A/V Receivers [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : A/V Receivers



ken88
01-07-2011, 02:34 PM
How would you rank the following popular receivers: Sony, Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Denon? When it comes to high-end brands, like Sony ES, Pioneer Elite, Integra, etc. How would you rank them in terms of sound and built quality? Is there any specific one that stands above them, excluding the ultra high-ends like Arcam? Thanks for all your comments.

Mr Peabody
01-07-2011, 05:50 PM
I'm not sure if it's still current but I heard a Yamaha 2065 put an Elite and top line Onkyo to shame. This was at the end of 2010. It's been a few years since hearing ES but I thought they were pretty good, better than regular Sony. Integra is typically very well built with a higher current output which not only helps with sound but to drive more difficult speaker loads. Denon builds a quality unit but a bit over priced for what it is, in my opinion.

eisforelectronic
01-07-2011, 09:34 PM
Personally i like Denon best from that list. I don't love the sound of Onkyo, but it's not terrible and you get a lot of features for your money. I've really only heard a few Yamaha receivers, I will say I was pretty disappointed with the Yamaha demo at CES a while back. I've never been a fan of Pioneer receivers, for some reason I've hated everyone I've heard, even the Elite ones.

I've heard some decent Sony ES. As stated above I'm not a fan of any Pioneer receiver. I know I might get some flak for this but at last year's CES I was discussing Integra with a dealer/HT installer friend of mine and he mentioned that internally there's no difference between the standard Onkyo models and their Integra counterparts.

At the point of jumping to higher end receivers I think I would recommend looking at separate components. A top end receiver will run $2k and up, you can find some nice separates for that price and just a little more.

ken88
01-08-2011, 08:02 AM
I am always baffled by how do you measure the quality of sound coming from each brand, especially between the regular and the high-end model of each brand, say between a regular Sony and a Sony Elite or a regular Onkyo and the Integra? Is there a way to differentiate the different sound for each brand or is it the quality of the speakers that makes all the difference? I always heard, one should spend at least 75% oif your budget for speakers and the balance on receivers for any stereo set-up if you want quality sound. Is that true? You may have an Arcam but if you have lousy speakers, you will end up with lousy sound. Thanks for all your comments.

Mr Peabody
01-08-2011, 03:35 PM
The way you tell any difference is by listening. If you can't hear any difference between let's say a Pioneer and their Elite, or Onkyo and their Integra, then buy the cheaper with the features you need and call it a day. Or if you don't really tell any preference over one brand or the other, like Yamaha vs Denon. At that point it comes down to features or looks. Better speakers will help hear any differences.

I do not agree with spending 75% on speakers, or any such formula actually. I am from the source first school of audio, if your CD player or turntable don't extract the information from the source then nothing you do downstream in the system will allow you to hear the information you already lost, or didn't retreive. This may not be as important for a home theater receiver as it has the DAC built in that you will use most. Unless adding a dedicated player down the road. A system should actually be pretty well matched in ability from beginning to end. In other words an Arcam may be wasted on cheap speakers as well as an expensive pair of speakers will never play to their ability with a $250.00 receiver. You want to match by ability more so than price. For instance, an Arcam may be better suited to perform with Dynaudio or similar range B&W etc. Where a $300.00 - $500.00 receiver will be at home with Infinity, Energy, entry B&W, Paradigm etc. The main thing is your receiver has to have the ability to drive whatever speakers you want adequately. For instance, you typically wouldn't want to pair a receiver with a speaker whose impedance has wide swings or tends to go low. Onkyo or Integra might do better with this type of load due to their higher current capability but they too could still be mismatched with the wrong speaker. However, that drive ability could be a factor if you have your eye on, or I should say ears on, a speaker that may be a bit tougher to drive than the norm.

The thing to do if possible is to go out and listen to some gear and maybe come back with brands that excited you and we can help with whether they'd go well together. There are so many speakers out there and they should be a personal choice because you have to be the one that listens to them. Just like I'm not a big Denon fan, some one else was, or same with Yamaha, we could tell you B&W is the greatest speaker in the world but if you don't enjoy it then what we thought didn't amount to much. I also understand before going out you need information and some basis of what's going on. So please feel free to ask away, but on the other hand don't be afraid to trust your own ears.

ken88
01-09-2011, 07:32 AM
Thank you so much Mr Peabody, that was very informative. Currently, I have a Sony STR DE 897 that can output 110wx7 per channel to drive my front Totem Sttaf and centre Mite T and two small Polk surround speakers. The receiver handles the job adequately and the sound is very clean when I turn up the receiver's volume knob to, say, 48. At 48 the music is pretty loud for me. The sound quality is just amazing and the music just comes alive; the imaging and soundstage are superb. If one day I feel the need to upgrade my receiver, which one would you recommend if my budget is up, say to $800. I listen to music quite a lot and I am not too much into HT. The recommended power for the Totem Sttaf is 20-100W and the frequency response from <39Hz-22kHz, does that mean the receiver's output for each channel should not exceed 100 W per channel? If the output per channel from the receiver is higher than what the speaker can handle, in this case, 100 w per channel, does that mean you risk the chance of damaging the speaker's drivers and tweeters? Or a receiver that can output, say, 130w per channel is better to drive the speakers to get the maximum sound benefit? Thanks for all your valuable advice.

Mr Peabody
01-09-2011, 11:37 AM
It's actually easier to blow a speaker by under powering it than over powering it. When you don't have enough power the amp will "clip", distort, when it's turned up past what it's capable of outputting cleanly. This clipped signal is the #1 cause of blown speakers. The rating on a speaker is a general guideline of how much power you will need to drive it but speakers typically do alright as long as they are receiving clean power. I mean, speakers have limits so caution is always a good idea. If you over power a speaker you will typically heara pop and if you do, you had better back off the volume.

As far as receivers some of the Yamaha have a nice midrange where the Onkyo or Integra having higher current might give the Totem a bit more of what they need. The Totem are nice speakers. If your receiver has preamp outputs you can consider adding a power amp or going with an integrated 2-channel amp for music.

hifitommy
01-10-2011, 06:18 PM
i dont see any of those ht receivers as high end. B&K, rotel, sunfire maybe? those yamahas, pios, and onkyos are at best mid fi.

its not that they wouldnt be good sounding but high end i dont think so.

pixelthis
01-11-2011, 12:03 PM
I am always baffled by how do you measure the quality of sound coming from each brand, especially between the regular and the high-end model of each brand, say between a regular Sony and a Sony Elite or a regular Onkyo and the Integra? Is there a way to differentiate the different sound for each brand or is it the quality of the speakers that makes all the difference? I always heard, one should spend at least 75% oif your budget for speakers and the balance on receivers for any stereo set-up if you want quality sound. Is that true? You may have an Arcam but if you have lousy speakers, you will end up with lousy sound. Thanks for all your comments.

As for the Integra and Onkyo, I have bought INTEGRA twice, and not regretted either
purchase.
They have a three year warranty, better overall QC, SOLID aluminum faceplate, things
like 12 volt triggers, things that make it installer friendly, etc .
Also a phono pre-amp, increasingly rare these days. They used to be well worth the
couple of hundred buck premium , but right after I bought my last one, they were moved upscale. A 1200 7.4 IS NOW A 1500 dollar 7.9. As for sound, the Integra is way more refined than their mainstream stuff, as is the ergonomics, with a slightly better remote, etc.
I have heard good things about the Sony ELITE line, seen a few, but not enough to judge.
Do have experience with their standard line, and as far as their receivers go, they are a darn fine video company. Currently I AM USING my Integra as a pre-pro, running the front two channels through an Emotiva amp, for better quality music, and as an
inexpensive prepro it does a good job.:1:

pixelthis
01-11-2011, 12:14 PM
i dont see any of those ht receivers as high end. B&K, rotel, sunfire maybe? those yamahas, pios, and onkyos are at best mid fi.

its not that they wouldnt be good sounding but high end i dont think so.

I believe B&K is kaput, don't know for sure.
YAMAHA makes audiophile grade high end stuff, competes with the best, but their mainstream stuff has slipped lately.
THERE is some good stuff under the Onkyo name, but like all things in life, you have to pay for it. AND I have seen 3,000 Denon stuff the size of a small condo.
Of course anybody spending more than 3,000 for a receiver is making a mistake, because
that is getting near separates real estate, with none of the attendant compromises
you always get with receivers, the biggest one being a weak power supply

http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/hifi-components/

http://www.onkyousa.com/prod_class.cfm?class=Receiver

ken88
01-14-2011, 05:18 PM
I just like to get a kind of consensus regarding the treble and bass preference levels on the receiver; does increasing the treble and bass levels produce better sound or just leave both levels at 0?? I understand it is an individual taste but I am just trying to get a feel of what you listeners out there prefer. At what levels would be consider the optimal without the music becoming too bright and boomy?? Thanks for all your comments.

RoyY51
01-14-2011, 05:46 PM
I'm surprised that Nad was not mentioned. The general consensus seems to be that Nad kinda bridges the gap between Mid-Fi and Hi-Fi. My own experiences have demonstrated that this is true...Nad is a cut above the Yamahas, Denons and Onkyos but not quite to the level of Arcam, B&K and Rotel. I've owned a Yamaha and an Onkyo receiver and neither one could hold a candle to my Nad T763. Plus, the price for the Nad was much closer to the first group than the second.

If you're looking for a Hi-Fi sound at a Mid-Fi price, I'd suggest that you give Nad a listen.

Mr Peabody
01-14-2011, 07:33 PM
Ken88, where the tone controls are set depends on the receiver, your speakers and most of all personal preference. I'm typically a -0- kind of guy but with receivers I find I do have to use the tone controls to attempt to achieve a sound I like. I will advise that sometimes going down from -0- can be as good as going up or even better. For instance, turning the bass down will sometimes give more of a leaner hard hitting response rather than a big blurry boom, or even add some clarity to the midrange. Or, if thinking need more bass, first try to turn the treble down a notch or two. When controls are below -0- it helps the amp not to be over driven. And, sometimes there's going above is required. You just have to play with it. On a small Onkyo receiver one time I turned the "loudness" button on, turned the bass down a couple notches and the treble up a notch. This gave a clean hitting bass at low to moderate listening. This setting on the same receiver might have to be different in a different room or speakers, or to some one else's desired taste.

I agree NAD or Cambridge Audio would both typically give better sound than mass market brands, and, both have models in a reasonable price range.

ken88
01-15-2011, 07:01 AM
Thank you so much Mr Peabody for your expert opinion on tone controls. I am a newbee just trying to learn the ropes, as they say. There is one interesting question which comes to my mind: is it better to get a high-end receiver, like Arcam, Bryston, MacIntosh, Nad,, etc at the low end budget price or go for the Pioneer Elite, Sony ES or Integra at the high-end price?? What I mean is if I were going to spend, say $1,000+, is it better to get an affordable Arcam or a top-end Sony ES series? Is there truly a sound difference between them? Which products would be more reliable and trouble free comparing the Japanese v/s British?? Thanks for all your input.

Mr Peabody
01-15-2011, 03:17 PM
It really depends on what your emphasis will be. If sound quality, I'd buy from a higher end company who makes receivers like NAD, Rotel or Cambridge Audio, not so sure Arcam is in that price range any more. If you need features, like internet connections or multiroom capability etc. generally the mass market brands, Denon, ES, Elite, Onkyo etc. will offer more of the bells & whistles.

Reliability, I'd say is a toss up, no brand is prone to the occasional issue . Some of the higher end brands offer longer warranty, you'll have to check as you shop. It's been a while since I've heard of any significant issues with a brand.

basite
01-15-2011, 03:53 PM
Personally i like Denon best from that list. I don't love the sound of Onkyo, but it's not terrible and you get a lot of features for your money. I've really only heard a few Yamaha receivers, I will say I was pretty disappointed with the Yamaha demo at CES a while back. I've never been a fan of Pioneer receivers, for some reason I've hated everyone I've heard, even the Elite ones.


what models were they?

I was not such a big fan of yamaha for the past years, we have a RX-V1300, about 6-8 years old now, I think, which, does have alot of features, especially for the time, and enough power, but not as dynamic and slightly muffled. This continued until the previous series. Now its the RX-Vxx7 and RX-Vxxx7, are different. Features, are, as always very present, nice graphic layout in the monitor menu too. Power is better, discrete amps, unlike the previous series, and more than enough inputs, much more than the Denon's in their price class. my respect for them has drastically increased :D They don't have Audessey, but they do have their proprietary equalizing/setup system, which measured just as good as the audessey system in tests.
I am thinking about buying a RX-V767 for my attic system, too.

supposedly the last Pioneer series are good too, but I just can't get around the fact that they consume a very small amount of power for their output, also, they weigh substantially less than all the other competing brands. I am of the weight school, so this is a serious turnoff for me :)

Denon's are nice too, excellent sound (although the Yamaha is really close now), but I find that in their last series, they have a lack of inputs (on the midrange products), one less HDMI than most, one coax, one toslink and one component, and that's it, really, and some stereo analog inputs. Also no pre out, except for the sub. also the menu on a monitor is just a text matrix, I know you only need the menu only a few times, but setup is noticeably more pleasant when the menu looks good and is easy to navigate. anyway, call them a minimalist receiver in the midrange class, even though the remotes look like you're able to control the space shuttle with them...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Mr Peabody
01-15-2011, 04:17 PM
I was the same way about Yamaha. In the past they struck me as dull sounding, good mids and bass with no definition but toward the end of last year I wandered into a Magnolia and played with some receivers. Onkyo being my favorite I started there, not sure how it was set up but it was disappointing, then an Elite which was better, then a Yamaha 2065 which truly amazed me because it was noticeably better than the prior two. I'm not sure if their entire line is that good but I'd sure count them in for a listen if I was in the market for a receiver.

Before discounting Pioneer for light weight check to see if the model is using digital amps. They did for a while. My Linn amp is only 11 lbs and delivers easily it's rated power of
125x5, and that's into 5 Dynaudio speakers.

RGA
01-15-2011, 05:58 PM
I am a little out of date on home theater but I am wondering if anyone has opinions on what they feel are some of the better Surround Sound preamp/processors (without amplifier built in) that have all of the most important Video and sound processing and as future proof as it can get. What is out there these days for relatively sane money (under $2k).

eisforelectronic
01-15-2011, 06:09 PM
what models were they?


Come to think of it, it was actually a while back, like 7-8 years. I don't remember the model, but it was their flagship receiver at the time. I tend not to give brands much of a chance if they don't "bring it" at CES. I know I can't get to know any product or brand very well at such a crazy show, but I do expect companies to be doing things to at least peak my interest. Quite frankly there are too many audio companies to give everyone a fair listen, so I use CES as kind of a frontline filter for what brands I really look into.

Mr Peabody
01-15-2011, 07:16 PM
RGA, Rotel's 15nn is supposed to be a good value. You can probably find a good deal on the Marantz processor I have, AV8003, it has more features than I've ever used, including DSD decoding by the DAC. I have had no problems with it. I feel it more than met expectations at it's price. It's still very current unless wanting 3D. Onkyo & Integra both have processors in your range. Kex had one or the other but went with the Emotiva processor. He reported the two were very close and the Emo had a lot of issues that needed updates for. I'm not sure how Emo is doing on that front now. I can't remember what was his deciding factor. I hear a lot of good things about Rotel's digital multichannel amps as well.

RGA
01-16-2011, 01:42 PM
Mr. P

Unfortunately Matantz has some issues matching prices to Canadian currency. Even though the dollar is almost at par they want $3150 for the AV8003 or some such thing.

I generally don't like to buy these things completely current because the drop off in value is massive once the new model comes out.

The new Rotel 1570 for instance is considerably more expensive than the 1069 it replaced.

I have done a bit of research on the Rotel simply because my intent is to use 3 RB-1050 power amps - they're really very inexpensive for what you get so long as you don't use stupidly hard to drive loudspeakers.

I am not completely sure but the biggest drawback of the 1069 versus the 1570 seems to be that the 1069 does not possess TrueHD or DTS-HD MA but if you have a blu-ray player that has this feature on board then it doesn't matter. The PS3 slim does have this ability - so I suppose there is no need to pay for it twice if the blu ray players have it anyway.

The other drawback is that there is no Audyssey MultEQ processing but I don't see this on the 1570 feature list either. But this appears to be more about helping with set-up and can be worked through with set-up by owner.

The other issue is only one HDMI out which is not a problem for me and the other is no balanced inputs which again doesn't matter to me.

The thing now is to see what the used market is like. I have to wait until the summer. I am still trying to finish my second stereo rig which is basically going to be a Stereo/home theater set-up.

I may look into George Lucas' favorite home theater speaker company and the one he uses in his own studios. Not B&W by the way, but M&K.

An alternative I suppose could be to look at a receiver with all the bells and whistles and that ALSO has preamp outputs. Generally just going to separate power amps cleans up the sound - it certainly did when I added a Bryston to my old Pioneer Elite receiver back in the mid 90s. I see that some mid level Yamaha receivers have preamp out puts. This would be cheaper and would allow to do it in stages. Power amp for the mains and use the receiver to power the center and rears. Such receivers are in the $700 range rather than $2400 for the likes of the Rotel. Since I have a Rotel preamp (RC1082) maybe there is a way to pass through the receiver and switch back to the Rotel for two channel listening while only relying on the receiver's preamp/processor for movies.

basite
01-16-2011, 03:21 PM
An alternative I suppose could be to look at a receiver with all the bells and whistles and that ALSO has preamp outputs. Generally just going to separate power amps cleans up the sound - it certainly did when I added a Bryston to my old Pioneer Elite receiver back in the mid 90s. I see that some mid level Yamaha receivers have preamp out puts. This would be cheaper and would allow to do it in stages. Power amp for the mains and use the receiver to power the center and rears. Such receivers are in the $700 range rather than $2400 for the likes of the Rotel. Since I have a Rotel preamp (RC1082) maybe there is a way to pass through the receiver and switch back to the Rotel for two channel listening while only relying on the receiver's preamp/processor for movies.

I'm afraid that for surround processors, this is probably the best way for your budget...
surround processors are scarce anyhow, so left for the high end market, and thus expensive...

I don't know what other brands have 5.1, or 7.1 analog outs, but the current (and all previous) Yamaha A/V receivers have this function, an RX-V667 even has this function, and surround analog ins too, all bells & whistles, options, features,.. included :)

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

RGA
01-16-2011, 03:34 PM
You beat me to it Basite

The Yamaha RX-V667 is not available in Canada - fortunately they sell a Canadian version of it which is supposed to be the same thing called the HTR 6063 in the link below.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/yamaha-yamaha-630-watt-7-1-channel-3d-home-theatre-receiver-htr6063b-htr6063-b/10147368.aspx?path=725ebb95e66a6b78809b12568a789ff aen02

I find it surprising that they're the only company that seems to offer preouts. Back in the day Yamaha was often said to be the best of the receiver lot with Denon. But things do change over time. It seems to offer all of the surround sound features and does have more featured in fact than the Rotel processor??? And if you use the preouts so long as the Yamaha processor isn't a total hatchet job is far better value than an outboard processor. I must be missing something but it seems to have all of the surround sound modes, has Yamaha's version of the Audessy called the "YPAO auto-calibration"

CNET even likes it LOL
http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers/yamaha-rx-v667/4505-6466_7-34137032.html

Interestingly the next model up called the 7063 is $250 more and from what I can tell offers nothing except 5 watts per channel more. Features wise it adds nothing. Seems like a waste of time to me.

$600 and it will probably go on sale. I don't know - but paying another $1500 for the Rotel has me wondering.

Mr Peabody
01-16-2011, 05:47 PM
If using a receiver for HT I'd still use a stereo preamp for music. The Rotel would be worth it if you wanted it for music and movies. If you find an older processor with HDMI that will accept PCM you can still decode in the player. The draw back to decoding in the player is most don't have as many set up features as a receiver, some actually very sparse.

I haven't done it but I've heard the input of a tape monitor loop can be used in place of a bypass loop. Extreme caution not to push the wrong button would be required :)

$3150.00 is expensive for the AV8003, I didn't think the exchange was that drastic. Maybe $30.00 to the $1k. You might check Audiogon or Audiophile Liquidator for possible lower prices. I wonder if the $3150.00 is a new version? Retail for mine was $2499.00 U.S. when it first came out.

RGA
01-16-2011, 06:54 PM
Mr. P

The issue for me right now is I already have a two channel system - two of them. So I don't really need superior sounding 2 channel audio from a processor. The Rotel RC 1082 will be in the same room as whatever home theater set-up I use.

I would frankly be surprised if the 2 channel preamp section of the Yamaha mentioned above would be in any worse than their upscale units.

I wonder if anyone has taken the RX-V667/HTR 6063 and then added an outboard 5 channel power amp or 3 RB-1050 amps and then compared that $1800ish set-up to stand alone $3,000ish receivers.

That little Yamaha at under $600 also has TrueHD or DTS-HD encoding in player and 3D Video support both of which are not on the Rotel pre/pro

I mean the first priority of any of these feature boxes is to have the features - and it would be nice if it sounded good. But from what I can tell the Yamaha sounds pretty good and offers more features than some of the expensive processors. Consider that the $2200 two year old Rotel is now out of date compared to a $599 receiver which can also let you use it as a preamp/processor.

Unfortunately there are many items that don't follow the current currency of the times. The Rotel seems to be about the same price in the States or in Canada but not the Marantz. Though I can check with Soundhounds as they carry both lines as well as Denon and Anthem.

Looking at the feature set of the Yamaha it seems to do an awful lot. The ipod function is an optional $100 extra apparently which is a downside. http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/yamaha-yamaha-630-watt-7-1-channel-3d-home-theatre-receiver-htr6063b-htr6063-b/10147368.aspx?path=725ebb95e66a6b78809b12568a789ff aen02

Mr Peabody
01-16-2011, 09:33 PM
I believe Kex had a Yamaha receiver before getting the Emo processor. And, some one just started a thread "Emotiva in my house" who upgraded from a receiver to the Emo processor. Seems the concensus is the processors are better. However, if HT is secondary many do exactly what you are thinking about. Pix uses an Integra receiver with external power amp.

I ruined it for me. I started way back by replacing my Yamaha processor with an Arcam. The Arcam blew the Yamaha away. I later needed new technology and got a good deal on the Primare which was amazing. The Marantz does not sound as good as the Primare did but again I needed new technology and didn't want to afford it in the Primare league. After having a good processor I wouldn't be satisfied with a receiver. People think "it's just HT" but the benefits of a good preamp is just as useful with HT. With the Primare the music in a soundtrack was sometimes distracting because it sounded so good, processors seem to have superior panning and sound stage movement as well.

I definitely see your point and not putting it down just sharing my observations in order to inform. If Soundhounds carry both it would be interesting to hear their comparison. They probably have other insight as well as to how much difference between a receiver and processor.

RGA
01-16-2011, 10:50 PM
I think I know what you're saying here - it would be nice to try a few first. The Emotiva I am not terribly convinced by for a few reasons. There is no set-up system which I desire and some of the build issues discussed on forums has me leery - at least on the first gen.

I'll start looking into it a bit. I don't expect much from the sound of receivers but hey are often hampered by the power amp section. Yamaha seems to be the only maker that lets you bypass the power amps so one can grow a bit with them. A processor I like but the cost for proven processors is more than 3 times the price.

basite
01-17-2011, 01:35 AM
I find it surprising that they're the only company that seems to offer preouts. Back in the day Yamaha was often said to be the best of the receiver lot with Denon. But things do change over time. It seems to offer all of the surround sound features and does have more featured in fact than the Rotel processor??? And if you use the preouts so long as the Yamaha processor isn't a total hatchet job is far better value than an outboard processor. I must be missing something but it seems to have all of the surround sound modes, has Yamaha's version of the Audessy called the "YPAO auto-calibration"


Indeed, I knew that Yamaha was always 'a step ahead" of the others when it came to DSP and all, but this kinda beats them all...

interesting is too, that they have a seperate power supply for analog & digital, not often seen in receivers...

Anyway, a processor still will have the edge, I think. better components everywhere, no space taken up by the amp section so more space for the other components,...
unfortunately, I'm on a budget. :D
Emo gear had me wondering too for a while, everything you hear about them is supposedly good, but sometimes it seems to good to be true. and shipping to europe will probably be a sour pill too :), I'm going for a yamaha soon.

I've seen the lineup in America & canada is different. They just introduced their 07series a few months ago, I've seen new products come up in the past weeks here too.
The 667 seems a heck of a deal for me, might go for a 1067 too. last product they added was a RX-V3067, and indeed, I haven't really found a processor yet for a reasonable price that offers more functions, and it probably will be good too...


I have no experience with what the Rotel would offer, but I guess that I've seen them as a "stereo only" brand in the past, they might be different now though. I don't know what it is, but with alot of high end brands, take Mcintosh for example, they also do Home Theatre stuff, and their processors always seem, well, a year behind. They'll sound good for sure, my dealer had a Mc stack in the reference cinema room, and it always sounded amazing, but still, they seem a little reticent with all the functions...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Mr Peabody
01-17-2011, 06:15 AM
I personally did not like the sound of the Mac processor, I felt Anthem was much better and less money.

RGA, you might want to do some reading on the "auto set up" features. Most guys with a bit of experience claim they aren't that good and prefer a manual set up using a SPL meter. I keep saying I will try mine but just haven't yet. Yamaha uses YPAO. I helped my friend set up a modest system, we used an entry Yamaha receiver with a Jamo speaker package. The YPAO worked well for him. I heard the set up after using the YPAO and it was very good for the budget.

RGA
01-17-2011, 10:43 AM
I have read several reviews now on the Yamahas and what I could figure out is that the best set-up is YPAO over Audessy in terms of getting it to sound good out of the box and getting it done quickly. Audessy is slightly more advanced but it's also more difficult to use.

So even if it's a draw at $600 I think the RX-V677 wins out because no one else has preouts. It has more actual surround sound features than the $2400 Rotel processor (and you then have to buy amplifiers). I bet it sounds better but again it should given the price and it still loses out on some surround issues which is kind of unacceptable IMO.

Apparently for the last few years Yamaha has not been very good - the 665 got pretty poor reviews so this is their way of getting back in the game.

What Hi-Fi has a review of the RX-V667 http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Yamaha-RX-V667/

pixelthis
01-17-2011, 01:43 PM
I have read several reviews now on the Yamahas and what I could figure out is that the best set-up is YPAO over Audessy in terms of getting it to sound good out of the box and getting it done quickly. Audessy is slightly more advanced but it's also more difficult to use.

So even if it's a draw at $600 I think the RX-V677 wins out because no one else has preouts. It has more actual surround sound features than the $2400 Rotel processor (and you then have to buy amplifiers). I bet it sounds better but again it should given the price and it still loses out on some surround issues which is kind of unacceptable IMO.

Apparently for the last few years Yamaha has not been very good - the 665 got pretty poor reviews so this is their way of getting back in the game.

What Hi-Fi has a review of the RX-V667 http://www.whathifi.com/Review/Yamaha-RX-V667/

Audessy is "difficult" to use? YOU plug in a mic and let it run, following the on screen prompts when advised.
I have set up two systems with Audessy, used to drag my SPL along to ask which they preferred, don't even bother any more.
IF you find AUDESSY "difficult" then I think a WAVE RADIO IS CALLED FOR.:1:

harley .guy07
01-17-2011, 01:56 PM
I have been reading lately and the new Aventage line that yamaha has come out with seems to be the receiver to beat right now and honestly I have always been a Yamaha fan since I sold them in the 90's but I do believe in the mid 2000's or after my unit was made the quality and sound seemed to slip a somewhat and that is when Denon, Onkyo, Marantz among others seemed to rise to the top of the receiver world. With this new series of receivers and Yamha seeming to get back to their roots with making quality and sound matter they are getting back some of their mojo in my opinion. Its about damn time.

RGA
01-17-2011, 03:04 PM
Audessy is "difficult" to use? YOU plug in a mic and let it run, following the on screen prompts when advised.
I have set up two systems with Audessy, used to drag my SPL along to ask which they preferred, don't even bother any more.
IF you find AUDESSY "difficult" then I think a WAVE RADIO IS CALLED FOR.:1:

I said more difficult to use - the reviewer reviewing the Yamaha owns several and merely pointed out that the Yamaha system was simpler to operate. That doesn't means Audessy is difficult - just more difficult. I have tried neither so I can't say.

Still from the reviews I have read in that price range the Yamaha is the only receiver that provides 7.1 preouts, apparently has the best on screen display, the most HDMI inputs and analog inputs, and sounds as good as any in the price band. The downside is that you have to pay $100 extra if you want the iPod hook-up and it doesn't have networking capability.

RGA
01-17-2011, 03:16 PM
I have been reading lately and the new Aventage line that yamaha has come out with seems to be the receiver to beat right now and honestly I have always been a Yamaha fan since I sold them in the 90's but I do believe in the mid 2000's or after my unit was made the quality and sound seemed to slip a somewhat and that is when Denon, Onkyo, Marantz among others seemed to rise to the top of the receiver world. With this new series of receivers and Yamha seeming to get back to their roots with making quality and sound matter they are getting back some of their mojo in my opinion. Its about damn time.

It does seem to go up and down a bit in the receiver maker world. For a time Matantz had a brutal reputation for early failure and poor build. Denon to me always seems lighter on features and more expensive. Yamaha had some trouble for me with the cross lines - they had a different line sold at FutureShop than the lines higher end dealers would carry. Those box chains often demand cost to the bottom from their suppliers so perhaps Yamaha cut corners or had their plants moved to areas they had less control. Still lots of people I know who bought them in the 80s and 90s still own them and they still work flawlessly.

I think that anytime you start to look at audio you have to look at how much you will use it and the budget you want to spend. The RX-V677 seems to me to offer a reasonable price with the ability to build your system in stages should you later want to invest big on a separates system. This Yamaha offers you the option while no one else seems to. If you decide to buy external amps you can do it in stages. Once the amps are bought you can then buy a dedicated processor that in a few years would be more current and perhaps offer better sound quality. If you choose not to do that well you still have all the major features and it apparently sounds as good as any in the price class.

Still I would like to listen to this receiver with external power amps versus a dedicated processor with external power amps. It may be true the processor has better parts but then again Yamaha is a very big company and has an advantage of economies of scale. Ie they may be able to buy parts like power transformers and surround sound chips and caps and resisters at 1/10 the price of a smaller dedicated processor company.

ken88
01-18-2011, 04:39 AM
In general, who made better receivers in the same price range among the Japanese, British, Canadian and Americans, etc? No receiver no matter how good it is is not perfect. Thanks

Tarheel_
01-18-2011, 06:53 AM
I can't understand why Sherwood is so rarely mentioned on this board. They produce some great sounding receivers for a very fair price.

My last 10 years, i've changed out more receivers than any other HT pieces combined. I've found they vary not in just price range, but by company. Anyone that says you cannot hear the difference in receivers either doesn't have enough experience or their speakers cannot convey the subtle tones.

I rank them (just my experience). I've owned at least 1 of the below brands with the same front array speakers.

- Sherwood / H-Kardon
- Marantz
- Denon
- Technics
- Pioneer (model 1018 was the worst sounding AVR i've ever come across)

harley .guy07
01-18-2011, 10:37 AM
I can't understand why Sherwood is so rarely mentioned on this board. They produce some great sounding receivers for a very fair price.

My last 10 years, i've changed out more receivers than any other HT pieces combined. I've found they vary not in just price range, but by company. Anyone that says you cannot hear the difference in receivers either doesn't have enough experience or their speakers cannot convey the subtle tones.

I rank them (just my experience). I've owned at least 1 of the below brands with the same front array speakers.

- Sherwood / H-Kardon
- Marantz
- Denon
- Technics
- Pioneer (model 1018 was the worst sounding AVR i've ever come across)

If you are speaking of the newcastle series I would say that some of Sherwoods receivers are not bad but me personally I have not heard one that impressed me that much but there are not a lot of high end shops that carry Newcastle as their reciever brand and I believe its because Sherwood also makes a cheapo deapo branded receiver that can be bought at almost any online retailer out there even the low mid fi companies. I will admit though that the Newcastle stuff is much better but I still don't think it is up there with the better receivers on the market today.

pixelthis
01-18-2011, 12:53 PM
After my last YAMMY I will not buy another, AND they used to be my favorite brand,
but the rxv-750 I bought had inexcusable problems, like a bad digital board. For 800
BUCKS you deserve better.
ALSO the ergonomics were non-existent, the radio tuning was idiotic, and there was crosstalk.
MAYBE their high end stuff is okay, but their lower end stuff is just end.
As for the two different lines, that idea probably sounded better at the meeting than the
way it actually worked out. THE RXV and HT lines were identical except that they uglified
the HT and discounted it for big box stores, which didn't fool anybody(the RXV was meant to appeal to higher end users). A SAD STATE for what used to be the best receiver maker out there. When they wandered into the mass market they got lost in the woods.:1:

Woochifer
01-18-2011, 05:13 PM
One consideration that people have overlooked is that while receiver manufacturers make multiple models, many of those models share key components until you reach certain plateaus, and you only have a handful of true upgrades in the model lineup.

As an example, Yamaha's RX-V667 is actually part of their entry level receiver line. If you compare it with the RX-V367, you'd find that it has a nearly identical chassis and internal design, and very similar circuitry. The key differences might be with some of the power supply components, the number of outputs/inputs, and the inclusion of video processors. Some of the features you see with the RX-V667 might be disabled on the lower line models and might have a higher power output, but otherwise they are mostly identical.

If you look at the RX-A models, those are Yamaha's midlevel receivers and they use an entirely different chassis and internal design. But, as you move up the lineup, you'll find that here too, these midlevel models share most of the internal components. The higher models might add networking features, additional power, etc., but they still share much in common.

To me, that's the key differentiation when shopping for receivers. You won't hear as much of a performance improvement within the similarly designed entry level models, but you will get a more noticeable improvement when taking the step up to the midlevel models. This will vary by manufacturer as to how and when they step up the component design.

That's why I've always recommended that people look for a closeout midlevel model. Last year's midlevel receiver will still have comparable features to this year's entry level receivers for around the same price, since entry level receivers typically lag behind the midlevel units with adding the latest features. But, the midlevel units will still likely come with better amplifier components and processing circuitry.

When I bought my Yamaha back in 2001, that was a midlevel model. That month, Yamaha had just introduced its newest entry level receivers and the high entry level model had a list price $300 lower than mine, but had an identical power rating. Since my model was due to get phased out in a few months, retailers had already started marking it down, so I got it for $100 more than the entry level model. While the two receivers had identical power output specs, the test bench results showed that the midlevel receivers actually put out ~30 WPC more on an all channels driven test.

I don't know if this is still the case, but I know that Pioneer a few years ago began putting very high quality components into their high entry level models (the ones that sell for around $600), and really stepped up their midlevel models as well. I was very impressed when I A/B'd a Pioneer Elite receiver against a similarly priced Denon model (one of their AVR-38XX models).

Among the manufacturers discussed, the only receivers I would avoid are the Sony ES line. They went to Class D amplification a few years ago, and it was a disaster (bad sound quality and reliability problems). I don't know for sure if they've gone back to a conventional design, but I'd heard that they did. But, even there, Sony has had power supply reliability issues with many of their receivers.

RGA
01-18-2011, 07:38 PM
Woochifer

This seems to be the main upgrade focus of some of these receivers though - Power amp section. The model up from the RX-V667 and the HTR version seems to add more power output for another $250. What I am trying to figure out though is that it seems like this and a couple of added features are really all that is added as you go up the line from the V667.

If the Surround processor chips are the same then should not be the sound emitted from the chip regardless of brand be the same - since all the manufacturers are buying these chips from the same makers not building their own. So the actual processing should be identical or else they would or should have grades of chipsets.

Then it comes down to the actual amplifier sections but if you bypass the internal power amp for an outboard high quality power amp (one that is better than the one in the $3000 receivers) and by simply separating the power supply you would I should think in theory anyway to be able to beat the best receivers by using a lower model that has all the processing but cheaped out on the power amp section which is expensive. The Big expensive receivers have big power amp sections - they had to spend more on that but also noise reduction, caps to handle the bigger power, perhaps more shielding, transformers, dedicated power supplies (discrete power supplies) and a physically bigger case. Plus they sell less of them than the cheap ones so the economy of scale isn't as high.

I am merely guessing at all this which is why I would like to see if anyone has compared something like the 667 with an external high grade power amp versus Yamaha's top of the line receiver.

Looking at the review of the 665 model from Yamaha which the 667 replaced CNET didn't like the 665 much at all - especially the cheap op amps. This is why I say - receivers are a bit hit and miss - they cheap out someplace and the sound suffers. They gave it a pretty bad review http://www.cnet.com.au/yamaha-rx-v665-339296180.htm

I certainly get the point about buying a closeout from the past year over the new one if you don't lose an important feature - but I have found that there is often a sweet spot in receiver line-ups of old and it appears that way still. Unless there is a specific need generally receivers add features but not necessarily quality sound. The top Yamaha does add much more sophisticated video processing and DAC chips and a better set-up (Advanced YPAO) but it also adds a lot of stuff that I personally would never use like 6 S-Video connections, 2 extra zones and of course it adds, arguably, a whole whack of confusion.

I think the top end receivers are meant for people who intend the receiver to do everything so the money spent on the 140Watt per channel X 7 and 50 per channel X 4 and all the other piles of features is where the money is going and if it is the only amp in the home they make some sense. Plenty of people don't want a bunch of external boxes.

I may look into them around Christmas - maybe they'll start blowing them out in the second half. If I don't like it BB and FS usually let you return them for full refund after 14 or 30 days anyway.

I suppose I could do something as a reviewer - 2 channel guy tries surround sound kind of thing but not sure I'd be the best person for such an endeavor. It might work for audiophiles similar to me but it would not be of any real use to home theater fans (although I could compare the 2 channel sound - hmm - I'll think about it). Definitely some comic relief I can see in doing such a thing.

Mr Peabody
01-18-2011, 07:49 PM
RGA, there must be more to a receiver than a chip connected to an amp section, your assumption is like saying all CDP's with Burr Brown's sound the same, you just move up in features.

harley .guy07
01-18-2011, 08:10 PM
I know a lot of people are downing Yamaha for the way they handled things in the mid 2000's and I can understand that. But as everyone knows companies can go through good and bad times and decisions just like Pioneer did, marantz and almost everyone else did at one time go through a time when their build quality and sound was not at what their reputation their past models had. Yamaha is one of them and from around 2004 until about recently I would have left Yamaha alone myself but it seems like they may be going through a realization that their receivers and other equipment have been getting worse reviews in the past and the recommended receivers for HT in the past few years have not been yamaha and I would think that they would have payed attention to this and are now doing something about it. Now to the people who have owned them and have had problems I understand your statements I used to sell Yamaha and we sold tons of them with virtually no returns for quality issues and I have owned one for years with no problems. Now RGA is correct that for the most part the mid level and higher end receivers are separated mostly by there power supplies and amplifier output sections and not the processing even though there might be subtle differences in the way the processing is separated from other components within the unit that can give minute sound improvements but I seriously doubt that at a receivers level that these differences would yield a big improvement and if a person is considering adding a outboard power amp then saving some money on a lower powered model would probably be logical.

harley .guy07
01-18-2011, 08:17 PM
RGA, there must be more to a receiver than a chip connected to an amp section, your assumption is like saying all CDP's with Burr Brown's sound the same, you just move up in features.

I think there is a difference in different models in that standpoint but within the same series and some level a lot of receiver companies use the same chips and overall design what really changes are power supply and power amp sections or at least the models that I sold and have also seen lately. Now comparing a Best Buys pioneer receiver chip set and overall build to a elite model in a totally different class is crazy but models within a certain price category usually share similarities with the exception of power amp sections and power supplies.

RGA
01-18-2011, 11:13 PM
RGA, there must be more to a receiver than a chip connected to an amp section, your assumption is like saying all CDP's with Burr Brown's sound the same, you just move up in features.

Well partly. But I look at receivers differently than high end amplifiers. I look at them as computers that happen to also amplify signals. The actual processors may be exactly the same in many computers and you can expect the same perfermance from a Dell as you will get from a Toshiba or HP. Provided they're using the same hard drives etc but Windows 7 should run similarly on all of them. If you want to play games you need a better graphics card etc as you move up the line.

With a receiver though, if it says it can do 7.1 and has the DTS HD processor in it then that is a standard chipset that Yamaha or Denon has purchased and both receivers should output that processing in exactly the same way.

To my audiophile way of thinking - the difference then would be the quality of the power amp to take the signal it is being fed and sending it to the loudspeakers. All of the reviews I have read so far on the 667 have stated that it's pretty much the best receiver in its price class or at least very close - and it's one of the few that has amplifiers rated to handle 4ohms.

I just think that the most expensive aspect of these receivers ends up coming down to the power amplifiers - because if you look at it - the processing chips are similar from the V667 all the way up to near the top of the line. The differences are much bigger power amplifiers (transformers) and a lot more inputs and likely proprietary expensive things like THX certification which is something makers had to pay for to get recognized but many amps which don't have the certification were and likely still are capable of meeting the requirements but chose not to waste the money on the advertising gimmick.

Don't get me wrong comparing the RX-V677 to an upper scale model the upper model may sound significantly better but I would posit that a major reason for that is the much better power amplifier section. The 665 for example was sited as sounding poorer perhaps because of cheap OP amps, some use grungy digital amplifier sections. If you simply take the entire power amplifier section out of the cheap receiver by using an external this should improve the sound dramatically. I did this with my Pioneer Elite - the power amp section was complete rubbish compared to Bryston and Arcam and the sound improved dramatically.

I am certainly not saying this is true but I certainly would like to test my suspicion here that if I run the $500 RX V677 to three Rotel RB1050 amps at about $1200 for the three of them and then compare the sound quality of that to an all in one $1700 receiver. There is a massive toroidal transformer in each Rotel Power amp and I suspect there isn't in a $1700 receiver - it probably has one toroid and splits off into a bunch of channels. And the separation of power is an issue I would think is big as well.

I own a Marantz SR 4300 and now that I have a power amp I think I may just run both ans see what effect it has on the sound quality of the receiver in 2 channel. I can't really test it in multi-channel since I don't have a surround sound set of speakers. But the actual sound quality of this receiver is no worse than the top of the line Pioneer Elite I owned and on two channel was no worse than the top Marantz receiver I was comparing it against. It's not great but neither was the Elite or the Marantz. The Bryston greatly improved them in terms of clarity and noise floor. Bryston still sounds like Bryston but...

The Marantz SR4300 is a bit out of date me thinks but it does have preouts. http://www.onecall.com/product/Marantz/SR-4300/Receiver/_/R-18002

RGA
01-18-2011, 11:30 PM
I think there is a difference in different models in that standpoint but within the same series and some level a lot of receiver companies use the same chips and overall design what really changes are power supply and power amp sections or at least the models that I sold and have also seen lately. Now comparing a Best Buys pioneer receiver chip set and overall build to a elite model in a totally different class is crazy but models within a certain price category usually share similarities with the exception of power amp sections and power supplies.

I'd also be very very very careful at making this assumption. I can't speak for now but I can speak to mid 1990's Pioneer and Pioneer Elite. There were several crossovers where an Elite was a prettier box but the guts were identical to non elite models. Not in all cases but there were some. I owned a laserdisc Player CL1049 or something (it's been a long time and i can't recall the numbers exactly) but this unit was identical in every way to the Pioneer Elite version except that the Elite had Rosewood side panels and a Piano Black face. Everything else was exactly the same. The Elite had a slightly nicer remote control. My Elite receiver was the same as a regular production top of the line unit except again the cosmetics were better and the Elite had a copper chassis. Though I would argue that even that is cosmetic since none of them were particularly high grade. Same goes for the mega changers they had. Cosmetics and remotes. The Elite differences came in the tape decks and most of the Elite LD and DVD players and Elite offered integrated amps and CD players which were more upscale. But they did have some crossovers. Interestingly though the crossovers prices were not too far off so Pioneer wasn't ripping anyone off. I actually got the Elite version of the receiver at a lower price than A&B Sound was charging for the regular version so you'd be nuts to not buy the Elite.

I guess with Yamaha I simply like the idea that they are giving you the processing and a decent sounding unit (according to the reviews CNET and What Hi-fi) and basically let you bypass the weakest part of the receiver - the power amp/supply section and let you upgrade it. Pioneer and Marantz and Denon don't. You have to spend FAR more money to get the preouts and if you are spending that much to get the preouts it's almost better just to buy a pre/pro. Yamaha lets you do it cheaper. Personally I like that.

basite
01-19-2011, 01:55 AM
After my last YAMMY I will not buy another, AND they used to be my favorite brand,
but the rxv-750 I bought had inexcusable problems, like a bad digital board. For 800
BUCKS you deserve better.
ALSO the ergonomics were non-existent, the radio tuning was idiotic, and there was crosstalk.
MAYBE their high end stuff is okay, but their lower end stuff is just end.


you should try out a new one...

and from what period is the RXV-750?
we have an RX-V1300, and although it had the typical yamaha sound which many complained about in the past years, it works flawlessly, built quality is very good, easy to use, a step ahead back in it's time on DSP, endless inputs, ... nope, never actually had a problem with it...

and since their sound quality has increased so much with the last series, and they're using discrete amps again, I'm going for a RX-V667 or higher in the near future for my attic system.

Poultrygeist
01-19-2011, 03:33 AM
This Panasonic class D AV receiver should make your list. Sadly it's no longer in production.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-SA-XR55S-Theater-Receiver-Silver/dp/B0009E1YPW

pixelthis
01-19-2011, 01:39 PM
I think there is a difference in different models in that standpoint but within the same series and some level a lot of receiver companies use the same chips and overall design what really changes are power supply and power amp sections or at least the models that I sold and have also seen lately. Now comparing a Best Buys pioneer receiver chip set and overall build to a elite model in a totally different class is crazy but models within a certain price category usually share similarities with the exception of power amp sections and power supplies.

Sometimes they come from the same factories, same basic form factor with features
added and subtracted per order.
AS FOR WHERE THEY ARE "MADE", that would be China, where most manufacturing is heading. YAMAHA makes theirs in MALAYSIA , and there are a few more holdouts, but only a few. A lot of electronics these days are "contracted" out, and a lot of audio gear is
no different. Of course, the more expensive the more "hands on".:1:

ken88
01-19-2011, 02:24 PM
I am thinking (just a thought) of upgrading my HT receiver from a Sony to a mid level receiver costing up to $1,000. What would be a good one to power my front Totem Sttaf speakers, a Mite T centre , a Mirage sub and a a pair of small Polk as surround? The most important thing for me would be to get the best possible sound coming from the Sttaf when listening to music. I spent roughly 70/30 listening to music and watching movies. Which is better, an Onkyo, Pioneer Elite, Sony ES, Denon, NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc??? Thanks for all your input.

RGA
01-19-2011, 04:41 PM
I am thinking (just a thought) of upgrading my HT receiver from a Sony to a mid level receiver costing up to $1,000. What would be a good one to power my front Totem Sttaf speakers, a Mite T centre , a Mirage sub and a a pair of small Polk as surround? The most important thing for me would be to get the best possible sound coming from the Sttaf when listening to music. I spent roughly 70/30 listening to music and watching movies. Which is better, an Onkyo, Pioneer Elite, Sony ES, Denon, NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc??? Thanks for all your input.

This is exactly the point. A Yamaha RX-V667 with a Rotel RB 1050 external power amp would be $1000 or less. The Rotel power amp would drive your main speakers and the Yamaha would drive the center and rears. Then later you could buy a three channel version of the amp used etc (really any used good power amp) and it would very likely be better than any $1000 receiver on the market. What you're paying for in the receiver is better power amp section but i highly doubt they'd be better than the Rotel at ~$400.

The thing is buying separate amps take up more space but in terms of sound quality I think this has the edge which is what I have been talking about. The key question remains is the preamp and processing better in a $1000 receiver over the ones at $600? And I have a feeling not. What I am seeing is that the $400 difference is going to the amp section and some extra features (but not necessarily important ones). That $400 may be much better spent on the external power amps.

This is the budget Rotel http://www.masterblastersound.com/auctions/rotel-rb-1050-audiophile-power-amplifier/

and review http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0601/rotel.htm

Mr Peabody
01-19-2011, 05:43 PM
Totem seems to like the current so the external amp idea is good.

If against the external amp for some reason my choice of receivers to drive Totem would be Onkyo/Integra.

ken88
01-21-2011, 04:40 AM
Is the Integra DTR 30.2 or the 40.2 better to drive the Totem Sttaf? The DTR 40.2 outputs 110 watts/channel v/s 100 watts/channel for the 30.2, considering the Sttaf can handle up to 100 watts/channel. Do you know of any existing issues with these two Integra models? Can anyone comment on the sound quality from these models? I want the best possible sound from the receiver. The price differential between these two models is about $200. Does the extra $200 justify the extra 10 watts/channel?? I am still wondering if there is a better receiver in the same price range compared to these two Integra (MSRP $800-$1,000) in terms of sound quality, product reliability, etc . Thanks in advance for your help.

pixelthis
01-21-2011, 10:44 AM
Is the Integra DTR 30.2 or the 40.2 better to drive the Totem Sttaf? The DTR 40.2 outputs 110 watts/channel v/s 100 watts/channel for the 30.2, considering the Sttaf can handle up to 100 watts/channel. Do you know of any existing issues with these two Integra models? Can anyone comment on the sound quality from these models? I want the best possible sound from the receiver. The price differential between these two models is about $200. Does the extra $200 justify the extra 10 watts/channel?? I am still wondering if there is a better receiver in the same price range compared to these two Integra (MSRP $800-$1,000) in terms of sound quality, product reliability, etc . Thanks in advance for your help.

You are like a friend of mine who recently bought a receiver, you are hung up on WPC.
The main concern is amps, mainly how beefy is the power supply. This will determine
how a receiver will hold up under high output conditions
A receiver with 40 wpc and a high current power supply will do better than a 110 wpc
receiver with a weak power supply. That "110" watts is just advertising. If your receiver
even got close to that, you would be deaf, and it would melt down shortly after.
The different channels in your HT receiver draw on the power supply as needed, not
all of them needing a huge amount of power at the same time is what receiver manufacturers count on. As for the Integras, they use similar amps that Onkyo does,
and I know from experience that they work quite well, no matter what the wattage.
And as for the Totems, havent been around any for awhile, but they used to be quite efficient, probably most anything could run them.
The most important thing about Integra is excellent quality control so that your tunes
won't get interrupted, a phono stage so that you can listen to that old PRETENDERS
LP, like I was the other day, a three year warranty , solid aluminum faceplate, and perks.
Also Integras make for a great inexpensive pre-pro when you're ready to get serious with seperates. HATE TO BRAG, but these are really nice receivers .:1:

pixelthis
01-21-2011, 10:48 AM
Above is a pic of my 1200$ Integra 7.4 that I bought about five years ago. Still a nice
looking piece of gear, class never goes outta style. My current 6.9 is similar.:1:

eisforelectronic
01-21-2011, 11:34 AM
Well the Totem Staff is one of their few speakers that is 8 ohm, so it is easier to drive than most of their models. At 88db's it still needs some power behind it to sing though.

Mr Peabody
01-21-2011, 05:16 PM
Unless the more expensive version had some features you needed the less expensive unit should do fine. 10 watts won't be noticeable but I suspect there is some reason the other model is more expensive other than just 10 watts. The Integra would be very good as a receiver to drive the Totem they have more current than most.

Mr Peabody
01-21-2011, 05:50 PM
From what I could tell the major difference between the 30.2 & 40.2 is the 40.2 has the networking features. The front channels on both can be either bridged or used to biamp which would be a nice feature for the Totems, bridged would provide more power and when I listened to the Totem the sales person had them bi-wired to a Naim integrated. Not sure what the advantage was. The Integra look to be very well built, a couple independent power supplies, the processor and amp sections are isolated from each other and the amp is all discrete circuitry (no IC's). I think you'd be pretty happy with the improvement over what you have now.

RGA
01-21-2011, 09:02 PM
Generally you can look to see if the receiver is 4ohm capable. The RX-V667 for instance is rated for 4 ohms and even 2ohms (which for a $500 receiver or any amp really is pretty exceptional - assuming the fuse doesn't blow). This is partly what has drawn my attention to it. I posted a thread about this unit on AudioAsylym.com to see if people have tried it out.

ken88
01-22-2011, 06:59 AM
To much of my surprise when I checked the price for the Integra 30.2 and 40.2 in Calgary, they are selling for $1,100 and $1,400 respectively compared to $800 and $1,000 in U.S.!!!!!!! Given the Canadian currency is above the U.S., what a rip-off!!!!!! There is only one authorized dealer here and this just pissed me off!!!!! I understand I can order from U.S, but if the product is defective or damage when I get it, it will be too much hassle to get it shipped back, etc. Now, I will be looking for other similar brands where the prices are comparable to those in the U.S.

Mr Peabody
01-22-2011, 07:38 AM
You might want to check Amazon.com for prices. Shipping damage from where ever you order shouldn't be a problem to get taken care of and when you have problems these days with a product you are almost always on your own to deal with the manufacturer, no such thing as customer service after the sale any more.

You seem to have a decent budget, what prices do Rotel or NAD start at in Canada? Shame the Integra is off the list it looked like it would rock the Totem. The Yamaha is probably decent for the money but I doubt it could touch the 30.2 but on the other hand you do have the option of adding an external amp which would level the playng field.

ken88
01-22-2011, 04:18 PM
I have not checked into Rotel and NAD yet as they are sold by one authorized dealer only. I know for sure every one of their models costs a lot more in Calgary. In general, electronic products, especially high-end vehicles, cost at least 25-30% more than in U.S. Mr Peabody or anyone, do you know of any good integrated amplifiers (up to $500) off your head which I can use to listen to music only?? My receiver does not have a pre-out. Currently, I have my Onkyo Blue-Ray player hooked up to the receiver. If I am correct, you don't need to hook up the integrated amplifier to the receiver to make it work, just hook up the speakers wires from the speakers to the integrated amp?? As I said, the receiver does not have a pre-out. Do I have to re-connect the cable from the Blue-Ray player to the integrated amplifier? So when I want to play the HT on 5.1 surround mode, what shall I do? Do I have to turn on the integrated amplfier and the receiver? So to summarize, when I just want to listen to music in 2 channel stereo mode from the integrated amplifier, how do I go along to set up the system. Thanks.

Mr Peabody
01-23-2011, 01:55 PM
An integrated amp is just like a receiver but without the tuner section and typically better sound quality. Not sure in Canada but check Cambridge Audio, NAD and JoLida for integrated amps in your price. Onkyo makes a 9555 that created a bit of a buzz for being a good value. Marantz has some integrated in your range as well.

You should be connected from Onkyo BDP to receiver via a digital connection. You can simply connect the Onkyo BDP to the integrated via left/right analog for music.

ken88
01-27-2011, 12:47 PM
BTW, Pixelthis, your Integra 7.4 looks very nice!!!!! I am still interested to get an Integra receiver if I can get a good deal !!! I notice that all the new receivers come with 3D ready video capabilities. What I don't understand if why would you need a 3D ready receiver if you have a 3D TV and a BlueRay 3D player and you can just automatically watch 3D DVD movies. Say, if any TV networks can broadcast any programs and movies in 3D, you will automatically watch them in 3D format, so why do you need a 3D receiver? Thanks for all your comments.

ken88
01-29-2011, 05:33 AM
Any comments regarding my previous post!!!!!! Thanks.

Mr Peabody
01-29-2011, 06:34 AM
I know you have to have the glasses in order to watch 3D. I personally haven't kept up with it because it's not an interest to me. I too wonder if it's just a sales thing for newer receivers or one really needs anew version of HDMI or something. You might try crutchfield.com for one of their learning articles. I also have an old email from Amazon called "3D 101" I'll try to go back to see if I can find anything out. Do you plan to go with
3D?

ken88
01-29-2011, 03:30 PM
I don't plan to go with 3D for now but I am just trying to future proof the receiver as much as I can if I do go ahead to get a new one. Any new receiver with 3D video capabilities needs a special HDMI cable 1.4a, I believe. What I don't understand is why do you need a 3D receiver if you have a 3D TV and a 3D Blue Ray player, including the 3D glasses in order to watch 3D movies and programs.

Mr Peabody
01-29-2011, 03:57 PM
Your receiver wouldn't have to be 3D if you went directly to the TV but then you'd forgo the switching capability of the receiver. You'd have to switch both TV and receiver, plus more chance of audio/video sync issues, and, you'd need more cables.

Woochifer
01-29-2011, 04:06 PM
I notice that all the new receivers come with 3D ready video capabilities. What I don't understand if why would you need a 3D ready receiver if you have a 3D TV and a BlueRay 3D player and you can just automatically watch 3D DVD movies. Say, if any TV networks can broadcast any programs and movies in 3D, you will automatically watch them in 3D format, so why do you need a 3D receiver?

3D ready simply means that the video switching and processing on the receiver is compatible with the bandwidth and signaling requirements with 3D devices.

Remember that you'll use the receiver as your primary video switch (i.e., all of your video sources will plug into the receiver, which will run one HDMI cable out to the HDTV), so the output will need to retain a high enough bandwidth to support 3D. That 3D ready label simply ensures compliance, but other receivers without that label still potentially could passthrough a 3D signal.

Woochifer
01-29-2011, 04:18 PM
An integrated amp is just like a receiver but without the tuner section and typically better sound quality.

The absence of a tuner is the ONLY thing that differentiates an integrated amp from a receiver. Any differences in sound quality have nothing to do with the tuner.


I have not checked into Rotel and NAD yet as they are sold by one authorized dealer only. I know for sure every one of their models costs a lot more in Calgary. In general, electronic products, especially high-end vehicles, cost at least 25-30% more than in U.S. Mr Peabody or anyone, do you know of any good integrated amplifiers (up to $500) off your head which I can use to listen to music only?? My receiver does not have a pre-out. Currently, I have my Onkyo Blue-Ray player hooked up to the receiver. If I am correct, you don't need to hook up the integrated amplifier to the receiver to make it work, just hook up the speakers wires from the speakers to the integrated amp?? As I said, the receiver does not have a pre-out. Do I have to re-connect the cable from the Blue-Ray player to the integrated amplifier? So when I want to play the HT on 5.1 surround mode, what shall I do? Do I have to turn on the integrated amplfier and the receiver? So to summarize, when I just want to listen to music in 2 channel stereo mode from the integrated amplifier, how do I go along to set up the system. Thanks.


Are you planning to share the BD player (and presumably your speakers too) with both a 5.1 receiver and two-channel integrated amp? Makes no sense to me, given that you're doubling things up here.

If you're really concerned about two-channel performance, you should consider going with a two-channel integrated amp (or two-channel receiver) and forget the 5.1 receiver, or use the 5.1 receiver as a preamp and hook up a dedicated two-channel amplifer to the L/R mains.

But, realistically, I would just get the 5.1 receiver and see how you like the sound quality for all your sources. You're getting wound up over irrelevant issues before you even know what you're getting yourself into.

Mr Peabody
01-29-2011, 05:55 PM
Sorry you made that connection but I didn't say anything about a tuner effecting sound quality, merely that manufacturers tend to build the integrated amps to sound better than the receivers they offer, and that too is a general statement.

ken88
01-30-2011, 07:45 AM
Thank you for your comments, Mr Woochifer. Right now, I have a 7.1 receiver which I share with the BD player and speakers, etc. The sound quality when listening to music is pretty good actually but I was thinking of upgrading my receiver to get an even better sound (I have that audio bug eating into me lately!!!!!). That's how I got into the idea of integrated amplifier, etc, etc. Ultimately, if I do decide to upgrade, I will get a higher end receiver to get that better sound when listening to music!!!!!!.

magtrw
03-03-2011, 01:48 PM
I use the Arcam AVR600 to drive Martin Logan Summits (woofers
not used) Martin Logan Logas (center channel) 4 Gallo Micro
Nucleus rear speakers and 4 side speakers, 2 Spica TC--50'S
and 2 more Gallo Micro Nucleus. This receiver is truly state of the
art and does a fantastic job of driving all these speakers. It has
huge current capabilities and detail, imaging, depth and reproduces ambience and spacial properties that is simply awesome. Using
7.1 Dolby Matrix is so very realistic and gives one a accurate
and very spacious sound that feels like you are in the venue where
the recording was made. For sound like this, the cost is absolutely
worth it.

Mr Peabody
03-03-2011, 07:21 PM
Nice set up magtrw. The Gallo's would make great surrounds and I bet they still make a pretty good match witht the ML's. Why aren't you using the Summit's bass modules?

harley .guy07
03-03-2011, 09:08 PM
I have sold Yamaha and Denon in the 90's when both were head to head as far as price goes and I preferred Yamaha overall but Yamaha also went through a stage from around 2004 or 5 to just recently where they were slipping a little bit on quality and sound. The new Aventage series from Yamaha are supposed to be some very fine units and the sound is up to the standards they should be from what I have seen and Yamaha are very reliable. I have ran a 2001 yamaha receiver for my theater setup for years and still run it. I even used it as my preamp for my two channel amp for my mains and while it can't hold a candle to my Nuforce preamp it did a fine job in my opinion for the money spent. It also has the 6 channel inputs so I can use my Oppo processor for dolby and dts master off of my blue rays. I am not going to down Onkyo, Denon or any of the others but I would not buy one of there offering that they sell at the mass market stores like Best buy (not magnolia) since they are a different unit specially made for a lower price point and lower end crowd. I would just go to your local better audio dealers and listen to some of the receivers out there and let your own ears be the judge of what you like.

Worf101
03-04-2011, 05:53 AM
I want to ge OFF this merry go round. While I've only replaced my main television once in the last 11 years going from a 35-inch CRT to a 52-inch LCD, I've replaced my HT receivers 6 or seven times. While the end use has remained constant the manner the video is delivered and the sound processed seems to change every other week. It feels to me like Onkyo, my current company of choice, is on a 6 to 8 month cycle of this that and the other. I'm tired of it. My next HT upgrade will be to go to separates. I'll find a good 5 or 7 channel power amp and keep it, swapping out pre amps only when technology truly forces me to.

I read recently that Onkyo's coming out with a series of separates, they're selling em overseas I think but not here in America. When they do become available, if the price is right I'll buy this hook up and only change things out when I have to.

Worf

magtrw
03-04-2011, 06:00 AM
Nice set up magtrw. The Gallo's would make great surrounds and I bet they still make a pretty good match witht the ML's. Why aren't you using the Summit's bass modules?
I use Magneplanar Tympani IV bass panels instead of the
Martin Logans woofers because of several reasons. The
Magneplanar bass panels, being a dipole, match the Summits
dipole electrostatic elements and integrate perfectly. One gets
superior depth, ambience, stunning bass impact, a huge
sound-stage and a realistic size of instruments. Each two bass
panels have 1254 sq. inches of surface area with very low mass
providing very quick and exciting bass response. This combo
of speakers far outclasses just using the Martin Logan Summits.
I have a very large room and the Summits bass is good, but
no comparison to the Magneplanar Tympanis. The Tympanis
are driven by an Audio Research D400MKII power amp that
is individually controlled utilizing a Mark Levinson 380S
preamp (the volume control has .1 db increments) which gives
one total control of balance.

Mr Peabody
03-04-2011, 05:46 PM
An online friend has a set of the Tempani and talked about the great bass. I believed him but it was hard to imagine from Maggies. The Tempani must be the way to go if one has the room. I'd like to hear them some day.

basite
03-05-2011, 02:30 AM
intersting :)

but why aren't you using the tympani's alltogether?
and isn't that projector in your way when watching movies?

Great system!

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

magtrw
03-05-2011, 06:01 AM
intersting :)

but why aren't you using the tympani's alltogether?
and isn't that projector in your way when watching movies?

Great system!

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

I use Martin Logan Summits for the electrostatic transducers that
are considerably better than the midrange and tweeter of the
Magneplanar Tympanis. The electrostatic transducers are better
for several reasons. There is no xover between the midrange
and high frequency range and because of this the imaging is
far superior to the Tympanis. Another area is low level detail
that is simply awesome and transparency is also in a class by
itself. Electrostatic transducers have far less distortion because
of the operating principle. The technique is known as push-pull
operation and is a major contributor to the sonic purity of the
electrostatic concept due to its exceptional linearity and low
distortion. Since the diaphragm of an electrostatic speaker is uniformly
driven over its entire area, it can be extremely light and flexible.

As for the projector, it is not blocking the screen because the
seating is raised up and the view is perfect. With the projector being
located in a straight line with the screen the picture is sharper
and brighter.

Mr Peabody
03-05-2011, 06:24 AM
I've heard several ML models and a few different Maggies and I have to agree, I've always preferred the stats.

harley .guy07
03-05-2011, 02:18 PM
Hell I just wish I had the room for all of that speaker madness. But I am sure it sounds good I have just never seen someone use different parts of two different panel speakers before in there system, very interesting. As long as it gets you your audio the way you like it then that's all that matter right?

harley .guy07
03-05-2011, 02:21 PM
Oh and I like the blue seating. Its my favorite color and it fits the room well.