Why did my 5 year old Onkyo smoke a HK avr310 (1 Viewer)

[Rob TT]

I picked up a HK avr310 open box at Circuit City so I could upgrade to Dolby Digital and DTS. When I hooked it all up I listened to a CD that I'm familiar with, and was very disappointed. My 5 year old Onkyo 434 sounded so much louder and better. Granted the Harman Kardon did a better job for watching movies (because of the Dolby digital) but for overall CD listening, the Onkyo wiped the floor.

 

[ColinM]

Louder usually means better to most people. If you have an SPL meter, make sure you use the same level to compare the two. Don't use tone controls until you're done comparing.

Just my advice, no offense.

Maybe it WAS better...!

 

[Rob TT]

It was louder and sounded better. It was so obvious that my girlfriend had a sad face after listening to it.

 

[Angelo.M]

My brother's 10+ year old Onkyo Pro-Logic receiver (no idea of the model #) eats alive, in 2-channel at least, the H/K 225. We picked one up just to make the comparison one weekend, and there was, indeed, no comparison, even after adjusting with an SPL meter. The sound was, to our ears, both more detailed and more pleasing to the ear, and the 'soundstage' seemed more enveloping.

Onkyo has made some very, very nice stuff over the years. Haven't listened to one recently, however.

 

[JohnSer]

I did not find that to be the case when I replaced my 575X with H/K520. While both amps are rated about the same, the HK seems to produce stronger, tighter bass and slightly cleaner highs. Did the HK wipe the floor with the Onkyo? No, but I do believe the HK is better, especially in 2 channel stereo. Is it an equal comparison? No, price wise the HK is a couple levels up the scale.

Please note, this was not A/B testing and didn't set levels equal with spl meter. I did turn the volume to what I percieved to be same level, and did not go by any volume level indicator. I do try to listen to the detail of different instruments vs how loud it will go.

JohnS

 

[Jonathan_D]

Louder inevitably translates into "better" sound when doing comparisons. Even a difference as little as 1db will do this. To accurately compare, you must do careful level matching. Of course, I've got a sizable chunk of change that says in a well controlled DBT you couldn't tell the difference!

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I believe that the H/K 310 is also quite a few years old as well...

 

[MarkO]

I have a 12 year old h/k AVR 25mk pro logic that sounds better than all the current h/k stuff in Stereo mode. Guess its the price we pay for multi channel digital audio.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Maybe it's the same *total* amount of quality just divided by *more* channels, to give less per channel...

Heck, I still remember a Pioneer SX (something or other) 450 receiver I had over 20 years ago that had a lower noise floor than the last 2 DD/DTS (DD EX/DTS-ES) pre/pro's I've had... But of course, not with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Paul Clarke]

Edit: Original of double post

 

[Paul Clarke]

Perhaps Rob doesn't want to deal with the issue of level matching as he chooses to ignore it in his reply to Colin...or at least makes no effort to clarify. He is entitled to his opinion but this thread is yet another example of the 'hyperbole spiral' which seems to afflict many posts (Mea Culpa, of course). 'Wiped the floor', 'smoked' and the ever popular---'kicked butt' are simply not useful descriptions of anything in audio. Without proper level matching there is no way to compare any 'loudness' aspect of the sound let alone other aspects comprising 'better'.

Let's see...32 lbs of 310 with 60Wx2, 50Wx5 and 4 Ohm capable vs 21 lbs of 434 with 55Wx3 + 20Wx2 and ? Ohm capable. I have no doubt the 434 sounds nice. In its' day it was well reviewed and represented a good bargain. But I seriously doubt its' Stereo performance would ever 'smoke' a 310 in anyones' lifetime. Now how's that for hyperbole?

 

[Rob TT]

No I didn’t use a SPL meter or do any level matching. Actually, be louder isn’t what I was trying to stress, it was how much better the Onkyo sounded with the type of music I listen to which is mostly rock. The Onkyo just filled the room and hit a lot harder than the Harman. I was just surprised because of the reputation that H/K has, that’s all.

 

[JohnSer]

Rob, given the stats Paul supplied, I would have expected the HK to be slightly better, and maybe not noticeable at all depending on room, speakers, and set-up. Hey, what you hear is what you hear, and that is all that is important. I have found that a number of rock recordings, music I loved in the past, be exposed when going to higher quality speakers and amplifiers. Be it speakers or amp or both, the loss of detail benefited the rock recordings. Some of the details became grating and annoying while listening to it better systems.

Hey, look at it this way, it keeps you out of the never ending upgadeitus loop

JohnS

 

[Paul Clarke]

Thanks John for making that point. I was so frustrated last night trying to edit that post I lost track of half my thoughts. I think Rob may well have experienced the disappointment that comes from hearing very familiar music not sound very familiar. I know a lot of my old Rock stuff just doesn't have the same impact and sound with my new equipment...mostly due to speaker changes (all paper to silk and polypropylene) but also the 'laid back' top end of H/K. It took a small period of adjustment to realize I was hearing all kinds of things I hadn't heard before: both new things and old things heard in a different and more detailed way. Hopefully Rob will have the same experience.

 

[Mark Leitch]

I agree that the new receivers sound *much* better than the older receivers... if anyone has some of those nasty old mcintosh, marantz, pioneer, yamaha, and sansui vintage receivers from the 70s (many likely destroyed by playing disco... *extremely* bad for electronics!) please feel free to ship them to me ;-)

(just doing my bit to keep the prices in the vintage marketplace down... ;-)

M.

 

[JohnSer]

Nice try Mark I think it is safe to say all pieces discussed here are from the last decade. There are probably allot of 70's receiver, given in good condition, can beat the current crop in 2 channel. Hey, just doing my part to lower the prices on the slightly used models

JohnS

 

[Angelo.M]

Hey, what you hear is what you hear, and that is all that is important.

Amen. Paul, I respect the specs you've laid out, and they will certainly color one's 'psychoacoustic' response to a particular receiver. If you think heavier is better, than heavier will sound better.

Rob, your mileage will vary. Stick with whatever sounds better to you.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Rob TT

SPL's or no SPL's....

My guess is that the "open box" 310 (and 310 begat 320, which, in turn begat 325) was a returned and defective product. Why else would a receiver that is 2 models removed from the current edition be available?

Doug

 

[Rob TT]

I’m not sure Doug, It just seemed like it was lacking a little bit, especially in the low-end frequencies.