Flagship receivers = Overpriced?? (1 Viewer)

[Gary Hensley]

I am so happy with my TX-DS989. Onkyo should be applauded for keeping their promise for upgrades. For the 2100.00 that is cost me I can't say enough good things about it. With a upgrade to THX Ultra2 along with DTS 96/24 it is far and away a steal for what I paid for it. I know there may not be any upgrades after the next one but keeping the unit current for as long as they have really is a testament to the developers who designed it.

I nearly bought the 5800 when it came out. It is a great receiver but the price difference and Denon's track record for upgrade promises left my wary. The 5803 sounds like a great unit but I would be pretty upset being a 5800 owner and having to pony of 800.00 for an upgrade. So far I have spent 49.00 to upgrade to DTS-ES and DPL2.

 

[Shane Martin]

I haven't heard either of these units. I have however heard the 5800 side by side with the 4802 + ATI1505 and let me tell you the difference is quite discernable at all volume levels. Like it or not, the low-level resolution is better, the soundstaging is better and so is the dynamic presentation. That's all I can say. I am just assuming that the 950, from what I have heard on this forum, would be a better preamp than the 5803 (which is a 5800 with some more bells) and a separate amp of decent build (with more than 150 W/ch) would easily surpass the internal amps of a 5800/5803.

I rest my case.

Once you said I haven't heard either of these units, I totally threw out your thoughts because you are basing a statement that you made off of something you haven't heard. You are assumming lots and you know what Assumption is the mother of all right?

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Thanks Shane...
I couldn't have said it better.
Gary,
I have no problem spending $800 for the Denon upgrade. Keep in mind, your Onkyo upgrade was software only. The Denon is a complete hardware upgrade...including beefier power supply, new processing, new DACs (DSD compatible), more digital (higher bitrate) connections, Denon Link, adjustable bass management, DTS 96/24, Dolby Headphone, DPLII, THX Ultra2....even some new logos on the front faceplate
If I am willing to spend $3k on a unit, I have no problem every couple of years spending $800 to bring it up to (and beyond) date.
I would think that you Onkyo owners will not be so lucky with software upgrades for your next unit upgrade. The processing power of the Denon's 2 Sharc processors was not enough for bass management, DPLII, DTS 24/96, THX-U2, etc. Denon found it necessary to replace the ENTIRE digital board to make this upgrade work....I would assume Onkyo will run into the same problems. If this is the case, the price for both of your upgrades would be similar to the one Denon 5800 upgrade.
Jeremy

 

[MiltK]

So you guys think spending $3800 dollars for a receiver including an upgrade is no problem??? You can get basically the same pre/pro features of the 5803 by buying the Sony STR-DA5ES for $750. My point is that plus a decent 2 or 3-channel amp is still hundreds of dollars less than an upgraded Denon. I find it hard that anyone would think that the internal amps of a flagship receiver will sound better than a well-designed, dedicated outboard amp for music or movies. I've listened to the B&KAVR307, Denon 5800, and Integra 9.1 that could not match my DA5ES + Bryston 5B-ST setup.

Denon 5803=~$3500

Sony STR-DA5ES (~$750) + used Bryston 5B-ST w/20 year transferable warranty (~$1500)=~$2250

In a couple of years, you'll be upgrading the 5803 for another $800 where I'll be buying a new Sony ES with the latest features for probably another $750. You do the math.

 

[Shane Martin]

The Sony doesn't provide the same features however I would tend to agree that the features they are providing are very minimally better for the price difference.

 

[MiltK]

Very minimally?? What does the Denon have over the Sony that can justify the $2700 price difference?? Okay I guess THX-Ultra II certification is more important than separate crossovers AND eq for individual channels...

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"So you guys think spending $3800 dollars for a receiver including an upgrade is no problem???"

Exactly, I speak for myself, I suppose. With your reasoning, why would anyone buy anything more than a $700 pre/pro or receiver. It's quite simple actually. It sounds better than the cheaper pre/pro. Of course outboard amps will make any receiver sound better. I use my 5800's amps to power my surrounds and 200 watts in the surrounds is plenty.

If you add the same Bryston amps to the Denon 5800 as you did your Sony, the differences will be apparent. This is why people spend more money....better sound. The same could be said for a Lexicon MC-12 or a Meridian. There is a point of diminishing returns, but that point can only be determined by the end user. There are audiophiles that wil pay $50,000 for what you and I would consider a 1% increase in sound quality...but for them it's worth every penny.

Features aside, the new flagship line of receivers are built very well (Pioneer's 49TX, Denon 5800/03, Onkyo 989, and the B&K 307) with cutting edge audio circuitry that some high priced pre/pros lack.

It goes much further than JUST the amplifiers for increased headroom.

Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"What does the Denon have over the Sony that can justify the $2700 price difference??"
You're kidding right
The Sony does not even compare to the feature list of the Denon. You need to do a little more research on the Denon if you are still unsure.
Jeremy

 

[MiltK]

Hey Jeremy,
Give me list of the pre/pro features in the Denon that you think are head and shoulders above the Sony. I bet you'll be more than a little surprised that the Sony in most cases has the equivalent. In addition, the Sony ES receivers are just as well-built as the flagships you mentioned. At a fraction of the cost, mind you.
To answer your question about why anyone would buy any pre/pro greater than $700, read the earlier and very enlightening thread discussing how inexpensive a high-quality pre/pro can and should be:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=54058
It basically comes down to Economics 101, separate pre/pros are more expensive because the sales volume is lower and people are willing to spend more on "perceived" sonic gains. Companies in fact are willing to spend more R&D on receivers thus your comment below

Features aside, the new flagship line of receivers are built very well (Pioneer's 49TX, Denon 5800/03, Onkyo 989, and the B&K 307) with cutting edge audio circuitry that some high priced pre/pros lack.

is accurate but also applies to the Sony DA5ES (which has far more features than the Onkyo, B&K, 5800 you mentioned).
Anyway, if you think money=quality we'll all be buying Bose

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

Milt,

You are correct...you've got it all figured out. I'm going to come looking for you before I make my next purchase so I quit wasting all of my money....

I guess all of us that purchased a flagship receiver, those that bought the new MC-12s or the Meridians will always be equalled by those that bought that ES line from Sony.

Jeremy

 

[MiltK]

Thanks for the compliment, Jeremy. It has really made my day...I'm always available to help my fellow audiophiles/golden-ears concerning monetary matters

 

[Robert_Dufresne]

Face it Miltk

Sony is good if u are in the market for a walkman.

Loaded with bells and whistles but thin on sound quality.

Robert

 

[Shane Martin]

Face it Miltk

Sony is good if u are in the market for a walkman.

Loaded with bells and whistles but thin on sound quality.

Robert

Robert,

Thanks for the thread fart. We truly appreciate the thought you put into that post.

Care to back it up?

I'm working up a list of features so we can compare as I type.

 

[MiltK]

Hey Robert,

Read the posts. My whole point is to use the Sony as a pre/pro and to use a decent outboard amp. You can easily achieve or in some cases better the sonic fidelity of a "flagship" receiver at a cost of hundereds of dollars less with all the "bells and whistles" and possibly more.

 

[chaz fifer]

Having owned a few sony e's (earlier in my HT venture)I considered them to sound outstanding.As time progressed,and I learned more and more about HT,and after auditioning and owning numorous receivers,now the sony line of ES's to me is merely satisfactory.I have now owned 3 Denon's and in my opinion,their sound quality is far beyond any sony I've ever heard!If you lke the sound of an ES more,Im happy for your purchasing decision because that is what its all about-what sounds best to you.

 

[Sheldon C]

Any particular reason why you guys are so set on a middle level Sony receiver to compare with flagships of other brands? Is your point that any mid level receiver can hold it's own against a flagship or is it exclusively Sony? Personally I don't like the sony receivers that I have heard. To me they sound a little bit "tinny" like the sound is coming out of a tin shed - a bit of an exageration - but the only way I can describe it.

I'm not trying to rip on Sony, just wondering if you guys held the same opinion about other middle level receiver brands such as Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo, etc.

 

[MiltK]

Chaz and Sheldon,
My whole argument is based on the merits of the Sony ES as a standalone pre/pro for music (and for powering the surrounds in HT). By adding external amplification, you are bypassing what has been traditionally perceived as Sony's weakest point(their amps) while taking advantage of the fabulous DSPs and unsurpassed flexibility of their pre/pro section (IMO better that the Denon, B&K, etc.). All at a price costing much, much less than the flagship receivers and producing similar if not better sound. If either of you had bad experiences using an ES receiver as a pre/pro with external amplication I would like to know.
BTW, the ES models of Sony should not be considered "middle-of-the-road." What other "middle-of-the-road" receiver you know of has THREE DSPs and separate volume, crossover, and EQ for each channel like the Sony has???

 

[chaz fifer]

You are correct when you state that the sony's have extremely flexable bass management in each seperate channel.however, when each channel is set to different crossover settings,They tend to cause more room acoustical problems (such as peaks and dips in certain frequencies) which degrades audio.The same applys to EQ's and tonal controls.Whenever i have owned a receiver that allows for these types of adjustments,I never use them because i believe the pure musicallity is lost.When the crossovers of each individual speaker is set differently,The lower frequencies tend to become unnatural.
I also believe that if these options were completely bennificial,the higher end or "flagship models"would probably incorporate them into the design.

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"What other "middle-of-the-road" receiver you know of has THREE DSPs..."

THREE DSPs...Damn, look out HT fans, count 'em THREE DSPs!

Milt, I believe the cheapest of the Denons has 7 or 8 DSPs as well as DPLII, DTS, DD, etc.

DSPs have nothing to do with how good a receiver or a pre/pro is. Flexible bass management, a very good feature to have...I'll agree with you here. However, B&K has some superior bass management (as far as the rest of the industry is concerned) that will easily surpass the flexibility of the Sony you are talking about...Denon is providing this with the 5800 upgrade. You probably already know, but the rest of Denon's xx02 line already has this ability. And every receiver that is capable of AC3, DTS, or multi channel sound of any kind has seperate volume control for each channel level. I don't have any idea why someone interested in what the director intends would have any use for seperate channel EQ.

You obviously have some learning to do about HT, 2 channel music listening, and the gear provided to do both. Before you are so insistent about your claims, you should do some research or listen to others with experience. While I agree that Sony's ES line is good...and in some cases exceptional when it comes to their SACD players, I'm afraid that the receiver you refer to is middle of the road and nothing more. The Sony DA5-ES would be better compared to the Denon 3802, or maybe the 3801 since the 3802 has a few more "bells and whistles."

Jeremy

 

[chung]

Jeremy:

"What other "middle-of-the-road" receiver you know of has THREE DSPs..."

THREE DSPs...Damn, look out HT fans, count 'em THREE DSPs!

Milt, I believe the cheapest of the Denons has 7 or 8 DSPs as well as DPLII, DTS, DD, etc.

Milt is talking about the Sony having 3 DSP's as in digital signal processors, not DSP modes.

I think Milt's point is that for a lot of people, the Sony DA5ES + separate amp is a much better deal than a Denon 5803. I would also agree with you that for those who value the additional features of the Denon 5803 or the Pioneer Elite 49TX, and can afford them, those flagship receivers can be the better choices. It's really up to the individual. I would also think that for serious 2-channel performance, perhaps a separate stereo preamp is the ticket. There are lots of good used ones out there now given that many people are trading in their 2-channel preamps for the HT pre-pros. Those relatively inexpensive 2-channel preamps can very possibly do a better job than the Sony or Denon HT receivers in the analog bypass mode. Just my opinion, though.