Re: Pioneer vs Yamaha


"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ddu2v7$cq0$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert Morein <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:ddqku1$6fp$8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Robert Morein <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "boaz" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:jNKLe.310$AT7.187@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > This is getting harder to tell which one to buy now.
> > > > > One is better in one area but not the other area.
> > > > > But again, it is not easy to define "better". It may mean "not
better
> > but
> > > > > not bad either".
> > > > >
> > > > > So, would you guys tell me your opinions on the other brands
please?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Robert Morein" <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:fYqdneSkvc5IzWLfRVn-hw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Both these companies have excellent reputations.
> > > > > > Yamaha has the most sophisticated DSP.
> > > > > > Pioneer has a line of MOSFET amplifiers that are physically
heavy,
> > run
> > > > hot
> > > > > > (which is a good thing!), and more likely to satisfy the purist
with
> > > > > > amplifier quality.
> > > > > > I use a Yamaha for DSP, but I don't use the front amplifiers,
> > because
> > > > they
> > > > > > aren't "audiophile quality." So they are hooked via the
"pre-out"
> > > > > > connectors
> > > > > > to external, heavy, MOSFET amplifiers that run hot.
> > > > > >
> > > > I haven't done a recent survey. Frankly, you'll find members of this
> > group
> > > > more interested in better sound than afforded by a HT receiver. Most
HT
> > > > receivers are lousy. Many of them have deliberately inaccurate
frequency
> > > > response, tailored for popular taste. None of them are as good as
good
> > > > separates.
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no real evidence for this, but it certainly is a common
> > > audiophile claim.
> > >
> > Steve, I read this on several occasions in "Stereo Review". Sorry I
cannot
> > provide a specific reference.
>
> I'm don't doubt there are receivers out there with deliberately nonflat
frequency response
> in the audible range -- one might even find them in the high-end range --
> but the claim that there's 'many' is what I question. I'd also question
> whether a claim about the market derived from a Stereo Review is still
relevant, since
> there hasn't been a Stereo Review for some time now.
>
> Where's the evidence that a random HT receiver bought today, much less
*most*
> of them, would have deliberately accurate frequency response, and that
> 'none of them are as good as separates'?
>
I have heard the best that Yamaha has to offer, both at my house, and at the
house of a friend where I do alot of listening. Our mutual conclusion is
that these low-bias, efficient designs are not as musical as the separates
we prefer. Between us, the majority of our preferences run hot, but the
Odyssey series of basic amps is up there with them, with certain speaker
choices.

Yamaha is an unusually ethical mass market company, and I don't think that
any of their offerings are nonflat. However, in the $200 to $500 mass market
range, it really would be foolish to make a product flat, because it will
not sound as good to the average ear as one with a bit of Fletcher-Munson
built in. Although I have not read reviews of these products since Stereo
Review folded, it seems to me that it would be foolish for Technics, say, to
make a flat product. Who would prefer it?

My statement that "none of them are as good as separates", subject to your
scrutiny, must be made more precise. I should say that any receiver made can
be bettered by some separate, because the designer has fewer constraints. He
can work with more heat, more regulation, a better ground plane, and more
iron.

That said, the Pioneer MOSFET receivers could be an exception. I have not
auditioned them. I do not know to what extent they surpass the traditional
problems with MOSFET design. Since I don't care for Adcom MOSFET amps, it is
possible that a good design from Pioneer could be superior.

In conclusion, my statement was a simplification intended to provide useful
information to a challenged individual. I hope he reads these clarifications
as well and finds them useful.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer vs Yamaha
    ... >> there hasn't been a Stereo Review for some time now. ... efficient designs are not as musical as the separates ... the Pioneer MOSFET receivers could be an exception. ... > possible that a good design from Pioneer could be superior. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?
    ... What is the format of the pulse stream data coming out of the lirc device? ... The point of those design review questions was to illustrate that the ... Adjusting it to support two receivers is going to ... break the ABI. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Some questions on IF transformers
    ... receivers didn't necessarily understand the design itself that well. ... even at the cost of efficient ... Contrast that with pre-broadcast satellite TV, ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.homebrew)
  • Re: Cells compared to Flow-Based Programming
    ... a part that fires events from one of its output pins does not ... It might go to one receiver or many receivers ... concerns (e.g. like data design or getting rid of goto's). ... these problems is to admit that you cannot resolve time with sufficient ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?
    ... What is the format of the pulse stream data coming out of the lirc device? ... The point of those design review questions was to illustrate that the ... Adjusting it to support two receivers is going to ... break the ABI. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)