Pioneer Elite SC-57 A/V Receiver Specs

Audio Decoding:
Dolby: TrueHD, Digital, EX, Pro Logic IIx/IIz
DTS: DTS-HD Master Audio, DTS, ES, 96/24, Neo:X, Neural Surround
Other: DSP modes
3D: Yes
THX Certification: THX Ultra2 Plus
Number of Amp Channels: 9
Rated Power (watts per channel): 140 into 8 ohms, two channels driven
Specified Frequency Response: 5 Hz to 100 kHz, +1/–3 dB
Video Processing: Marvell with Qdeo
Auto Setup/Room EQ: MCACC
Dimensions (W x H x D, inches): 17.19 x 7.31 x 17.38
Weight (pounds): 39
Price: $2,100

Inputs: Video: HDMI 1.4a (7), component video (3), composite video (4)
Audio: Coaxial digital (2), optical digital (3), 7.1-channel analog (1), stereo analog (5), phono (1)
Additional: Ethernet (1), USB/iPod/composite video (1), Bluetooth Adapter Port (1), wireless LAN (1), control (1), IR (2)
Accessory: Sirius (1)
Outputs: Video: HDMI (2), component video (2), composite video (2)
Audio: Optical digital (1), stereo analog (3), 11.2-channel preamp (1)
Additional: RS-232 (1), 12-volt trigger (2), IR (1), control (1)

Company Info
(800) 421-1404

(800) 421-1404

curtiswhite's picture

Could pioneer please bring back the black wood trim glossy piano black finish" just like on my vsx-53. That made there receivers stand apart from all of the other brands.

kidd1455's picture

Pioneer is among a small number of audio manufacturers releasing high powered AVRs or amplifiers featuring Class D circuit topology. Among its chief benefits, Class D features a cool-running and energy-saving efficiency that its Class A/B.modern warfare 3

zoetmb's picture

If you use Control and the ARC, then you can't use the analog TV/SAT input. And there's no analog input for Blu-ray so if you want to use HDMI for movies, but analog for CDs, you have to take up another analog input.

Stephen Trask's picture

This is such a great and interesting piece of writing on so many levels. First, I cannot forget your review of the Rotel RMB-1575 and how much your dislike for Class D amplification oozed all over it. So, reading your praise of the sound of this AVR and it's Class D amplification seems to mark a significant step forward for audiophile technology, the environment and and even home decor, as a cooler running amp obviously needs less ventilation. In recording and music distribution, so much of what started off wrong about digital had as much or more to do with the newness of the technology as it did any inherent limitations. Think about the advances in analogue recording from "Please Please Me" to "Abbey Road" and you get a picture of just how much tinkering it takes to make new audio technology sound good. So to read about a company working with outside audio professionals to move this technology forward to the point where a Class D hater actually turns a corner is a major feat and probably just the beginning. I also appreciate the direct link between the ratings and the review. It would seem that the narrow miss from reference quality in sound, if I am reading correctly, has to do with distortion at the low and high ends of the volume curve, thus limiting the sweet spot of perfect sound. Similarly, there are only a couple of fails in the video test bench that seem to cause the likewise reference quality near miss in video performance. This specificity is so great for consumers because it allows us to look at the failings and determine whether or not they apply to our own situation.
I would like to see and predict more cooperation between audio professionals on the recording side of the business and those on the sound reproduction end like this impressive pairing. So many of the breakthroughs in lower priced high end sound and video reproduction that have been entering the market of late are things that the recording field has been working on perfecting for many years. It seems like a very exciting time to be writing about this technology and consumer sector and this review does a great job demonstrating why.

goodfellas27's picture

Pioneer said that this AVR would have their D3 Amp, which they claim it's the most powerful AMP that they have; however, base on the HT test, I don't see that as being true. Their last year model (SC37) had better AMP base on power.

Anyway, the Sc-57 looks to be a better overall AVR, do to sound quality and features. I'm looking forward to their next year model.

Thnks for the good read HT!

Mittchell's picture

I am all for the brushed aluminum finish. It's not a fingerprint & scratch magnet like the gloss black plastic finish is. I don't want my equipment to look like junk by Emerson or DuraBrand from Walmart or something.

The gloss black aluminum finish from the higher end Elite SC-37,SC-35,SC-09tx,SC-27,and SC-25 receivers looks pretty nice but,the cheaper gloss black plastic finish from the regular Pioneer receivers is horrible. They even put the cheap gloss black plastic finish on some lower-end Elite receivers such as the VSX-31 etc.. The plastic is unacceptable to me. Even the cheap sub-$ 200 Pioneer receivers from nine or ten years ago had a better finish than the gloss black plastic.

I would like to see the wood side panels comeback but,I doubt that it's likely.

The biggest cosmetic problem with this year's Pioneer Elite receivers is the way that the clear front display face and the front flip-down cover stick out from the rest of the receiver. I like the flush appearance better.

Scottyb09's picture

Any idea as to how well MCACC performs relative to Audyssey (both in terms of set up and overall results)?

Lab3-007's picture

Just ordered one today having read the specs on just about every receiver on the planet. Needed to have a unit that would drive all my 9 Definitive Technology speakers & 2 subs in the Great Room. Plus, it had to be 3-D ready, be iPhone & iPad friendly, play SACD, have network connections, at least 5, 1.4a HDMI inputs & overall great audio & video performance. This one had it all including the fact that it's a Class D. Anyone out there have the SC-55 or the SC-57? If so, how do you like it & any tips or tricks I should know about?

grillmaster75's picture

Looking for a short education. I know one should listen to and match the receiver to the speaker. Room correction etc. Specs don't often tell the whole story. But comparing the Onkyo 1009 to the Pioneer there are some very similar #'s and some not that close. IE. the frequency response.
–0.05 dB at 10 Hz –0.25 dB at 10 Hz
–0.01 dB at 20 Hz -0.07 dB at 20 kHz
+0.07 dB at 20 KHz +1.00 dB at 20 kHz
–2.63 dB at 50 kHz –1.21 dB at 50 kHz

Onkyo left, Pioneer right. when listening to music would either of these measurements stick out say - this is way better? HT tested 5 channel driven power is close. but there is a $800 difference. can someone send me to a good research link and tell my why the Pioneer is worth the extra $800.
The Grillmaster

ShinezALot's picture


I noticed that on page two third paragraph you mentioned that the FLAC files you tried to playback were not recognized by the SC-57.

I was recently reading the manual for the SC-67 /SC-68 and it says that these recievers will not playback uncompressed FLAC files.

Perhaps this was the reason for the lack of recognition of your files.

Skillman's picture


I know I'm posting this way beyond the published date but just came across this while trolling around reviewing the SC-61. Thanks for a useful review. Re: MCACC, you say, "The MCACC’s subwoofer setup was the best I’ve heard from any automatic software..." But, elsewhere in a review on the SC-61, I read that MCACC doesn't do subs. Is it different for the SC-57?

A review of SC-61 and info on whether they have made improvements on the 57, particularly vis-a-vis Class D3 amplification, would help. Which of the two would YOU recommend? Thank you!