- Thread Starter
- #41
That's what I had back in 1970s.The FM tuners were also among the best.
That's what I had back in 1970s.The FM tuners were also among the best.
Thanks Amir for another AVR review, mucho appreciated!Needless to say, I can't recommend Pioneer line of AVRs. Hoping other brands don't have such restrictions.
Thanks Amir for another AVR review, mucho appreciated!
Let me be the devils advocate for a bit here. Just for one example, this is a $1000 AVR that supplies how many channels of DAC, 11 or 12? Our cheapest "recommended" Topping DAC is $100 for just 2 channels. Times all the rest of the functions this complete AVR offers? Then there's the software licenses of things from Dolby/DBX HDMI, etc etc etc. Add to that the fact that these guys go obsolite nearly every year as the newest lastest surround codec's are released and so much more.
I wonder if we're not missing a bit of the big picture with these things. If Joe Sixpack gets 5+ years service from one of these $1K HT boxes before it fails or he's looking for something newer, he's probably got his money worth. Resale value in that time is about zero.
Want a top knoch Pre/Pre? Trinnov's cheaper basic Altitude 16 will only cost you around $17,000
I'm not supporting poor engineering, just trying to calculate in bang for the buck.
Yep, times have changed since the heyday of stereo receivers. But I think I paid right at $600 for my Marantz 2270 with it's walnut case in 1974. In today cash that's damn near $3k, for simple stereo.
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/denon-avr-x3400h-av-receiver-review-test-benchThe question is whether there are other AVRs at similar price point without the same compromises. Hopefully we will find one at some point.
Is that a fair comparison? 70s receivers (always more popular in the USA than in the UK but I don't know about Aus) were a combined stereo amp and FM tuner, and that's all. Having both in one box saved a lot of space and there was zero-to-minimal performance hit.Basically, once early AV receivers went from 2 channel receivers with additional lower powered surround channels, to 5 channels onboard, the rot set in. By 1991/2, the demand for equal power across the main channels (L/C/R) meant quality fell off again. Then Dolby digital hit and all of a sudden equal power for all channels was a requirement. Receivers of any type and price became utter junk. Not one I've ever seen can do a full power FTC test across all channels without overheating and shutting down or blowing up.
I've got some vintage monster AVRs in my collection, but none of them hold a candle to big 2 channel, 70s receivers, in terms of continuous high power delivery, noise, and behaviour into difficult loads.
Exactly. This is what I was trying to say earlier. Comparing this with dedicated stereo receivers which cost far more in real terms makes little sense.Thanks Amir for another AVR review, mucho appreciated!
Let me be the devils advocate for a bit here. Just for one example, this is a $1000 AVR that supplies how many channels of DAC, 11 or 12? Our cheapest "recommended" Topping DAC is $100 for just 2 channels. Times all the rest of the functions this complete AVR offers? Then there's the software licenses of things from Dolby/DBX HDMI, etc etc etc. Add to that the fact that these guys go obsolite nearly every year as the newest lastest surround codec's are released and so much more.
I wonder if we're not missing a bit of the big picture with these things. If Joe Sixpack gets 5+ years service from one of these $1K HT boxes before it fails or he's looking for something newer, he's probably got his money worth. Resale value in that time is about zero.
Want a top knoch Pre/Pre? Trinnov's cheaper basic Altitude 16 will only cost you around $17,000
I'm not supporting poor engineering, just trying to calculate in bang for the buck.
Yep, times have changed since the heyday of stereo receivers. But I think I paid right at $600 for my Marantz 2270 with it's walnut case in 1974. In today cash that's damn near $3k, for simple stereo.
Basically, once early AV receivers went from 2 channel receivers with additional lower powered surround channels, to 5 channels onboard, the rot set in. By 1991/2, the demand for equal power across the main channels (L/C/R) meant quality fell off again. Then Dolby digital hit and all of a sudden equal power for all channels was a requirement. Receivers of any type and price became utter junk. Not one I've ever seen can do a full power FTC test across all channels without overheating and shutting down or blowing up.
I've got some vintage monster AVRs in my collection, but none of them hold a candle to big 2 channel, 70s receivers, in terms of continuous high power delivery, noise, and behaviour into difficult loads.
The question is whether there are other AVRs at similar price point without the same compromises. Hopefully we will find one at some point.
I’m waiting for you to find one, as I want to replace my very old Anthem receiver. It still works, but is lacking some of the newer features that I desperately (don’t?) need.
Consider a fully restored and benchmarked SX-1980 will easily sell north of USD$5000. All 270W/ch and 34Kg of it.
The SX-1250 is still the bargain, and in many ways a better receiver, although everyone wants the 1980.
Sorry you lost your SX-1980. Here's a picture of the last one I restored sitting on a dolly. People don't realize how big they are- that's a large turntable immediately to the right in the pic...
The potted toroidal transformer alone weighs around 18kg.
I think that one big issue for some AVRs is the silly power output ratings which are disingenuous at best in many cases and deliberately misleading. Part of this is driven by a more is better culture and grabbing onto the power output rating as a marketing hook. This happens in 2 ch stereo too but to nothing like the same extent as AVRs.
My Anthem MRX 520 is being shipped out to Amir as we speak so stay tuned in the coming weeks.I’m waiting for you to find one, as I want to replace my very old Anthem receiver. It still works, but is lacking some of the newer features that I desperately (don’t?) need.
I'm all for that !!!The question is whether there are other AVRs at similar price point without the same compromises. Hopefully we will find one at some point.
I think that one big issue for some AVRs is the silly power output ratings which are disingenuous at best in many cases and deliberately misleading. Part of this is driven by a more is better culture and grabbing onto the power output rating as a marketing hook. This happens in 2 ch stereo too but to nothing like the same extent as AVRs.
Well, there was a time that AVRs were sold on the basis of how beefy they were and their amplifications. So I suspect on power basis, they were likely better.It would be interesting to try an older AVR from Pioneer or Marantz. Were they ever any better?
What are some examples you like to see tested?I think that the wireless speaker segment also needs an honesty check. In most cases it is amazing just how little information manufacturers provide for their wireless speakers. They probably realised that saying nothing works for Bose and I suspect few of those buying them are interested anyway but some of the power ratings I see for wireless speakers and soundbars are rather eye brow raising.