Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4

    Question what receiver to choose ?

    Hello again !

    I have an option to purchase one of these:

    Kenwood KRF-V4070D ~210$
    Sony STR-DE485 ~220$
    Yamaha HTR-5630 ~260$

    All new, same warranty, same store.

    Would be used with pair of shelf (~55W) + pair of floor (115W) + cheap sub (80W) to listen to modern, jazz or classic (Nothing loud and floorshaking tho) in a medium-size room(25m2).

    I don't care much about Prologic II, or other standards, don't think I'll watch DVD with this system, pure music system.

    I'm mostly looking for crystal clear sound, quality manufacturer & parts, something that would serve me for next 5 years with possible shelf speakers upgrade and center purchase.

    What would you recommend; I'm aware of technical specs and fully convenient with'em in all cases. Again not looking for floorshaker but for solid power horse. So if you had experience with these systems models (and brands) I would be glad to read your comments and suggestions for purchase.

    What really digs and whats cool about these brands. Total new to all receivers thing so I dont really know much technical terms.

    Thank you
    =========

  2. #2
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Out of the 3 you mentioned, I'd say it would be about a toss up. Maybe a slight edge to the Yamaha in this case. You really sound like your on the fence with 5 channel, on one hand you say no DVD, then you mention a possible center channel. If you like jazz and classical, my suggestion is to forget a receiver and buy a nice little integrated amp from the likes of Creek. Arcam is good but i don't know where their entry price is anymore. I haven't heard them but Cambrige Audio has some budget priced gear and I haven't heard anyone complain. I'm not a NAD fan but I guess they would also be a consideration. I find NAD very thin sounding in comparison to the British integrated amps. The receivers may seem louder but the small integrateds I suggested will give you a big step up in clarity, detail and overall sound quality. If you even think a little bit you might want 5 channel a receiver is probably your best bet unless you are willing to spend far beyond the options you listed. You might keep in mind to buy a receiver with pre amp outs for possible upgrades in amplification.

    You might check www.spearitsound.com demos/used/close outs link for some possibilities. I usually see some Rotel receivers on there that may offer a happy medium. Also several brands of integrated amps. They're good about answering emails if you have any questions.

  3. #3
    DIY Dude poneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    TX, USA
    Posts
    677

    I agree with Mr. Peabody

    You mention multiple speakers but then say you don't care for 5.1 systems and probably will not use it for DVDs. I too recommend 2 main speakers for stereo reproduction and a sub to relieve the amp of producing the lower frequencies. An integrated amp or stereo receiver would better meet your needs from your post. Yamaha, Harman Kardon, Kenwood all make some decent stereo receives. An integrated from the likes of creek, arcam, outlaw audio would be a step up.

  4. #4
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4
    well i actually dont want to buy used stuff but new Hi-Fi is out of my budget
    I think receivers mentioned are good to start with so i'm looking for reliable stuff for next couple of years and since i have no previous experience with receivers some general overview would be great

    Anyway thanks for your input!

  5. #5
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    You are backing me into a corner. The Cambridge Audio integrated amps aren't much more than what you are looking to spend. Here's my "backed into a corner" opinion, like I said before, for those 3 it's really a toss up but I don't like Sony's (non ES) receivers, they have no balls. Yamaha some how has a good reputation, I think they lack bass detail, but so do most receivers. Kenwood is a good bang for the buck. I've sold and owned Kenwood in years past. They make excellent tuners. Their gear was pretty reliable but sometimes had quarky problems. Stuff that you really didn't want to do without your receiver to get fixed but aggrevated the mess out of you. You should go with the one that offers you the features you want and see if you can hear any difference. I gave a slight edge to Yamaha because I feel out of the 3 they are probably the most reliable and may offer a little more clarity. See if any of them offer pre amp outputs, that would be my deciding factor. With pre outs you have the option of adding a power amp in the future.

  6. #6
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    You want an honest opinion?

    Since your main intent is good oled 2 channel stereo, then your bucks would be better spent on a two channel amp/receiver.

    I know your aprehension about buying used and I can agree when dealing with unknowns like on ebay. This site, http://saturdayaudio.com/ , however, has some great stuff on their used pages that will suit you perfectly. They have been around for years, guarantee thsir stuff and know hoew to pack and ship. I've bought from them myself. I see some NAD, Denon and Pioneer stuff on there that should pique your interest.

  7. #7
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Look for the NAD 320bee - it's a better than usual NAD which was already better than the three you list esecially in build construction.

    The trouble is this amp retails for $220.00 British Pounds - I don't know how that converts to US but even then they typically pump the price up a bit on top of that. But certainly worth a look and listen anyway. http://www.nadelectronics.com/review...02_framset.htm

    You should be able to get the Cambridge A300 for about $230.00US. -- It's tough to tell exactly but it is a nice little entry level unit and the entire Classic series has been retained because they're very nice. http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/classicseries/a300.html But the Nad is probably better - it has had a lot of raves lately.

    However you would need to buy a tuner with any integrated amp. IMO this is where you get another big advantage - you can trot down to any pawn shop and get a very nice tuner that will probably be better and no worse than the tuner in a receiver for $20.00. I picked up a Yamaha tuner for $29 CDN that retailed 4 years prior for $300.00. Then I traded the Yamaha in for my speakers and got $90.00 for it. Tuners have no moving parts(digital ones anyway) and are the safest thing you can buy used.

    Frankly I would buy used - I got my Sugden for $400.00Cdn or around $250.00US back when the exchange rate wa s abit different ~2yrs ago. It retailed for 2k. Sure it's got some mileage but the build construction is so good I would bet it outlasts and currently sold receiver from the three brands you list - and very likely sounds better - certainly the ones I heard. I understand the thrill of new though so try NAD and Cambridge Audio - otherwise I would take whichever receiver offers the features you like for the lowest possible money. So in your case the Kenwood.

  8. #8
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Gotta agree with RGA here...In the last 2 years I've bought 2 used Marantz receivers, an Adcom power amp, Rotel integrated amp, and an Arcam integrated amp all used. They were all in perfect condition and I made money selling the Marantz receivers (still use the other 3).
    Generally I find the audio community treats their gear better than their kids. You can get far more bang for your buck if you buy used.
    If you are interested in a solid 2-channel stereo system, scrap the HT receiver ideas for now, or at the very least, find one with pre-outs. No use paying for 5 channels of output and all the processing stuff if you'll only use 2 pairs of speakers.

  9. #9
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4

    Smile

    I have rechecked technical specs of these models and what i discovered was that in surround mode Kenwood has 5x50W, Yamaha 5x60W and Sony is 5x80W
    Now, i have 80W sub and I want to get good floor speakers (at least 100W). and most of "entry-level" receivers today are at least 100W in surround

    I am very confused because many people say the real (or so called effecient) power specs are 50% lower that manufacturer says, if so how to check the REAL power output?
    If i never listen to loud music and volume is usually at 20-30% would i ever need the whole 80W? Can you explain that please or give a good link for this info
    And if in surround mode receiver gives 5x80W it would give the same power per channel in stereo, as far as i understand.

    Also is this correct that if i'll listen to music using 5.1 receiver the quality would be way lower than with stereo amp ?? or the stereo would only give me more power (that I probably don't need). I mean what is wrong with using 5.1 receiver just to listen to music?
    Also i have seen not a big price difference between stereo and 5.1 amps from same manufacturers, so why to go for less from the start ?
    unfortunately all the great hi-fi amps you have mentioned are not available at stores and i dont want to order from the internet.

    Thanks for helping!!

    p.s. my old good shelf speakers are 6 Ohm how receiver can affect them if it works in 8 Ohm mode.
    Last edited by Kurt04; 05-13-2004 at 02:59 PM.

  10. #10
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurt04
    I have rechecked technical specs of these models and what i discovered was that in surround mode Kenwood has 5x50W, Yamaha 5x60W and Sony is 5x80W
    Now, i have 80W sub and I want to get good floor speakers (at least 100W). and most of "entry-level" receivers today are at least 100W in surround

    I am very confused because many people say the real (or so called effecient) power specs are 50% lower that manufacturer says, if so how to check the REAL power output?
    If i never listen to loud music and volume is usually at 20-30% would i ever need the whole 80W? Can you explain that please or give a good link for this info
    And if in surround mode receiver gives 5x80W it would give the same power per channel in stereo, as far as i understand.

    Also is this correct that if i'll listen to music using 5.1 receiver the quality would be way lower than with stereo amp ?? or the stereo would only give me more power (that I probably don't need). I mean what is wrong with using 5.1 receiver just to listen to music?
    Also i have seen not a big price difference between stereo and 5.1 amps from same manufacturers, so why to go for less from the start ?
    unfortunately all the great hi-fi amps you have mentioned are not available at stores and i dont want to order from the internet.

    Thanks for helping!!

    p.s. my old good shelf speakers are 6 Ohm how receiver can affect them if it works in 8 Ohm mode.

    First ignore the watts - you cannot match watts to watts like worrying that a speaker says 100 watts and the amp says 100. Irrelevant!

    Plus NAD is usually very conservative - the NAD Bee is capable of 400watts into 1ohm - the receivers would blow up(err shut down) if faced with a 1 ohm load.

    And if you're running two speakers who cares what it does with 5 speakers.

    The sensitivity of your speakers will tell you more, geenrally, about how loud your speaker can play and what kind of amp you need.

    For instance my Wharfedales are 95db sensitive with 1 watt. With just 1 watt of power they will play to 95decibals(volume level) at 1 meter away from the speaker. 90decibals is considered loud - so most of the time you won't go much past 1 watt on my speakers. BTW your volume knob isn't really connected to watts - or it is easier not to relate the two).

    Lets say you are a partier. I have say a 50 watt amp connected to my speakers.

    For each doubling of the watts starting at 1 watt you get a 3decibal increase in volume.

    So:
    1watt = 95db
    2watt = 98db
    4w = 101db
    8w = 104db
    16w = 107db
    32w = 110db
    64w = 113db( but we ran out because we had a 50 watt amp so it's probably around 111db).

    Now let's say you have a speaker rated at 87db(standard) and a 150 watt amp.
    1w = 87db
    2w = 90db
    4w = 93db
    8w = 96db
    16w = 99db
    32w = 102db
    64w = 105db
    128w = 108db
    256w = 111db

    What does the above story tell you? You would need a 256watt per channel amp with an 87db speaker to get the same loudness I can get with a 50 watt amp and 95db speaker.

    But you know what most speakers can't handle more than 150 watts so in reality the 87db speaker with a max acceptance of 150 watts can only play to about 109db. Where as my Wharfedale with 175 watts can keep going out to about 117db. A difference of 10decibals is twice as loud to the human ear.


    The difference between a 50 watt amp and a 100 watt amp is 3 decibals. 3 decibals is virtually unnoticable and only if you push it to maximum anyway.

    Recevier makers make such lousy sounding products that they go out of their way to advertise the huge watt numbers because they have nothing else to sell.

    There are multi-thousand dollar 3 watt tube amps ---- get the first watt right and a couple to spare and that is all that is required - provided you have low watt friendly speakers.

    The Sugden A21a is the longest continuous selling integrated amplifier in the woirld selling since the 1960s and has had a 3 upgrades over this time. The newest upgrade occurred in 1989 and is probably the best amplifier under $2000.00US($1500.00 is the price). It is a mammoth 25Watts and will drive 98% of speakers brilliantly.

    You mention impedence - this too is largely meaningless because you need to know the minimum impedence and how big the swing is - not always provided by speaker makers. A speaker dips and dives so while it may be a nominal impedence of 8 ohms it may have a minimum of 3ohms and a max of 33ohms. The minimum number makes it more difficult for an amp.

    Receivers are generally horrible at below 4 ohms because they have poor power supplies - some less scrupulous reciever makers like Harman Kardon state nonsense like "High Current" so their amps can drive those speakers better - it's BS but BS works. The fine print will state instantaneous peak current but even a Sony can do that. - But put a nice flahsy dial on it and run a marketing campaign and people will spend four times as much.

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    To sum it up...if the first watt isnt any good then anything after that wont be any good.
    That first watt goes a long way

  12. #12
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    First ignore the watts - you cannot match watts to watts like worrying that a speaker says 100 watts and the amp says 100. Irrelevant!

    Plus NAD is usually very conservative - the NAD Bee is capable of 400watts into 1ohm - the receivers would blow up(err shut down) if faced with a 1 ohm load.

    And if you're running two speakers who cares what it does with 5 speakers.
    While I agree with your basic premise that the wattage spec is irrelevant for normal listening, you're sure as hell bringing a lot of nonsensical tangents into discussion. I mean, what speakers would anybody use with a nominal impedance of 1 ohm, especially if the consumer is looking for an amp in the sub-$300 range?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Recevier makers make such lousy sounding products that they go out of their way to advertise the huge watt numbers because they have nothing else to sell.
    Let's not resort to reckless generalizations. Just add a tuner to NAD amps and they would suddenly become "such lousy sounding products that they go out of their way to advertise the huge watt numbers because they have nothing else to sell."? I mean, the difference between a receiver and an integrated amp is just the tuner, right? I don't think that adding that tuner suddenly turns an otherwise solid amp into the audio antichrist that you seem to think receivers are. I mean, most of the Yamahas sold overseas are integrated amps, are they THAT much worse here just because a tuner was added?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The Sugden A21a is the longest continuous selling integrated amplifier in the woirld selling since the 1960s and has had a 3 upgrades over this time. The newest upgrade occurred in 1989 and is probably the best amplifier under $2000.00US($1500.00 is the price). It is a mammoth 25Watts and will drive 98% of speakers brilliantly.
    What does this braggadocio about yet another company whose products you own have to do with a discussion about receivers in the sub-$300 range? And what's the 2% of speakers that "the longest continuous selling integrated amplifier in the woirld selling since the 1960s ... best amplifer under $2000.00US" cannot drive "brilliantly"?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Receivers are generally horrible at below 4 ohms because they have poor power supplies - some less scrupulous reciever makers like Harman Kardon state nonsense like "High Current" so their amps can drive those speakers better - it's BS but BS works. The fine print will state instantaneous peak current but even a Sony can do that. - But put a nice flahsy dial on it and run a marketing campaign and people will spend four times as much.
    Oh brother, just provide some simple advise and lose the soapbox rantings. And what's your proof that "people will spend four times as much" because of a flashy dial and a marketing campaign? Are you some kind of expert on consumer spending patterns?

    The speakers in question have a nominal impedance of 6 ohms, why would a "horrible below 4 ohms" receiver not work for that? I agree that with a system that won't be used for home theater, a two-channel amp of some kind is the better option. The circuitry remains in the analog domain, the interior of the chassis has a lot less potential for interference, and heat buildup is not as much of an issue. Why not just make that recommendation and lose all the rhetorical excess? It would make your argument a lot more credible than something peppered with all these nonsensical tangents.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurt04
    I have rechecked technical specs of these models and what i discovered was that in surround mode Kenwood has 5x50W, Yamaha 5x60W and Sony is 5x80W
    Now, i have 80W sub and I want to get good floor speakers (at least 100W). and most of "entry-level" receivers today are at least 100W in surround

    I am very confused because many people say the real (or so called effecient) power specs are 50% lower that manufacturer says, if so how to check the REAL power output?
    If i never listen to loud music and volume is usually at 20-30% would i ever need the whole 80W? Can you explain that please or give a good link for this info
    And if in surround mode receiver gives 5x80W it would give the same power per channel in stereo, as far as i understand.

    Also is this correct that if i'll listen to music using 5.1 receiver the quality would be way lower than with stereo amp ?? or the stereo would only give me more power (that I probably don't need). I mean what is wrong with using 5.1 receiver just to listen to music?
    Also i have seen not a big price difference between stereo and 5.1 amps from same manufacturers, so why to go for less from the start ?
    unfortunately all the great hi-fi amps you have mentioned are not available at stores and i dont want to order from the internet.

    Thanks for helping!!

    p.s. my old good shelf speakers are 6 Ohm how receiver can affect them if it works in 8 Ohm mode.
    Gotta agree with the others, you should be looking at two-channel amps or receivers, not home theater receivers. Home theater receivers are a great option if you intend to use your system for both audio and video, and want multichannel digital format decoding. If you don't want that functionality, then stick with two-channel options.

    The wattage claims can go all over the map, and keep in mind that there are no consistent standards for how those ratings must be reported (this is a loophole in the FTC regulations). Stereo and mono receivers and amps have to report their wattage based on a very stringent lab test, multichannel receivers and amps do not. That's why the specs won't be comparable.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with using a 5.1 receiver for two-channel music, it's just that you're better off dedicating your ~$300 budget to a two-channel amp or receiver. Two-channel receivers don't include any digital decoding circuitry or video switching devices. Those are always included with 5.1 receivers, and potentially generate heat and noise. A lot of 5.1 receivers also have to convert all incoming analog signals to digital and then back to analog because the volume, level, and tone controls are all done in the digital domain. Two-channel receivers keep the signal paths in analog and avoid redundant signal conversions, and the interior layout is a lot simpler. If you want to connect your digital sources to the amp digitally, then the 5.1 receivers are what you want to go with.

    The reason you don't see a huge price difference between two-channel and 5.1 receivers is simple economies of scale. Most of the market has shifted to multichannel, and because those products are produced in high volume, they can be sold for lower prices. Demand for two-channel receivers and amps has been greatly reduced, and prices have not gone down the way that they have with multichannel. Because of reduced demand, Yamaha has not made any changes to its two-channel receivers in about four years, and I think Denon's done the same thing.

  14. #14
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Actually, 3db is very noticeable difference because a 3db gain is exactly double. I would have to double check my PA bible but I seem to recall it takes about 10 times the power to get a 3db gain.

    A "real" power rating is usually given in RMS. Peak power is the rating a receiver can only produce during very short spirts or in some cases, when lightning strikes it. The lightning thing was a joke. You should use your ears and not the spec sheets. There is so much more that goes into good sound. Watts really has very little to do with it. I can understand you trying to match a receiver to your speakers but usually what blows speakers is people not being able to hear when their signal begins to clip (sound distorted) and this causes speaker damage.

    5 channel don't necessarily sound worse than 2. In terms of just sound quality, it should be the same. I mean you have 5 identical amp sections. I think the problem is that music isn't recorded or mixed originally in 5 channel so the 5 channel music is some type of remix or remaster to create 5 channels which some say gives the music a unrealistic feel and sound stage. I'm out on a limb here because 5 channel music is something I have not experienced.

    If you just turned those 3 receivers on without knowing the power rating, I'd venture to say you wouldn't tell much difference. Here's an example of why you need to listen. I took my son looking for his first receiver a few years back and he only had about $150. We looked at a Pioneer 2x100w for right at $150. and compared it to an Onkyo rated at 2x50w. The Onkyo blew the Pioneer away. It had more slam and a more powerful sound. It done that by producing more current. My son borrowed another $30. from me and bought the Onkyo. I don't want to add to your confusion, just go and listen to these 3, you seem to be set on one of them, and get the one that sounds best to you.

  15. #15
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Let's not resort to reckless generalizations. Just add a tuner to NAD amps and they would suddenly become "such lousy sounding products that they go out of their way to advertise the huge watt numbers because they have nothing else to sell."? I mean, the difference between a receiver and an integrated amp is just the tuner, right? I don't think that adding that tuner suddenly turns an otherwise solid amp into the audio antichrist that you seem to think receivers are. I mean, most of the Yamahas sold overseas are integrated amps, are they THAT much worse here just because a tuner was added?
    Actually in the case of Yamaha their receivers and Integrateds sound almost identical - But that says more about Yamaha than it does about all integrated versus all receivers. NAD receivers sound quite good but they are more money than than the 320Bee. The latter is still better than their receivers. I would take a NAD reciever over the Yamaha integrated for what it's worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    What does this braggadocio about yet another company whose products you own have to do with a discussion about receivers in the sub-$300 range? And what's the 2% of speakers that "the longest continuous selling integrated amplifier in the woirld selling since the 1960s ... best amplifer under $2000.00US" cannot drive "brilliantly"?
    hmm - talking about power to illustrate that indeed a 25 watt amp is probably ALL anyone would ever need to drive their speakers to a make you deaf volume. Unless you own 85db 2ohm loudspeakers - or badly designed speakers with huge poer sucking crossovers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Oh brother, just provide some simple advise and lose the soapbox rantings. And what's your proof that "people will spend four times as much" because of a flashy dial and a marketing campaign? Are you some kind of expert on consumer spending patterns?
    gee bright boy do they not sell receivers that cost 4 times what he listed - presumably HK etc are not stupid they don't build thousands of units to sit on store shelves.


    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    The speakers in question have a nominal impedance of 6 ohms, why would a "horrible below 4 ohms" receiver not work for that? I agree that with a system that won't be used for home theater, a two-channel amp of some kind is the better option. The circuitry remains in the analog domain, the interior of the chassis has a lot less potential for interference, and heat buildup is not as much of an issue. Why not just make that recommendation and lose all the rhetorical excess? It would make your argument a lot more credible than something peppered with all these nonsensical tangents.
    In your opinion perhaps - and nominal impedence is not minimum impedence. Plenty are 3ohms which even with my CHEAP DM 302s(nominal 8 ohm) sounded quite bad with many receivers at fairly high prices - and not bad with far cheaper integrateds with less watts but a good transformer and higher quality. The tangents make perfect sense to those who know and appreciate good amplifiers over receivers.

  16. #16
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    In general, I have to disagree with the Woochster here. Although Yamaha intergrated to Yamaha receiver may not sound greatly different, usually even mass market companies try to give better sound with their integrated amps. I would tend to agree on your NAD statement. However, the British integrated amps are far superior in sound quality than a receiver. Give a listen to the $500. Creek. I would take it for sound quality over any receiver costing 4 times as much. I had a Kenwood integrated amp years ago that I know Kenwood has never built a receiver that would even come close the KA-3300 integrated. In most instances, it is not true that an integrated is just a receiver minus the tuner. Audio is like law, there always seems to be an exception. When Krell put a tuner in it's 300i integrated and called it a 300r receiver, that would seem to disprove my point, however, the 300r was about $1,000. more. You don't get something for nothing. So when companies go packing in tuners, DAC's and other crap into the same box and sell it for $250. something has to give and it's usually cutting corners on power supplies and quality parts that are crucial to good sound.

    I have yet to hear an efficient speaker that sounds good. Somehow efficiency seems to be a trade off for impact and bass response. I haven't heard Audio Note, they may be the exception. But if you check the next time you are on line or in a hi fi store you will see it is rare to find a speaker much above 90db SPL or efficiency rating.

  17. #17
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I'm the reverse - generally have not heard less sensitive speakers that are any good.

    Efficiency is ease of load - sensitivity is the ease related to volume. The former is important for SETs or any low powered amps.

    There is usually a give with bass depth - but usually is not always the case - and you gain a ton in the way of dynamics. The slim liners dream about how instruments should actually sound. But even then there are some exceptions - Dynaudio is one.

  18. #18
    AR Newbie Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4
    Many thanks for all people who replayed and special thanks to RGB for detailed "ignore the watts" post. You guys/girls are great! i can now only imagine how much trouble would be for me to choose good pair of floor speakers luckily it's easier to listen and decide but they are so many manufacturers

    anyway thinking of below 250$ 5.1 receiver (i'm now sure stereo is not an option after checking the availability) between three models i would go to yamaha as they have a good name in receivers or sony as they have a good name in home electronics (i have several sony devices and no regrets ever).
    Kenwood has a huge 0.7% THD comparing to yamaha 0.1 and sony 0.09 - this cannot be not important right? +sony has 32bit full DSP
    I just dont know, people all around say sony is not good but dont explain why, maybe its just a bad name nobody mentioned bad sound quality or bad parts/labor quality. i am VERY curious about opinion of people who actually ever used Sony receivers.

  19. #19
    Datarush datarush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    23

    Lightbulb Still another idea..

    Panasonic SA-HE100 is right around your price point and was Consumer's Best Buy 11/03. Never heard one although Circuit City had them last time I noticed. Typically you can do much worse than taking their advice.

    I use a Kenwood VR-505 for my computer sound system since it can output a digital signal, and it works fine for that, driving a pair of NHT Super Ones and sending lows to an Infinity subwoofer. Kenwood is sort of the People's Receiver, they have THX Select Receivers priced way under any other brand. I used their VR-309 for a couple of years in my theater, and in its time was the Cheap Thrill reference receiver that Home Theater mag used for comparisons. Kenwood speakers, on the other hand, are almost always crappy.

    There's some evidence that Yamaha is making the best quality major brand receiver at this moment in time. Not always, not forever, just for now. The references I recall regarded their mid and high end receivers, don't know if it extends to their entry level. Don't ask for proof its just in my head from digesting bleeps and blurbs from lots of sources. It convinced me enough to get an HTR-5790, so I put my money on it. Some makes like Sony and Marantz have gotten into trouble recently with LOTS of bad components in certain models. Sony still makes good stuff but they've also whored out their good name on crap in the last few years.

    Good luck finding good cheap, er.. inexpensive components.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kurt04
    Many thanks for all people who replayed and special thanks to RGB for detailed "ignore the watts" post. You guys/girls are great! i can now only imagine how much trouble would be for me to choose good pair of floor speakers luckily it's easier to listen and decide but they are so many manufacturers

    anyway thinking of below 250$ 5.1 receiver (i'm now sure stereo is not an option after checking the availability) between three models i would go to yamaha as they have a good name in receivers or sony as they have a good name in home electronics (i have several sony devices and no regrets ever).
    Kenwood has a huge 0.7% THD comparing to yamaha 0.1 and sony 0.09 - this cannot be not important right? +sony has 32bit full DSP
    I just dont know, people all around say sony is not good but dont explain why, maybe its just a bad name nobody mentioned bad sound quality or bad parts/labor quality. i am VERY curious about opinion of people who actually ever used Sony receivers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. BUYING A New AV Receiver? Let me help and so can you!!
    By nick4433 in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-12-2004, 12:28 PM
  2. is this receiver underpowered?!!!.....suggestions...
    By CyberStoic in forum General Audio
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 07:51 PM
  3. Question regarding SACD connections
    By Tyler in forum General Audio
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-29-2004, 05:03 PM
  4. Bypassing the Receiver...Help!
    By rkarkada in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-19-2003, 08:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •