Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AV Receivers' started by Gerard Martin, Sep 22, 2006.
Which one would you pick and why. Thanks
A lot of people really like the panny. Pioneer's budget receivers have problems handling difficult loads of power in surround sound. My friend has one, and it shuts off sometimes and he has a tiny room. Can't say on power of the panny though, but it is popular. It is also light due to the Digital amp, and more efficient.
the 1016 on amazon.com is $384 + shipping. i dont see panasonic receivers anywhere near the build quality and reliability of a pioneer budget receivers, they sure as heck arent gona touch the elites.
You don't need a beefy build to support a digital amp, so I'm not sure what that means? The Panasonic digital receivers are very highly regarded budget receivers. In order to pick, I'd need to know what speakers you plan to drive with it.
I recall reading the Pioneer HDMI is only video pass thru - it wont pick up audio from the player; although that seems silly.. edit: and the guy got it wrong. The manual clearly states otherwise
John The speakers are Klipsch, have heard with a sub any brightness the Panny may have can be reduced. Thanks to all for your replies.
seen a couple of Panny users with Klipsch on AVS they seem to have no problems with brightness
Does room/speaker EQ have any appeal to you? If so, the Panny lacks it, the 1016 is in about its 3rd generation of speaker/room EQ with the 1016.
The Panny does indeed touch the Elites. I just sold a Pioneer Elite 56txi. I have also owned the Pioneer 1014 and 1015. The 1016 appears to be plaastic junk in comparison. The face is cheap and cluttered. The Panny has fantastic sound and power. Needs some more features like room EQ. I wanted HDMI so I picked up the Onkyo 604. IMO it easily bested the sound quality of the 1016.
And for those who can wait a few months, the XR58 will be out with some form of EQ.
Oh, Dorian, the 35 pound 1016 is cheap junk compared to the 25 pound Onkyo?
Onkyo is 29 pounds. Pioneer is under 35. I am not a big Onkyo fan but the sq is much better. Have you taken a close look at the 1016? Plastic face with no finish-compared to the 1015 it looks really cheap. I owned the 1014 and 1015-way overrated. I have owned the Elite 41, 816, 1014,1015, and the Elite 56txi(should not have sold). Pioneer overprices their receivers and seriously cut back on the build q of the 1016.
Well just picking between the 2 listed. Pioneer would win hands down just for the fact it has power which the panny lacks. Only 2 things can change a receivers sound tonality. One is it has a frequency area thats accentuated, ramped up in DB for ease of explanation giving it a sonic character. The other is the ability to hold its power on low frequency sounds. That isnt a problem on entry level speakers and small driver, but if your speakers have larger drivers over 5 1/4 and are semi power hungry, that panny aint gonna cut it and even the Pioneer might struggle depending on the setup, but much better than the Panny by a long shot!
Is this based on direct comparison? I have owned all the Panny digital receivers(except the 57) and did do an A/B comparison between the 1015 and the XR55. Power is not an issue. I used the 55 to drive 4 old school 4-way and 4 ohm JBL towers. Panny never shut down nor lacked any punch. Most Panny receivers have been tested to pruduce between 72 to 83 watts per chanel with 5 channels driven. The 1015 produced like 92 watts per with 5 channels driven. You could not perceive the difference. The 1016 does not even use MOSFET amps any longer. I gave the 1016 a look over and it is definately cheaper in the build department compared to the 1016. The 1016 imo is not equal to the hype.
I myself wouldn't pick either of the 2, but based on the 2 and my power needs, the Panny doesn't cut it. Ok, this is where I'm coming from and we have a pretty good debate going on this subject elsewhere. Receivers are all rated totally different as far and power output and no standard has been adopted. Some say the rear panel and or manuals are showing, normal listening levels in power usage, others full usage and full volume before clip. Problem lies in 2 factors, one what is the DB average listening levels, the other it who determines this and a side factor of everyone doesn't have this level as their own preference. You may like lower volumes than I do, hence the reason the Panny drove your system to your likings. That extra 10-14 watts you mention the Pioneer has, based on whatever may be the difference I need. Now the ratings I've seen as to output, really dont mean anything. If you look at how they test, their is no one test that all these people in this field agree with. At this, at that, is starting to lose merit. What we are debating is the whole overall frequency spectrum and its power abilities. We always see posted how one system sounds so much different than the others. Well based on what and amp should be doing, taking the whole frequency realm and amping it equally, there should be no tonal differences. Amps as they go up in power should then only add volume. If there are changes to tonality, then something else must be there doing it. A sonic character built into it, ramping a frequency DB area. Or could be a lack of power? Lower frequencies do take more power, right??? Higher ones do not, right?? If and amp didnt have what I call torque, it cant push the lower frequency driver as easily as the higher one. Tweeter versus mid/woofer, if that the case it would lean bright. Better torque would lean more neutral and very good torque warm. This is without adding in different speakers, using the same ones. Not one test takes into account this type scenerio of volume control versus power. They all equalize the system to whatever DB etc the test is put under. So what I did just to get myself which was looking to pick out a new receiver, was to shun the normal approaches and just listen. I took the same speakers at a CC near here and hooked them up myself to about 8 receivers and drove the sales department nuts. All where flat curve, no extra on bass or treble settings, hooked up right as to + and -. And everything else set as equally as far as setting could be for everything else. NO SUBS ALLOWED ALSO!!! Tried all 8 out, listened hard, didnt look at specs etc til it was over. Funny rated receivers sounded bright. Straight up rated ones were warmer. All were 65-135 rated in some form or the other. 100 plus rated, like the Panny and Pioneer were bright. Harmon Kardon, Marantz and Onkyo were all rated 80 and down and were much warmer in sound. WHY???? Looking now to the specs, Panny and Pioneer are calling out 300+ and lower usage ratings. Based on the amp type and its efficiencies, what power the receiver uses for its system other than the amps, under 20-20000 it works out to 20-49 watts per channel. The others were rated 4 amps up and or 520 watts plus. Works out to 45+ per channel , is this the reason for the warmer sound??? Based on what I'm looking at the Panny's power against the Pioneers would not drive my personal volume level and sound on the Panny would be bright! Make any sense????
John Your ears are the decision maker. I would point out that virtually everyone recommends setting all speakers to Small and redirecting bass to the subwoofer. I might also add that the use of a subwoofer will have an effect on the sound you hear that will probably completely mask differences in the receiver. If it was me, I would definitely go with the Pioneer 1016, set all speakers to small, use a decent subwoofer. If you set speakers to Small, Pioneer will easily drive your speakers. Warm is great, except it usually comes at the expense of clarity.
I'll echo what Arthur S said about the sub, but I would go with the Panasonic myself with the caveat I have not heard the Pioneer, but have owned Marantz and Yamaha previously; gave up a lot in features but the sound of the Panasonic more than makes up for those - and the XR55/XR57 is even better than the older XR25.
Oh yea, no doubt its up to the users in every way. But this was asking which one he should go with. Just the last 2 posts are 50/50 and this little tidbit of info I gave might give him a clearer picture, or go back and make sure his research etc is in order. I used no sub for a trial test so the sub wouldnt impede on the frequency realm and skew what might be its causes. I can say also for sure your crossover setting for the sub plays into all of this. You dont want a crossover of 60, when the system without a sub just doesnt cut the mustard on low frequency. And also, where in frequency does any of these units cut out, have problems etc? That'll leave a gap in sound coverage. And warm at the expense of clarity isnt true, if the avenue I'm pursuing and debating with others works out and its starting to lean that way heavily. Harman Kardons are considered warm by most and this in your implication would mean those are less clear??? He may also be with me and others that wont run a sub listening to music, but on movies, yeah he would. To me subs adds a sound to music that isnt there naturally on most non poppy types of music. Maybe its overkill, then again we dont know, since everyone has different tastes, but having more information isnt a bad thing!
Feisal I prefer the 1016 mainly because it has Room/Speaker EQ. The Panasonic 700 which will come to the US late this year, has EQ, but will cost $600-$700, and the 1016 is $400....
Woops, the Panasonic 700 is looking like it is going to have an MSRP of $1,000!