possibly the best av receiver out there!

[ruadmaa]

It sounds like you bought yourself a new toy. The yammy is one hell of a receiver but I would bet you the denon 3805 would outperform the yammy 2500 in everything except for dsp's. In the 5 channel driven test I do believe I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the 2500 measured somewhere around 40-45 watts a channel max. The denon 2805 does 85 watts x 5 all channels driven for the same price, atleast in my area as the yammy 2500. So also the lesser denon model, the 2805 beats the yammy 2500 also. But for dsp's the yammy is the best receiver period.

Why would you cut down the man's receiver. Chances are, the Yamaha is more than powerful enough to meet his every need, especially if he is using it with a powered subwoofer. I seem to remember reading in more than a few places that Denon has had a few quality/longevity issues.

[bwithers]

Why would you cut down the man's receiver. Chances are, the Yamaha is more than powerful enough to meet his every need, especially if he is using it with a powered subwoofer. I seem to remember reading in more than a few places that Denon has had a few quality/longevity issues.

He is opening himself up for criticism of his receiver if you post something with a title of, "... best av receiver". Cam was just posting his opinion on the topic.

[Rock789]

Why would you cut down the man's receiver. Chances are, the Yamaha is more than powerful enough to meet his every need, especially if he is using it with a powered subwoofer. I seem to remember reading in more than a few places that Denon has had a few quality/longevity issues.

he isn't cutting down the dude's reciever, he is just stating facts...
this dude posted he got the best receiver and doesn't know if anything can beat it...
why are you offended?
I looked at many recievers the past 3 months, and ended up with a denon2805, not because it is the best, but from the specs, and what I have learned from talking to owners of all the different receivers, it was the best for what I am using it for...
it was a little more than 700, and most of the receivers in that range were very equal for the most part...
I probably would have been just as happy had I decided to go with one of the others...
Mike

[ttskyline01]

Kex

I heard that the Pionner 52tx does 115 x5 in the home theater magazine and the Denon 3805 is 85 to 95 x 5 in terms of power.
True their are some receivers that can beat the yamaha in specs and in power but not in price. Well thats not true. If you go to Best buy and compare the prices of the only two THX receivers they carry, you can clearly see the Pioneer 1014 is a couple of hundred dollars less than the Yamaha. But all in all the Yamaha 2500 is an awesome receiver.

[kexodusc]

If your only criteria is power, than there's always another receiver...myself, I like features, reliability, and sound, more than power, which is easy enough to add later...having quadruple the power doesn't make a receiver better, especially if you don't need the power...it makes it over-priced.

[cam]

If your only criteria is power, than there's always another receiver...myself, I like features, reliability, and sound, more than power, which is easy enough to add later...having quadruple the power doesn't make a receiver better, especially if you don't need the power...it makes it over-priced.

Reliability and sound, reliability problems can be had with any brand, if you were to run into a whole bunch of bad luck, a jvc could last longer then a yammy or denon. Sound is in the ear of the beholder and the speakers they match the receiver to. Features and power, most people I know, if price being equal and other features such as automatic calibration and loads of audio/video hookups, would give up 20 rather useless dsp's (after the novelty of dsp's has worn off) for more power any day of the week.

[edtyct]

Cam, isn't it a little bit of a question what those people you know want that power to do and what they think that it is? Many people still equate usable power with wattage, which isn't necessarily the mark of what a receiver's amplifier section can do. Some of the better receivers out there have modest ratings in watts but can deliver lots of current in sustained bursts as needed, giving music and soundtracks body when other receivers might just give up. The Arcam that kex and I were talking about before is one of them.

To be perfectly democratic about it, sound is in the ear of the beholder, but need that mean that no standards of good sound exist, or matter? If good sound is simply relative, then it is ultimately a meaningless concept. I'm willing to bet that kex, for example (if he doesn't object), has something distinctly in mind when he references sound quality. Accurate timbre, dynamic range, and frequency response are genuine goals, foreign as they may be to many people. Good components may have their signature sounds, but that need not imply that they distort instruments and voices or fail to capture other characteristics of recorded, ordered sound. Personally, I'd give up automatic calibration, lots of inputs/outputs, every DSP in existence, and a bunch of watts on paper for a high-current design that attends to all the essentials of basic sound reproduction. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, I wouldn't necessarily save money, although this kind of attention to detail is still relatively affordable.

An interesting thing happens in audio that I've experienced many times. At every step along the way in your audio evolution, you think, "How can it get any better than it is now?" You simply can't imagine what you might be missing--that is, until you hear it. I'm a percussionist. Around twenty-five years ago I had my consciousness raised about sound reproduction. When I was playing a lot, I'd listen to music on a stereo and barely pay attention to how it actually sounded. Like many musicians, apparently, I would simply extrapolate from my own experience to complete the mental image of what I was hearing. Then I had the good (or bad) fortune to be introduced to superior sonics, and I haven't looked back since. It was a revelation to discover that people were actually able to design components that could make a recorded drum, for example, resonate remarkably like a live one. It becomes much more complicated, since that's not all that recorded music does. But it was my way into the art of it. Suddenly, I had expectations about how I wanted things to sound. That's how the trouble starts. Oy. Sorry about the rambling.

Ed

[cam]

I'm all for more power, especially if that power can be sustained as much as possible through the power consuming sections of alot of dvd's out there. Personally, if I was going to upgrade from my denon 1804, I would be looking for the most power I could afford per dollar spent, not dsp's and other useless features I may only use once just because they are there. Now since we are talking power, you referenced KEX (if he doesn't object) as to be looking for accurate timbre, dynamic range, and frequency response. 2 out of the 3 you mentioned, accurate timbre and frequency response are all to do with the speakers and the room that they are in, not the power. Dynamic range can be limited if your amp power is limited, so that's why I would choose the more powerful receiver. I know the all channel driven test can be a needless test since no movie out there taxes all channels at the same time, but nevertheless, if a certain receiver does good at the all channels driven compared to an another, chances are you will achieve a higher dynamic range. Are we way off topic or what?

[cam]

Why would you cut down the man's receiver. Chances are, the Yamaha is more than powerful enough to meet his every need, especially if he is using it with a powered subwoofer. I seem to remember reading in more than a few places that Denon has had a few quality/longevity issues.

Astro stated that he didn't know if anything could beat the 2500, I mentioned the 3805 because plain and simple, it can, but in my area it is about 300-400 dollars more. I then mentioned one model down, the 2805, which in my area is the same price as the 2500 and from tests I have seen, the 2500 produces less power x 5 then the 2805. I'm not saying the 2500 sounds bad in comparison, I'm just saying that you can get more power per dollar. And one of the first things I said was the 2500 is one hell of a receiver, so how is that putting down the guys receiver. I have the denon 1804 and I would give that up in a heartbeat and a reasonably amount of money for a brand spanking new Yammy 2500. One thing that concerns me about the 2500 though, I have read posts on other sites that when run in 5-7 channel stereo, at high volume the faceplate lights start to dim to the bass notes of the music being played. Sounds like a possible power supply interference problem with the rest of the eletronic circuits.