a/v receiver brand options

[accastil]

my requirements:1) 6.1 or 7.1 channels 2) at least 80W of power per channel 3) with optical audio input 4) excellent for HT 5) excellent also for music listening 6) ceiling price is $375.

im looking at yamaha, denon, onkyo, marantz, pioneer, teac, nakamichi and harman kardon. which brand do i choose? and why?

am i right to conclude that yamahas are good at HT but poor for music listening? am i right to conclude that marantz and HKs are excellent for both music and HT.

how about denon, onkyo, pioneer and teac? i really do not have experience with these brands yet.

please help.

[kexodusc]

my requirements:1) 6.1 or 7.1 channels 2) at least 80W of power per channel 3) with optical audio input 4) excellent for HT 5) excellent also for music listening 6) ceiling price is $375.

im looking at yamaha, denon, onkyo, marantz, pioneer, teac, nakamichi and harman kardon. which brand do i choose? and why?

Receivers are pretty homogenous. Of all the brands you named, I would be very happy to own any in your price range with the exception of Teac and Nakamichi. Haven't seen anything that great for $375 or under from them. With the rest, you pretty much get what you pay for, give or take a few features, inputs,outputs etc. I think it's more about matching what fits your needs and priorities, and finding a good deal than deciding which brand is better. If one was better, we'd all own the same brand of receiver.


am i right to conclude that yamahas are good at HT but poor for music listening? am i right to conclude that marantz and HKs are excellent for both music and HT

Well, coming from someone who went from H/K to Marantz to Yamaha, I'd say that couldn't be further from the truth. You'll find receivers to be so similar in sound at a common pricepoint (especially below $1000 or so) that any differences are mostly imaginary. Most people I know who buy a receiver use it for music as well. There are thousands of happy consumers who chose Yamaha because they were happy with their sound quality. Why would a receiver be good at one and not the other? A receiver doesn't know the difference.



how about denon, onkyo, pioneer and teac? i really do not have experience with these brands yet.

They've got their fans as well. Denons have been very popular as long as I can remember. Onkyo makes great receivers. Pioneer, IMO, are probably making the best bang-for-the-buck receivers right now. The VSX-815, VSX-915 are both in your price range ($375 street price and below) and easily compete with some slightly more expensive Yamaha, Denon, H/K, and Onkyo offerings. I don't know how Pioneer is doing it, except to say I'm glad they are and I hope it puts some serious downward price pressure on the other guys.

I'm looking at a new receiver myself, and Pioneer is extremely high on my list.

Find a dealer who will let you spend some time with a few models, preferrably in your home with your speakers, so you can get comfortable with them. Then decide for yourself which you prefer.

I did this a few years back when I bought my Yamaha RX-V1400. After several hours with a few receivers I learned quickly that the H/K wasn't for me. In the end the Denon I borrowed lost out to the Yamaha because of a few value added features, and my positive experiences with other Yamahas. But it was damn close.

This time I think Pioneer is the early favorite.

[Geoffcin]

I'm looking at a new receiver myself, and Pioneer is extremely high on my list.

Find a dealer who will let you spend some time with a few models, preferrably in your home with your speakers, so you can get comfortable with them. Then decide for yourself which you prefer.

I did this a few years back when I bought my Yamaha RX-V1400. After several hours with a few receivers I learned quickly that the H/K wasn't for me. In the end the Denon I borrowed lost out to the Yamaha because of a few value added features, and my positive experiences with other Yamahas. But it was damn close.

This time I think Pioneer is the early favorite.

And strangely it's come down to Yamaha vs. Pioneer. Both have receivers that switch & upconvert to HDMI. I think the Yamaha also has HD Digital FM too.
http://www.ibiquity.com/hdradio/whatishdradio.htm

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4155_272584179,00.html

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3442/272584179VSX-74TXVi_Front_72.jpg

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV4600.htm

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/prod_images/rxv4600_main.jpg



That would be a big plus to me, as I've heard HD radio and it's great, and FREE.

[kexodusc]

And strangely it's come down to Yamaha vs. Pioneer. Both have receivers that switch & upconvert to HDMI. I think the Yamaha also has HD Digital FM too.

That would be a big plus to me, as I've heard HD radio and it's great, and FREE.

Those are some crazy @ss mother &%$#'in receivers. I don't live with mine long enough to drop that kind of dough on them, but man I wish I did.

Gotta admit, I'm not looking at a new receiver to upgrade...in fact there's a good chance I'll downgrade. I have 3 amps hooked up to the incumbent receiver, and that's plenty for me. Instead I've got a rather unique offer to move laterally to a Pioneer VSX-52TX or VSX-1015TX, or to a Yamaha RX-V1500. Long story, but if all goes well I'll make enough selling the 1400 to pay for the new unit and buy a few new drivers for some future project. This was completely unplanned.

I'm seriously thinking of going down a step to the VSX-815k or Yamaha's RX-V657. Both of these have everything I'll use in a receiver (and the ever important pre-outs). Should free up more money for even better drivers.

I've spent enough time with a smaller Yamaha (HTR-5760) to know the sound quality doesn't change, just the power and extra gizmos, compared to mine. Don't know if Pioneers behave the same as you drop down the lines, but it seems most manufacturers share the "trickle-down" philosophy in their product lines.

While I'm on the subject, is there anything special about the VSX-52TX that's worth the extra $100 it'll cost me over the 1015TX? The "Elite" badge alone isn't enough...

I'm planning to wait another year or two before pulling the trigger on an HDMI receiver. I'll have completely rebuilt my HT room with all the right wiring by then anyway.

[3db]

Those are some crazy @ss mother &%$#'in receivers. I don't live with mine long enough to drop that kind of dough on them, but man I wish I did.

Gotta admit, I'm not looking at a new receiver to upgrade...in fact there's a good chance I'll downgrade. I have 3 amps hooked up to the incumbent receiver, and that's plenty for me. Instead I've got a rather unique offer to move laterally to a Pioneer VSX-52TX or VSX-1015TX, or to a Yamaha RX-V1500. Long story, but if all goes well I'll make enough selling the 1400 to pay for the new unit and buy a few new drivers for some future project. This was completely unplanned.

I'm seriously thinking of going down a step to the VSX-815k or Yamaha's RX-V657. Both of these have everything I'll use in a receiver (and the ever important pre-outs). Should free up more money for even better drivers.

I've spent enough time with a smaller Yamaha (HTR-5760) to know the sound quality doesn't change, just the power and extra gizmos, compared to mine. Don't know if Pioneers behave the same as you drop down the lines, but it seems most manufacturers share the "trickle-down" philosophy in their product lines.

While I'm on the subject, is there anything special about the VSX-52TX that's worth the extra $100 it'll cost me over the 1015TX? The "Elite" badge alone isn't enough...

I'm planning to wait another year or two before pulling the trigger on an HDMI receiver. I'll have completely rebuilt my HT room with all the right wiring by then anyway.

Saw your post about moving from H/K to Marantz to Yamaha .I want to upgrade from my technics receiver and I've narrowed it down to eiteh NAD or Yamaha. Just wondering if you auditioned the NAD and if you did, why you chose Yamaha. I heard NAD thru PSB Imgage T45s and they mated very very well together.

[Worf101]

I don't know if their repair service or customer service has improved in the 4.5 years since I bought one of their products, but suffice it to say I'll never buy anything from that company ever again. I've used and installed Yamaha, Onkyo and Denon I recommend anything from them with no reservations.

My opinion is based upon my experience nothing more.

Da Worfster :rolleyes:

[HAVIC]

[QUOTE= I heard NAD thru PSB Imgage T45s and they mated very very well together.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if you know but NAD and PSB come from the same distributor. Just an fyi, it is probably the reason you saw that combo at the store.

I actullay have a yamaha rx-v2500 and psb image T65's and they sound great. I have been very happy with the yamaha. I looked at NAD as well but for the features I needed/wanted I would of had to spend about another $1000 the get the same from NAD and it still wasn't all there. I not saying NAD isn't a good reciever, it's just I couldn' afford their reciever with a similar feature set as yamaha.

Not sure if you are looking at speakers as well but I have been happy with the PSB's as well.

[kexodusc]

yes, I've compared NAD to Yamaha. The NAD sounded a bit better to me, and I believe had more real power, though power is moot since I use external amps.

I believe the NAD receivers are built on their intergrated/amplifier platforms for the most part. They 2-channel stereo sound was definitely NAD (I still own a few 20 year old NAD integrateds). Better than the straight Yammie. The power amps made it closer.

For me it was price. For home theater applications, the 1400 had a few more inputs/outputs, YPAO, and better settings adjustment flexibility. It was a better a/v control center by a bit, but a few hundred bucks cheaper. If I wasn't also buying a new integrated amp at the time, I might have bought an even nicer receiver, but I needed 2 separate systems.

Overall I liked the NAD better, but it was out of my budget, I think the model was the T752 or T753, I think if you search some older posts of mine, I might have mentioned the model #. No matter, they're all pretty similar.

IMO, if the NAD receiver you're considering will have all the features you want and need, and it's in your budget, you can't go wrong.

However, since then I've become really fond of the Rotel and Arcam receivers. Don't ask me model numbers, I forget. The Arcam in particular sounded extremely good to me. Definitely on par with their 2-channel gear's quality (if you like Arcam). The Rotel was nice too. I forget exact prices, but I don't think they're far off from the NAD receivers.

[Woochifer]

As the others have already articulated very well, the performance difference between receivers in your price range will be minimal at best. I think another consideration that you should look at, and an area where you do find much bigger differences between receivers, is the user interface -- stuff like the on-screen menus (if they're even provided in the first place), the remote, and how intuitively everything works together. Since you will likely use the receiver everyday and it will serve as a central hub for all of your home entertainment devices, might as well get something that won't aggravate you in everyday operation.

Other considerations might include preouts (so you can add an outboard amplifier later on), HDMI switching (not likely in this price range, but potentially a very useful feature if you intend to buy a HDTV within the next couple of years), and video upconversion (a very useful feature if your video sources use a mix of composite, S-vid, and component video outputs).

[Woochifer]

And strangely it's come down to Yamaha vs. Pioneer. Both have receivers that switch & upconvert to HDMI. I think the Yamaha also has HD Digital FM too.
http://www.ibiquity.com/hdradio/whatishdradio.htm

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4155_272584179,00.html

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3442/272584179VSX-74TXVi_Front_72.jpg

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/receivers/RXV4600.htm

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/prod_images/rxv4600_main.jpg



That would be a big plus to me, as I've heard HD radio and it's great, and FREE.

The Elite equivalent of that particular Pioneer model was pretty impressive when I was trying out the Martin Logan Montage. It produced a noticeably cleaner and more open sound overall than the Denon AVR-3805 on those particular speakers. The soundstage on the Denon started to collapse as I turned the volume up, whereas the Pioneer just kept going.

One consideration you might want to look for with the Yamaha is the newer RX-V2600. It has a lot of the same features as the 4600, but it adds video upconversion with a video upscaler. Conversely, the 4600 has an iLink connection, a larger power supply section, and HD radio.

[accastil]

As the others have already articulated very well, the performance difference between receivers in your price range will be minimal at best. I think another consideration that you should look at, and an area where you do find much bigger differences between receivers, is the user interface -- stuff like the on-screen menus (if they're even provided in the first place), the remote, and how intuitively everything works together. Since you will likely use the receiver everyday and it will serve as a central hub for all of your home entertainment devices, might as well get something that won't aggravate you in everyday operation.

Other considerations might include preouts (so you can add an outboard amplifier later on), HDMI switching (not likely in this price range, but potentially a very useful feature if you intend to buy a HDTV within the next couple of years), and video upconversion (a very useful feature if your video sources use a mix of composite, S-vid, and component video outputs).
being an audiophile since birth, i dont really care much about features and connections. what im after is the power and sound reproduction quality. ive heard them all by the way and now i know which brand sounds best at least for my own personal preference.