Review and Measurements of Pioneer VSX-LX504 AVR

[peng]

I have always worried about how their amp measurements climb the wall.

The blue box indicates that the THD+1 is between .1 and .005 % for average listening on moderately efficient speakers.

View attachment 32778

- Rich

That's a $999 receiver, typically available short after launch for $699 to $799, the AVR-X3500H is not available to $699.99 in Canada, that is US$530 so I don't think one can expect it to do much for you Revel collections. As to "climb the wall", they all do but compared that to the much more expensive NAD T758 V2, the Denon looks pretty good.

Your blue box thing is interesting, if you do that to the NAD graph, the NAD would be rated "0" watt right? Also, I remember you are very keen on the distortions at low output level, noticed that the NAD starts to climb the wall from below 70 W, whereas the Denon did not do so until below about 8-10 W!!

What do you think the reason is for the NAD's behavior, less negative feedback for a "warm" sound? That won't be logical though, because their separates, or even their class AB integrated amps don't behave this way. Or it was operator error (S&V's lab tech..), I doubt that too, what's the odd that the tech would only mess up the NAD and why wouldn't the subjective viewer question the results?

 

[RichB]

That's a $999 receiver, typically available short after launch for $699 to $799, the AVR-X3500H is not available to $699.99 in Canada, that is US$530 so I don't think one can expect it to do much for you Revel collections. As to "climb the wall", they all do but compared that to the much more expensive NAD T758 V2, the Denon looks pretty good.

Your blue box thing is interesting, if you do that to the NAD graph, the NAD would be rated "0" watt right? Also, I remember you are very keen on the distortions at low output level, noticed that the NAD starts to climb the wall from below 70 W, whereas the Denon did not do so until below about 8-10 W!!

What do you think the reason is for the NAD's behavior, less negative feedback for a "warm" sound? That won't be logical though, because their separates, or even their class AB integrated amps don't behave this way. Or it was operator error (S&V's lab tech..), I doubt that too, what's the odd that the tech would only mess up the NAD and why wouldn't the subjective viewer question the results?




View attachment 33712

It is reasonable to examine an AVR power output and see that it meet the needs based on its power output, room, and speaker sensitivity.
Here are power estimates derrived by measuring the Salon2's at 2.83 volts at my listening position:

I don't know why the NAD would behave this way, other than product focus. Aesthetic and network features are what sells.

The AHB2s clip indicator did not illuminate at anything close to what I considered loud watching movies. I could clip them playing music when I tried. Aquaman UHD uses the mains and the loudest I could take was -18 and of course there was no clipping.

You have made the case the AVRs are enough power. However, AVRs have different goals and build quality from dedicated amps. Yamaha and many other AVRs have 4 Ohms switches which current limit. I suspect they are designed for maximum reliability not low noise and linearity even without these features engaged.

The hash marks in the NAD T758 chart are 5 watts each. Eye-balling it, THD+N is greater than .1% in this range, or > -60 dB. So when am driving the Salons2 at 1 watt, producing 80dB, there is a minumm or 10 db SPL of THD+N (assuming the threshold of audibility is 10 db SPL).

Ok, it seem like that should be very hard to hear except, this is not the worst or even typical performance.
The distortion sweep is likely 1kHz at 8 Ohms into a resistive load, clearly not representative of a speaker load and content.
This is my hypothesis as to why these products do not sound like dedicated amps even at 1 watt.

- Rich

 

[peng]

It is reasonable to examine an AVR power output and see that it meet the needs based on its power output, room, and speaker sensitivity.
Here are power estimates derrived by measuring the Salon2's at 2.83 volts at my listening position:
View attachment 33713

I don't know why the NAD would behave this way, other than product focus. Aesthetic and network features are what sells.

The AHB2s clip indicator did not illuminate at anything close to what I considered loud watching movies. I could clip them playing music when I tried. Aquaman UHD uses the mains and the loudest I could take was -18 and of course there was no clipping.

You have made the case the AVRs are enough power. However, AVRs have different goals and build quality from dedicated amps. Yamaha and many other AVRs have 4 Ohms switches which current limit. I suspect they are designed for maximum reliability not low noise and linearity even without these features engaged.

The hash marks in the NAD T758 chart are 5 watts each. Eye-balling it, THD+N is greater than .1% in this range, or > -60 dB. So when am driving the Salons2 at 1 watt, producing 80dB, there is a minumm or 10 db SPL of THD+N (assuming the threshold of audibility is 10 db SPL).

Ok, it seem like that should be very hard to hear except, this is not the worst or even typical performance.
The distortion sweep is likely 1kHz at 8 Ohms into a resistive load, clearly not representative of a speaker load and content.
This is my hypothesis as to why these products do not sound like dedicated amps even at 1 watt.

- Rich

Agreed, as I said, such AVRs are not for your Salon2, or any Revel speakers really.., but I see no problem with Klipsch speakers (I mean the popular ones in BB), and most with sensitivity>90 dB/2.83V/1m and nominal imp 8 ohms. Under the right conditions, the X3400H will sound as good as the A21 (like in my little piano/2 channel room).

I am not sure about that NAD though. I am not so concerned about the very mediocre minimum distortions (as opposed to maximum) 0.015% THD+N at about 70 W, but how it climbed from there towards 0 watt. In that room, even when driving the not very efficient LS50s, my amp would average less than 0.5 W and peak to no higher than 25 W so I could be listening to 0.1 % THD and there the contents might include quite a bit of crossover distortions. However, as others mentioned, with Dirac Live engaged, perhaps the end result would still be superior. It won't fixed the IMD and THD issues but improving the in room FR may be enough to make it superior overall.

 

[RichB]

Agreed, as I said, such AVRs are not for your Salon2, or any Revel speakers really.., but I see no problem with Klipsch speakers (I mean the popular ones in BB), and most with sensitivity>90 dB/2.83V/1m and nominal imp 8 ohms. Under the right conditions, the X3400H will sound as good as the A21 (like in my little piano/2 channel room).

I am not sure about that NAD though. I am not so concerned about the very mediocre minimum distortions (as opposed to maximum) 0.015% THD+N at about 70 W, but how it climbed from there towards 0 watt. In that room, even when driving the not very efficient LS50s, my amp would average less than 0.5 W and peak to no higher than 25 W so I could be listening to 0.1 % THD and there the contents might include quite a bit of crossover distortions. However, as others mentioned, with Dirac Live engaged, perhaps the end result would still be superior. It won't fixed the IMD and THD issues but improving the in room FR may be enough to make it superior overall.

With Klipsch perhaps acceptable but with horns no way. The less power needed to greater the distortion.
AVR's and amp advertise max power into distortion, it is their selling point and that is fine.
But 1 watt and below matter most (IMO) that is why I'd also like to see the distortion curves for preamp voltages as well.

A preamp needs to supply about 0.2 Volts do for 1 watt and as with amps their THD+N increases at lower power.

- Rich

 

[peng]

With Klipsch perhaps acceptable but with horns no way. The less power needed to greater the distortion.
AVR's and amp advertise max power into distortion, it is their selling point and that is fine.
But 1 watt and below matter most (IMO) that is why I'd also like to see the distortion curves for preamp voltages as well.

A preamp needs to supply about 0.2 Volts do for 1 watt and as with amps their THD+N increases at lower power.

- Rich

0.2 V is not a problem, here's the THD+N vs Output for the X3600H, same preamp as the X3500H:

You are absolutely right, it climbed much higher, all the way from 0.004% at 1 V to 0.04% at 0.1 V, and 0.02% at 0.2 V. Still better than the NAD even at such low level.

https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/denon-avr-x3600h

 

[Roen]

Would this receiver work better as just a processor? Seems to have the highest SINAD of all of the receivers measured.

 

[mgood]

Would this receiver work better as just a processor? Seems to have the highest SINAD of all of the receivers measured.

I'm curious about this as well. I might run the 504 as a pre/pro and connect a decent dac for music listening in pure direct mode. Any caveats in doing so?

 

[peng]

I'm curious about this as well. I might run the 504 as a pre/pro and connect a decent dac for music listening in pure direct mode. Any caveats in doing so?

Only if you don't need more than 1.5 V.

 

[Echolane]

Wow, interesting review to read. Frankly, I’m not techie enough to understand exactly the tests, but there is no hiding the bad results. I was here because I was interested in buying this unit. I came upon it precisely because it has more than five HDMI ports and (hooray!) a component connection. I have a VHS player that needs component and though I rarely watch VHS it is nice to have it.

Anyway, to my point: I am not in the least interested in more than two channels. And after that review I am not in the least interested in even connecting my speakers to the unit. I will use it as a video switcher, just as I have been forced to do with its predecessor, a far more expensive AVR, an Arcam SR-250 which is a two channel product that I bought because I plan to leave the planet as a two channel audiophile. Unfortunately, though it was touted as a fabulous audio receiver, I thought the opposite. It had AWFUL audio quality, muddy, veiled and unlistenable as far as I was concerned. i couldn’t return it which is a long (but interesting) story so I pulled out my vintage Pioneer from its long ~30 year Rip Van Winkle sojourn in my spare closet and attached all my sources directly to it via RCA cables and voila it worked perfectly and I had great audio! I could actually understand the TV dialog too! And sort of to my surprise audio and video are in synch.

But I am beyond annoyed that I’m forced into such a kludge to get good audio From an AV receiver. I paid a premium price for the Arcam and will never do that again. They go out of date too soon and they are virtually worthless on the used market. I can’t afford a bad investment like that. My other option is a cheap HDMI 5x1 video switcher. I just can’t quite bring myself to bring something so cheap into my beautiful system. Foolish me, well, I may have to because this Pioneer is out of stock at the factory and everywhere else. Don’t know what else I can buy. I doubt I’ll find anything with component input as cheap as this Pioneer. Might have to buy a cheap switcher after all.

I can’t resist responding to the derogatory comments about Pioneer. As I said, I own a vintage 1977 era Pioneer SX-1050 stereo receiver. I bought it new in 1977 for around $700, a LOT of money then. It was made during peak years of stereo receivers and at a time when all the top players in the field were vying/competing with one another for making the grandest stereo receiver. They put their best into them. In can truly be said about them “they just don’t make ‘em like that anymore”. I did have my Pioneer refurbished snd it is probably good for another 30 or 40 years and will beautify some future owner’s house in the process. It’s a keeper.

of course it’s a lousy participant in a modern AV setup because it is limited to four sources and an awkward way to switch sources, and I dont like its speaker wire inputs, and of course there is no remote for switching sources or for adjusting audio. But oh well, all else is good.

 

[lewdish]

I'm looking forward to seeing what the LX705 and 905 will be like. Value wise they seem to have the game on lock. Hoping they stick to class D instead of AB like the rest of the market.

 

[Sal1950]

Anyway, to my point: I am not in the least interested in more than two channels.

I'm not sure what circumstances have brought you to that decision but would only comment that you are cheating yourself out of the best listening experience available to a music lover with todays technology. Any comparison of this receiver to the one you bought in 1977 is completely apples and oranges. That $700 you paid then would take approx $3,200 to equal it's quality today, probably more with the insanity currently going on in the retail market. Not sure what your issue was with the Arcam, I've never owned one but they do hold a fairly good reputation in the industry. Possible you weren't setting up Dirac to it's best but that's just an off the wall guess.
So yes, a quality multich rig that can deliver the SQ of a 2ch rig should run you somewhere in the neighborhood of approx 4 to 9 times a much as the stereo kit picked to your level of quality expectations, maybe more. Many manufacturers try to hold back on costs but little can be done if they want to hold the line on build quality.
Some advances in technology have made it a bit easier for them such as class D amplification, etc but there's no magic wand that will erase 40-50 years of inflation. That's just the facts of things, when in the 1950-60's you wanted to upgrade from mono to stereo the cost was at least 2x the mono amount.
Happy Holidays and Welcome to ASR forums.
Sal

 

[Echolane]

I'm looking forward to seeing what the LX705 and 905 will be like. Value wise they seem to have the game on lock. Hoping they stick to class D instead of AB like the rest of the market.

Why do you like Class D? I know it’s been improved, but I didn’t think it could compare to a quality Class A or Class A/B product.

 

[Echolane]

I'm not sure what circumstances have brought you to that decision but would only comment that you are cheating yourself out of the best listening experience available to a music lover with todays technology. Any comparison of this receiver to the one you bought in 1977 is completely apples and oranges. That $700 you paid then would take approx $3,200 to equal it's quality today, probably more with the insanity currently going on in the retail market. Not sure what your issue was with the Arcam, I've never owned one but they do hold a fairly good reputation in the industry. Possible you weren't setting up Dirac to it's best but that's just an off the wall guess.
So yes, a quality multich rig that can deliver the SQ of a 2ch rig should run you somewhere in the neighborhood of approx 4 to 9 times a much as the stereo kit picked to your level of quality expectations, maybe more. Many manufacturers try to hold back on costs but little can be done if they want to hold the line on build quality.
Some advances in technology have made it a bit easier for them such as class D amplification, etc but there's no magic wand that will erase 40-50 years of inflation. That's just the facts of things, when in the 1950-60's you wanted to upgrade from mono to stereo the cost was at least 2x the mono amount.
Happy Holidays and Welcome to ASR forums.
Sal

You wondered what circumstances brought me to limiting my system to two-channels. I am a music lover and a bit of a gear junkie. I have four stereo systems in my house, two of them really fitted out, but even my desktop computer is fitted with an Audiomat Arpege tube amp and Spendor S3/5 speakers. It’s also fitted with an Audio Alchemy DDP-1 DAC and a DMP-1 Media Player that allows me to stream my CD collection via Roon. In the same room is a Roon Nucleus. Roon plays on all four of my household audio systems. I certainly don’t need multi-channel capability to play CDs. The movies I watch tend to feature dialog instead of special effects. I can’t imagine a movie like Pride and Prejudice, for example, needing multi-channel audio and it is typical of a movie I would like. I do watch a lot of musical programming on TV or DVD and DVDs often feature multi-channel recording, but even if I wanted to listen to that multi-channel sound I don’t have room to set up extra speakers.

As for the Arcam, it was advertised to have audiophile sound. That appealed to me, and with a MSRP. Of $3600 it should have but it didn’t. My audio repair guy, whom I’ve known for close to 50 years, and for whom I have a great deal of respect, took one in to listen to and he refused to work on it because the sound was so bad, He happens to remain a two-channel sort also for similar reasons. It is because stereo systems are made for good Audio and AVRs are targeted to a different audience and the focus is only secondarily on audio. If that. And they just don’t compare.

 

[Sal1950]

Why do you like Class D? I know it’s been improved, but I didn’t think it could compare to a quality Class A or Class A/B product.

Todays quality build SS amps are mostly transparent and will sound the same. Many of todays class D amps can deliver the best measurements seen in audio. A designer has to purposely work to infuse a design with a "house sound" before they become audibly different. Tubes are different and have most always been designed to have a "house or tube" sound to give the buyers what they're looking for.

You have a number of wrong impressions of modern audio gear that are biasing your beliefs and hearing.
I would highly suggest you spend some time here just reading and learning from the folks on this website.

 

[Echolane]

I understand that the market has changed. I get that. But considering the receiver product available in the mid to late '70s, current offerings are pathetic. Both ergonomically, aesthetically, and electrically. Back in the day manufacturers actually competed with one another. In order to exist they had to send their machines to guys like Len Feldman and Julius Hirsch. Or Bascom King, who lived on the borderline of tweak, but understood things electrical.

Now, it seems that everything is stamped out at a factory in a place no one can pronounce, or easily find on a map. Most everything is indistinguishable from everything else.

PS: I owned an SX-1980. I 'lost' it in a divorce. I miss the Pioneer a lot, and if truth be known, I guess I loved it more than I ever loved the ex. At least my Pioneer didn't take half of everything I owned when it decided to malfunction. And the Pioneer was definitely less 'high maintenance'. Much easier to repair. LOL

One thing about Amir's situation: the fact that Pioneer (whoever they are, now) sent a replacement for half price is better than it could be. My guess is that half price is about dealer cost. The sad fact about these recievers is you keep them until they break, chunk them, and buy something else. No one does that with an SX-1980.

It’s been awhile since you posted this remark about your Pioneer SX-1080. I can certainly understand why you miss it! I’m here because I was briefly interested in the Pioneer Amir tested and noticed your post. I agree with your observations, that when today‘s products fail, they are just junk. I have two Pioneer SX-1050s and a SX-980. They are infinitely repairable, providing parts remain available, and they were very carefully engineered so they would be competitive in a highly competitive market. I’ve just had my SX-1080 refurbished and it sounds very good.

I feel like a fish out of water when it comes to AVRs. I am all about beautiful music and AVRs seem to be mostly about special effects, something I have no interest in. Yet I want the convenience they offer in a TV system. I’m having a hard time finding something acceptable And I despair when I read Amir’s testing results. I wish I knew what to do.

 

[Sal1950]

I feel like a fish out of water when it comes to AVRs. I am all about beautiful music and AVRs seem to be mostly about special effects, something I have no interest in.

What do you consider "special effects"?
Most include all the necessary codex's etc to access the features needed for multich Music and Video playback?
For what uses are you looking at an AVR for?

 

[Echolane]

What do you consider "special effects"?
Most include all the necessary codex's etc to access the features needed for multich Music and Video playback?
For what uses are you looking at an AVR for?

My ideal AVR would be much simpler than the present offerings which cater to multi-channel enthusiasts. I would want only two, possibly three channels, all the latest video codecs, and assuming it wasn’t two channel, a menu setting that would allow me to down mix audio to stereo. I don’t want my music “processed”, for example, I don’t want it to add an effect that makes it sound like you are in a large theater space, or any other “process”. I listen to mostly music by way of Roon, QOBUZ, Tidal and I don’t watch much TV. The ratio is about 75%-25%. The music been recorded in stereo (PCM/CD quality), so stereo is perfectly suitable. I do listen to/ watch DVDs and they are typically recorded in multi-channel, but, too bad, I have no interest in adding the extra speakers required to listen to those multi-channel codecs, so I listen in Stereo. I would love to have the AVR cater to music listeners too, but they don’t, they cater to movie watchers. And from what I can tell by educating myself, I shouldn’t expect to get the equivalent of an integrated receiver intended for serious music listening. For example the Marantz AV7705 uses switch mode power supplies instead of the better linear power supplies. I am sure that is typical. Why else does Amir get the less than ideal sort of measurements he sees.

When I do watch TV, my favorite things to watch are streaming programs from MHz choice. Another perfect example of why I don’t need multi-channel features. Or PBS Passport serves as another example. When I put my Oppo to work, I often listen to my opera recordings. When I do feed it movies, they are rarely the kind of movies where a surround sound system would add greatly to my enjoyment. As I said, I’m a two-channel dinosaur. It would probably be budget wise if I stuck with my present system. Since my Arcam SR-250 went down I have a $40 HDMI switch that switches between my five video sources and the audio is routed to my very good vintage Pioneer SX-1050. It’s not elegant, but it works.

 

[Sal1950]

My ideal AVR would be much simpler than the present offerings which cater to multi-channel enthusiasts

That's what an AVR is for. LOL
Sorry, pretty much what your looking for doesn't exist.

I don’t want it to add an effect that makes it sound like you are in a large theater space, or any other “process”.

Just as an FYI, those effects mostly went out of style around 10 years ago.

I do listen to/ watch DVDs and they are typically recorded in multi-channel, but, too bad, I have no interest in adding the extra speakers required to listen to those multi-channel codecs, so I listen in Stereo.

Too bad, Kinda like listening to stereo in mono, your choice there.

The ratio is about 75%-25%.

I use my system for around 90% pure music listening,
and 10% video a lot of which are live concerts.

Why else does Amir get the less than ideal sort of measurements he sees.

You have to ask yourself how much the somewhat poor measurements is really audible?
I've compared hirez stereo signals going directly into my DC-1 DAC then straight to my L&R power amp, against the HDMI digital inputs of my AV7703 and if there were any differences they were extremely minor and would have taken a very serious level matched bias controlled DBT to determine what they were and if they really existed
Then turning on the 7703's Audyssey digital room correction took the sound to a whole new improved level of listening. IMO anyone not using some type of DRC is missing out on the biggest improvement in home reproduction we've experienced in this century. Plus then I am able to upsample a stereo signal to multich using 3 or 4 different codecs choosing the one I find most suited.
I completely respect your choices in listening same as I do the audiophiles who still chose to listen to mono 78 shellacs and vinyl of all forms. I just feel your choices reduced your options to those available in the dark ages. LOL
Cheers.

 

[MLaranjeiras]

Paid in 2019 August US$ 549.00 on Amazon USA for my Pioneer Elite VSX LX503, while a Denon AVR-X4500H was priced at US$ 1,499.00 on the same site. From this perspective, it was a bargain. Here in my listening room, the Pioneer has a good life in a small room and gives me all I need (for music, my Sansui Au-X911DG is much better than the Pioneer, of course and all streaming is made via my Oppo BDP 105+mconnect app via RCA to the Sansui). It is sad, however, that these traditional companies treat cutomers like idiots, spending more with Marketing than with Value for their products.

 

[Echolane]

That's what an AVR is for. LOL
Sorry, pretty much what your looking for doesn't exist.

Just as an FYI, those effects mostly went out of style around 10 years ago.


Too bad, Kinda like listening to stereo in mono, your choice there.

I use my system for around 90% pure music listening,
and 10% video a lot of which are live concerts.

You have to ask yourself how much the somewhat poor measurements is really audible?
I've compared hirez stereo signals going directly into my DC-1 DAC then straight to my L&R power amp, against the HDMI digital inputs of my AV7703 and if there were any differences they were extremely minor and would have taken a very serious level matched bias controlled DBT to determine what they were and if they really existed
Then turning on the 7703's Audyssey digital room correction took the sound to a whole new improved level of listening. IMO anyone not using some type of DRC is missing out on the biggest improvement in home reproduction we've experienced in this century. Plus then I am able to upsample a stereo signal to multich using 3 or 4 different codecs choosing the one I find most suited.
I completely respect your choices in listening same as I do the audiophiles who still chose to listen to mono 78 shellacs and vinyl of all forms. I just feel your choices reduced your options to those available in the dark ages. LOL
Cheers.

Here is a new perspective I took in after speaking with the owner/dealer of of a shop handling Krell and other higher end products. I had turned to a >$7000 Krell which was on eBay selling for something just over half that. I was trying to find out if that Krell might satisfy my requirements. At first, yes, but then he found out I was only interested in two channels and no multi-channel and I preferred listening to music over TV at a ratio of about 90% to 10% and my music was opera and classical, often listening to my CD collection via Roon, etc. At this point he told me I would be absolutely wasting my money and he reeled off a long list of reasons why. Mainly, after Krell put their development and mfg costs into the video must haves needed to satisfy the multichannel cinema enthusiasts, and NONE of which I would use. That left a minor $1k or so to devote to audio. He asked me if I would buy a $1k stereo receiver in order to listen to my music, to which I replied absolutely not. That was certainly a game changing conversation. He suggested a Krell k-300i instead. It’s more than I can afford to spend unless I sell a lot of my excess gear but I can certainly say it is a tempting choice. The reviews are outstanding and I could get everything I want providing I’m willing to use my TV as a video switcher. The biggie is whether I could part with my vintage Pioneer SX-1050. The 300i would allow me to eliminate it and enjoy the benefit of remote control. The Pioneer is much too big to fit into my stereo cabinet and doesn’t have remote control, but that doesn’t mean its audio might not be better.