Pioneer VSX-LX505 AVR Review

[Power Pop 23]

AFAIK, Pioneer's parent company never responded to Amir's request for a comment on his measurements of the LX 505.

It is still the intention to re-measure just the total output power of another (my) '505' - to see if the firmware update of October 2024 has changed anything.

 

[EWL5]

I misunderstood, when Amirm reviewed the LX505, he said at the end that he had the same problems with his Pioneer and contacted the company.....or at least that's what I understood.

I understand what you're asking based on this from the final paragraph of Amir's review of the 505:

"FYI when my own Pioneer AVR did this, I sent a link to the review to the support line of the company and did not receive any response. So I am not hopeful that they care either."

Unfortunately, I haven't been on ASR long enough to know which Pioneer Amir owned.

 

[Printdivision]

AFAIK, Pioneer's parent company never responded to Amir's request for a comment on his measurements of the LX 505.

It is still the intention to re-measure just the total output power of another (my) '505' - to see if the firmware update of October 2024 has changed anything.

Conclusions
The VSX-LX505 produces average performance in DAC department for an AVR. But fails on multiple fronts in amplification. No way should an AVR amplifier have any kind of timer to reduce power. This is the third Pioneer AVR I have tested to do this and is totally unacceptable. I can see this helping them with power dissipation and unit reliability but it better be told to the potential customers. FYI when my own Pioneer AVR did this, I sent a link to the review to the support line of the company and did not receive any response. So I am not hopeful that they care either.


That's what Amirm wrote in the review......do you see where it says it has (or had) Pioneer?

 

[Power Pop 23]

Conclusions
The VSX-LX505 produces average performance in DAC department for an AVR. But fails on multiple fronts in amplification. No way should an AVR amplifier have any kind of timer to reduce power. This is the third Pioneer AVR I have tested to do this and is totally unacceptable. I can see this helping them with power dissipation and unit reliability but it better be told to the potential customers. FYI when my own Pioneer AVR did this, I sent a link to the review to the support line of the company and did not receive any response. So I am not hopeful that they care either.


That's what Amirm wrote in the review......do you see where it says it has (or had) Pioneer?

Yes, thank you

I do not know know which model Pioneer AVR @amirm is referencing as owning.

 

[Printdivision]

Maybe he himself will tell us.

 

[mhardy6647]

Maybe he himself will tell us.

As with Beetlejuice, he can be summoned, as was done above by @Power Pop 23 . Unlike Beetlejuice, @amirm is likely busy with other things!

 

[dlaloum]

Conclusions
The VSX-LX505 produces average performance in DAC department for an AVR. But fails on multiple fronts in amplification. No way should an AVR amplifier have any kind of timer to reduce power. This is the third Pioneer AVR I have tested to do this and is totally unacceptable. I can see this helping them with power dissipation and unit reliability but it better be told to the potential customers. FYI when my own Pioneer AVR did this, I sent a link to the review to the support line of the company and did not receive any response. So I am not hopeful that they care either.


That's what Amirm wrote in the review......do you see where it says it has (or had) Pioneer?

Can you detail the circumstances under which your own AVR did this?

I don't recall any other incidents of it happening "in the field" (as opposed to on the lab bench).

Thanks

 

[Printdivision]

Can you detail the circumstances under which your own AVR did this?

I don't recall any other incidents of it happening "in the field" (as opposed to on the lab bench).

Thanks

I just copy/pasted the end of Amirm's review for a colleague.......look above

 

[dlaloum]

I just copy/pasted the end of Amirm's review for a colleague.......look above

Yes I read Amirm's review - which talks about it happening in a lab test, and details the circumstances.

But you stated that it had happened to you? In your setup?

ie: not on a bench lab, but playing music / movies, in your home...

Hence my question about the circumstances under which YOU experienced the LX505 going into "Nanny" mode....

I have the closely related Integra DRX3.4 ... same as the LX305 but with pre-outs - and have never experienced the Nanny mode, even though I have run it with 4 ohm speakers, and those speakers have a minimum impedance of 1.6ohm (so yes, they are a stress test for many amps) - but in actual use, I have never experienced my AVR going into the "Nanny" mode (which the status display on the web interface identifies as "protection mode")

Hence my question about the circumstances under which you experienced it.

 

[Printdivision]

No, it didn't happen (and I can't), to my LX505, I connected the front speakers Dynavoice DF-8 (6 ohms), the center Dynavoice DC-5 (8 ohms), front and rear top Magnat S 10 B (4-8 ohms), surround and surround back Magnat S30 (4-8 ohms), subwoofer SVS SB-1000 PRO. I had an older Technics amplifier, but I replaced it with a Pioneer A50K to complete the two rear channels (the LX505 has 11-channel processing), the default configuration 6 ohms (or higher). When listening to music, I turn the volume between -40 db and -30db (very rarely at -25db), for movies I turn it to -25 db.....-20db (very rarely at -15 db). In these conditions, after about 3-4 hours, when I touch it, it is a little warm......too little from my experience (22°C in the room). I have not tested it as Amirm (at maximum and on 4 ohms), I have no way of reaching that scenario and having it enter protection (.......and if I want it.....with higher sensitivity front speakers), I am creating problems at home ....

 

[dlaloum]

No, it didn't happen (and I can't), to my LX505, I connected the front speakers Dynavoice DF-8 (6 ohms), the center Dynavoice DC-5 (8 ohms), front and rear top Magnat S 10 B (4-8 ohms), surround and surround back Magnat S30 (4-8 ohms), subwoofer SVS SB-1000 PRO. I had an older Technics amplifier, but I replaced it with a Pioneer A50K to complete the two rear channels (the LX505 has 11-channel processing), the default configuration 6 ohms (or higher). When listening to music, I turn the volume between -40 db and -30db (very rarely at -25db), for movies I turn it to -25 db.....-20db (very rarely at -15 db). In these conditions, after about 3-4 hours, when I touch it, it is a little warm......too little from my experience (22°C in the room). I have not tested it as Amirm (at maximum and on 4 ohms), I have no way of reaching that scenario and having it enter protection (.......and if I want it.....with higher sensitivity front speakers), I am creating problems at home ....

Yes, my observation on the various forums where users of the PAC AVR's that have been shown to have the "nanny" mode issue congregate, I have yet to find anyone who has actually experienced the (fearsome) nanny mode !! - Which makes it a rather academic issue!

(Forums covering the NR7100/DRX3.4/LX305/RZ30/RZ50/LX505/DRX5.4)

 

[Miker 1102]

Maybe he himself will tell us.

Amir is great and I love this forum. Guys like Peng and Dialoum here are so good at explaining the tech but also the practicality for folks who lack the ability to understand the engineering exactly. I have subscribed to many of these audio forums for a long time and I have never heard of the pioneer/integra line going into nanny mode. I returned both the 503 and the integra version of the 505 for audible hiss. I did not give it a lot of time and didnt realize what the issue was.I thought they seemed a little cheaper compared to the Denon ,but as a pre pro they are still an bsolutely stunning value. I bought the rz70 but my wife decided she "wanted" a break and I could not fit that beast where I am. I sincerely believe that the R70 the best value for avrs out there. Just my two cents.

 

[MbphotoX]

Exactly!
The Nanny mode that everyone has been so upset about for years now.. it just doesn't matter.. nobody has EVER reported it happening to them in real life..

But reports like that from Amir cause massive damage to companies, tainting their image, and for nothing.

 

[peng]

Exactly!
The Nanny mode that everyone has been so upset about for years now.. it just doesn't matter.. nobody has EVER reported it happening to them in real life..

But reports like that from Amir cause massive damage to companies, tainting their image, and for nothing.

Technically speaking, I would agree it likely wouldn't matter in many (or even most) use cases. When it does matter though, not everyone may be aware of it either. The saying that, What you don't know won't hurt you, or what you don't know may hurt you could be true but it depends...

So, I think it is good that Amir call out such nanny mode, though it might mislead some, to think that is a bigger issue than it practically really is.

Regardless, imo Amir is right when he stated the following are not acceptable:

- You only have your maximum power for 35 seconds after which, power is limited until you power cycle the unit!

- .......especially since no notice is given to the customer either in the unit, or sales material.

To me, this is not the kind of nanny mode that we are used to, in those cases limiting is usually for very short duration, or worst case it would be like D+M's ECO auto mode, that could take a few seconds or a little longer but wouldn't require power cycling. If it was an oversight or just a bug, I hope Pioneer has already address the issue via FW updates.

Just because many users don't need anywhere near the AVR's rated output, does not make it acceptable for manufacturers to use this kind of limiting and not making it clear in their marketing information.

 

[popej]

Regardless, imo Amir is right when he stated the following are not acceptable:

- You only have your maximum power for 35 seconds after which, power is limited until you power cycle the unit!

- .......especially since no notice is given to the customer either in the unit, or sales material.

I agree, but still treat it as a minor offense

As it is now, some very popular AVRs are not recommended by Amir. This include LX505, RZ50, X3800h. After reading reviews, my conclusions are different.

 

[MbphotoX]

Technically speaking, I would agree it likely wouldn't matter in many (or even most) use cases. When it does matter though, not everyone may be aware of it either. The saying that, What you don't know won't hurt you, or what you don't know may hurt you could be true but it depends...

So, I think it is good that Amir call out such nanny mode, though it might mislead some, to think that is a bigger issue than it practically really is.

Regardless, imo Amir is right when he stated the following are not acceptable:

- You only have your maximum power for 35 seconds after which, power is limited until you power cycle the unit!

- .......especially since no notice is given to the customer either in the unit, or sales material.

To me, this is not the kind of nanny mode that we are used to, in those cases limiting is usually for very short duration, or worst case it would be like D+M's ECO auto mode, that could take a few seconds or a little longer but wouldn't require power cycling. If it was an oversight or just a bug, I hope Pioneer has already address the issue via FW updates.

Just because many users don't need anywhere near the AVR's rated output, does not make it acceptable for manufacturers to use this kind of limiting and not making it clear in their marketing information.

The problem is that the test is not scientifically relevant in the way it was conducted.

There is simply no source material in existence that would EVER demand the maximum possible power from an AV device for more than a fraction of a second at a time.

As long as Amir refuses to acknowledge this fact, his reviews of the power output of AV-Receivers and Amplifiers are useless.

He was right to criticise the high noise floor and the other weird characteristics, but to overdrive the amplifier (he did NOT test it at 0dB output level) and then run it through an absolutely unrealistic stress test, that's simply useless.


Also, if you don't hear a difference before and after your amplifier cuts the power by 90%, what could be the reason for this?
Oh, right.. there's only a 10 dB difference in Volume between 200 Watts and 20 Watts.. (that sounds HALF as loud, iirc..)

Since we're talking reference level movie audio, we're looking at 85dB average SPL (something nobody I have ever met in my life listens to at home, ever..) when the volume is set to 0dB and the room correction EQ is working properly..
the very few and rarely occurring peaks will be at 105dB (LFE doesn't matter for the amp) and only the lower frequencies will usually really stress the amplifier stage..
Show me a single movie that has even as little as 10 continuous seconds of 50-200 Hz Bass thundering at maximum volume level...

My own speakers for example could reach the reference level with the power provided by the AVR, although their impedance curve would require some help from FL, C and FR playing together to reach 105dB at 120-150 Hz, I'd wager:

But since I mostly watch at -20dB when I'm alone and nobody complains (-30dB with my partner), we're talking about 85dB peaks..
Hell, even 95dB peaks (-10dB listening level, which I've enjoyed when I was younger) would only need Nanny Mode kinda performance...

the average level of the movie, at 75dB, would be below 1 Watt per channel!!!


so, yeah.. this test was absolutely useless and unscientific.

 

[EWL5]

The problem is that the test is not scientifically relevant in the way it was conducted.

There is simply no source material in existence that would EVER demand the maximum possible power from an AV device for more than a fraction of a second at a time.

As long as Amir refuses to acknowledge this fact, his reviews of the power output of AV-Receivers and Amplifiers are useless.

He was right to criticise the high noise floor and the other weird characteristics, but to overdrive the amplifier (he did NOT test it at 0dB output level) and then run it through an absolutely unrealistic stress test, that's simply useless.


Also, if you don't hear a difference before and after your amplifier cuts the power by 90%, what could be the reason for this?
Oh, right.. there's only a 10 dB difference in Volume between 200 Watts and 20 Watts.. (that sounds HALF as loud, iirc..)

Since we're talking reference level movie audio, we're looking at 85dB average SPL (something nobody I have ever met in my life listens to at home, ever..) when the volume is set to 0dB and the room correction EQ is working properly..
the very few and rarely occurring peaks will be at 105dB (LFE doesn't matter for the amp) and only the lower frequencies will usually really stress the amplifier stage..
Show me a single movie that has even as little as 10 continuous seconds of 50-200 Hz Bass thundering at maximum volume level...

My own speakers for example could reach the reference level with the power provided by the AVR, although their impedance curve would require some help from FL, C and FR playing together to reach 105dB at 120-150 Hz, I'd wager:
View attachment 503086


But since I mostly watch at -20dB when I'm alone and nobody complains (-30dB with my partner), we're talking about 85dB peaks..
Hell, even 95dB peaks (-10dB listening level, which I've enjoyed when I was younger) would only need Nanny Mode kinda performance...
View attachment 503088

the average level of the movie, at 75dB, would be below 1 Watt per channel!!!


so, yeah.. this test was absolutely useless and unscientific.

Someone explain this to me because I don't understand the confusion. Using the Pioneer 505 and the Denon 3800 as an example:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 144W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 120W

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 114W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 105W

In both cases, the AVRs easily exceed their FTC ratings. Now for 4 ohm load:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 35W (triggered by the limp mode)
A power cycle brings it up to 141W.

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 168W

Note: there is no FTC guideline for 4 ohm (yet).

AFAIK, Amir administers the same test at 4 ohm as he does for 8 ohms. Since both AVRs easily surpass the OEM rating for 8 ohm, somehow he is "stressing" out the AVRs in his apples to apples comparisons? I've never understood this narrative. Just look at the numbers! The "limp mode" exists because there is some gamesmanship being played by PAC due to the lack of FTC guidance for 4 ohm (or lower) loads!

This situation always reminds of "diesel-gate" by Volkswagen/Audi. How were they able to achieve what they said they could w/o the proper urea treatment that the other makes were penalized by? The answer was they didn't! With the 505 (and it's brethren), they don't have to worry about that because there are no regulations for 4 ohms!

 

[Power Pop 23]

Someone explain this to me because I don't understand the confusion. Using the Pioneer 505 and the Denon 3800 as an example:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 144W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 120W

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 114W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 105W

In both cases, the AVRs easily exceed their FTC ratings. Now for 4 ohm load:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 35W (triggered by the limp mode)
A power cycle brings it up to 141W.

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 168W

Note: there is no FTC guideline for 4 ohm (yet).

AFAIK, Amir administers the same test at 4 ohm as he does for 8 ohms. Since both AVRs easily surpass the OEM rating for 8 ohm, somehow he is "stressing" out the AVRs in his apples to apples comparisons? I've never understood this narrative. Just look at the numbers! The "limp mode" exists because there is some gamesmanship being played by PAC due to the lack of FTC guidance for 4 ohm (or lower) loads!

This situation always reminds of "diesel-gate" by Volkswagen/Audi. How were they able to achieve what they said they could w/o the proper urea treatment that the older makes were penalized by? The answer was they didn't! With the 505 (and it's brethren), they don't have to worry about that because there are no regulations for 4 ohms!

This reminds me that in the years preceding 'diesel-gate', advertising by Audi in the USA used the tag line of Truth In Engineering.

 

[MbphotoX]

Someone explain this to me because I don't understand the confusion. Using the Pioneer 505 and the Denon 3800 as an example:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 144W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 120W

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 8 ohms for 2 channels driven was 114W
OEM rated wattage into 2ch, 20Hz-20kHz, 8 ohms is 105W

In both cases, the AVRs easily exceed their FTC ratings. Now for 4 ohm load:

Pioneer 505
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 35W (triggered by the limp mode)
A power cycle brings it up to 141W.

Denon 3800
Amir's resulting power at 4 ohms for 2 channels driven was 168W

Note: there is no FTC guideline for 4 ohm (yet).

AFAIK, Amir administers the same test at 4 ohm as he does for 8 ohms. Since both AVRs easily surpass the OEM rating for 8 ohm, somehow he is "stressing" out the AVRs in his apples to apples comparisons? I've never understood this narrative. Just look at the numbers! The "limp mode" exists because there is some gamesmanship being played by PAC due to the lack of FTC guidance for 4 ohm (or lower) loads!

This situation always reminds of "diesel-gate" by Volkswagen/Audi. How were they able to achieve what they said they could w/o the proper urea treatment that the other makes were penalized by? The answer was they didn't! With the 505 (and it's brethren), they don't have to worry about that because there are no regulations for 4 ohms!

Doesn't change the fact that the test was not scientifically relevant..
it's not a realistic test, no matter how you spin it.

Playing Audio material does not require continous maximum power over multiple seconds.

Testing continuous power output, therefore, is simply a useless metric to compare amplifiers by.

SINAD? Whether the maximum power as advertised can be reached?
Hell yeah!

If anything, Amir should test how much power an Amplifier can put out through all XYZ channels simultaneously, in case there's some Michael Bay Shenanigans that result in the entire room shaking for a second or two..

 

[EWL5]

Doesn't change the fact that the test was not scientifically relevant..
it's not a realistic test, no matter how you spin it.

Playing Audio material does not require continous maximum power over multiple seconds.

Testing continuous power output, therefore, is simply a useless metric to compare amplifiers by.

SINAD? Whether the maximum power as advertised can be reached?
Hell yeah!

If anything, Amir should test how much power an Amplifier can put out through all XYZ channels simultaneously, in case there's some Michael Bay Shenanigans that result in the entire room shaking for a second or two..

That is your opinion. Your argument would have more merit if the benchmark power output at 8 ohms was short of the FTC rating, but it wasn't!

If you're going to be upset, shouldn't you be upset at the FTC? All makes are being benchmarked the same so I don't understand how it's "unfair" to Pioneer, Onkyo, and Integra.