Pioneer VSX-LX505 AV Receiver Review & Discussion

good review

i had a pioneer receiver a few years back , it was the 11 channel on board one called the SC LX 901 i think. i have to say it sounds like MCACC is still a weak point as neither i nor my calibrator could ever get a truly acceptable result from it although you got much better results than i got on the speaker distances. i suspect owners would be well advised to use DIRAC over MCACC maybe with a UMIK microphone?
 
Unfortunately, the two subwoofer outputs are just a split of the same signal, so it cannot set trim and time align for two subwoofers.

In reality, it means that the x3800 actually offers 3 more subwoofer connections.

This, plus the global crossover, to me are the two things that put me off in this price bracket. Yes, members could use external EQ for multiple subwoofers (e.g. MiniDSP) but still they'd be sending a rolled of 80Hz signal to typically less capable ceiling/height speakers.

Since the AVR-X3300, Denon (and Marantz equivalent) have offered two individual subwoofer outputs and have had crossovers per channel.

That aside, I am really chuffed to see more manufacturers in the UK market place offering us more choice. And I love the look of the Pioneer (and Onkyo) units.
 
Beautiful sell out avforums :) Another review by the "feelings" no measurements, no objective tests, nothing.


Here enjoy the fact, that power limit becomes just 35 watts into 4ohms, and 20 watts into 8ohm after half a minute. As always Pioneer QC is just horrible.
 
Has anybody ever heard a receiver that places objects around the room less precisely than other models?
 
Has anybody ever heard a receiver that places objects around the room less precisely than other models?

I think we have to trust that this is the case don't we? Given that we don't have the resources to directly compare. That's the point in reviews? Or at least absorb them as part of our evidence.
Otherwise, for 7 speakers or less, most of us would just have an x1700. See below:
Post in thread 'Denon AVC 8500A v Pioneer LX704' Denon AVC 8500A v Pioneer LX704
I would love the chance to be able to compare and hear the difference in the precision of the object placement.
 
I think we have to trust that this is the case don't we? Given that we don't have the resources to directly compare. That's the point in reviews? Or at least absorb them as part of our evidence.
Otherwise, for 7 speakers or less, most of us would just have an x1700. See below:
Post in thread 'Denon AVC 8500A v Pioneer LX704' Denon AVC 8500A v Pioneer LX704
I would love the chance to be able to compare and hear the difference in the precision of the object placement.
If an X1700 had all the features I wanted, I think I'd be perfectly happy with one with regards to power and audio quality.
 
Doug, although i did enjoy your review can i ask if you set this up manually without any of the room correction softwares? In other words just using a tape measure and spl meter to adjust the distances and speaker levels to the MLP. This is so that it's not a compare of the room correction softwares and more of how this receiver actually sounds without using any room correction software. Can i ask if this can be done in future reviews of AVRs that they're is a seperate score for with and without room correction applied to the sound quality scores?
 
Beautiful sell out avforums :) Another review by the "feelings" no measurements, no objective tests, nothing.


Here enjoy the fact, that power limit becomes just 35 watts into 4ohms, and 20 watts into 8ohm after half a minute. As always Pioneer QC is just horrible.
Sell out?! Go away you horrible little toad.

Did you join just to troll?
 
I would certainly give this a miss due to the power protection circuit - if those measurements from audio science review are correct.

For a 120w amplifier to hobble itself after 35 seconds if driven in fairly hard, and reduce to 20 watts or so is not acceptable. Secondly, designing it so you have to do a power on /off cycle to reset it, is also not acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the two subwoofer outputs are just a split of the same signal, so it cannot set trim and time align for two subwoofers.

In reality, it means that the x3800 actually offers 3 more subwoofer connections.

This, plus the global crossover, to me are the two things that put me off in this price bracket. Yes, members could use external EQ for multiple subwoofers (e.g. MiniDSP) but still they'd be sending a rolled of 80Hz signal to typically less capable ceiling/height speakers.

Since the AVR-X3300, Denon (and Marantz equivalent) have offered two individual subwoofer outputs and have had crossovers per channel.

That aside, I am really chuffed to see more manufacturers in the UK market place offering us more choice. And I love the look of the Pioneer (and Onkyo) units.

X3800H at 1500£ + ~300£ for Dirac which means just 200£ extra over Pioneer is not that bad for long term considering you get those things you listed and also support coming for DLBC next year. :)

Someone who is cursing the global crossovers but wants Dirac Live at lower price point can also consider Onkyo RZ-50 (1429£) or NR7100 (1249£) without full pre-outs. Aailability pushed to April.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the two subwoofer outputs are just a split of the same signal, so it cannot set trim and time align for two subwoofers.

In reality, it means that the x3800 actually offers 3 more subwoofer connections.

This, plus the global crossover, to me are the two things that put me off in this price bracket. Yes, members could use external EQ for multiple subwoofers (e.g. MiniDSP) but still they'd be sending a rolled of 80Hz signal to typically less capable ceiling/height speakers.
Actually the single sub out wouldn't bother me at all as, provided the subs have variable phase control (and all good ones do), that's 100% fixed in about 5 minutes with a handheld SPL meter with the creation of a single "virtual sub" to present to the AVR.

While a true reference system could cope with a global 80Hz crossover, this is a pretty silly spec for a mid-range Atmos AVR that presumably supports "bouncy house" Atmos enabled speakers. I'm pretty sure that Dolby recommend at least an 150Hz crossover for these. If so, this AVR is dead in the water for the upfiring brigade.

At this price point I would much rather buy the X3800 (or the soon to be discontinued X4700 or X6700) instead.
 
NR7100 (1249£) without pre-outs, but availability pushed to April.
It's a very rare day to correct you Gasp!! :) But for the EU/UK the NR7100 it does have front L/R pre-outs.

Capture.PNG

Capture1.PNG
 
While a true reference system could cope with a global 80Hz crossover, this is a pretty silly spec for a mid-range Atmos AVR that presumably supports "bouncy house" Atmos enabled speakers. I'm pretty sure that Dolby recommend at least an 150Hz crossover for these. If so, this AVR is dead in the water for the upfiring brigade.

Blast from the past! Pioneer should at minium offer two options one for bed layer and another for height layer like example Arcams had in past (not sure about current ones). Pioneer has got this limitation long time what i remember. Thankfully sister company Onkyo RZ-50 / Integra DRX 5.4 products has individual control for crossovers. Three models that otherwise look identical from internal shots and specs.
 
So review which is based on feelings, and that the review "liked" the sound when watching a movie is better, then actual measurements and tests showing flawed amp stage? Amazing
I've just read through the ASR review and the comments on it. Turns out some people think the "problem" identified is not actually a real-world problem. But it will probably assist with the longevity of the product. Even with measurements, people have different opinions on a product, and Doug Pyper has provided his opinion on this product.
 
Beautiful sell out avforums :) Another review by the "feelings" no measurements, no objective tests, nothing.


Here enjoy the fact, that power limit becomes just 35 watts into 4ohms, and 20 watts into 8ohm after half a minute. As always Pioneer QC is just horrible.


Dude it's not a sell out? AV forums do not measure audio equipment so how have they sold out?

It's a shame that the pioneer is limiting power and should be making customers aware; however the reality is in a real world situation, the odds that you are going to put the avr under a synthetic load like this for a prolonged period isnt realistic. engaging after 35 seconds probably allows the full power to deal with dynamic peaks in movies. Again, this should be highlighted and is very poor of pioneer not to mention this; however, the fact that the avr was tested and the power limit was not picked up shows this.

I appreciate you pointing this out for us consumers to see but why you are pointing a finger at avf imo is poor taste.
 
Dude it's not a sell out? AV forums do not measure audio equipment so how have they sold out?

It's a shame that the pioneer is limiting power and should be making customers aware; however the reality is in a real world situation, the odds that you are going to put the avr under a synthetic load like this for a prolonged period isnt realistic. engaging after 35 seconds probably allows the full power to deal with dynamic peaks in movies. Again, this should be highlighted and is very poor of pioneer not to mention this; however, the fact that the avr was tested and the power limit was not picked up shows this.

I appreciate you pointing this out for us consumers to see but why you are pointing a finger at avf imo is poor taste.
I know what you are saying here, but when it comes to analysis of video displays and projectors, AV reviewers do a first class job. Real measurements are used. The reviews are quite extensive showing all the different parameters, pre and post calibration.

When it comes to audio equipment, there is nothing like the depth of review. Not even a simple power output for 2ch meeting the specified distortion.

So yes, there is a discrepancy here, and I would love to see a few more measurements done.
 
I know what you are saying here, but when it comes to analysis of video displays and projectors, AV reviewers do a first class job. Real measurements are used. The reviews are quite extensive showing all the different parameters, pre and post calibration.

When it comes to audio equipment, there is nothing like the depth of review. Not even a simple power output for 2ch meeting the specified distortion.

So yes, there is a discrepancy here, and I would love to see a few more measurements done.


I totally agree with you. This would be a nice addition to existing reviews.
 
This review has me wondering whether we have reached a point with AVRs where the calibration software is more important than the hardware.

I would be interested to hear the views of other forum members of whether they think that is true or not.
 
good review

i had a pioneer receiver a few years back , it was the 11 channel on board one called the SC LX 901 i think. i have to say it sounds like MCACC is still a weak point as neither i nor my calibrator could ever get a truly acceptable result from it although you got much better results than i got on the speaker distances. i suspect owners would be well advised to use DIRAC over MCACC maybe with a UMIK microphone?

I had the model down from that, with 9 channels on board, the LX-701 - and found exactly the same. Was never really happy with its sound, then it wasn’t upgraded to eARC and that spelt the end for me.

Replaced it with an X4700H (which had it’s own issues - namely surround bleed). All moot now as I had to give up my cinema room, but I do keep an eye on these reviews for the day I can have it back…
 
I previously had a Pioneer AVR and while it did sound good, I couldn’t get around the decision to limit crossovers - it meant that a few of my surround / Atmos speakers were obviously set to the wrong crossover. Very odd. Had a much better remote than this one though!
 
Gonna stick with my Denon X8500ha for a few more years I think..not overly fussed about Dirac..
 
This review has me wondering whether we have reached a point with AVRs where the calibration software is more important than the hardware.

I would be interested to hear the views of other forum members of whether they think that is true or not.
That's a really good question and probably worthy of its own thread.

Personally, I think the answer varies hugely by individual. For those that have made poor speaker choices, have speaker placement constraints, can't/won't treat their rooms and/or won't use REW to take acoustic measurements, then room correction software possibly is more important than the hardware as you'll need get a hell of a lot out of it.

Some younger members might be surprised to know that my first three AVRs didn't even have an auto set-up feature, let alone any form of room correction. The general advice back then was to not mess with the signal at all for fear of reducing its quality/fidelity. Optimising/tailoring SQ involved choosing the right speakers to suit the room/space and putting them in the right places. Managing reverb/decay time was done through things like thick carpets, sofas, curtains and bookshelves. That is, if you wouldn't use acoustic panels. Interestingly, in 2023 a great many 2 channel Audiophiles still believe in this old school approach and wouldn't be seen dead with any form of signal processing device in their systems. I also seen several AVF members express preference for their cinema sound with the RC software completely bypassed, or at least limited to deep bass frequencies only.

IMO, deep bass definitely needs to be properly EQ'd but as this is probably most effectively done by using multiple subs with an external EQ device (e.g. 2X4HD) rather than employing an AVR's EQ system. An AVR's software capability is therefore less critical here.

A fundamental limitation of all RC software is that they cannot change reverb/decay time. That can only be done by reducing a room's reflectivity. So the only thing it can do to reduce perceived harshness at high SPL levels from long decay times is attenuate the higher frequencies (e.g. Yamaha's Natural EQ mode) but arguably this throws the baby out with the bath water as it destroys detail in the process.

Anyway, I personally think this forum massively overplays the importance of room correction software and that most people would do well to go back to basics and try and give their RC software as small a job as possible. Anthony Grimani once referred to RC software as SQ polishing tool and we all know what can't be polished.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom