Athena Audition Series compatible receiver

[lytalbayre]

I recently purchased the Athena Audition Series Speakers and I've been wanting to get a new receiver within my pricerange of $500 or less.

I finally decided upon the Pioneer VSX-1014TX-K . From some online research, I believe it was determined that this is really similar to the Pioneer Elite model VSX-52TX.

Well, my question is... does anyone have this receiver or know of it. I'm pretty much decided, but I could still be swayed if I had reason. Feedback is definately appreciated!

Thanks all.

[markw]

These are incredibly efficient speakers an even a low power unit can produce shockingly loud levels from these. ...pretty good sound, too.

But, the better the power applies to them, the better they will sound. FWIW, I've got more than enough power from a Denon 2802, which is rated at 90 wpc, HT ratings.

[spacedeckman]

I'm not familiar with that model of Pioneer receiver, but be aware that most if not all of the Pioneer mainstream (non-Elite) receviers use IC output devices, not discrete outputs. I'm not a huge Pioneer fan, nor Sony for that matter. Neither one seems to offer much for the money when it gets down to the wire.

The Athenas are very easy to drive, so they would work just fine with the Pioneer you have chosen. However, I'm quite convinced that you could do far better for the money with one of the better brands. Yamaha has a killer piece for $500 retail, and the new Denon which I haven't seen yet is supposed to be really nice too. They may not look as impressive on paper, but they are far superior in actual operation.

Enjoy.

[RGA]

Spacedeckman are you on the Hi-fi choice forum?

The pioneer will be fine - high current receivers? Yeah OK :rolleyes: This kind of advertising schlock is why people spend so much more on Yamaha and Denon which while built better perhaps don;t sound it. The reason IMO to go with Yamaha is "generally" they are better surround sound decoders - though the industry of receivers seems to overturn stock almost on 18 month - 2 year intervals so who knows what this week's feature boix will do that the other guy's didn't - Pioneer has been all over the map - making some better and some pretty lousy receivers. But my auditions with the Denon 3803 4802 and 57XX sure as heck wouldn't have me lining up.

Try if you can to buy a receiver that has power amp output jacks - that is why I bought the Marantz 4300 thinking that I could replace the rather pathetic power amp section later with something good perhaps a Bryston which would probably improve noise as well.

Pretty much receivers all more or less sound the same all receivers high current or not can handle a 4ohm impedence dips. But then i have not really run across a receiver I would want to own - even the one I own was more because I needed a cheap headphone amp - the reciever was a blowout demo and I figured $300.00Cdn 3 year warranty and I can make it better with a power amp - what the hell - even then I think gee I wish I had put the $300.00 to something else.

[Griffon42]

I'm driving a set of Athena auditions (Fronts: AS-F1, Center: AS-C1, Surrounds: AS-B1) with a Denon 1804. It's definitely an entry level setup and below the range you're looking for. However, I picked the receiver based on advice that the Athenas would go well with a Denon. Good advice! The setup sounds great, particularly with music.

Based on my own experience and advice I received, I would look for a higher end (than mine, at least) Denon receiver. Probably way more power than you need with these speakers, but find a features set you're happy with.

Good luck.



I recently purchased the Athena Audition Series Speakers and I've been wanting to get a new receiver within my pricerange of $500 or less.

I finally decided upon the Pioneer VSX-1014TX-K . From some online research, I believe it was determined that this is really similar to the Pioneer Elite model VSX-52TX.

Well, my question is... does anyone have this receiver or know of it. I'm pretty much decided, but I could still be swayed if I had reason. Feedback is definately appreciated!

Thanks all.

[Woochifer]

The main strike against the Pioneers has been their sometimes dicey reliability. Not familiar enough with their current model lineup to comment one way or another. That Pioneer model has a parametric room calibration feature, which is handy if you have a room with difficult acoustics and are not familiar with the various level and distance calibrations that you need to adjust to optimize the surround effect. I'm not sure, but I believe that the Elite models use a more advanced version of the room calibration function.

Another option to look out for is the Yamaha RX-V1400 or 2400, which are about to get replaced by newer models. Those are Yamaha's midlevel models and both of them are very well regarded and have their own parametric room calibration function. You should be able to negotiate down to about $500 or less for the RX-V1400. In general, your best value is with a closeout model because it allows you to go with a higher level model with a better amp section, and you don't lose much on the feature set because the higher level models typically get the newer features first.

[Woochifer]

Spacedeckman are you on the Hi-fi choice forum?

The pioneer will be fine - high current receivers? Yeah OK :rolleyes: This kind of advertising schlock is why people spend so much more on Yamaha and Denon which while built better perhaps don;t sound it. The reason IMO to go with Yamaha is "generally" they are better surround sound decoders - though the industry of receivers seems to overturn stock almost on 18 month - 2 year intervals so who knows what this week's feature boix will do that the other guy's didn't - Pioneer has been all over the map - making some better and some pretty lousy receivers. But my auditions with the Denon 3803 4802 and 57XX sure as heck wouldn't have me lining up.

Lemme guess, you would suggest a two-channel amp with a $500 budget? "Advertising schlock"? Uh, maybe you should actually talk to people who've bought receivers or maybe even go to a store and look up some prices before you go making presumptions about "why people spend so much more on Yamaha and Denon." Last time I checked, the comparably positioned Yamahas and Denons are virtually identical in price to the Pioneer and Elite models. In my auditions, the differences between COMPARABLY PRICED receivers were subtle at best, but doesn't mean that the sound quality was awful. You get improvements in how the power supplies handle more difficult to drive speakers as you move up the lineups.

For basic surround decoding functions, the Yamahas are no different than Denon, Onkyo, h/k, Pioneer, JVC, Panasonic, etc. because the DD and DTS decoding has to be within spec. It's the DSP functionality and processing power that differs.

FYI, receivers are typically updated every year, and that's how it's ALWAYS been, even with two-channel models from 30 years ago. Receiver manufacturers use a lot of the same OEM vendors to supply their processors, and those get updated all the time, so it would make no sense whatsoever to not update the receiver designs, since the OEM chips that go into them are updated (and discontinued) regularly. Continued improvement, refinement, and added features for the same price -- I don't see anything wrong with that.


Try if you can to buy a receiver that has power amp output jacks - that is why I bought the Marantz 4300 thinking that I could replace the rather pathetic power amp section later with something good perhaps a Bryston which would probably improve noise as well.

Pretty much receivers all more or less sound the same all receivers high current or not can handle a 4ohm impedence dips. But then i have not really run across a receiver I would want to own - even the one I own was more because I needed a cheap headphone amp - the reciever was a blowout demo and I figured $300.00Cdn 3 year warranty and I can make it better with a power amp - what the hell - even then I think gee I wish I had put the $300.00 to something else.

If you don't bother to build a multichannel speaker setup around the receiver or use any of the virtual surround functions with DD and DTS soundtracks, then indeed that $300 was wasted. If you haven't run across a receiver that you would want to own, then why bother to buy one? $300 for a multichannel receiver and you're using it as a headphone amp. Maybe that $300 should have gone somewhere else because you're obviously not using the receiver for its designed purpose -- digital format decoding, signal switching, and sound output for multichannel soundtracks and video playback.

[RGA]

Lemme guess, you would suggest a two-channel amp with a $500 budget?

Umm did I say that?


"Advertising schlock"?

HIGH CURRENT is advertising schlock



Uh, maybe you should actually talk to people who've bought receivers or maybe even go to a store and look up some prices before you go making presumptions about "why people spend so much more on Yamaha and Denon."

Yamaha and Denon typically sell for more than receivers from Sony and Pioneer. yes Yamaha has one $299.00 model sold at Future shop and Pioneer and SONY make very expensive models - http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?catid=10551&mfr=&search=&logon=&langid=EN&dept=10&WLBS=fsweb17&sort=1&page=0&list=

But it is pretty obvious that HK and Yamaha here are generally up- priced products versus Panasonic and JVC.



Last time I checked, the comparably positioned Yamahas and Denons are virtually identical in price to the Pioneer and Elite models. In my auditions, the differences between COMPARABLY PRICED receivers were subtle at best, but doesn't mean that the sound quality was awful. You get improvements in how the power supplies handle more difficult to drive speakers as you move up the lineups.

Didn't say that some comaprably priced receivers sounded awful? Both my speakers can be driven by 8 watts - has nothing to do with power - but if you can;t hear the difference then good for you I suppose..



For basic surround decoding functions, the Yamahas are no different than Denon, Onkyo, h/k, Pioneer, JVC, Panasonic, etc. because the DD and DTS decoding has to be within spec. It's the DSP functionality and processing power that differs.

That's not suprising - most makers utilize similar parts in their receivers - some makers have other makers merely rebadge them no doubt - Pioneer and RCA and Hitachi etc. I doubt that has changed a whole lot.



FYI, receivers are typically updated every year, and that's how it's ALWAYS been, even with two-channel models from 30 years ago. Receiver manufacturers use a lot of the same OEM vendors to supply their processors, and those get updated all the time, so it would make no sense whatsoever to not update the receiver designs, since the OEM chips that go into them are updated (and discontinued) regularly. Continued improvement, refinement, and added features for the same price -- I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't have a problem with it - they have to compete with the other guy - the other guy puts Dolby prologic II in and yours doesn;t have it then the review says Weakness - doesn't have DPII - something like this could mean a huge hit to sales if the Yammie has it this year and the Denon doesn't so they need to stay on top of it. No problems with it. You'll have to judge whether you should trade your receiver in every year to get the new feature - if it is worth having perhaps you will otherwise you won't - that's up to the buyer. In a way that;s why i waited for the receiver in a cetain price range to have a main feature I wanted and would not accept one without it. So that could apply to many other features. Multi room would be useless to me but someone I know really wanted that tool.



If you don't bother to build a multichannel speaker setup around the receiver or use any of the virtual surround functions with DD and DTS soundtracks, then indeed that $300 was wasted. If you haven't run across a receiver that you would want to own, then why bother to buy one? $300 for a multichannel receiver and you're using it as a headphone amp. Maybe that $300 should have gone somewhere else because you're obviously not using the receiver for its designed purpose -- digital format decoding, signal switching, and sound output for multichannel soundtracks and video playback.

Well the Rega head amp was around the same price here so why not get a machine that does more and had a tuner(since I traded mine to help afford the speakers).
I watch movies through it - I don't like the resulting sound with music through either of my speakers. But that's not its purpose - I will keep it. I just always querry why i would assume if it doesn't do 2 channel well that it'll make 5 much better. So that holds me back from shelling out on 6 speakers and sub and BFD EQ - I worry I'm going to spend and go this home theater route AGAIN and AGAIN not be overly impressed. I do not like buying sight UNHEARD in that as you say all dealers are hopeless and can't set them up correctly whcih i guess i have to agree with because I'm vcontinually dissapointed by virtually all of the sub $10k set-ups I've heard ---- you're basically saying I need to buy it all first and then set-it all up and hope that a guy off the net was in fact right and it sounds good.

Am I being unecessarily skeptical? I dunno it's a LOT of money(that saying "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind) - I would have thought the point of dealers would be to show you how truly awesome something is like SACD and home theater so that you would go WOW and want to open your check book immediately and BUY today. But time and again dealer after dealer I am unimpressed. Now according to you they don't set it up right(either they don't know how or they move too much stuff around) and that THIS is the reason I do not like what I hear from such set-ups and that if I buy it all first and set it up at home I will.

One big reason for the power amp add on jack was that I was going to go about this REALLY cautiously so if I don't like it after I buy my Beyer feedback destroyer Parametric EQ and the speakers and sub - I can at least buy a power amp trade the receiver in for a pre and keep one set of speakers for that room and my hit won't be as big.

Sorry for babbling it's helping me to convince myself to keep the thing - trying to work out how the worst case scenario won't be too big a hit when or if I have to dump it all.

[kexodusc]

HIGH CURRENT is advertising schlock

Yamaha and Denon typically sell for more than receivers from Sony and Pioneer. yes Yamaha has one $299.00 model sold at Future shop and Pioneer and SONY make very expensive models
But it is pretty obvious that HK and Yamaha here are generally up- priced products versus Panasonic and JVC.


Yeah, I tend to agree here that "High Current" as a description is a bit misleading...I've seen Pioneers, Kenwoods, and Sonys make this claim.
However, I venture into Futureshop/Best Buy probably once a week to play with receivers and stuff. I can honestly say that H/K receivers, Yammies, Denons, and Marantz units typically have far larger power supplies and will deliver more power when needed, thus sounding better, than your similarly priced Kenwoods, Sonys, Pioneers, Panasonics, and JVCs. There are some parallel models, but for the most part this holds true...so if High Current is the lingo used to sell the fact that they do have larger, more capable power supplies, it's fair-game in my books.

Once you look at these 4 makes you find different combinations of features and build quality. Few people argue that Yamaha isn't tops in reliability, how much value this adds over the other makes is hard to tell though. I use to own Marantz receivers that were reliable for as long as I owned them, but to me the current models usually lack some bells and whistles compared to their competitors. I find H/K sound the most like a good integrated stereo amplifier, have the most power, but are a bit overpriced, especially here in Canada...H/K is rediculously more expensive at Future Shop than in stores in the US. I wonder why?

I'm not of the opinion that all similarly priced receivers sound the same. I think they may sound very close in a 2 channel mode with no processing added, at modest volumes, but beyond that, differences will show. They're not huge differences, but enough to influence a decision.

I have never seen or heard a Sony receiver outperform a similarly priced Yamaha, Denon, or Marantz receiver above the $300 mark. Below that, well, I don't think Yamaha and Denon are in those markets.

My parents had an older $800 CDN Sony receiver that claimed 100 watts/channel, but in reality had a smaller power supply and tested more poorly than a 70 watt/channel Yamaha receiver at $600 CDN...the Sony had a few more toys with it, no pre-outs, and all the intangibles that go with Sony though. Couldn't talk them out of it. To be fair, though, it was enough receiver for them, and they were happy.

I guess my point is that too many 2-channel stereo buffs quickly dismiss inexpensive (and usually Japanese) a/v receivers based on tired old cliches, unsubstantiated claims, and old stereotypes, and lump ALL a/v receivers under 1 roof. This is unfortunate. I'm quite proud of myself that I haven't fallen into this crowd of "elitists"
A/V receivers offer great value, and don't all sound horrible, and just like amps and pre-amps, there are quite a few differences at any given price level.
I would argue that if you are like me, and enjoy good 2-channel music reproduction AND multi-channel home theater...the first $500 you spend on a receiver or amplifier contributes more to the sound than the rest of your budget allocated to the amplification.
My decisions to add 3 power amps to my receiver's pre-outs, and build a second system around an Integrated amplifier certainly weren't the most cost effective ways of improving the sound, but were made for various reasons.
RGA, I think you and I can agree that $500 Marantz plugged into the $4500 AN E's would sound better than a $4500 Bryston plugged into $500 Energy C-3's!!!

With good planning around a specific budget, sometimes a/v receivers are the best way to go.

[corwin99]

Pretty good thread for the most part... Time to add my 2 cents.

I own a Yamaha RX-V730 Receiver... its a mid-priced model, i purchased it at A&B Sound out here in Nanaimo. Kind of. I originally purchased a Marantz SR5200 Receiver here, which i really liked, and performed much better than the yamaha for 2-channel music, however, it had much less features and the digital processor was not as good. Due to the fact that one of my best friends worked at A&B Sound and was always trying to get me to buy stuff, I got to hear just about everything they carried at the time... which is a whole lotta Marantz, Denon, Yamaha and Sony Receivers.

Denons always have less features for the same money. Marantz Receivers seemed the most musical to me. The 5200 in particular was quite musical. I got to hear it with some relatively high end Energy Veritas Speakers and a Dual Mission Sub in 2.1 channel mode. Sounded very good. I purchased it because of that.

I had to send the Marantz in to fix due to distortion in one front channel... the place kept "fixing" it and giving it back and it wasn't working... so i decided to have A&B ship it to Toronto to fix it... they gave me a SR4200 as a temp while i waited... 3 months later, they said they lost the thing. So i end up with a Yammie RX-V730 as a straight replacement. I immediately noticed the harsher sound. I dont remember which had better quality build, but both were relatively heavy. I am running the sucker through Klipsch Synergy Speakers so that could account for the brightness.

I also have a pair of Athena Audition AS-B2 speakers.. the larger bookshelves. I have run them through the Yammie just to hear how they sound. They are decent speakers, but now when i compare, they are muddy sounding through the Yamaha for 2-channel, they sound a little muddy in general tho. I've since hooked the Athenas up to many systems, including an all-NAD system, the main system in my living room (lots of combinations of stuff) and up to the Sonic Impact Digital 15watt amp next to my computer. The seem to mate well with the Yamaha, though you might do better with a different amp, i dont know.

In conclusion i'll say this... it does make a difference which amplifier you buy IMO, at least in the price range i was looking at. The Denon (dont remember model) the Yamaha and the Marantz were all in the same price range at the time.. $750-900CDN. They all had quite distinctive differences in sound, the yamaha in particular had very good digital processing. DD5.1 sounded more engaging.

[Woochifer]

That's not suprising - most makers utilize similar parts in their receivers - some makers have other makers merely rebadge them no doubt - Pioneer and RCA and Hitachi etc. I doubt that has changed a whole lot.

Has nothing to do with rebadging, it has to do with the OEM vendors. Even high end manufacturers have to use third party suppliers for their parts.


I don't have a problem with it - they have to compete with the other guy - the other guy puts Dolby prologic II in and yours doesn;t have it then the review says Weakness - doesn't have DPII - something like this could mean a huge hit to sales if the Yammie has it this year and the Denon doesn't so they need to stay on top of it. No problems with it. You'll have to judge whether you should trade your receiver in every year to get the new feature - if it is worth having perhaps you will otherwise you won't - that's up to the buyer. In a way that;s why i waited for the receiver in a cetain price range to have a main feature I wanted and would not accept one without it. So that could apply to many other features. Multi room would be useless to me but someone I know really wanted that tool.

The processing chips are typically what drive the new features on receivers the most, and there are only a handful of manufacturers that supply them to every company that makes receivers and high end processors alike. Only Sony and Yamaha make their own processors. Everybody else typically goes with processors from Motorola, Crystal, Analog Devices, or Texas Instruments. That's why when you see a new feature show up on a certain receiver, it's pretty much a given that it will be standard issue on almost all competing models within a year, and make its way down to the lower tiered models within a year after that.

The only reason why certain manufacturers seem like they would have a competitive advantage at any given time is because everybody introduces their replacement models at different times during the year. When Dolby Pro Logic II was introduced three years ago, Onkyo was the first receiver maker to introduce the DPLII decoder because their midlevel model update just happened to coincide with the first processors with that feature becoming available. Yamaha had just finished cycling through their product updates, so they were the last to introduce the feature about 10 months later. More recently, when the updated Dolby Pro Logic IIx (which adds the back surround channels to the decoding scheme) was introduced, Yamaha was the first manufacturer to incorporate that feature.

But, just because these new features get introduced every year does not mean that you have to also buy a new receiver every year. The horse race to introduce new features into these receivers has more to do with swaying buying decisions for the people who are looking to buy a receiver. When Yamaha introduced their parametric room calibration function a year ago, you could pretty much count on Denon coming out with a comparable feature soon thereafter and that's exactly what happened. I don't think it's any different than when two-channel receiver manufacturers were racing one another to introduce digital tuners, black cabinets, more power, and more elaborate remote controls into their updated models.


Well the Rega head amp was around the same price here so why not get a machine that does more and had a tuner(since I traded mine to help afford the speakers).
I watch movies through it - I don't like the resulting sound with music through either of my speakers. But that's not its purpose - I will keep it. I just always querry why i would assume if it doesn't do 2 channel well that it'll make 5 much better. So that holds me back from shelling out on 6 speakers and sub and BFD EQ - I worry I'm going to spend and go this home theater route AGAIN and AGAIN not be overly impressed. I do not like buying sight UNHEARD in that as you say all dealers are hopeless and can't set them up correctly whcih i guess i have to agree with because I'm vcontinually dissapointed by virtually all of the sub $10k set-ups I've heard ---- you're basically saying I need to buy it all first and then set-it all up and hope that a guy off the net was in fact right and it sounds good.

That all depends on the degree to which you value surround sound. It's a pretty simple consideration -- if you value optimizing two-channel above all other considerations, then you go the optimal two-channel route; if you value hearing multichannel soundtracks the way they were meant to be heard, then you build a multichannel system.

The thing about going multichannel is that the setup has many more variables involved, and it's a lot trickier to get the setup done right, especially in a demo room environment. With two channel setups, you don't need a SPL meter to get the channel balance done right because adjustments only require a simple A/B comparison; you don't have to worry about delay timing because it's not difficult to position the front speakers at the same distance from the listening position; there are no bass management considerations because all of the line level signals are analog; timbre matching between speakers is not an issue; etc.

Applying those two-channel assumptions to a 5.1 system will produce less than optimal sound quality. And in the demo rooms that I've visited (including several high end stores), the multichannel systems are usually less than optimally set up. It's easy to randomly tweak with a two-channel system and wind up with optimal sound quality; to optimize a multichannel system, random luck has much longer odds -- you have to do your homework, read up on what to do, and use calibrated tests to properly set up the system.

If playing back the multichannel soundtrack in a two-channel mixdown mode (which discards the LFE track and is done at predetermined attenuation levels with no provisions for correcting the sound levels or optimizing the imaging cues for two-channel playback) is good enough, then the multichannel capability is wasted. If DD is good enough, and listening to a soundtrack in DTS is not important, then going with a multichannel receiver is a waste.


Am I being unecessarily skeptical? I dunno it's a LOT of money(that saying "fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me" comes to mind) - I would have thought the point of dealers would be to show you how truly awesome something is like SACD and home theater so that you would go WOW and want to open your check book immediately and BUY today. But time and again dealer after dealer I am unimpressed. Now according to you they don't set it up right(either they don't know how or they move too much stuff around) and that THIS is the reason I do not like what I hear from such set-ups and that if I buy it all first and set it up at home I will.

One big reason for the power amp add on jack was that I was going to go about this REALLY cautiously so if I don't like it after I buy my Beyer feedback destroyer Parametric EQ and the speakers and sub - I can at least buy a power amp trade the receiver in for a pre and keep one set of speakers for that room and my hit won't be as big.

Sorry for babbling it's helping me to convince myself to keep the thing - trying to work out how the worst case scenario won't be too big a hit when or if I have to dump it all.

If I remember right, your last foray into home theater involved a Pro Logic receiver, which to me was never a consideration because it made only a marginal difference over normal stereo playback. 5.1 is a totally different animal. We're talking about the difference between five or six full bandwidth discrete channels versus two channels that get split into a monophonic surround track limited to 7 kHz and a center channel that's extracted from the midrange information on the L and R tracks with signal alterations applied. The difference in the multichannel sound quality and the surround effect is not even close. It's not even an incremental difference, it's more akin to the jump between mono and stereo.

Even in improperly setup dealer demos, the first time that people hear a multichannel movie soundtrack, they immediately pick up on its potential. It's only when you're critically listening specifically for precise imaging cues and sounds with a lot of depth that the shortcomings of dealer demos become apparent.

The thing about relying on dealer demos is that they are not setup for critical listening, and compared to two-channel, there are a lot more ways to set up a multichannel system incorrectly. With all those variables that need to be optimized, surprisingly few dealers that I've been to have their demo rooms optimally setup. In addition, a lot of them seem to aim for the type of sound that you hear in a movie theater (sound spread wide using dipolar surrounds, played loud, with the subwoofer adjusted more than 10 db above the mains, etc.). But, that's not the right approach because home theaters are capable of far more precise imaging, more balanced sound quality, and more accurate and linear bass response than what you hear in a theater. A movie theater has to sound at least halfway decent for everyone in a large room, a home theater can be optimized for where you're sitting.

If you want a hint of what your system is truly capable of, hook up your spare mains, and find a simple pair of bookshelf speakers that mimics the mains' midrange and highs as closely as possible.(Timbre matching is more critical if you listen to SACD/DVD-A and newer 5.1 movie soundtracks that aggressively steer sounds into the surrounds) IMO, it's more important to get the split surround effect than to get a center speaker, especially if you're using discontinued main speakers with no matching center speaker. Position the surround speakers so that they're 110 degrees off center and at least 1' above ear level, and point them directly at one another. Redirect the LFE into the mains and set the surround speakers to Small, use a SPL meter to set the surround levels, and use the delay to compensate for any distance mismatches between the front and surround speakers. That's the rudimentary setup guideline using the ITU reference and Dolby's recommendations, and it's one that the majority of demo rooms I've seen fail to follow.

Or if you can't spend much, just buy a digital TOSLINK or coaxial cable and connect your DVD player with the digital input to the receiver. That allows you to use the virtual surround mode on your receiver (just make sure that the speaker setup is done correctly with the center and surround speakers turned off thru the setup menu). This is typically a better representation of the soundtrack than the default mixdown that you get through the DVD player's analog outputs. Plus, it passes the LFE signal into the main channels so you have the full bass augmentation available. And connecting the audio signal digitally also allows you to use the DTS soundtracks, which in many cases sound substantially better than the DD versions.

[spacedeckman]

RGA, No, I'm not on the HiFi Choice site. I haven't been on any audio sites lately, at least on the audio parts.

I will agree, the term "high current" has been used and abused. It's all relative. You can't argue that bigger transformers and beefier output sections don't sound better. I've been around too long for that. Now it means that it can make a bit of bass, and won't shut down if the speaker hangs around 4 ohms or so for a while.

BTW, dump the Bryston idea. I've had two in my system. They suck. If you can find an unmodified McCormack DNA-1, go for it. Much better amplifier. Didn't matter what speakers I hooked up.

On receivers, one of the reasons I am a Yamaha fan is that they completely redid their front ends about 5 years ago. Really opened them up. At the same time, they put some more money in the amplifier section. They had gotten pretty lame up to about 7 or 8 years ago when they started on the path back. I've had some fun lately using an RXV-450 on some high end speakers. It's a little bright, but not bad. Great midrange, and pretty decent bass, especially for $300 US. Veritas 2.2i and Opera Callas both sounded pretty dang good. Better than a $300 receiver has a right to. Love to get ahold of a 1500 or 2500 with the same speakers. Don't figure it is going to happen though.

I really want those Operas. But $2800...I've got to do some scheming.

Later.

[lytalbayre]

Even though my thread was hijacked long ago... just thought I would update everyone on what I ended up buying:

A Harman Kardon AVR 630 . I got it refurbished direct from Harman on Ebay for about $600 including shipping.

Still though, the Pioneer looks really good.

Thanks all.

[J*E*Cole]

Even though my thread was hijacked long ago... just thought I would update everyone on what I ended up buying:

A Harman Kardon AVR 630 . I got it refurbished direct from Harman on Ebay for about $600 including shipping.

Still though, the Pioneer looks really good.

Thanks all.

good choice. I actually returned a Pioneer D814 which really just didn't sound very musical, it was just very flat, and incapable of only moderate listening levels, and I like music really loud, so I bought an H/K AVR130 for like $50 more and it sounds just killer compared to the Pioneer. The H/K is much more musical and powerful. I can really crank it up now, and it don't so much as make even the slightest distortion when driving my Infinity Alpha 50's with Aplha 40 surrounds and Alpha Center with Infinity sub.