Best A/V receivers FOR MUSIC?

[tac020]

I seem to be in the minority in the current market. I want a receiver that is top-notch for listening to 2-channel music, but will also provide adequate home theater.

Which A/V receivers are known for music? Of course there are the Rotel 1055's and NAD 761's which I'm sure would sound good, but are they going to be noticably better than the Pioneer Elites or Denon 380x's? Of course now I'm changing the original premise of the post and getting into questions of value.

I've even considered getting a garden-variety A/V reciever with preouts and hooking up a 200wpc amp to it for the fronts, but some people thought this might be a waste given the pre-processing of the cheapo receiver. Some of my primary concerns are:

1. Power! I have large floor standers (Paradigm Studio 60's) and I want lot's of it.

2. A warmer sounding receiver. Not bright.

3. Made with 2-channel music in mind.

What to do?

[psonic]

Receivers like B&K (along with NAD, Rotel) seem to musically closer to integrateds & separates than most receivers, and can drive more difficult or larger speakers speakers like yours. The one B&K I listened to ( i think the AVR202), is just superior to stuff like the Denon 3803, etc... NAD is also said to be very musical and looking at NAD's website, http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_re...752_framset.htm the 752 is happy into 2 ohms! I run a NAD integrated in the living room which I am quite happy with. Just make sure you get out and listen to many receivers on similar speakers. You may also want to consider auditioning an integrated amp for a weekend, you may find like me that movies can sound very good in 2ch with the right gear and you don't need the extras, and your music will be top notch.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...&category=14981

http://www.800stereo.com/Merchant2/...gory_Code=nadav

[RGA]

If you are hearing bright now - which is what i assume because you say you don't want bright, then I caution you to look at the speakers not the amp. Some tube amps will soften the highs or take out the grain but then most tubes won't adequately drive the Paradigms.

The NAD and Rotel use a slightly beefier power supply, which is probably why they perform better, but neither male wonderous preamp sections and I would rather buy the lower end receiver say a yammie 1400 or 5660B and add on a power amp...you can always buy a preamp down the road.

Or just run two separate systems. Run the receiver from the tape output of the integrated amp. May have to run two sets of speaker cables. Hassle but it would be a way to go.

I am geenrally unimpressed with receivers for movies and music...does everything nothing particularly well...but sane prices.

Don't assume a Denon is any better than a Sony - from what I heard that is hardly the case. Denon just hoses people living off their name. The 3803 was pretty pathetic when I hear dit IMO. I remember the old AVR 3000 which was truly awful - poor sound and terrible QC. the 3803 well>??? the 3802 is pretty much identical...looks like it's better than 3000 http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2180

Denon's top model is impressive.

Check out the blind auditions of receivers. a little out of date BUT these receiver makers re-badge and remodel the same amps and add one or two features to have an excuse to charge $200.00 for a 2cent chip.

http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_l...category=MULTI

[Woochifer]

If your priority is two-channel, then you should go with a two-channel system. Most AV receivers are made to handle digital format processing and multichannel amplification. Those two tasks by themselves put priority on multichannel digital sources rather than two-channel analog inputs.

Two-channel systems typically have strictly analog controls and analog inputs, and don't have to provide equal power to five or more channels. Plus, due to FTC regulations the specs on stereo amps are closer to their true power output than with multichannel amps (the FTC spec requirements for mono and stereo amps do not apply to multichannel units).

If you want all of the digital format decoding and multichannel output, then you will have to compromise your two-channel performance somewhat if you're talking about identically priced models. Personally, I don't think that the sonic differences between comparably priced AV receivers is all that huge when you're talking about native DD, DTS, or PCM decoding, or in two-channel bypass mode. Most of the difference is in the DSP processing with the effects turned on. As you move up in price class, then you get more receivers that incorporate true analog bypasses, parallel analog bass management and other features that are more geared to two-channel purists. But, those models are more expensive and get pretty close to the price of separates.

With your speakers, the difference in power between receivers is negligible unless you plan to drive those things up to concert levels (with an efficiency of about 87 db, you're talking about very loud levels with just ONE WATT of power). The best thing to do is just go out and do your own evaluations. But, keep in mind that the differences with the speakers and the room acoustics are much bigger than any differences that you would hear between comparably priced receivers.

[Woochifer]

Don't assume a Denon is any better than a Sony - from what I heard that is hardly the case. Denon just hoses people living off their name. The 3803 was pretty pathetic when I hear dit IMO. I remember the old AVR 3000 which was truly awful - poor sound and terrible QC. the 3803 well>??? the 3802 is pretty much identical...looks like it's better than 3000 http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=2180

I think it's a very safe assumption based on the build quality alone. Sony has had power supply reliability problems with several of their recent receiver lines. Denon doesn't "hose people" with their products. Their reliability seems to have slipped somewhat with the two ownership changes they've had in the past couple of years, but it's still a cut above Sony and a lot of the other mass market brands. I don't know where you get this "pathetic" and "truly awful" criteria, since to my ears they really don't sound all that different from competing products. That is, unless you apply those labels to ALL receivers, which would be a gross exaggeraton.

Check out the blind auditions of receivers. a little out of date BUT these receiver makers re-badge and remodel the same amps and add one or two features to have an excuse to charge $200.00 for a 2cent chip.

That's BS. I doubt you'd be able to name me a single receiver model that increased its price by $200 just to add "one or two features" on a "2cent chip." If the year-to-year changes involve adding a feature or two that comes from a processor chip, then receiver manufacturers DO NOT charge one cent more for their newer models than the previous ones. Competition, technological improvemeents, and established price points in the market do not allow for that, unless a company's intentionally out to lose market share, in which case their shareholders would probably revolt. The OEM processor suppliers do continually add new features to their chips, but they don't increase the prices in order to do that.

The only receiver I'm aware of that recently increased its list price was the Denon AVR-3803, which added $100 over the 3802. And the component price difference just by switching the DACs from Analog Devices to Burr-Brown, which the 3803 did, is already more than $100. (talking about $7 per unit versus $15 per unit, and the 3803 uses 16 of them)

[RGA]

I think it's a very safe assumption based on the build quality alone. Sony has had power supply reliability problems with several of their recent receiver lines. Denon doesn't "hose people" with their products. Their reliability seems to have slipped somewhat with the two ownership changes they've had in the past couple of years, but it's still a cut above Sony and a lot of the other mass market brands. I don't know where you get this "pathetic" and "truly awful" criteria, since to my ears they really don't sound all that different from competing products. That is, unless you apply those labels to ALL receivers, which would be a gross exaggeraton.



That's BS. I doubt you'd be able to name me a single receiver model that increased its price by $200 just to add "one or two features" on a "2cent chip." If the year-to-year changes involve adding a feature or two that comes from a processor chip, then receiver manufacturers DO NOT charge one cent more for their newer models than the previous ones. Competition, technological improvemeents, and established price points in the market do not allow for that, unless a company's intentionally out to lose market share, in which case their shareholders would probably revolt. The OEM processor suppliers do continually add new features to their chips, but they don't increase the prices in order to do that.

The only receiver I'm aware of that recently increased its list price was the Denon AVR-3803, which added $100 over the 3802. And the component price difference just by switching the DACs from Analog Devices to Burr-Brown, which the 3803 did, is already more than $100. (talking about $7 per unit versus $15 per unit, and the 3803 uses 16 of them)

Firstly where do you get these prices for DAC chips. 3 years ago Burr Brown had their price lists and not a single chip for a DAC was over $1.50. None. Their basic chip was around .85 and their top was $1.20 and a number in between. So some middle man is doing very nicely if Denon is Stupid enough to pay $15.00 each for a $1.00 chip...and you can be sure they are not the top of the line because that is for the 2k cd player.

Show me the information you have on Sony QC issues compared to Denon...any statistacal facts of this?

The new models right now you are correct are not raising prices because receiver sales are in the toilet and they have to hold or even drop prices just to sell them. LOL all these tube companies are popping up and biting into sales perhaps.

For receiver makers to re-model and re-tool and come out with a better product for the same price means that they are not in fact improving the equipment because the scost would go UP not down anf if their sales don't increase then their profit margin decreases...they won't let that happen so they are probably cutting a corner somewhere else(which won't show up in the literature of course). It may be something smaller like not paying attention to QC, or whatever.

I personally don't feel the money paid for the 3803 is remotely worth what you get back in terms of sound or build. When it can be equalled or betterred by the competition at 2/3 or 1/2 the price then I will use words like grossly infferior, in terms of value it is and value is totally subjective.

[maxg]

The best SS amp I have ever heard playing stereo is a Primare Amp (model SPA 20). Details are at :
http://www.primaresystems.com/swwwin...93&PARENT=1055
No idea on availability in the US. The unit incorporates a bypass function that is simply staggering in its effect.

[Woochifer]

Firstly where do you get these prices for DAC chips. 3 years ago Burr Brown had their price lists and not a single chip for a DAC was over $1.50. None. Their basic chip was around .85 and their top was $1.20 and a number in between. So some middle man is doing very nicely if Denon is Stupid enough to pay $15.00 each for a $1.00 chip...and you can be sure they are not the top of the line because that is for the 2k cd player.

I checked the TI (Burr-Brown's parent company) website a few months ago, and that was the supplier price for the exact DAC chip that goes into the 3803. Burr-Brown does have lower priced DAC chips available, but those are different models from the one that's inside the 3803. Whether that's changed in the last few months, I don't know.

Show me the information you have on Sony QC issues compared to Denon...any statistacal facts of this?

A couple of friends of mine worked at audio shops that have moved hundreds of those units over the years. If they wanted to make it a statistically signifcant study, that would have been a large enough sample, provided that the production runs that the models came from were sufficiently randomized. Compared to the Denons, the Sonys have always had higher failure rates and some specific models had VERY high failure rates. They made a point of steering customers away from Sony because of these quality inconsistencies. The problems most frequently occur in the power supply. Want more indicators? Just look at the reports from owners who log onto the review site.

http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Recei...x.aspx#reviews
http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Recei...x.aspx#reviews
http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Recei...x.aspx#reviews
http://www.audioreview.com/A-V,Recei...x.aspx#reviews

The new models right now you are correct are not raising prices because receiver sales are in the toilet and they have to hold or even drop prices just to sell them. LOL all these tube companies are popping up and biting into sales perhaps.

For receiver makers to re-model and re-tool and come out with a better product for the same price means that they are not in fact improving the equipment because the scost would go UP not down anf if their sales don't increase then their profit margin decreases...they won't let that happen so they are probably cutting a corner somewhere else(which won't show up in the literature of course). It may be something smaller like not paying attention to QC, or whatever.

Tubes? Yah right!

The point that you're missing is that these price points have held steady for more than a decade! In the meantime, the technology with both the electronics AND the manufacturing processes have changed radically (just think back to the computer that you were using 10 years ago). THAT's why receiver manufacturers can continually update their products and still make a profit without cutting corners on performance (whether or not they actually do is a different question, but it still contradicts your assertion of an inevitable downward spiral in quality as new features get added to receivers from year to year). And I can tell you that the receivers that are made right now are a helluva lot better than what I was trying out in the early-90s. Given that all of these manufacturers compete with one another, I doubt that it would make wise business sense to stand pat and not update their products. If one manufacturer takes advantage of improved manufacturing processes and commodity prices by putting more features or higher spec parts into their receiver, would it be wise for a competing company to just crank out the same product and fatten their profit margins? Maybe in the short term, but for long-term market share, that would suicidal.

Manufacturers can provide more for the same money because electronics have always been about continual commodification of high technology. Features like digital format decoders that used to cost hundreds of dollars just for the processor chips, are now found in $30 DVD players. In the tech industry as a whole, the trend has always been constant product updates, higher performance, and lower prices.

At one point, transistors were as coveted and premium priced as high end microprocessors are now. By your logic, component prices don't go down as technology progresses, adding new features to processor chips must always costs more money, manufacturing productivity does not increase from year-to-year, competition does not drive continual refinement and improvement of products from year to year, and manufacturers do not comparison shop on the commodity markets to find the best balance between OEM supplier quality and price. Of course, these are false assumtions.

Computer manufacturers retool and reintroduce models on a constant basis (just last year, Dell changed their midlevel notebook model three times), adding new features and increasing performance while continually lowering prices. What makes revising receivers every year any different?

[RGA]

This is what I mean to say, the chips are cheaper now than they were so denon and the like can buy the processor that used to be in their 2k model for half the price so now they can put that processor in the cheaper model. Trickle down, B&W claims the same as do most companies.

Denon's 3803 is better than Sony it should be at 4 times the money...the 3803 goes for what? $1500.00CDN? or around there give or take $200.00Cdn. 2 dealers here have dropped Marantz and Denon for poor QC Marantz at several dealers for atrocious customer service.

Having customers wait 3-4 MONTHS for a repair is kind of tough for the retailer because even though it's not their fault the customer is mad and may never go back to the retailer(which means the retailer can't sell the possible Bryston Power amp to the guy down the road).

And since there is NAD for less money and superior build and maybe better sound, well it;'s not tough for the dealer to say screw it dump Marantz/ Denon and bring in a competant outfit. Sony of course isn't their amplifiers are generally crap through and through.

Just noting that Denon, IM experience is vastly overrated or I should say Overpriced. A&B sound carries both Denon and Yamaha and Marantz. And from just the feel and geenral build(not even listening) the Yamaha looks and feels like something resembling a quality amplifier. Yamaha seems to have less gadgets but it seems better constructed.

I have never heard any dealership since I've been following this ever complain about Yamaha for QC or customer service. And since Yamaha offers amps in the same price range and likely has the same quality surround sound, then IMO it should be obvious which of the two one should get.

Generally I don't see people complain about lackluster power like I have read with Denon. The Hi Fi choice reviewers salvate over the big Denons but the 3802 was noted for poor surround power. For that kind of money there shouldnbe no issue with power. Of course they also knocked a Yamaha for other reasons http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1014

My own experience is that the Onkyo models I hear very little about but they also seem minimalist and solidly built and actually sound pretty good for low dollars.