A/V Receivers

[Mr Peabody]

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]

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]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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.

[harley .guy07]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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.

[Woochifer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/Maran...iver/_/R-18002

[RGA]

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]

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]

This Panasonic class D AV receiver should make your list. Sadly it's no longer in production.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-SA-X.../dp/B0009E1YPW

[pixelthis]

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".

[ken88]

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]

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/au...wer-amplifier/

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