Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 65
  1. #1
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Why does my amp sound better than my receiver?

    Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
    I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

    The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

    Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
    Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
    Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
    I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
    Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

  2. #2
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
    I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

    The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

    Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
    Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
    Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
    I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
    Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.
    Yes, absolutely, yes and no, no and yes. How's that for technical?

    Your Rotel is better because it is specifically designed to do one thing, increase the gain to your speakers. Receiver's have to be built to a standard which satisfies a business plan, not audio ideals. This means in order to stuff a single chassis full of all the crap the consumers seem to want (i.e. DPL, DPL2, DTS, DTS Neo6, 20 different "stadium" dsp effects, YPAO, etc.) they are going to have to cut corners somewhere just to make it feasible for Joe Public. Enter the amplifier section. Most every receiver has woefully inadequate power supplies and transformers, two things that are somewhat important for amplification wouldn't you think? Cheap caps hinder transient response and attack, too. It could also be simply poor design topography or that the Yamaha designer's ideals are different from yours. This is not a slam on Yammie either because at least they design and manufacture most of their own stuff, supposedly even their own boards, and are one the most respected companies in the world.

    Whether speakers or what's in front of them have a bigger impact is a debate unto itself. However, imo you'll hear a bigger variance in sound between speakers than you will front end components. Having very revealing speakers is a double edged sword because while they convey more details within the music, they also convey all of the glories or shortcomings of the source material and equipment.

    Both Rotel and Yamaha are very good products so I wouldn't necessarily say one is better than the other. It appears however that Rotel is better in building amps that suit your taste and needs.

    Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?

  3. #3
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed
    Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?
    That is one of the greatest secrets of the universe, and to reveal it would end the aura of mystique that surrounds me. Actually it's just the word "exodus" (not the biblical writing, but rather one of my favorite classical scores, very hard to play on cello) with my initials "K" and "C" on either end. Ya gotta admit, it almost looks like a cool word, I like the shorter form "kex" people refer to me as.

    Thanks so much for the explanation. I bought the Rotel second hand because an old buddy said it was a super awesome deal compared to an older Harman Kardon stereo receiver.

    Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?

  4. #4
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717

    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?
    I can guarantee you that the Rotel's power suppy and transformer kills the Yammie's. (BTW, cheers on such a stellar purchase price ) More power and the ability to deliver power means the Rotel isn't working nearly as hard and has more "headroom" or power in reserve for transients and whatnot. Because the amp isn't stressed, what you are hearing possibly has less distortion than the Yamaha which is working harder. The simple answer is amps sound different. For the drawn out, technical answer, ask Skeptic or another engineer on the board.

    BTW, the reason I asked was to see if you were connected to USC (kexodUSC) somehow. Guess where I went?

    Fight On!

  5. #5
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Agree with speedy.

    Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

    The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

    Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

    The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

    P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?

  6. #6
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger.
    Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

    rw

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583
    Because it is better at its job. Know if you really want to hear what your speakers can do, demo a good linestage with the Rotel. *CAUTION* THE SONIC IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE HARDER TO BELIEVE! None the less they will be there! "Audio Nirvana" is at your fingertips, just do it!
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

    rw
    Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.
    mtrycrafts

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
    I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

    The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

    Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
    Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
    Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
    I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
    Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.
    Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?

    As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?

    And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.
    mtrycrafts

  10. #10
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?
    I don't even know what the hell "bias control" means. Quite frankly, I didn't care at the time. Maybe that contributed to my results?

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?
    I've come to this same conclusion when comparing my older marantz to my yamaha at most volumes...but even then there was some sort of treble-ish tone difference. I had just assumed that was the "brightness" people associate with Yamaha's.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.
    Yes, and at that level its too freakin loud for my tastes anyway. I had my trusty old SPL meter out, to get as close to the same volumes as I possibly could. It's an analog meter, not a high priced unit, but it seems to work relatively well.

    I'm not trying to start an argument along the lines of exotic cables making a big difference. I don't believe they do. I don't believe my old $800 dollar Phillips CD player sounds any better than my new $200 Yamaha CD player. I can guarantee you there was a "significant" difference between the Rotel and the Yamaha. Not to suggest it was 10 times better or something foolish. I would say it was maybe 1.08 times better. It seemed, I don't know, cleaner, more natural. Someone has suggested to me this may be due to the various tonal characteristics of both units, and not an issue of "too much activity" inside the receiver vs. the dedicated amp. I can accept that. I posted this thread because I don't understand why if I used, say 30 watts through 2 channels on 2 separate units with similar specs why one would sound different at all. Now I'm not sure I'd understand the answer if you told me anywyay.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion.
    I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. That 40 watts should sound like 40 watts regardless of what unit it's in? (provided of course the frequency response, distortion, etc. of the various units are the similar) That's what I expected to find when I pulled my Rotel upstairs. It wasn't.

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

    The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

    Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

    The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

    P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?
    You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

    http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

    They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189

    Rotel

    The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

    You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

    Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

  13. #13
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Yep. Sure Have. Still own my 2270, purchased in '73.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

    http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

    They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.
    We're talking about today, not 20 - 30 years ago. Now, if we wanna reminisce about the by gone days, that's all well and good but let's keep this discussion in persepctive, shall we?

    And, FWIW, for stereo music, my 2270 still whups more modern moderately priced, similarly rated receivers big time.

  14. #14
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717

    Ain't it the truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    And, FWIW, for stereo music, my 2270 still whups more modern moderately priced, similarly rated receivers big time.
    My 2230 hooked up to my new VR1's is just terrific. Even at "only" 30 watts and 90dB speakers, I'm never past 50% on the volume (which is pretty freakin' loud in a 16' x 17' bedroom) and it is just so smooth and unfatiguing without even a hint of strain from that 30 sumthin' year old bird. What a great receiver! Now if I can just get the volume potentometer to not need cleaning every couple of years, I'd be set. This last time I had to have the damn thing rebuilt and that wasn't cheap!

  15. #15
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealed
    The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

    You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

    Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.
    Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.

  16. #16
    JSE
    JSE is offline
    MIA - Until Rich is back! JSE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Denial
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

    http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

    They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.

    I have my father's Marantz 4400 receiver with the SQA-2B decoder. Good ol' quad sound. It's a beast. Worked perfect until about 1 1/2 years ago. Sucker won't turn on. I have been meaning to get it into the shop. I will probably sell it at a later date.

    JSE

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    It may be something as simple as replacing the power switch. Have you checked the fuses.

    The recievers I mentioned were awesome even by today's standards. They provided a virtually distortion free source of power greater than anyone is likely to ever need in a home. Spec for spec or by sound alone, most separates I've seen and heard will not measure up to them. It is probably true that nobody cares to build receivers even remotely approaching this level of quality today. It's a matter of marketing, customer acceptance, and perception. Nobody would believe that $2000 worth of receiver could outperform $5000 worth of separates. I think the bigger units, the 2500 and 2600 would even give the Crown DC 300 a run for its money in terms of available power although of course it is not DC coupled.

  18. #18
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    amp sound

    Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed. __________________
    mtrycrafts

    you poor soul, you just cant hear. please do yourself a favor and actually get an audio system. generic crap wont do, REAL audio equipment, components. just borrow some from a friend or store and substitute it for your receiver and rca cdp.

    its entirely possible that youre tone deaf and cant do anything except intellectualize on differences that you cant perceive.
    ...regards...tr

  19. #19
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    It may be something as simple as replacing the power switch. Have you checked the fuses.
    That was the case with a "no power" problem with my vintage Pioneer tuner. The complex little push-push again spring loaded mechanism died. It was an easy problem to fix.

    rw

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    These switches have a way of failing over time due to constant arcing. I've seen more than one of these fail and I am not in the service business like Woodman.

  21. #21
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    These switches have a way of failing over time due to constant arcing. I've seen more than one of these fail and I am not in the service business like Woodman.
    I greatly prefer the far higher quality rocker switch used on my vintage Threshold amp. It should last another twenty odd years without failing.

    rw

  22. #22
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Ear wax problem??

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.
    One's imagination might inflate the differences -- but there are real differences.

    I just replace my venerable Phase Linear 400 because I thought I had a broken rectifier bridge; turns out it was only a ground loop largely fixed by fiddling the connections. However I tried out a NAD C270 before I knew that.

    The thing is, I really did not expect the NAD to be better, but it was. At first listen I thought it sounded soft, maybe lacking in detail. In fact, I was only missing the '70 solid state "etch". On further listening, I discovered the NAD to be at least equally detail and more airy and transparent. (For all that, the Phase probably has the tighter bass).

    Needless to say I kept the NAD. BTW, a huge bargain at Cdn$575, about US$430.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.

    He is just plain wrong. He has zero evidence for his speculations. Nousaine conducted, DBT of course, a listeing test some years back, 1995 or 1998, Steve Zipser and friends. An old Yam integrated amp with the amp section and a very expensive, $15k Pass Alphen something. Three people couldn't tell them apart.
    If the Yam is bright, the FR would show this. It isn't bright.
    mtrycrafts

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha.

    Unsubstantiated claim, great.


    You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.


    No. He perceived something. What he heard is yet to be determined, if anything.

    Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

    How would you know it wasn't placebo? You have zero idea as you don't account for. So, you have unreliable results.
    mtrycrafts

  25. #25
    Forum Regular Sealed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    He is just plain wrong. He has zero evidence for his speculations. .
    I have about 14 years experiance listening to high end ranging from $3k setups to $200k. I have well trained hearing, much like a piano tuner. I have had my reference setup since 1986 which I will gladly a/b anything in it or against it to note changes. I am over the age and experiance level where placebos and silly ineffective changes color my perceptions. If you change any component in my system and I could tell you. Move my speakers 1/16th of an inch and I can tell. I do not speculate nor imagine what is real.

    You on the other hand have no idea what revealing is, or what high end is. You only speculate with no proof. You have spent too many years managing a 7-11, listening to JBL's and a reciever to have developed any sort of discerning hearing. I am convinced you are totally tone deaf and cannot tell the difference between Bose and Magnepan. It's long overdue time for you to STFU and quit telling people what they can't hear, just because your sorry deaf ass can't. You need to get the hell away from the PC and get a real system, 5000+ posts telling other people what they hear and don't is 4,999+ too many. Piss off, and quit projecting your own shortcomings, inexperiance, and deafness onto others.

    People would laugh thier asses off at you if they knew what a sad joke of a stereo system you have!

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

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. Got a question about a small philips sound system
    By skitallz in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2004, 06:58 AM
  3. Need Receiver and Surround
    By msb1999 in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-11-2004, 11:43 AM
  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
  •