what receiver to choose ?

[Kurt04]

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
=========

[Mr Peabody]

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.

[poneal]

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.

[Kurt04]

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!

[Mr Peabody]

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.

[markw]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[kexodusc]

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.

[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.

[Mr Peabody]

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.

[Mr Peabody]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[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.

[datarush]

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.

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.