$200 rcvr beats $11k separates

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 105933 times.

wushuliu

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3301
  • “Forget it, Jake. It’s Internet-town.”
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #60 on: 15 Apr 2011, 04:02 pm »
Here's a little summary on Geddes and the Pioneer from another forum:


Geddes
"Yes, crossover distortion, and yes I do believe that high efficiency speakers will accentuate this problem. You are very perceptive. I believe that what audiophiles call "lack of detail" could well be related to this since "detail" means low level signals and the lower the level of the signal the more it is affected by crossover distortion. In my studies of the audibility of distortion crossover distortion was, by far, the most audible and insidious. So much so that it is all I look for in an amp. Curiuosly, the way amps are measured and rated this problem won't show up.
"

Someone else
"Interesting. The only way I knew to get around the problem of crossover distortion and high efficiency speakers was to use a class A amp. "


Geddes
"Not at all, there are very good solid state class AB amps out there. The best one that I have tested is my Pioneer receiver, which uses chip amps. Chip amps are inherently better off in class AB because the component matching is ideal (same substrate). My Pioneer has only a second harmonic all the way down into the noise floor, no higher orders at all. NOT SO for most receivers. And you are correct, the spec sheets and advertising are totally meaningless when it comes to audible quality. Unless you measure it yourself you have no way of knowing if its any good.
"

Someone else

"So let me get this straight. You have a Pioneer receiver, using chips instead of discrete components, running in class AB, and only cost a few hundred dollars. But has no crossover distortion, and has no odd order harmonics? Sorry, I don't believe that.

Is the volume control analog or digital? Since this is the best you tested, I am curious how many did you test?

I remember in a tread not too long ago, you said
"electronics don't matter that much. They are at a point where they can't get much better. Put most of your focus on the speakes"
But in this thread you seem to be saying that the electronics do matter. "

Geddes
"You can believe it or not, but its true. I tested about five amps that I had and the Pioneer was the best.

People always take my statements out of context. Once one has good electronics - and clearly price and "personal perception" don't correlate with good - then the only thing that matters is the speaker and the room (source material being a given). I have never said that any piece of junk electronics is fine. Only that very inexpensive and readily available electronics place the electronics into the "insiginificant errors" category.


Pez

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 3383
  • The dispenser of Truth.
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #61 on: 15 Apr 2011, 04:06 pm »
So get rid of the crossover.  :P

Russell Dawkins

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #62 on: 15 Apr 2011, 04:53 pm »
Is the Geddes discussion about "zero-crossing" distortion, not crossover?

sts9fan

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #63 on: 15 Apr 2011, 05:12 pm »
The only way to get rid of crossover not "the crossover" is with a class A amp.

Occam

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #64 on: 16 Apr 2011, 05:32 pm »
Here's a little summary on Geddes and the Pioneer from another forum:
.......
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/151376-homster-how-i-learned-how-fix-horn-5.html

A thread discussing the measurements -
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/109147-geddes-distortion-measurements.html

The only comparison I could find in these threads between the Pioneer receiver and anything else was to a Sanyo receiver which measured poorly by his metrics and Dr. Geddes referred to as unlistenable. Hardly definitive.

As to the original poster's assertion that this Pioneer $200 rcvr beats $11k separates, I've no problem believing that at all, especially if his technical expert assembled the $11k system. If that advisor truly believed the Plinus and dartZeel share similar topologies, their advice is of questionable merit. The darZeel has a complementary output stage, whereas the Plinus a quasi-complementary output stage; hardly similar at all.....

FWIW


TheChairGuy

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #65 on: 16 Apr 2011, 08:24 pm »
btw, this thread is almost two years old . . . . . :sleep:

Yup - and a couple years ago it got a little heated...so let's keep v2 / The Sequel of this topic nice and respectful, please.

I use a Pioneer receiver as my centerpiece in my system - an Elite SX-A9-J.  It is a phenominal pre-amp, a passable tuner (integrated remote tuner is nice despite the so-so quality), but the amp section is a major letdown.  So, I use only for preamp/tuner duties - at $600 it's an astonishingly deal.

But, not every Pioneer receiver is the same and since Pioneer reorganized a couple years ago at the height of the financial mess after losing a couple $billion, I'm not sure they're putting in the efforts in R & D to make truly great gear at reasonable prices anymore....they have to do things to shore up their tattered balance sheet.

http://www.twice.com/article/254288-Pioneer_Exits_TV_Business_As_Losses_Mount.php

Thx,

John / co-Fac The Critic's Circle

gedlee

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 51
    • GedLee LLC
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #66 on: 17 Apr 2011, 01:26 am »
The only comparison I could find in these threads between the Pioneer receiver and anything else was to a Sanyo receiver which measured poorly by his metrics and Dr. Geddes referred to as unlistenable. Hardly definitive.


No, its  not definitive - this is the internet, is there such a thing?  I am not an amp guy so I have no interest in pursuing this or even arguing about it, but rest assurded, I have tested more than just two amps and I beleive that the hypothesis holds even if it not proven.

Freo-1

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #67 on: 17 Apr 2011, 01:46 am »
Threads such as these can be misleading, to say the least.  It's impossible to quantify amp usage without taking a serious look at the target speakers.  For example, my second system speakers are Source Technologies 277SE, which are a easy load on an amp, and they sound very good with all sort of amplification,  from a simple Luxman R114 receiver, up to a Threshold SA3.  There is a noticeable difference between the two on the speakers, but it's not as major as one would expect.

However, hook up a Sony ES, Pioneer Elite, Luxman to my primary speakers (Legacy Signature III's), and this is MUCH different story.  The receivers fall FAR short of delivering good sound compared to my Threshold S300 or SA3.  The Legacy speakers are capable of delivering a very lifelike listening experience, but they NEED clean power, and NO receiver can deliver the proper voltage and current cleanly to these in anywhere near the same manner as the Thresholds. 

bhobba

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1119
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #68 on: 17 Apr 2011, 02:42 am »
Threads such as these can be misleading, to say the least.

Yes - to say the least.  The best advice I can give is listen for yourself in a blind test on your speakers - double blind is not really necessary in my experience.  Level match using a SPL meter.  I know someone who did that with a highly touted and much more expensive top of the line Modwright amp (I am pretty sure it was the cryo-treated signature edition that's close to three times the price) against my little Leben CS300XS.  Everyone was raving how great the Modwright was etc etc - but blind my Leben simply blew it away - evidently the issue was mosfet mist.  And no I don't want to enter into a discussion about mosfet mist - suffice to say in a previous lengthy discussion about it - it was a problem with early mosfet designs but can be eliminated with more modern design techniques - but some prefer it that way because it makes it sound, to their ears, more tube like.  But when you compare it to a good tube amp like the Leben what it is becomes obvious.  Of course personal preference comes into it quite a bit.

These days I personally am addicted to lower power valve stuff but blind listening is the great leveler and heaps of fun.

Thanks
Bill

Russell Dawkins

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #69 on: 17 Apr 2011, 04:40 am »
I think the solution is actually simple - just spend about double the absolute most you think you can afford. It will hurt at first, but very soon (after break in)  you will be in heaven and hearing your system sound the best it has ever sounded, and encouraging others to buy the same to reinforce your decision.

Double blind listening comparisons are just a waste of time. You get what you pay for and never get what you don't pay for.

Oh, and make sure the faceplate is at least 1/4" thick.



JohnR

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #70 on: 17 Apr 2011, 09:15 am »
Threads such as these can be misleading, to say the least.  It's impossible to quantify amp usage without taking a serious look at the target speakers.  For example, my second system speakers are Source Technologies 277SE, which are a easy load on an amp, and they sound very good with all sort of amplification,  from a simple Luxman R114 receiver, up to a Threshold SA3.  There is a noticeable difference between the two on the speakers, but it's not as major as one would expect.

However, hook up a Sony ES, Pioneer Elite, Luxman to my primary speakers (Legacy Signature III's), and this is MUCH different story.  The receivers fall FAR short of delivering good sound compared to my Threshold S300 or SA3.  The Legacy speakers are capable of delivering a very lifelike listening experience, but they NEED clean power, and NO receiver can deliver the proper voltage and current cleanly to these in anywhere near the same manner as the Thresholds.

Very interesting and insightful comment.

timind

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #71 on: 17 Apr 2011, 10:05 am »
I think the solution is actually simple - just spend about double the absolute most you think you can afford. It will hurt at first, but very soon (after break in)  you will be in heaven and hearing your system sound the best it has ever sounded, and encouraging others to buy the same to reinforce your decision.

Double blind listening comparisons are just a waste of time. You get what you pay for and never get what you don't pay for.

Oh, and make sure the faceplate is at least 1/4" thick.
:lol:Then after recovering from the initial outlay you can spend a few paychecks on hook-up wire.

rollo

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 4146
  • Rollo Audio Where Home demo rules
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #72 on: 17 Apr 2011, 03:33 pm »
  Out of curiosity last night a Denon DRA 395 receiver was inserted feeding Pipedream  94db sensitive speakers.
    Listenable, quite good actually however no match for the Cyber 211s and the Loesch preamp. Blindfold me double blindfold me whatever , no way one could not tell the difference. Forget the audiophile jargon the soundstage alone was the telltale. So obvious.
   Just two diferent presentations in tonality. The reciever dry the tubes well wet.  Trying to find a Pioneer to check out.


charles

wushuliu

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3301
  • “Forget it, Jake. It’s Internet-town.”
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #73 on: 17 Apr 2011, 05:41 pm »
We have to remember these are specific models with specific design so any other receiver/chipamp comparison even within Pioneer's own lineup isn't going to tell us anything...

cujobob

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1232
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #74 on: 17 Apr 2011, 06:15 pm »
Yup - and a couple years ago it got a little heated...so let's keep v2 / The Sequel of this topic nice and respectful, please.

I use a Pioneer receiver as my centerpiece in my system - an Elite SX-A9-J.  It is a phenominal pre-amp, a passable tuner (integrated remote tuner is nice despite the so-so quality), but the amp section is a major letdown.  So, I use only for preamp/tuner duties - at $600 it's an astonishingly deal.

But, not every Pioneer receiver is the same and since Pioneer reorganized a couple years ago at the height of the financial mess after losing a couple $billion, I'm not sure they're putting in the efforts in R & D to make truly great gear at reasonable prices anymore....they have to do things to shore up their tattered balance sheet.

http://www.twice.com/article/254288-Pioneer_Exits_TV_Business_As_Losses_Mount.php

Thx,

John / co-Fac The Critic's Circle

Pioneer's struggle don't necessarily have to indicate poor R&D.  Because of the low weight and great sound quality...keeping designs like these coming likely makes a lot of sense and makes up for the R&D costs.


To the comment by Freo-1, an amp is only as good as the speakers it is paired with, true.  But poorly designed speakers sounding good with certain amps doesn't necessarily have to indicate better quality from those amps.  The speakers Earl Geddes designs sound very good with these Pioneer units.  They're highly efficient and present an easy load for an amp.  IMHO, they are well designed speakers.  Because of their efficiency, the Class A/B amp is normally using class A output from the chip, I believe.  This would not be the case with less efficient designs and thus they would sound quite different.

Bob in St. Louis

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 13026
  • "Introverted Basement Dwelling Troll"
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #75 on: 17 Apr 2011, 08:08 pm »
I think the solution is actually simple - just spend about double the absolute most you think you can afford. It will hurt at first, but very soon (after break in)  you will be in heaven and hearing your system sound the best it has ever sounded, and encouraging others to buy the same to reinforce your decision.

Double blind listening comparisons are just a waste of time. You get what you pay for and never get what you don't pay for.

Oh, and make sure the faceplate is at least 1/4" thick.
:rotflmao: That should be placed in a sticky somewhere. Truly a fantastic post.  :thumb:
It could be step #1 in  "How to be an Audiophile".  :lol:

Bob

Freo-1

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #76 on: 17 Apr 2011, 08:31 pm »
Pioneer's struggle don't necessarily have to indicate poor R&D.  Because of the low weight and great sound quality...keeping designs like these coming likely makes a lot of sense and makes up for the R&D costs.


To the comment by Freo-1, an amp is only as good as the speakers it is paired with, true.  But poorly designed speakers sounding good with certain amps doesn't necessarily have to indicate better quality from those amps.  The speakers Earl Geddes designs sound very good with these Pioneer units.  They're highly efficient and present an easy load for an amp.  IMHO, they are well designed speakers.  Because of their efficiency, the Class A/B amp is normally using class A output from the chip, I believe.  This would not be the case with less efficient designs and thus they would sound quite different.

I take (a minor) issue with the poorly designed speaker comment.  For example, the Legacy Signature III's are a very well designed speaker, BUT, it's a complex speaker, with a complex crossover network.  The  speaker is 93db @ 1 watt with a nominal 4 ohm load.  However, as we all know, the speaker impedance varies widely based on the input signal.  The Legacy has 3 10 inch woofer drivers, and are only 2db down at 20 Hz. (takeaway, no subwoofer required).  Whenever a speaker has multiple drivers like this,  the amp needs to have strong power supply that does not thermal out when the load demands it.    The speaker is designed to provide life like reproduction of the full audio spectrum at realistic sound pressure levels.  Very few speakers are designed to attempt this. 

So,  the fact that a speaker demands a high voltage high current amp at low impedance does not necessarily mean it's a poor design.  Most speaker manufactures make design compromises in order to get the most out of them for a given response/power combination.  If a speaker like a Legacy is designed to obtain a full frequency response at realistic spl levels, it stands to reason that the source electronics would need to be equal to the task to meet the design requirements of the speaker.   

neobop

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 3448
  • BIRD LIVES
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #77 on: 17 Apr 2011, 10:02 pm »
I've been repeating this over & over & here it is again:

The 912 is rated only for 8 Ohm loads.  The farther below 8 Ohms is the load the worse will sound the 912. 

Comparing the 912 on a difficult load to any amp w/ four or five times the current capability is purely misleading for the purpose of this thread.

The 912 is a 100W amp rated at 8 Ohms ONLY.  Check the speaker load.  The farther it strays from 8 Ohms flat the worse will sound the 912.  In fact, it's not rated to drive less than 8 Ohms. 

Maybe I missed it. Are there any other examples of speakers that sound great with this Pioneer hybrid amp, other than the two mentioned?

The Spica TC-60 is an extremely easy load, even if the efficiency isn't the highest. 8 ohms with a minimum of 5.6 ohms @ 10K. With the minimum up at 10K, the bass impedance should make it very easy to drive. 100 watts is plenty of power if impedance is maintained. Efficiency is 87dB.

Not surprising really. Now, chips can outperform discreet components in many ways. Chip amps obviously don't have good current capability, so this application is limited. What happens at loads greater than 8 ohms?

Want a great budget system - start looking at impedance curves for loudspeakers. That's the key, apparently, for success with these.
neo

http://spicaspeakers.com/specifications/spica-tc-60-datasheet.php

cujobob

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1232
Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #78 on: 18 Apr 2011, 12:32 am »
I take (a minor) issue with the poorly designed speaker comment.  For example, the Legacy Signature III's are a very well designed speaker, BUT, it's a complex speaker, with a complex crossover network.  The  speaker is 93db @ 1 watt with a nominal 4 ohm load.  However, as we all know, the speaker impedance varies widely based on the input signal.  The Legacy has 3 10 inch woofer drivers, and are only 2db down at 20 Hz. (takeaway, no subwoofer required).  Whenever a speaker has multiple drivers like this,  the amp needs to have strong power supply that does not thermal out when the load demands it.    The speaker is designed to provide life like reproduction of the full audio spectrum at realistic sound pressure levels.  Very few speakers are designed to attempt this. 

So,  the fact that a speaker demands a high voltage high current amp at low impedance does not necessarily mean it's a poor design.  Most speaker manufactures make design compromises in order to get the most out of them for a given response/power combination.  If a speaker like a Legacy is designed to obtain a full frequency response at realistic spl levels, it stands to reason that the source electronics would need to be equal to the task to meet the design requirements of the speaker.

Many prefer full-range sound from their mains, but I suppose we differ on the best way to go about getting great bass.  Dr. Geddes, who tested/recommended this amp, builds systems that involve multiple subs powered by rack ramps.

cloudbaseracer

Re: $200 rcvr beats $11k separates
« Reply #79 on: 18 Apr 2011, 12:54 am »
We have to remember these are specific models with specific design so any other receiver/chipamp comparison even within Pioneer's own lineup isn't going to tell us anything...

I myself thought this was very clear but by the posts here it seems many missed it.  Thanks for succinctly stating the basis of the original post!