Which Receiver is Better?

So I have a Denon AVR-1400 but traded it for a Sony STR-D915 ... The D915 has more power and I am only using it for listening to music ... and it has less THD ... so i figured it would be in my advantage. but lets hear what you guys think

I'm surprised you like the Sony better. I only thought the ES series could compete with Denon (which now is a sister company of Marantz) but I have also heard that Denon's quality has slipped and not what it used to be. Or maybe Sony has made a better receiver in the same price range. What matters most is what you think. Since you have heard both, in your home which one sounds better to you?

hmm its hard to say ... ill have to hook them both up and switch them to tell you ... but the sony seems a little heavy on the low end so i just EQ it down with my EQ haha... other than that it sounds fine ... i mean its nothing amazing but it works for me haha

I would like to know your opinion. Sounds like you are enjoying it and that's what it's all about. I have found some items highly regarded, to be disappointing, and others that were judged less so, to be a pleasant surprise. The opinion that matters most is by a true owner, like you. It's a lot more honest.

Alright when I get back in town I will have a test to see which one is better and let you know how it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallinWithNash

So I have a Denon AVR-1400 but traded it for a Sony STR-D915 ... The D915 has more power and I am only using it for listening to music ... and it has less THD ... so i figured it would be in my advantage. but lets hear what you guys think

---

I bought a Sony receiver a few years after a theft wiped me out.
It was a chance and the only choice I had at the time.
The ergonomics were great, as I had a Sony Laser and VCR, and TV.
All came on at the same time, the remote worked with everything.
But the sound was real stinky butt, at least until one of the front amps blew ,
and after 125 bucks, blew again.
Sony receivers are like something made in a former Soviet block country out of
old WWII avionics or something..
No, wait, that's the latest 5,000 buck SET tube amp....
Get the Adcom preamp(it has a phono stage) for around five hundred bucks, and a matching amp, something like a 5400(125 WPC).
Thats next on my list, anyway.:1:

haha pixy if i had money I would probably buy a marantz and some dynaudio's then a nice big HDTV and a good blue ray player ... well i can dream haha

but i recommend harman kardon or rotel. and further recommend separates which ends up costing more but providing more flexibility.

oh pixel, rather than getting the adcom pre, i strongly suggest a used tube preamp like an audio research or conrad johnson, VTL or the like. when i went from my gfp565 pre to the arc sp3a1, i was astounded at the improvement. and thats with keeping the gfa555II amp. the amps are just fine but the front ends arent quite up there.

I agree with hifitommy about a good tubed preamp. I had an SP3a-MKIII. It replaced a worked Dyna PAS-3. It was an order of magnitude better than the Dyna. You can't go wrong with a tubed ARC preamp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallinWithNash

haha pixy if i had money I would probably buy a marantz and some dynaudio's then a nice big HDTV and a good blue ray player ... well i can dream haha

---

Glad I could brighten your day.
Looks like I am leaning towards a Marantz integrated for 999$.
I dont have the space for an audio only system, but the Marantz has a
"power direct" button, allowing use as a power amp, so it can power the front two channels of my HT when I am not listening to tunes.
As for tube amps, you can get "tubular" all you want, I dont need the increased distortion,
heat,(the enemy of all things electronic) and limited power.
One thing good about tubes, they will surrive a nuclear attack like nobodies
business, even if you don't.:1:

haha go Marantz!!