Revenge of the Home Stereo thread!

[ALBPM]

Ok Dogbert which manual is heavier.....LOL

Paul

[Jammrock]

LOL...

Enough sillyness. KvH's word will carry a lot farther around here than almost anyone, so the point is moot.

Now back to the ORIGINAL point of this thread, whether I should pick up the CD player or the center channel. I opted for the CD player, as I missed the beuatiful detailed sound it gave. I picked up the Rotel RCD-1070. Paul, if you don't have a good CD player, you may want to audition one This will 'hopefully' end my desire to upgrade for a while...

Jammrock

[ALBPM]

I know but as MURCers we "must" have fun.....LOL

KvH got me started on the audiophile upgrades awhile back. He has always given me sage advice.

Thanks Kvh

Paul

[KvHagedorn]

No problem Paul. Thanks for the support, guys.

Sadly, there are forces out there which seek to make a few more dollars by cutting corners, and it's not just in stereo equipment. Did you know you could go to Home Depot and buy a Makita drill and have it look the same, have the same specs, maybe even the same model number and everything, maybe even sell for the same price as the one you would buy from the local hardware store, but it might not be the same drill? The big boys (Home Depot, Lowes, Circuit City, Best Buy, Crutchfield, Sears, or whoever) buy enough product from manufacturers that they can have these manufacturers essentially build product to spec for them. Using fewer brushes in that drill, a cheaper battery, a flimsier switch, etc.. In audio equipment it can be any number of corners cut to achieve the end goal of duping you into buying a crappier product which brings the big boys a fatter profit margin. Jammrock touched on a few things.. there are cheaper versions of almost everything used in a high quality receiver. The basic specs probably would not change at all within reason. It might even sound as good under most circumstances. But three years down the road, the product failure rate will be much higher for those goods that are built to maximize profit rather than to enhance a manufacturers reputation. This is what happened to Sony and Pioneer. They used to be some of the best audio equipment made back in the 70s. What happened? They got too chummy with mass market retailers and cheapened their product continually, until their reputations finally withered away. Some soulless B-School grad probably shoved a graph in front of an executive and changed their focus from building superior products to things like market share.. You tell me, why does Yamaha sell two different receivers in two different lines with supposedly the same specs? Why would they? Use your brain for thinking about this instead of just collating specs and devaluing people with experience in favor of some big company with a flashy store. If you are in Israel, you are dealing with a whole different set of variables, so I really don't know the particulars in your case. 220v product goes through a totally different channel (we can't even get it here.)

Dogbert, I'm sorry if I am just lumping you together with every ignorant jerk who just looks at specs and buys his stuff out of the Crutchfield catalog (even when the prices are the same as we sell things for. What Jammrock probably doesn't realize is that I'm not just a salesman. I have been working with these products for about 10 years as a custom installer. I design, install, and set up huge whole house systems and then have to teach customers how to work that equipment. I am VERY familiar with Yamaha receivers (in the RXV line, which is all we sell normally.) They have a higher tolerance for abuse than almost any other receiver out there. You can drive a surround system with the main speakers in speaker "A" and the whole house system through a box or distribution block on speaker "B" at the same time. They last longer and break less often than other lines. They are also much simpler to use than the vast majority of receivers.

I am really concerned more with the practical quality of audio equipment. I don't have a clue what the THD or IMD or most of that crap is on ANY receiver, because I know how meaningless those types of specs really are. Even wattage can be highly suspect as a measure. I learned this real quick when I was in college and first started getting into this stuff. I had a friend who bought a $150 Technics receiver that was actually rated something like 0.00008% THD. WTF??? It sounded absolutely awful! Then my buddies and I went to a real high end audio store and saw a pair of old Mark Levinson class A monoblock amplifiers rated at 25 watts each. They had a rated distortion of something like 0.1%. Of course they sounded wonderful, and of course they were much more powerful sounding than their wattage rating might suggest. I knew something was going on behind the scenes here.. What it boils down to is that now, the very first spec I check on an amplifier (or receiver) is its capacity to use the power coming out of the wall. There has been more than one A/V receiver in Yamaha's line the past few years with a rating of 100 watts per channel x5, so why do some sound better than others? Look at the back and it will say.. The RX-V995 had a Power Supply rated at 400 watts. Its replacement, the RX-V1000, had only a 320 watter, and the RX-V800 (also 100x5) had a 260 watt power supply. (Thankfully this year the RX-V2200 has a 390w psu, albeit split between 6 channels.) We in the computer junkie brotherhood certainly know the difference between a 260w psu and a 400w one, now don't we? The bigger power supply lets you run more stuff more stably. Same difference with audio. As to all the gizmos like ProLogicII and such.. they are nice, but are absolutely secondary to the ability to drive speakers cleanly, smoothly, and powerfully.

[Dogbert]

KvHagedorn,

Thanks for a very sensible asnwer.

2 questions still remains if I may:

What is the difference between the HTR-5170 and the RC-V795a or to go further between the HTR line in general vs. the RX-V line.
I mean, they are both Yamaha and the specs on both lines look the same.

My actual choice back then was between the RX-V596 and the HTR-5170. I went for the HTR because it had binding posts for all speakers, it weighted a bit more (which gives the impression of a better build quality) and because the HTR was somewhat cheaper.
Back then, they still had the manual for the HTR-5170 for download at the Yamaha site and I was told to look at the RX-V795a since they were identical (I'm basing this assumption on identicl looks and specs) so I checked them both.

1 last question, which is really better, the RX-V596 / RX-V795a / HTR-5170 ?

Whatever the answer is, I'm happy I went with Yamaha. Great sound for less money, at least with my budget here in Israel.

[Dogbert]

The only difference I have found so far between HTR and RX-V lines is this:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/customer/faqs/av_receivers/faq00.htm

[Jammrock]

KvH, I know full well you install the systems you sell. I have never met a high-end store sales rep that doesn't. That's half the fun

One of the tricks manufactures use is the P-M-P (Peak Music Power) or Peak wattage instead of RMS wattage. What is actually used is Watts RMS, but Watts p-m-p is always the bigger number, so many manufactures use Watts p-m-p to trick consumers into thinking they are buying a more powerful system. Check this link for a better example, and why that Mark Levinson would actually be more powerful if it was rated in RMS and the other was rated in p-m-p.

Dogbert, you're still missing the bullseye. The difference between the HTR and the RX line may be something that can only be seen when the chasis is off both of them. It could be that one line has a larger transformer and power supply. It could be one line uses a higher tolerence capacitor, transistors that produce less noise, etc. Reading a manual or a white sheet isn't going tell you the difference between them.

Going back to KvH's Technics vs. Mark Levinson story...going only by specs and manuals, that Technics has more power and a better THD, which should give it a better sound, right? Ask any audiophile which sounds better and they will laugh at you, because Mark Levinson will kick Technics @$$ every time. Why? Because Levinson uses superior parts, design and circuitry. Which is the point we are trying to get across...specs and manuals don't tell the whole story.

Jammrock

[KvHagedorn]

The one thing from that link that stands out for me is this

The RX-V line has the power amplifiers rated from 20-20000 Hz. The HTR line has the power amplifiers rated at 1000 Hz.

Whatever they might say about "identical" amplifiers, this leaves a much lower bar for the HTR series to clear. A decent car radio can do about 35 wpc into 1000 Hz with an amplifier section the size of a matchbox, but to do that kind of power full bandwidth requires much beefier electronics.

[xortam]

But its also interesting that Yamaha stated

The RX-V line and the HTR line are produced in the same Yamaha factory using the same high quality parts throughout.

[KvHagedorn]

doubletalk..

It pisses me off that we are put in a position of having to defend Yamaha when they are ****ing us over selling this HTR stuff to Best Buy like this. I don't really give a shit. Buy Denon if you guys wanna..

[xortam]

Personally, I wouldn't have any of them.

[Greebe]

time to break out the can of whoopass!

I have to agree with Chuck (KvH) here... they may use the same "high quality parts"... but all of them?... are they of the exact same design? HELL NO! and it was the same manufactures which requested a change to the trade laws not long ago allowing them to spec amplifier power @1000Hz only so to increase profitability... their good stuff still carries the 20-20kHz (+/- X dB optional) into 8 ohm @X% distortion power spec!

Regardless of the difference, even the above full bandwidth power spec rating is still highly subjective... case and point... difference between a Levison amp and a Technics amp as has been brought up before in this thread.

Let me add that none of these "specs" lends itself to how "musical" any amp is. Sure an amp can be built to have a superb power output rating with low distortion, BUT, 99% of what is music isn't at full power... it's much much lower power level. The same amp at lets say @ 1 watt typically will produce more crossover distortion, TIM, THD etc at these levels than the maker will lead you to believe. And why have I picked 1 watt for this little excersize? 1 watt into a typical speaker or headphone will produce an average SP Level of ~84-92dB in a given space (regardless of typical room or headset used on average) and for most people this is a "normal" listening level. remember that music isn't a constant level signal.. but highly dynamic... most of which has a dynamic to average signal ratio of 27:1!!!

Now lets take a look at speakers, for these are what most people use. For an amp to drive a speaker and using the amps power spec of 20-20k (blah blah blah) (as an example) we see that any given amp power spec is given for a specific resistance (8ohms typical). Now here's the problem, speakers are not a resistor but an extremely reactive device! When a bass note like from a drum is struck the woofer will react with a broad impedence change... many well below 1ohm... with that reflected back at your typical POS amp/reciever with a power spec given at 1kHz into 8ohms will bring it to it's knees! This is not to say that the amp with a full bandwidth power spec will do any better... but most of the time THEY WILL! These are just few of the reasons ML amps truely kick ass! They are more akin to a wide bandwidth, low distortion, ultra high current, transconductance ARC WELDER!!!

-----------

PS. if anyone wishes for me to go into further into the "musical" qualities of amp design detail I will oblige... just have a bit of patience... it's just been awhile since I've had to

[Dogbert]

Me again,

About the 20hz-20khz vs. 1khz in the RX-V vs. HTR lines ,in the manuals they tell both. The difference is in the advertisments.
When you advertise an amp that people buy through mail order (who is stupid enough to buy such things without hearing them first anyway ???) they'd rather post the highest RMS watts possible. As we all know, when you shop through catalogs, you shop by specs and nothing else.
This is why my amp is rated 110W x5 @ 1khz (0.07 thd) and also as 85W x5 @ 20hz-20khz (0.04 thd).
The Specs in all ampliphiers include the 20hz-20kz RMS watts when you check the manual.

Kvh,
I checked my psu just in case in the manual and it's rated:
normal power use: 350W max power use: 690W
My amp is rated 85W rms (20hz-20khz) x 5

What does it say about my amp power wise ?

[Dogbert]

Greebe,

Could you please go further about the subject ?
I saw that many people mention the damping factor as very important as well while some other people say it has a lot to do with the cables you use and the quality of the "dynamic damping" (?) your speakers already have.
Any further info about any subject will be greatly appreciated.

1 other (maybe silly) question:

I have a pair of wharfedales onesix, they have 2 air openings for bass reflex (one in front and one on the back). The closer I put my speakers to the wall, the stronger the bass sounds.
Now, the wall mentioned is shared by my house and the neighbours. How (if at all) does the placing of my speakers against the wall affects the amount of bass going to their house ?
(they haven't complained - yet)

[Wombat]

As we all know, when you shop through catalogs, you shop by specs and nothing else.

Which is why you don't shop for audio equipment by catalog alone.