Help Me Find This AVR

[J. Lohmann]

I was a diehard Onkyo fan up until recently when they made some changes to their receivers' functionality architecture (around the time Sharp/Voxx/Premium Audio Group/Whatever They Call Themselves Then or Now swooped in and rescued them from bankruptcy), and as such, when it came time to replace my old TX-SR605 in the home theater, I was forced to get a Denon 2800 (I still use a TX-8555 in my two-channel system that I absolutely love, though I do wish it had provisions for an EQ hookup or a loudness button).

Anyway, because I have found that I don't care for the Denon house sound compared to Onkyo's, I want to return to the brand for my HT and replace the X2800 -- however, due to the fact that I am looking for some very specific features (and that I absolutely LOATHE the design of the new AVR units coming next year), I'm stuck searching for an older Onkyo model, preferably from around the time of their first RZ AVR.

What I need the receiver to offer is, first and foremost, a front display that shows both the input name and sound mode in use at the same time, and a feature called "IntelliVolume," which acted as a way to adjust each input's output level in 1dB steps (in a scale that ran from "-12dB" to "+12dB"). If I can't get the IntelliVolume feature, I could live without it, but the AVR must be able to show the information on the screen, as I indicated above.

Can anyone lead me in the right direction in terms of what model I'd be looking at in the Onkyo RZ past? If I can't get a receiver with these features from the RZ line, can anyone tell me what model from the past few years (before they began eliminating the sound mode and input name on the front panel) I would need to consider?

For clarification, here's what I am referring to when I talk about information on the front panel; the Onkyos went from this:

And this:

To this:

For reference, the Denon I'm using now displays like this (which is why I chose it, along with the fact that it also offered a feature very much like Onkyo's IntelliVolume, called "Source Level"):

 

[J. Lohmann]

I posted this in another area of the forum, but in case it's more appropriate for this section, I'll copy it here...

I was a diehard Onkyo fan up until recently when they made some changes to their receivers' functionality architecture (around the time Sharp/Voxx/Premium Audio Group/Whatever They Call Themselves Then or Now swooped in and rescued them from bankruptcy), and as such, when it came time to replace my old TX-SR605 in the home theater, I was forced to get a Denon 2800 (I still use a TX-8555 in my two-channel system that I absolutely love, though I do wish it had provisions for an EQ hookup or a loudness button).

Anyway, because I have found that I don't care for the Denon house sound compared to Onkyo's, I want to return to the brand for my HT and replace the X2800 -- however, due to the fact that I am looking for some very specific features (and that I absolutely LOATHE the design of the new AVR units coming next year), I'm stuck searching for an older Onkyo model, preferably from around the time of their first RZ AVR.

What I need the receiver to offer is, first and foremost, a front display that shows both the input name and sound mode in use at the same time, and a feature called "IntelliVolume," which acted as a way to adjust each input's output level in 1dB steps (in a scale that ran from "-12dB" to "+12dB"). If I can't get the IntelliVolume feature, I could live without it, but the AVR must be able to show the information on the screen, as I indicated above.

Can anyone lead me in the right direction in terms of what model I'd be looking at in the Onkyo RZ past? If I can't get a receiver with these features from the RZ line, can anyone tell me what model from the past few years (before they began eliminating the sound mode and input name on the front panel) I would need to consider?

For clarification, here's what I am referring to when I talk about information on the front panel; the Onkyos went from this:

And this:

To this:

For reference, the Denon I'm using now displays like this (which is why I chose it, along with the fact that it also offered a feature very much like Onkyo's IntelliVolume, called "Source Level"):

 

[Chrispy]

Your Denon has inbuilt graphic eq as well as Audyssey's DynamicEQ for a loudness contour. You also have an input level adjustment in the Denon like the Onkyo's Intellivolume feature. I have several makes/models of various avrs, none have a "brand" sound. As to older Onkyo models, there are many.

 

[J. Lohmann]

Your Denon has inbuilt graphic eq as well as Audyssey's DynamicEQ for a loudness contour. You also have an input level adjustment in the Denon like the Onkyo's Intellivolume feature. I have several makes/models of various avrs, none have a "brand" sound. As to older Onkyo models, there are many.

Thank you for replying -- to MY ears, the two brands DEFINITELY have a different kind of sound. My old Onkyo AVRs I've used in my systems all had a bright, aggressive, punchy approach while the Denon has a more laid back, warm-ish delivery that I don't care for. This is with the 2800 set up the exact same way I set up the Onkyos, with no room correction enaged, so it was an even playing field.

At any rate, I really don't want to get into a debate about the sound differences -- and, with regard to your comments about the loudness contour in the Denon, I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to wishing my Onkyo STEREO RECEIVER in my SEPARATE two-channel setup had a loudness feature, or connections for a graphic EQ. That was a TOTALLY different situation. The TX-8555 I mentioned is a TWO-CHANNEL amplifier, and it doesn't come with a tape monitor loop (so an EQ can be connected) nor does it have a loudness button, which I was saying is the most disappointing thing about it.

As for the Onkyos with the features I'm looking for, yes, I realize there are many -- I am asking what models may have offered the two main features I am looking for around the time the RZ line was launched, or thereabouts. I believe when the original RZs were brought to market, they WERE coming with a display that showed the input name and sound mode at the same time, and I believe there was an IntelliVolume feature. I'm asking if someone knows which models I could possibly look at that offer these features from not TOO long ago -- not based on the company's ENTIRE lineup history.

Also -- you mentioned the Denon having the Source Level feature. I thought I had explained in my original post, but I see that I didn't -- yes, I am aware the Denons offer a "Source Level," which is just like Onkyo's IntelliVolume, and that is one of the reasons I purchased it (along with the fact that you could see the input name and sound mode at the same time on the front display). However, I don't care for the sound of the Denon compared to Onkyos I've had, so I'd like to replace the 2800 at some point.

 

[EWL5]

You looking for this?

Onkyo TX-RZ900 A/V Receiver Review

PerformanceFeaturesErgonomicsValue

www.soundandvision.com

 

[J. Lohmann]

You looking for this?

Onkyo TX-RZ900 A/V Receiver Review

PerformanceFeaturesErgonomicsValue

www.soundandvision.com

Thank you EWL!

It definitely has the front display thing going on, which ticked off one box -- do you know if it also contained Onk's "IntelliVolume" system at that point?

I also have to see if this thing will fit in my entertainment center!

 

[EWL5]

Thank you EWL!

It definitely has the front display thing going on, which ticked off one box -- do you know if it also contained Onk's "IntelliVolume" system at that point?

I also have to see if this thing will fit in my entertainment center!

I don't know anything else about this AVR. Hopefully you have enough to Google with.

 

[J. Lohmann]

I don't know anything else about this AVR. Hopefully you have enough to Google with.

Appreciate it.

 

[Chrispy]

Thank you for replying -- to MY ears, the two brands DEFINITELY have a different kind of sound. My old Onkyo AVRs I've used in my systems all had a bright, aggressive, punchy approach while the Denon has a more laid back, warm-ish delivery that I don't care for. This is with the 2800 set up the exact same way I set up the Onkyos, with no room correction enaged, so it was an even playing field.

At any rate, I really don't want to get into a debate about the sound differences -- and, with regard to your comments about the loudness contour in the Denon, I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring to wishing my Onkyo STEREO RECEIVER in my SEPARATE two-channel setup had a loudness feature, or connections for a graphic EQ. That was a TOTALLY different situation. The TX-8555 I mentioned is a TWO-CHANNEL amplifier, and it doesn't come with a tape monitor loop (so an EQ can be connected) nor does it have a loudness button, which I was saying is the most disappointing thing about it.

As for the Onkyos with the features I'm looking for, yes, I realize there are many -- I am asking what models may have offered the two main features I am looking for around the time the RZ line was launched, or thereabouts. I believe when the original RZs were brought to market, they WERE coming with a display that showed the input name and sound mode at the same time, and I believe there was an IntelliVolume feature. I'm asking if someone knows which models I could possibly look at that offer these features from not TOO long ago -- not based on the company's ENTIRE lineup history.

Also -- you mentioned the Denon having the Source Level feature. I thought I had explained in my original post, but I see that I didn't -- yes, I am aware the Denons offer a "Source Level," which is just like Onkyo's IntelliVolume, and that is one of the reasons I purchased it (along with the fact that you could see the input name and sound mode at the same time on the front display). However, I don't care for the sound of the Denon compared to Onkyos I've had, so I'd like to replace the 2800 at some point.

I'd attribute any such differences to poor comparison methods myself. Maybe implementation of particular dsp/sound modes for differences. Brand or even model, meh. Think we've had that conversation already so....

No, modern avrs do not have tape/processor loops any more. Thanks to drm issues.

My older Onkyo with Audyssey is very similar to my newer Denon units in many respects. Overall sound even as they use similar processing I suppose.

Two lines on a display for more information is better than not, tho.

 

[Chrispy]

I'd attribute any such differences to poor comparison methods myself. Maybe implementation of particular dsp/sound modes for differences. Brand or even model, meh. Think we've had that conversation already so....

No, modern avrs do not have tape/processor loops any more. Thanks to drm issues.

My older Onkyo with Audyssey is very similar to my newer Denon units in many respects. Overall sound even as they use similar processing I suppose.

Two lines on a display for more information is better than not, tho.

Another idea for looking for display info is to use another device/app that can give you more information than squinting at the avr's lcd panel.....

 

[J. Lohmann]

No, modern avrs do not have tape/processor loops any more. Thanks to drm issues.

I'm aware modern AV RECEIVERS don't have processor loops anymore, but I was referring strictly to TWO-CHANNEL models, such as my TX-8555 that's driving a totally different system in the house (IMO, two-channel-oriented gear should definitely still be coming with provisions to connect an EQ or, at the very least, boast a loudness button you can kick on for low-level listening; I realize Yamaha still implements a version of this on their hifi components, but I don't care for the "contour knob" you have to dial in for loudness).

This unit I'm using strictly for two-channel music listening is audio-oriented, with no digital inputs or any other AVR-esque features:

My older Onkyo with Audyssey is very similar to my newer Denon units in many respects. Overall sound even as they use similar processing I suppose.

Two lines on a display for more information is better than not, tho.

I agree about the two lines on a display, definitely -- the problem is that you only get those features as you move up in an AVR lineup. I'm okay with one line, so long as input name AND sound mode are visible at all times.

Thanks for your continued input.

 

[Chrispy]

I'm aware modern AV RECEIVERS don't have processor loops anymore, but I was referring strictly to TWO-CHANNEL models, such as my TX-8555 that's driving a totally different system in the house (IMO, two-channel-oriented gear should definitely still be coming with provisions to connect an EQ or, at the very least, boast a loudness button you can kick on for low-level listening; I realize Yamaha still implements a version of this on their hifi components, but I don't care for the "contour knob" you have to dial in for loudness).

This unit I'm using strictly for two-channel music listening is audio-oriented, with no digital inputs or any other AVR-esque features:

View attachment 510630

I agree about the two lines on a display, definitely -- the problem is that you only get those features as you move up in an AVR lineup. I'm okay with one line, so long as input name AND sound mode are visible at all times.

Thanks for your continued input.

I think on newer two ch units the same drm issues alleviated the processor/tape loops but haven't looked at much two ch gear for a while, still have a couple old 2ch pre-amps with the tape/processor loops (and one with a loudness adjustment) but I don't use a graphic eq any more let alone tape recorders (or really that 2ch only setup)....but think there are some 2ch units still with the loudness feature. My old 2ch gear has no lcd displays at all and even up close can be hard to see

Good luck on your quest.

 

[lini]

(I still use a TX-8555 in my two-channel system that I absolutely love, though I do wish it had provisions for an EQ hookup or a loudness button).

You could always "cheat" with the zone 2 function of the TX-8555. I.e., set the zone 2 output to fixed level via the menu and hook the EQ between the zone 2 output and one of the line-level inputs. Now, if you'd like to listen via EQ, simply select the source, that you actually want to listen to, as zone 2 source and the input, to which the EQ output is connected, as main source. Only drawback is, that you need to be somewhat careful, as this special usage of the zone 2 function isn't really intended and hence there will be no prevention against creating a feeback loop, if the line-input, to which the output of the EQ is connected, is selected as zone 2 source.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[J. Lohmann]

You could always "cheat" with the zone 2 function of the TX-8555. I.e., set the zone 2 output to fixed level via the menu and hook the EQ between the zone 2 output and one of the line-level inputs. Now, if you'd like to listen via EQ, simply select the source, that you actually want to listen to, as zone 2 source and the input, to which the EQ output is connected, as main source. Only drawback is, that you need to be somewhat careful, as this special usage of the zone 2 function isn't really intended and hence there will be no prevention against creating a feeback loop, if the line-input, to which the output of the EQ is connected, is selected as zone 2 source.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Thanks lini. Appreciate your input, as I did over at Vinyl Engine...

I've always wondered if there was a workaround for the EQ thing, as some folks have told me I could use the method you suggest, or perhaps run one input through the EQ (though that would only equalize that one source, whereas I'd want to have every source, including tuner, affected by it) or that I could buy an EQ with its own "tape loop" and run everything through that (though it was always sketchy to me in terms of how that would work).

I'm not sure how what your suggesting would work, though, with regard to the logistics -- i.e. how I'd listen to an EQ'ed source by using Zone 2. And if this would create feedback, is it worth it?

 

[lini]

(...) I'm not sure how what your suggesting would work, though, with regard to the logistics -- i.e. how I'd listen to an EQ'ed source by using Zone 2. And if this would create feedback, is it worth it?

Well, do you happen to be familiar with true record selector designs, that sport an additional, independent source selector, namely the record (out) selector, in parallel to the main/listening selector to allow for recording from a different source than the selected main/listening source? If not, there you could see an example in form of the Audiolab 8000A: https://zstereo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/audiolab-8000a-ag.jpg

Now, a pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver with a zone 2 function (with the option to set the zone 2 output to fixed level) would be pretty similar - by also offering a second, independent source selector, but to allow for listening to a different source in a second listening zone instead. That doesn't mean, that one couldn't use this function for emulating the record selector of a true record selector design, though.

However, in case of such a zone 2 output there is no corresponding input - so if one uses the zone 2 output to integrate a device, that's supposed to somehow "process" a received source signal and deliver that back, the output of that device needs to be fed into one of the other inputs for returning the processed signal. But as that usage isn't intended, the pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver doesn't exclude the input, that's used for returning the signal, from the zone 2 source selection - so it's your own responsibility not to select the input, that's used for returning the signal, as zone 2 source, in which case the output signal (or respectively noise) of the processing device would be fed back into its input over and over again, thus creating a feedback loop. Whereas in case of true record selector designs the manufacturers often disable the output to the tape recorder, that's selected as recording source via the record selector, for feedback loop prevention.

However, if one knows, what one's doing, the absence of feedback loop prevention isn't really a problem - unless the pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver wouldn't allow for direct zone 2 source selection.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[J. Lohmann]

I'll chew on this and get back to you; thanks.

 

[lini]

I'll chew on this and get back to you; thanks.

You're welcome.

Oh, and in case you'd like to see an example circuitry of an integrated amp with true record selector design and feedback loop prevention, see for example over there in the schematic for the Yamaha A-520: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1095119/Yamaha-A-520.html?page=17#manual

As one can see, each input is routed to both the regular input selection switches and the record out selector switch (probably a switch type with 2 layers with 2x6 arrangement each, but that doesn't really matter) in parallel. However, if the record selector switch is set to Tape 1, only the Rec 2 outputs get that signal, while the Rec 1 outputs get tied to ground (E) instead - and if its set to Tape 2, only the Rec 1 outputs get that signal, while the Rec 2 outputs get tied to ground instead. So there can't be a feedback loop - unless one would hook a recorder (or an EQ or a signal processor...) to the Tape 1 inputs and Rec 2 outputs (or the Tape 2 inputs and Rec 1 outputs), that is, but that would be pretty stupid.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[J. Lohmann]

You're welcome.

Oh, and in case you'd like to see an example circuitry of an integrated amp with true record selector design and feedback loop prevention, see for example over there in the schematic for the Yamaha A-520: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1095119/Yamaha-A-520.html?page=17#manual

As one can see, each input is routed to both the regular input selection switches and the record out selector switch (probably a switch type with 2 layers with 2x6 arrangement each, but that doesn't really matter) in parallel. However, if the record selector switch is set to Tape 1, only the Rec 2 outputs get that signal, while the Rec 1 outputs get tied to ground (E) instead - and if its set to Tape 2, only the Rec 1 outputs get that signal, while the Rec 2 outputs get tied to ground instead. So there can't be a feedback loop - unless one would hook a recorder (or an EQ or a signal processor...) to the Tape 1 inputs and Rec 2 outputs (or the Tape 2 inputs and Rec 1 outputs), that is, but that would be pretty stupid.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Thanks again, sir -- sorry for the delay in responding to this second message. I never received a notification about it.

I'm going to respond to your original post now...

 

[J. Lohmann]

Well, do you happen to be familiar with true record selector designs, that sport an additional, independent source selector, namely the record (out) selector, in parallel to the main/listening selector to allow for recording from a different source than the selected main/listening source? If not, there you could see an example in form of the Audiolab 8000A: https://zstereo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/audiolab-8000a-ag.jpg

I believe I've seen this design on old stereo receivers from the vintage era, but I never used one or ever experimented with one.

Now, a pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver with a zone 2 function (with the option to set the zone 2 output to fixed level) would be pretty similar - by also offering a second, independent source selector, but to allow for listening to a different source in a second listening zone instead. That doesn't mean, that one couldn't use this function for emulating the record selector of a true record selector design, though.

Interesting; to be sure, the Onkyo stereo receiver we're talking about in this instance (my TX-8555) does have a Zone 2 option and, in the setup menu, does allow for a "Fixed" position (which I keep it in by default, even though I'm not running anything to it in another room).

So you're saying if I were to add the EQ, I'd run its outputs through the Zone 2 RCA jacks and then assign the receiver to "Fixed," as it is now, correct?

However, in case of such a zone 2 output there is no corresponding input - so if one uses the zone 2 output to integrate a device, that's supposed to somehow "process" a received source signal and deliver that back, the output of that device needs to be fed into one of the other inputs for returning the processed signal. But as that usage isn't intended, the pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver doesn't exclude the input, that's used for returning the signal, from the zone 2 source selection - so it's your own responsibility not to select the input, that's used for returning the signal, as zone 2 source, in which case the output signal (or respectively noise) of the processing device would be fed back into its input over and over again, thus creating a feedback loop. Whereas in case of true record selector designs the manufacturers often disable the output to the tape recorder, that's selected as recording source via the record selector, for feedback loop prevention.

However, if one knows, what one's doing, the absence of feedback loop prevention isn't really a problem - unless the pre-amp, integrated amp or receiver wouldn't allow for direct zone 2 source selection.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

I believe I see; thank you for your explanation. Can I ask, though, what do you mean by "the absence of feedback loop prevention isn't really a problem if one knows what one is doing"?

To be honest -- and I'd like to continue discussing this, as I was never able to find a solution to this EQ problem as it pertains to my setup -- what you're suggesting above just seems like too much "work" in order to get an equalizer connected; I'd probably be better off using my system as-is, with tone controls at 12:00, rather than try to introduce some graphic EQ with spectrum analyzer that will probably introduce noise anyway.

Down the road, I suppose, I could shop for a piece of more vintage gear that has the Tape 2/Monitor jacks...

 

[Chrispy]

To be honest -- and I'd like to continue discussing this, as I was never able to find a solution to this EQ problem as it pertains to my setup -- what you're suggesting above just seems like too much "work" in order to get an equalizer connected; I'd probably be better off using my system as-is, with tone controls at 12:00, rather than try to introduce some graphic EQ with spectrum analyzer that will probably introduce noise anyway.

What volume levels do you usually listen at? No need of eq at reference volume as much as at lower typical in-home volume....