do avr's really have a sound signature?

[filmguy]

been reading different opinions about this on various forums.

on our forum there seems to be a belief that marantz are warm, yamaha/denon are sharp, lack punch etc depending on everyones pov

but on avforums etc there are plenty of people who say that modern avrs dont have a sound signature, at least are not significantly different, and its the speakers that are the main 'culprit' so to speak

i had a marantz avr with WD 8.2 & found it good for some kinds of music & a bit mild for movies & pop/r&b kinda music

in my hunt for a new avr/speaker setup with a different sound sig i've heard a few combos. heard the marantz 1505 or 1605, i think, with BA26 & some taga FS. also heard WD 220 with marantz.

also took along my WD speakers & did a A/B comparison with denon 1200 & yamaha 581. i also heard the 2 avrs with polk rti BS.

till now nothing has beat the sound of denon 1200 with polk rtis with the different types of music i played.

the denon-WD combo was marginally better than the yamaha-WD combo. but it was only a slight difference such that you may not have noticed unless you did the A/B comparison

the yamaha-polk also was nothing great. it was just a bit clearer than with the WDs. maybe just a bit sharper. but the denon & polk combo was much much better. it seemed to bring the music alive. it was a significant change.

now it might be a bit sharp for some people. and even i'm wondering that it may be fatiguing listening to it for long. but i see it as - when you hear a live concert or live performance the music seems alive but i guess if you were to listen to a live gig for very long it would somewhere be fatiguing wouldnt it?

i guess thats what it means when a lot of people describe the polk-denon combo as "forward" - it's like being front row at a gig.

honestly all the other combos i've heard are what you can say "unnees-bees ka farak" & since its not possible to do A/B comparisons with different model avrs & speakers its difficult to judge. but so far nothing has stood out for me like the denon-polks

the only thing thats stopping me from pulling the trigger on that combo is i'm worried of the 'fatigue' factor. but since my movie/music sessions are usually 5-6 hours max on the weekends i'm wondering if it should be that much of a factor.

also i've heard/read mixed reports of the reliability factor of the yamaha & denon avrs. some say the yamahas are more reliable & have better ASS than the denon while others say the opposite.

what is surprising is the sound difference between the 2. in fact yamahas are supposed to be more dynamic than denon arent they? i can understand a little bit of diff but not this much. to the extent now i'm wondering if there was some eq/calibration done to make the denons match the rtis more than the yamahas ( i even asked the salesperson the next day but he said no ) because with my WDs there wasnt as much of a difference.

the yamahas are around 5k or so cheaper than the denons (with matching specs) so i wouldve loved to go for the yamahas but am worried if i dont get the same sound

 

[filmguy]

also, just to add, its not just a qs of 'sharp' sound being good or me liking a 'sharp' sound. the yamaha-polk combo could be categorised as sharp too but it was sharp without adding anything to the sound & that would be fatiguing without being any more enjoyable.

 

[MaSh]

till now nothing has beat the sound of denon 1200 with polk rtis with the different types of music i played.

That sums it all up. There is nothing like good amp bad amp, movie amp, music amp, no ones amp, in my and only my opinion. We all hear differently, we all have our own tastes, likes, dislikes, preferences, Budget. What sounds good to me, may not sound the same to someone else. This is the reason it is stressed, that one must audition as much, as many and as long as possible before deciding on a combination.

With that aside, certain brand combinations just tend to get along well, just like people of various zodiac signs. No particular reason, but they do. It is considered that Marantz is more musical than denon, which I could not make out even after owning both the brands. So if you really liked the Denon + Polk RTi combination go for it. Pro FX are the authorized dealers and have a respectable service network for Denon and Polk.

:thumbsup:
MaSh

 

[Vinod.R]

You have not added Onkyo to the mix.

 

[filmguy]

With that aside, certain brand combinations just tend to get along well, just like people of various zodiac signs. No particular reason, but they do.

hyeah: nice

yeah i too think matching the avr with the speakers is the way to go then to take it in isolation. & as you said some get along others dont.

 

[efernand1]

Hi

An interesting post. I believe Mash has summed it well, everyone has their own requirements, expectations and budget. Based on that, some avrs work like a charm for some and becomes a pain for some.....one man's poison or one man's bliss!

Also, it boils down to what settings have been done, dedicated room vs normal room with furniture clutter etc. We need to also look at the connectivity cables and also content which is played back from a variety of sources (which may be the actual culprit at times).

For me, I don't have a dedicated HT room and have a living room area which doubles up as the HT area with a decent amount of furniture....tried different brands including Bose and somehow felt that Marantz has a good performance for music and movies for the past 5 years and stuck to it.....Pioneer LX series is quite good but expensive.

I still have my RX V 440 Yamaha (6.1) AVR which is almost 12+ years old which I have retained at my inlaws place for their consumption and mine whenever I go there....Yamaha's those days were really good!

I think there is stiff competition between brands in the AVR market and there are changes and features being seen almost 6-12 months.....end of the day it all depends on what is good for your ears and purse.....this is my view....

 

[elangoas]

Yes, mostly based on the DAC used..Some of these which i faintly recollect..

- Onkyo & Yamaha were using TI Burr Brown chips for a long time.
- Pioneer until recent years were using ESS Sabre crystal DAC.
- Marantz uses Cirrus Logic, but might have changed.

Very recently Onkyo, Pioneer, Denon, Marantz have started using AKM (Asahi Kasei Microdevices) DAC on some of their recent models..

 

[Aanuj]

Yamaha Denon - Warmish yet Dynamic
Pioneer Onkyo - Brighter and forward sounding

All are good and will suit as people has varied taste. As I say what's music to you might be noise to me and vice versa.

 

[drkrack]

been reading different opinions about this on various forums.

on our forum there seems to be a belief that marantz are warm, yamaha/denon are sharp, lack punch etc depending on everyones pov

but on avforums etc there are plenty of people who say that modern avrs dont have a sound signature, at least are not significantly different, and its the speakers that are the main 'culprit' so to speak

i had a marantz avr with WD 8.2 & found it good for some kinds of music & a bit mild for movies & pop/r&b kinda music

in my hunt for a new avr/speaker setup with a different sound sig i've heard a few combos. heard the marantz 1505 or 1605, i think, with BA26 & some taga FS. also heard WD 220 with marantz.

also took along my WD speakers & did a A/B comparison with denon 1200 & yamaha 581. i also heard the 2 avrs with polk rti BS.

till now nothing has beat the sound of denon 1200 with polk rtis with the different types of music i played.

the denon-WD combo was marginally better than the yamaha-WD combo. but it was only a slight difference such that you may not have noticed unless you did the A/B comparison

the yamaha-polk also was nothing great. it was just a bit clearer than with the WDs. maybe just a bit sharper. but the denon & polk combo was much much better. it seemed to bring the music alive. it was a significant change.

now it might be a bit sharp for some people. and even i'm wondering that it may be fatiguing listening to it for long. but i see it as - when you hear a live concert or live performance the music seems alive but i guess if you were to listen to a live gig for very long it would somewhere be fatiguing wouldnt it?

i guess thats what it means when a lot of people describe the polk-denon combo as "forward" - it's like being front row at a gig.

honestly all the other combos i've heard are what you can say "unnees-bees ka farak" & since its not possible to do A/B comparisons with different model avrs & speakers its difficult to judge. but so far nothing has stood out for me like the denon-polks

the only thing thats stopping me from pulling the trigger on that combo is i'm worried of the 'fatigue' factor. but since my movie/music sessions are usually 5-6 hours max on the weekends i'm wondering if it should be that much of a factor.

also i've heard/read mixed reports of the reliability factor of the yamaha & denon avrs. some say the yamahas are more reliable & have better ASS than the denon while others say the opposite.

what is surprising is the sound difference between the 2. in fact yamahas are supposed to be more dynamic than denon arent they? i can understand a little bit of diff but not this much. to the extent now i'm wondering if there was some eq/calibration done to make the denons match the rtis more than the yamahas ( i even asked the salesperson the next day but he said no ) because with my WDs there wasnt as much of a difference.

the yamahas are around 5k or so cheaper than the denons (with matching specs) so i wouldve loved to go for the yamahas but am worried if i dont get the same sound

Very good points there ; there's few points that I want to add. I can't agree more with Denon and Polk RTI synergy statement - I felt the B&W, Marantz combo lackluster against it.

1. When someone comments that AVR s don't have a character ; it means in comparison with the Stereo amps of the same brands. It's a comparative statement and to a large extent its true. The vintage amps, even AVR s and DIY amps carry a good cult following for the similar reasons.

2. AVR s appeal more to the listener's brains whereas stereo amps appeal a lot to the heart.

You need both brains and heart to enjoy any art form and so is music. AVR s with their accurately coordinated spatial distribution of musical frequencies appeals more to Brain ; whereas Stereo amps with their sincerity and faithful reproduction appeal to the heart of the listener. There are few genre of music like Trance, psychedelic etc which I prefer to listen on AVR with 5.1, more than my stereo amp. The true surround experience is enigmatic sometimes. Both excel in what they do, one isn't a comprehensive substitute to other anyways.

3. I believe any AVR can be tweaked to one's own liking, but you'll have to get beyond the Audessey or Ypao & spend hours of experimentation which many find cumbersome.

4. AVR s deal with processing loads of mostly digital data and most of it occurs in codecs and chips that use standardized algorithms to carry out such functionality, which is nearly same across brands. This industry standardized processing kills most of the character (read noise, subtle lack of perfection) and presents a bland signal to the speakers. Many TT listeners still love the screeching of vinyl, clicks and chops associations equally passionately as much as the music they love to listen to.

5. Let's accept the fact, Analog is going to die, sooner or later (it'll be a slow death unlike the Film reel Cameras vs Digital cameras - which is my favorite analogy here) ; digital with its incredible user friendly nature is going to dominate rest of our lives. Apart from standard algorithms used in reproduction of data the abysmally low resolution of digital music which is commonly used leads to lot of character loss. (BTW the film reel pictures had a minimum resolution of 25MP! We're hardly using 16MP digital cameras to click & that too watch it often on a screen capable of a max resolution of FHD). The Audio Cds and flac etc itself are a compressed format to begin with, true high resolution has to emerge in audio broadcast similar to 4k on video side.

So once the popular digital audio resolution increases & universally music production switches to 5.1 format (or something else altogether) instead of only stereo (of course it will be a totally different format and equipment than what we're using currently) analog will find it difficult to cope up .
My nephew born after 2005 hardly likes any Tape stereo music, so with successive generations which never experienced The goodness of Analog music, I'm afraid it'll become a very isolated hobby. ( my sincere apologies if I hurt any sentiments here ; but for a generation which feels getting up from couch and changing the CD to select a desired track as a unnecessary, uncomfortable exercise ; analog audio will be hard to sell.)

6. AVRs, as with any modern technology are constantly evolving and there's lots of consumerism involved ; by that I mean lot of money, so their lifespan is very limited compared to equally priced stereo amps. Today its Atmos tomorrow it'll be something entirely more innovative & different so spending a lot doesn't make sense in my opinion. With entry level AVR becoming better and better with every iteration the cost to benefit ratio restricts the buyer not to look beyond the mid range. Coupled with low resolution lifeless digital media, it makes lot less sense to spend a huge amount on AVRs - I'd rather like to spend more on speakers for the same reasons. Drivers have much more character and a longer life span compared to AVRs. Audio companies will invest their resources & research in bringing innovative but sometimes unnecessary technology to AVRs field so that, they can sell a overpriced marginally incremental setup every year & force us to upgrade every year ; much similar to iPhone and Samsung Galaxy series.

BTW these are strictly my observations, I'm pretty open to discussing different Points of views.

 

[elangoas]

3. I believe any AVR can be tweaked to one's own liking, but you'll have to get beyond the Audessey or Ypao & spend hours of experimentation which many find cumbersome.

I have no experience with MCACC & YPAO, but have used an AVR with Audyssey Multi EQ XT32 for a good time..

To go beyond what Audyssey is trying to recreate at home, it would demand a lot of understanding from the user. For most majority of the users, a preset is good enough to measure & adjust the acoustic imperfections in the room..

6. With entry level AVR becoming better and better with every iteration the cost to benefit ratio restricts the buyer not to look beyond the mid range.

Unfortunately that is the scenario in India.. A FM recently reported that there was offer in Amazon.com for Denon x5200 for $500 (35K).. For comparison sake x4200 in India retails for 120K.. So you can imagine what x5200 will cost.

When i last checked in amazon.com. Denon x4200 retials for $599.. In India it is still 120K.. May be 100K you can get it.. Def not less than that until & unless you take the grey market route..

Coupled with low resolution lifeless digital media, it makes lot less sense to spend a huge amount on AVRs - I'd rather like to spend more on speakers for the same reasons.

I have been using lossy formats for DTS/Dolby formats in BR Rips and having experienced the best of the digital room correction, it is better to spend on an AVR with top of the line Digital room correction first and then the speakers. The above case also applies if you are considering whether to upgrade AVR (or) Speakers..

With a untreated room, what a Digital room correction tries to achieve with a modest speaker, may just not be possible with better speakers..

I have used AVR without Digital room correction (Before Audyssey) for a good 10 yrs time & an AVR with Audyssey for the last 3 yrs...

The kind of impact that Audyssey can re-create in your room, is just not possible to achieve with an AVR without Audyssey, for an average user like me in an untreated room..

 

[tuff]

There is also the sensitivity factor. How much high frequencies can your ears put up with differs in people, sometimes also due to age. Boy o Boy the room plays a big role, something that gets ignored by a lot of users. A speaker will sound different in different rooms,so a so called neutral speaker can sound sharp depending on room acoustics. Over damping with room treatment may make the speaker sound dull and boring. Some may prefer wide sound-stage, some like intimate small environment. and because these preferences are based on a given individual, the choice of audio gear really rests upon the end listener.

 

[efernand1]

Very True!

 

[filmguy]

You have not added Onkyo to the mix.

sorry missed your post

i totally forgot about onkyo. sorry about that.

but for some reason it doesnt seem to be a very popular avr these days. if i'm not wrong it faced many hardware issues?

but please give us your feedback in the thread. any inputs are welcome.

 

[Vinod.R]

As far as I am concerned, it is not the company (be it Onkyo, Denon or Yamaha or any other AVR) that is to blame.

I have always felt that HDMI is a dubious and flimsy standard, albeit in the name of progress people jump on to the HDMI bandwagon.

How many times have we read that an AVR's or TV's HDMI board has conked off and needs replacement?

Many a time these boards are unable to take up a little abuse or heat and buckle under usage.

So as a standard according to me, HDMI IS NOT UP TO THE MARK. I am not talking about the feature set which is of course quite impressive, but the durability of the standard itself.

Therefore we can commonly see boards across products and companies blowing up, burning out, malfunction etc.

So just Onkyo cannot be blamed, even though their HDMI boards do end up being somehow badly positioned on their products leading to failures.

I have always felt that analogue connections are more robust. Have we ever head a complaint that "Please my connectors are not working, what to do?" kind of question. Have we heard component input failure? Or analogue input failure? Yes, of course there are cases, but they are very rare.

 

[ssf]

I own a marantz avr. I don't consider myself an expert on sound nor do i profess owning golden ears. I dont know what qualifies to be a musical amp. And yes I have only heard my marantz extensively. Ideally, all processing turned off, amps should not sound very different. But since ones room has a considerable impact on the sound, AVR's do help to a large extent in taming frequencies and bring the sound up or down to our personal preferences. Right now, I prefer listening to music in movie mode which i feel is very close to pure direct but with the sub turned on, but thats me.

 

[filmguy]

As far as I am concerned, it is not the company (be it Onkyo, Denon or Yamaha or any other AVR) that is to blame.

I have always felt that HDMI is a dubious and flimsy standard, albeit in the name of progress people jump on to the HDMI bandwagon.

How many times have we read that an AVR's or TV's HDMI board has conked off and needs replacement?

Many a time these boards are unable to take up a little abuse or heat and buckle under usage.

So as a standard according to me, HDMI IS NOT UP TO THE MARK. I am not talking about the feature set which is of course quite impressive, but the durability of the standard itself.

Therefore we can commonly see boards across products and companies blowing up, burning out, malfunction etc.

So just Onkyo cannot be blamed, even though their HDMI boards do end up being somehow badly positioned on their products leading to failures.

I have always felt that analogue connections are more robust. Have we ever head a complaint that "Please my connectors are not working, what to do?" kind of question. Have we heard component input failure? Or analogue input failure? Yes, of course there are cases, but they are very rare.

very true. hdmis are highly sensitive. the hdmi board on my tv conked off & its such a pain. unfortunately all tech is moving away from the reliable to the flimsy

 

[Vinod.R]

Now as far as sound signature of an AVR goes, here is my take:

Many companies when they started off manufacturing stereo amp found that their amps had a particular type of sound (i.e. sound signature).

Now for whatever reason, they try to maintain that same sound in their next batch of stereo amps and have done the same to AVRs till date.

So everyone who listens to the said amplifier knows "Ohhh! that is a Marantz sound" etc.

Also market demands, component selection, cost, housing, heat sinks, audio codecs, implementation and so many other factors play into the company's hand to manufacture a particular sound and they are also afraid to change the sound.

Customer expectations like "Marantz is musical" is already pre ingrained into one's head and the placebo effect takes place. So even if we take the innards of a Marantz and put into a say Emotiva, some one will definitely say "This is not as musical as an Marantz".

 

[shekhar1988]

Today I bought Yamaha yht-299 from RD, Muzaffarnagar
Great sound experience, searching for last 2 months. Finally got it from RD

 

[sound_cycle]

but on avforums etc there are plenty of people who say that modern avrs dont have a sound signature, at least are not significantly different, and its the speakers that are the main 'culprit' so to speak

to extend your analogy, and the speakers are in a room which is likely, Villian # 1

ciao
gr