's hell to choose an AVR

[christo9]

I completely agree. I am having a hard time justifying separates. Today's receivers with DSP/Dirac provide state-of-the-art sound in the simplest package possible. If you have "normal" speakers in a "normal" room, particularly if you use a sub, they all provide plenty of power. Obviously there are exceptions and there are many ways besides a receiver to make wonderful sound. But I don't think there is a way to do it in a simpler fashion. Even for 2-channel.

Waow, so many useful contributions. Thanks

I see a strong preference for Denon.
What about the sister company : Marantz and their new Cinema series ?

 

[ArturoKiwi]

I completely agree. I am having a hard time justifying separates. Today's receivers with DSP/Dirac provide state-of-the-art sound in the simplest package possible. If you have "normal" speakers in a "normal" room, particularly if you use a sub, they all provide plenty of power. Obviously there are exceptions and there are many ways besides a receiver to make wonderful sound. But I don't think there is a way to do it in a simpler fashion. Even for 2-channel.

But, if you have normal speaker in a normal room and 1 or 2 sub, why you don't think about RZ50? Same price and Dirac already included in the price

 

[peng]

Waow, so many useful contributions. Thanks

I see a strong preference for Denon.
What about the sister company : Marantz and their new Cinema series ?

Electronically, they are very comparable, such as the AVR-X3800H vs the Cinema 50, AVR-X4800H vs Cinema 40.
In Europe and more so in Asia such as Singapore, the price differences between them are not great, the Cinema series costs a little more, from very little to as much as $250-300 based on current exchange rate, and on last time I checked prices in Europe. In the US and Canada, the price gap is huge, such as up to $1,000 premium (e.g. Crutchfield price for the C40 vs 4800) for those who prefer Marantz.

D+M claimed that their so call sound masters had tuned them differently, such that Marantz will have the warm, musical sound and the Denon will have the crisp, punchy, crystal clear type of sound signatures. If you compare their specs, circuitry, parts used etc., and most importantly measurements on the recent models, you might conclude that D+M's sound master/tuning talks are at least 90% marketing bs/hype, intended to create hearsay that will inevitably be perceived as facts by many who are affected by expectation bias.

If I were to choose, I would go with the Marantz for the better look (subjective) but only if the price premium is reasonable. I have no doubt I will not hear the claimed different sound signatures, except in may be under some very specific use conditions.

 

[formdissolve]

The subjective differences between 1080p and 4K on my 110" diagonal projection screen are less than the differences in mastering/disc authoring quality. Meaning there is 1080P content that "looks" better than some 4K content. Since it will probably be years, maybe decades before we have native 8K production, all 8K will be upscaled from lower resolution.

I think 8K is a solution creating a problem.

8K will only be worthwhile for cinemas with their giant screens, and especially for the massive 20-30 meter IMAX screens. This is simply due to pixel density and blowing an image up that large requires a high quality source. Although I think the leap to 8K DCP from 4K will be less noticeable than it was from 1080p to 4k all those years ago.

As for AVRs, just find one from the list and look for the features you want and go for what you can afford.

 

[Oristo]

what to think

First, plopping a big flat screen between a pair of stereo speakers messes with soundstaging.
For movies, a center channel for dialog is practically essential.
Compromises to locate that center channel and screen further mess with soundstage.
Speaker placement and room treatment cannot be fully compensated by DSP/Dirac, and
a relatively crappy receiver with extra relatively cheap additional subwoofers judiciously placed and integrated
will be more rewarding than a premium receiver without them.
FWIW, back when home theater surround was rapidly evolving and swapping among Onkyo, Yamaha and Denon,
I preferred some of Yamaha's proprietary surround modes,
but both Yamaha and Onkyo connectors and controls more quickly got noisy than Denon's.
Usability IMO sucks, requiring rereading Denon's manual any time more than a trivial tweak is wanted,
and their DNLA browser was quite disappointing a dozen years ago,
but it has taken this long for me to seriously consider replacing it (with another Denon).

 

[FrantzM]

First, plopping a big flat screen between a pair of stereo speakers messes with soundstaging.
For movies, a center channel for dialog is practically essential.
Compromises to locate that center channel and screen further mess with soundstage.
Speaker placement and room treatment cannot be fully compensated by DSP/Dirac, and
a relatively crappy receiver with extra relatively cheap additional subwoofers judiciously placed and integrated
will be more rewarding than a premium receiver without them.
FWIW, back when home theater surround was rapidly evolving and swapping among Onkyo, Yamaha and Denon,
I preferred some of Yamaha's proprietary surround modes,
but both Yamaha and Onkyo connectors and controls more quickly got noisy than Denon's.
Usability IMO sucks, requiring rereading Denon's manual any time more than a trivial tweak is wanted,
and their DNLA browser was quite disappointing a dozen years ago,
but it has taken this long for me to seriously consider replacing it (with another Denon).

Hi

Trying to understand ... My expereinces being vastly different but ..

First, plopping a big flat screen between a pair of stereo speakers messes with soundstaging.

In what way and why would that be?

Compromises to locate that center channel and screen further mess with soundstage.

Same question and , care to elaborate?

Peace.

 

[lessthanjoey]

If only the Denon's had DLBC already, and a guarantee of ART...

I'm so tempted to grab something, but I really want DLBC and hopefully ART!

 

[Oristo]

In what way and why would that be?

In my experience, speaker placement and room treatment are important, in part for rendering at least an illusion of stable musician locations.
This is usually most easily accomplished by stereo speakers well away from walls and nothing near or between them.
The best room had a cathedral ceiling and books almost completely lining walls.
The worst had a wall of glass (overlooking a river valley; wonderful view, painful acoustics).
Whether more from sympathetic vibration of large flat panel or reflections from same, not sorted.

Same question and , care to elaborate?

Most folks do not want to look up at a screen to watch movies, and many have e.g. a coffee table that would block view if it were near the floor.
While one can place a center channel either above or below a large screen and tilt it vertically for best balanced sound at listening post,
there can still be some awareness that voices emanate from a different height than actors' mouths.

I have configured stereo listening rooms with credible virtual center channel, but not so much with a screen between speakers.

Sorry about the horizontal line over text; don't know what provoked it or how to remove.

 

[Porter]

I agree with this thread. Why isn't there an equivalent in today's market to what B&K Components were making in the early 2000s? Their AVR507 S2 had absolutely exceptional audio quality, with a real class AB 150W/ch x7 into 8ohm across the full 20-20k. The thing pulled 1200W from the wall. Their AV separates were even beefier.

By comparison, the new Sony ES STR-AZ5000ES 11.2 AVR has a max power consumption of 500W. Great sound or not, that tells you something about the headroom available.

 

[Oristo]

a real class AB 150W/ch x7 into 8ohm across the full 20-20k. The thing pulled 1200W from the wall.

Does not compute. 7 x 150 = 1050W; class AB is about 2/3 efficient; would need to draw 1575W from the wall.
Most power is consumed by bass; unless driving full-range passive speakers, 300W should provide adequate headroom
for other than pathologically inefficient speakers with powered subwoofers.
Modern semiconductor audio electronics do not emulate vacuum tube nonlinearities.

 

[Porter]

Does not compute. 7 x 150 = 1050W; class AB is about 2/3 efficient; would need to draw 1575W from the wall.
Most power is consumed by bass; unless driving full-range passive speakers, 300W should provide adequate headroom
for other than pathologically inefficient speakers with powered subwoofers.
Modern semiconductor audio electronics do not emulate vacuum tube nonlinearities.

Sorry, I looked it up, in real output with all channels driven full range it was more like 100w, or thereabouts. The 150 was apparently a 1k measurement. That's what I get for pulling it out of my head after almost 20 years. Great sounding amp though.

Still, compare that against the 11 channels driven on this new Sony ES and the whole unit is rated at 500w consumption. You get my point.

 

[dlaloum]

Agreed, but it's marginal. I run R11 towers and R3 surrounds on a 105wpc Denon X3700H and see no improvement when I run a Rotel RB-1582 MKII amp to the front L+R. Often times you are running less than 1W per channel or less. Denon AVRs are not underpowered. And even if you feel otherwise, then just get an external amp, like I did.

This is heavily speaker dependent, as is any power amp... amps that can handle very low impedance speakers (down to 1 ohm) - can handle any speaker - amps that can handle 8ohm speakers (are there any that cannot?!), on the other hand, frequently cannot handle 1 ohm loads.

One can state that most AVR's will easily handle most speaker loads in the typical home environment.

But if one's speakers of choice (and speakers are the one component that varies the most in terms of "sound" - not to mention distortion levels, dispersion etc... etc...) - are not within the 2sigma "average" - then one should expect to need something matchingly unusual for amplification.

If on the other hand you already have something robust (in current and low load handling terms) in the amp stakes, then no need to worry - pretty much all speakers will work well with it.

 

[dlaloum]

I agree with this thread. Why isn't there an equivalent in today's market to what B&K Components were making in the early 2000s? Their AVR507 S2 had absolutely exceptional audio quality, with a real class AB 150W/ch x7 into 8ohm across the full 20-20k. The thing pulled 1200W from the wall. Their AV separates were even beefier.

By comparison, the new Sony ES STR-AZ5000ES 11.2 AVR has a max power consumption of 500W. Great sound or not, that tells you something about the headroom available.

There are a wide range of differing standards for measuring power consumption - unless they specifically/explicitly state "max power consumption" - then the power draw quoted will be some sort of tested/calculated average based on a test that purports to emulate "average use".

Quite a few manufacturers run things at 1/8th rated continuous power - and that is how they rate the power draw from the wall.

Basically you cannot trust the power draw specs.

Look for a set of tests such as Amir does on here to determine capabilities.

If the power supply is traditional transformer based (and not SMPS "switching" based) - then the weight spec of the component will tell its own story - high current, multi channel AVR's tend to weigh circa 50lbs+/25kg+..... mostly due to the iron in the transformer!

If you need decent current, to drive difficult speakers, at a reasonable price, the new Onyo/Integra/Pioneer flagship models (RZ70, 8.4, LX805) look promising - the photos seem to indicate fairly heavy duty heatsinks and power supply, and the weight seems to be in the right ballpark for substantial current.... - but they have yet to be measured by anyone to confirm this.

 

[Dobbyisfree]

the new Sony ES STR-AZ5000ES 11.2 AVR has a max power consumption of 500W.

No it doesn't. That's the quoted "power consumption" figure. This uses a standard measurement.

My AVC-X3700 (Class AB) says 660W on the back. But has a 5 channel ACD 8 Ohm figure of 100W.

My Rotel RB-1510 (Class D) says 120W on the back but can deliver 135W into two channels simultaneously at minimum distortion at 4 Ohms.

 

[drioannis]

Well let me say what I want:
1) Good but not necessary Excellent multichannel sound performance (depending on price). At least comparable or better than a "99$ USB DAC board".
2) DSP up to date like Dirac with ART support if I choose to pay for it (hope this will be true in near future).
3) For God's shake... XLR outputs. With the meters and meters (yes I am European) of running cables with more and more channels why RCA!? Even better go "and AES"!
4) Properly tested sound and software performance. There will be bugs but please do not beta test your clients.
5) No need of an amplifier. The future is active speakers (with or without DSP).
6) Reasonable price...I do not need an amplifier!


I believe this might be true in 2-3 years but for now if you want good performance you need a lot of...euro. Call me Trinnov/Storm Audio.

 

[fyton2v]

I went through the same debate and made some poor product decisions over the last few years. I've come to the conclusion that software/firmware and reliability are vastly more important to my enjoyment of an AVR than my imagination around sound quality. It's hard to describe how frustrating, primitive, and glitchy my NAD AVR has been. Tried the new Anthem AVR, also a work in progress mixed in with an absolutely bizarre engineering decision around their FAN implementation. Rotel's AVR ... not sure, it arrived and the LFE out didn't work. I've now bought the Denon 4800 and, at least so far, it literally does everything it's advertised to do. Flawless HDMI switching. Flawless CEC performance across multiple sources. Flawless video and zero audio glitches.

After owning some of those supposedly higher end AVRs, and a couple of pre/pros prior, I don't think I'll ever again buy a home theater processor that's not made by a big manufacturer, like Denon. They sell so many more units than an Anthem (or whatever) and surely employ many more engineers and software developers. On the software side, Denon's developers appear qualified (based on the function and UX of this 4800) to be writing code in 2023. I'm unsure the same can be said for NAD and the others. By all appearances, they are not. Denon has a much bigger slice of the market and all the extra real-world use equates to better testing, better software releases, and a better, more reliable product. I think the only thing that would make me pause before purchasing a Denon or Yamaha AVR is whether I was pairing it with 4 ohm speakers. In that situation, you may need a unit with a more capable amplifier. For me, I'd still get the Denon and purchase separate amp.

 

[ban25]

Well let me say what I want:
1) Good but not necessary Excellent multichannel sound performance (depending on price). At least comparable or better than a "99$ USB DAC board".
2) DSP up to date like Dirac with ART support if I choose to pay for it (hope this will be true in near future).
3) For God's shake... XLR outputs. With the meters and meters (yes I am European) of running cables with more and more channels why RCA!? Even better go "and AES"!
4) Properly tested sound and software performance. There will be bugs but please do not beta test your clients.
5) No need of an amplifier. The future is active speakers (with or without DSP).
6) Reasonable price...I do not need an amplifier!

I believe this might be true in 2-3 years but for now if you want good performance you need a lot of...euro. Call me Trinnov/Storm Audio.

1) You can't discern the difference between a $99 USB DAC and an AVR in a blind test, so what does it matter?
2) This is worth paying for, yes.
3) Sure, there are options there. But I have over 15 meter runs single-ended with no problem.
4) This should be priority #1 on your list TBH.
5) That's gonna cost you a premium. Processors are low volume. If that's what you want, then the Marantz AV10 is a steal at $7000 -- easily the best processor on the market with the exception of Storm and Trinnov.
6) See above. But really, just get over your AVR phobia and you'll be much happier for it.

 

[peng]

1) You can't discern the difference between a $99 USB DAC and an AVR in a blind test, so what does it matter?
2) This is worth paying for, yes.
3) Sure, there are options there. But I have over 15 meter runs single-ended with no problem.
4) This should be priority #1 on your list TBH.
5) That's gonna cost you a premium. Processors are low volume. If that's what you want, then the Marantz AV10 is a steal at $7000 -- easily the best processor on the market with the exception of Storm and Trinnov.
6) See above. But really, just get over your AVR phobia and you'll be much happier for it.

If 15 channels plus 4 subouts are all one needs, I would say the AV10 is still a steal for 8K (with the DLBC cost adder included), even if the Trinnov and Storm are in the mix.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Agreed, but it's marginal. I run R11 towers and R3 surrounds on a 105wpc Denon X3700H and see no improvement when I run a Rotel RB-1582 MKII amp to the front L+R. Often times you are running less than 1W per channel or less. Denon AVRs are not underpowered.

For the umpteenth time in this thread Bobs your uncle! Just get a Denon and set it up properly. Audioholics has very good set up videos online. There is a lot to it, but once your done you don't have to fiddle with it anymore. Unless you want to listen at ear damaging levels, the AVRs from Denon have enough power for a good 7.2.2 or even 7.2.4. I would not get caught up in the 9 channels with atmos as you just end up with a harder to set up system. Heck, I recommend a 5.2.4 system as the gold standard base line for home theater. Of course this is not the base line for our wealthier people here on this site. But for the regular Joe Sixpak of which there are millions, a good 5.2.4 is a very nice system. Get relatively efficient speakers 88db or higher and you will have plenty of power. Power is for volume pure and simple. Ear damaging volume is not required for most home theater/music set ups. Of course, ther are always those few who do listen at ear damaging levels, but thats on them. Someone has to keep the hearing aid companies in business!

 

[Spkrdctr]

As for AVRs, just find one from the list and look for the features you want and go for what you can afford.

Bingo! A one sentence answer that works.