Pioneer Elite SC-57 or ONKYO TX-NR5009

[shar14k]

I was going to sell my Sony STRDA5300ES and replace it with the Pioneer Elite SC-57, but after reading a few post I'm not sure if I should get the Pioneer Elite 57 or the ONKYO TX-NR5009. Any positive input would be very helpful. I purchased a Onkyo receiver over 10 years ago and had problems with it and never purchased another Onkyo since then. I have only had Sony ES receivers since the Onkyo problems.

[lojack1976]

Both receivers are excellent choices. I would suggest that you demo them both if at all possible and decide based on what you hear and the features you need. They both have great power and dynamics, but their sound characteristics do differ. Another thing to consider is the speaker match up. One may be better suited for your speakers over the other so its really important to demo both with your model of speakers if you can. If not then try to demo them with speakers from the same brand and of similar spec.

[shar14k]

I went to a best buy to give a listen but they did not have them set up to listen and I have Anthony Gallo speakers and they don't carry them. But from looking for deals on line, I see a lot of great deals for the Pioneer Elite, almost 1000 less but the Onkyo I dont see any real deals. So it makes it wonder is there a reason a lot of places has the Elite for cheaper. Has there been some problems with the Elite? I would hate to get it and then have a ton of problems or any problems at that.

[LOTR07]

Originally Posted by shar14k

I went to a best buy to give a listen but they did not have them set up to listen and I have Anthony Gallo speakers and they don't carry them. But from looking for deals on line, I see a lot of great deals for the Pioneer Elite, almost 1000 less but the Onkyo I dont see any real deals. So it makes it wonder is there a reason a lot of places has the Elite for cheaper. Has there been some problems with the Elite? I would hate to get it and then have a ton of problems or any problems at that.

I have had mine since before Christmas....i upgraded from the elite 94 to the 57 and have had no issues....solid performer and more bells and whistles than you can imagine....

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by shar14k

I went to a best buy to give a listen but they did not have them set up to listen and I have Anthony Gallo speakers and they don't carry them. But from looking for deals on line, I see a lot of great deals for the Pioneer Elite, almost 1000 less but the Onkyo I dont see any real deals. So it makes it wonder is there a reason a lot of places has the Elite for cheaper. Has there been some problems with the Elite? I would hate to get it and then have a ton of problems or any problems at that.

Those deals that you are seeing online are not from authorized dealers, so the manufacturer warranty is invalid. Pioneer only allows Elite models to be sold at authorized brick and mortar dealers. They do not authorize online sales of Elite products. Gray market sales of Elites that you see online tend to be for considerably less than what you would pay at an authorized dealer.

The upside is that many of these gray market sellers offer their own warranties or provide one through a third party. You also have the option of purchasing your own warranty from various companies such as SquareTrade if the seller doesn't offer a good warranty. You can very well come out saving considerable money by purchasing online.

Onkyo is much looser and allows online sales of its products. You can usually find great deals on many models, but their flagship model tends to maintain its premium pricing. I am an owner of both Pioneer and Onkyo and I've had various models from both companies. Both make excellent products and I've never had a single problem with a product from either brand. Pioneer has been known for high reliability of their products and this is especially so with their Elite products.

There tends to be more reports of problems with Onkyo, but I think that its mostly due to the higher volume of sales versus competitors which means that there will typically be more problems reported. As for my preference I can say that I prefer Pioneer by a slight margin, but I am still a big fan of Onkyo. Being that the SC-57 is cheaper than the TX-NR5009 it would easily be my choice. Even if you decide to stick to authorized dealers the SC-57 would still be cheaper. Of course you may be swayed by the Onkyo if there are other features that you covet. There's also the possibility that you may prefer its sound over the SC-57 which is why its a good idea to demo them both. All in all I doubt that you would be disappointed with either since they are both terrific receivers.

[shar14k]

Thanks a lot for your great feed back lojack1976 you just helped me pick the Elite. I was just a little nervous when I saw the cheaper prices, I was thinking maybe there was a problem with them and I was looking at the Onkyo just because it had the HD radio even though I would prob never use it and because of the 4K scaling. But I think the Elite would be a better unit for me at this time

[nismo604]

XT32 > MCACC, if you don't believe me look at the SVS-EQ1 thread in AVS. Tons of MCACC users having to supplement their AutoEQ with the SVS-EQ1 to get better bass performance. XT32 has the SubEQ (SVS-EQ1 equivalent) built in.

The only thing the Pioneer has that I wish the Onkyo has is Airplay.

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by nismo604

XT32 > MCACC, if you don't believe me look at the SVS-EQ1 thread in AVS. Tons of MCACC users having to supplement their AutoEQ with the SVS-EQ1 to get better bass performance. XT32 has the SubEQ (SVS-EQ1 equivalent) built in.

The only thing the Pioneer has that I wish the Onkyo has is Airplay.

There are many people who prefer Audyssey XT32, but there are also many people who prefer Advanced MCACC. Its all a matter of opinion. Pointing to that one group of users doesn't give their opinion more weight than anybody on the MCACC side.

I've seen both users and experts say Audyssey was superior while other users and experts say that MCACC is superior. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Having SubEQ can be useful, but its certainly not a necessity. I've never had any issues setting up subs with the Pioneer receivers I've owned. Is that an issue that is isolated to SVS subs or just that particular SVS sub?

I like Audyssey...it just works, but Advanced MCACC works too and its much more flexible as it can be tweaked much more. At the end of the day the sound quality, power, and features of each receiver can stand on their own merits. No matter which calibration software is preferred the questions that remain are which sound do you prefer and what value are you getting for your money? These are questions that the OP will have to answer.

[nismo604]

Originally Posted by lojack1976

There are many people who prefer Audyssey XT32, but there are also many people who prefer Advanced MCACC. Its all a matter of opinion. Pointing to that one group of users doesn't give their opinion more weight than anybody on the MCACC side.

I've seen both users and experts say Audyssey was superior while other users and experts say that MCACC is superior. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Having SubEQ can be useful, but its certainly not a necessity. I've never had any issues setting up subs with the Pioneer receivers I've owned. Is that an issue that is isolated to SVS subs or just that particular SVS sub?

I like Audyssey...it just works, but Advanced MCACC works too and its much more flexible as it can be tweaked much more. At the end of the day the sound quality, power, and features of each receiver can stand on their own merits. No matter which calibration software is preferred the questions that remain are which sound do you prefer and what value are you getting for your money? These are questions that the OP will have to answer.

yes it is all about one's preferences and I do like the Advanced MCACC ability to be tweaked, that part I can appreciate. But XT32 is really on a different level, it just took home 2011 Joint accessory of the year from Stereophile. That has to say something, these guys are audiophiles claiming to hear the slightest difference from things such as cables, plus Kal Rubinson who reviewed the product is very well respected.

To the OP if you have the ability purchase both and audition them side by side in your listening enviroment and see which one come out on top.

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by nismo604

yes it is all about one's preferences and I do like the Advanced MCACC ability to be tweaked, that part I can appreciate. But XT32 is really on a different level, it just took home 2011 Joint accessory of the year from Stereophile. That has to say something, these guys are audiophiles claiming to hear the slightest difference from things such as cables, plus Kal Rubinson who reviewed the product is very well respected.

To the OP if you have the ability purchase both and audition them side by side in your listening enviroment and see which one come out on top.

No offense man but every single time a new calibration tool pops up there's always some publication with these audiophiles drooling all over it saying its the best thing since sliced bread. There's always someone that says that the solution that they are reviewing is the best be it Advanced MCACC, Audyssey XT32, ARC, Trinnov EQ, YPAO... and whatever else is out there. Buyers/users get all giddy and purchase the products and talk about how great they are and then after the excitement wears off they realize that none of these tools are perfect.

I've yet to find one solution that I've used that I didn't have to go back and tinker with. There are different things that I like and dislike with all of the solutions I've tried, but none got everything just right. Adding a sub EQ feature is nice, but it doesn't suddenly make it the creme de la creme. And to be real these tools aren't even needed. Many old-school audiophiles would rather measure and set things up manually. These calibration tools are great features that can be good selling points, but at the end of the day they aren't necessary to get best sound from a receiver and you really have to weigh the receiver on its on merits.

Sound quality is not dependent on these tools. They are just there to make things easier. As I have said before the OP may very well prefer the sound of one over the other which is why he should demo both, but neither Audyssey or MCACC is going to change the the sound characteristics of the hardware which is the true basis of what should be judged. If these receivers had the same calibration solution they would still sound considerably different, and only the buyer can determine which one sounds best to him/her.

[aces high]

I'm pretty sure Pioneer changed MCACC to eq the sub now in the SC-55 and 57, no eq below 63hz is no longer the case with the Pioneer. I have no idea how effective it is though so I can't comment one way or the other.

[shar14k]

What do you guys think if the Integra DHC-80.3 compared to the other two receivers

[nismo604]

Originally Posted by shar14k

What do you guys think if the Integra DHC-80.3 compared to the other two receivers

I think you meant the DTR-80.3 as the DHC 80.3 is a pre/pro and you'll need an external amp.

In regards to the Integra DTR-80.3 it is almost the same as the Onkyo 5009 as they are from the same company, Integra is Onkyo's higher end line much like Elite is Pioneer's higher end line. The Integra is geared more towards the custom installer market and as such is only available from select dealers where the Onkyo can be had at B&M stores or online. You'll find the diffences from Onkyo and Integra to be very subtle. Let's take the two you mentioned.

Both have the same torodial amp section, same 32/194 DACs, DSP chips, XT32 and Video processor. The differences are:

Integra DTR-80.3 vs Onkyo TX-NR5009

15 band EQ vs. 7 band EQ - if you're using Audyssey this won't matter

assignable triggers vs. Zone 2/3 triggers - this is a big deal if you're looking at eventually running an external amp. The Integra will be easier to integrate the external amp.

direct audio mode only vs. pure audio and direct audio modes.

2 component outs vs 1 component out

Audyssey Pro Ready vs. No Pro

So as you can see they are almost identical.

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by shar14k

What do you guys think if the Integra DHC-80.3 compared to the other two receivers

Nismo pretty much gave you the scoop on the Integra. Like he said you they will sound damn near identical, but the Integra version is a better built machine with a few more features. One thing that I do like about the Integra receivers is their ability to push stated wattage with all channels driven. Even the Onkyo's flagship TX-NR5009 doesn't do that since the circuit protection kicks in when pushed.

I imagine that the Integra receivers have better power supplies that allow for them to be pushed in that manner since they are not circuit limited like the Onkyo versions. Of course in real world usage you would probably never make the protection kick in on the Onkyo since it can only happen under extreme instances, but its nice to know that you have the added headroom with the Integra. Integras also carry a longer warranty. Now is the added cost worth it to you? That's the question.

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by shar14k

I was going to sell my Sony STRDA5300ES and replace it with the Pioneer Elite SC-57, but after reading a few post I'm not sure if I should get the Pioneer Elite 57 or the ONKYO TX-NR5009. Any positive input would be very helpful. I purchased a Onkyo receiver over 10 years ago and had problems with it and never purchased another Onkyo since then. I have only had Sony ES receivers since the Onkyo problems.

I noticed you mentioned that you purchased an Onkyo receiver 10 years ago and had problems with it. I purchased an Onkyo TX-NR5009 in September 2011 and had too many problems with it and ended up with the Pioneer SC-57 in late September 2011 instead.

Click the following link if you are interested about hearing about my experience with both receivers.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/5578415-post81.html

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by lojack1976

I imagine that the Integra receivers have better power supplies...

Not likely. Service manual parts lists have shown Integra components and their Onkyo counterparts to share all of the same internal parts. The idea that Integra has "better guts" is largely/entirely an AV myth.

AJ

[lojack1976]

Originally Posted by WiWavelength

Not likely. Service manual parts lists have shown Integra components and their Onkyo counterparts to share all of the same internal parts. The idea that Integra has "better guts" is largely/entirely an AV myth.

AJ

The specs of the power supplies say they pull the same wattage, but you can look at any bench testing of Onkyo's and their Integra counterparts and you will see that the Integra versions always push stated power with all channels driven while the Onkyo versions don't because their circuit limiters kick in with more than two channels driven. This indicates that the power supplies are indeed different. I remember that Callas talked to some people over at Onkyo about the TX-NR608 and TX-NR708 which share the same specs regarding their power supplies, but he was told that the power supplies were indeed different which explains why the TX-NR708 is specified for 4ohm use while the TX-NR608 is not. Check out THESE measurements for the TX-NR5008 and THESE measurements for the DTR-50.2. There's definitely a difference in build between them and the DTR-50.2 is not even the flagship TX-NR5008's counterpart. It's lower in the Integra chain.

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by lojack1976

The specs of the power supplies say they pull the same wattage, but you can look at any bench testing of Onkyo's and their Integra counterparts and you will see that the Integra versions always push stated power with all channels driven while the Onkyo versions don't because their circuit limiters kick in with more than two channels driven. This indicates that the power supplies are indeed different. I remember that Callas talked to some people over at Onkyo about the TX-NR608 and TX-NR708 which share the same specs regarding their power supplies, but he was told that the power supplies were indeed different which explains why the TX-NR708 is specified for 4ohm use while the TX-NR608 is not. Check out THESE measurements for the TX-NR5008 and THESE measurements for the DTR-50.2. There's definitely a difference in build between them and the DTR-50.2 is not even the flagship TX-NR5008's counterpart. It's lower in the Integra chain.

No, I am sorry, but your evidence is entirely anecdotal or circumstantial; it proves nothing.

You offer hearsay that Integra uses different, higher quality parts. I offer hearsay that equivalent Integra and Onkyo models use the same parts.

You point to Home Theater bench tests of two non equivalent Integra and Onkyo models. One, that is an irrelevant comparison because they are non equivalent models. Two, Home Theater bench tests produce some strange results. Take a look at the results for two Anthem AVRs:

http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures
http://www.hometheater.com/content/a...-labs-measures

Hmm, the lesser model MRX 300 produces the higher seven channels driven power output. By your (flawed) reasoning, the MRX 300 must have a better power supply than does the twice as expensive MRX 700.

So, produce some service manuals, parts lists, or teardown photos that show differences between equivalent Integra and Onkyo models. Until then, your assertion is just your conjecture, as is mine.

AJ

[nismo604]

Originally Posted by lojack1976

The specs of the power supplies say they pull the same wattage, but you can look at any bench testing of Onkyo's and their Integra counterparts and you will see that the Integra versions always push stated power with all channels driven while the Onkyo versions don't because their circuit limiters kick in with more than two channels driven. This indicates that the power supplies are indeed different. I remember that Callas talked to some people over at Onkyo about the TX-NR608 and TX-NR708 which share the same specs regarding their power supplies, but he was told that the power supplies were indeed different which explains why the TX-NR708 is specified for 4ohm use while the TX-NR608 is not. Check out THESE measurements for the TX-NR5008 and THESE measurements for the DTR-50.2. There's definitely a difference in build between them and the DTR-50.2 is not even the flagship TX-NR5008's counterpart. It's lower in the Integra chain.

He's not going by specs, he's going by part numbers off the service manual. Meaning to repair the Integra it calls for using the same parts that the Onkyo would have. I find the mentioned ACD test an anomoly, my old 805 test benched similar to what the Integras did. I'm curious how the new xx09 series will do.

[lojack1976]

OK....HERE are SoundandVisionMag.com's test results for the Onkyo TX-NR1008 which is the counterpart to the DTR-50.2. As you can see the limiter circuitry kicks in with their testing as well. It can not output the same amount of power as the DTR-50.2 with all channels driven. Integra's don't have circuit limiters. This is a clear indication that they do not share all of the same parts. Yes, there are many similarities but there are some differences as well. HERE is the link to Onkyo's information on the TX-NR1008 and HERE is the Integra info on the DTR-50.2. You can see that the Integra is specified as having two independent power supplies while the Onkyo does not.

I challenge you to look at the bench testing from every single Onkyo you can find and look at the bench testing for the Integras and you will see that all Onkyos employ limiter protection while the Integras don't. You can question Hometheater.com's testing methods if you will, but other reviewers get the same results. Looking at Hometheater.com's testing results for my own Pioneer SC-05 the reviewer mentioned that testing was done several times because there was a strange thing with it outputting more power with all seven channels driven versus with five channels driven. These people are professionals and they do thoroughly test these products.