possibly the best av receiver out there!

[Astro]

I duno if anything can beat the yamah rx-v2500. It is such a beast of a reciever and is so revish. Probly the only one that could would be the rx z9.

[edtyct]

I don't know a heck of a lot about the receivers from Yamaha, Denon, HK, et al., but other serious contenders would have to be the Lexicon RV-8, Arcam AVR300, and Rotel RSX-1067. The Lexicon's price might keep it a bit under wraps, but I'm a little surprised that the Arcam and Rotel, which seem to fall more within the popular price range, don't get much space in this forum.

Ed

[cam]

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.

[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]

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.

[kexodusc]

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.

There's a ton of receivers out there that beat the Yamaha, beating the Yamaha for the money is a different story though, I suspect the list would drop quite a bit. How about the 1500 for starters though...basically the same receiver with a few less bells and whistles and a better price tag. There's a few others out there, but we're splitting hairs here as it will come down to personal preferences more often than not.

The 3805 is quite a bit more money than the 2500, so that's not really a fair comparison...for that kind of money I wouldn't hesitate to buy a NAD T763 or something over the Denon.
When I bought my 1400, the lab specs on the 2803 (the Denon equivalent that cost a bit more) were odd...the Denon had 1 watt more of power with all 5 channels driven, but 4 or 5 watts less with 6 driven...I liked the Yamaha just a bit more for sound and bells and whistles (and YPAO with a MICROPHONE INCLUDED to boot). I'm sure someone else went with the Denon over the Yamaha for similar reasons.

Quite honestly the difference between 45 and 78 watts isn't that much, and you couldn't do with 45, you probably need more than 80 too...I wouldn't feel to comfortable with the 2805 driving 60 watts or more with 5 channels for extended periods of time...but damn, on all but the most difficult speakers to drive, that's getting bleeding loud with 5 speakers or more in most rooms.

FYI, the specs I've seen show the 3805 handling about 115 watts with all channels driven...that's more like it...

Arcam and Rotel do make some great receivers, I just thing once you get to those price points most people are looking at separates which are probably even better, and offer more flexibility.

[edtyct]

Arcam and Rotel do make some great receivers, I just thing once you get to those price points most people are looking at separates which are probably even better, and offer more flexibility.

Kex, I agree absolutely that after a point, if sound quality and flexibility are priorities--rather than convenience and real estate--separates are the way to go. But the Arcam doesn't even clear $2000, and the Rotel isn't much more. At those prices, the degree of superiority for separates might well become moot for some people, and the buzz about the Arcam, surprising though it may be, places it on a par with separates costing much more. The Lexicon, on the other hand, is basically a bunch of separates in their own small room.

Ed

[kexodusc]

Ed: You bring up a good point.

I've heard the Arcam's and they are nice. As I've always suspected with NAD, Rotel, and other makes, Arcam uses the exact same components used in their separates in their receivers, I don't buy the "receivers make compromises" argument here.

To tell you the truth, for home theater I'm not always sold on the superiority of separates...if you have enough power in a quality receiver (that's a big if, but for many, a 30 watt X 5 receiver is plenty), and all the digital processing is taken care of, what else are you paying for? Brand name? Blue Sky? Better imputs, caps, etc might make wee bit of an audible improvement, maybe, but there's a point where better electronics doesn't necessarily yield better sound. There's so much "anti-receiver" bias in the audiophile world that is unjustified. For hi-fidelity analog audio, sure I can see some limitations and compromises an all-in-one box has, but in the digital domains, most decent mass market a/v receivers seem to hold their own, and if they have a half decent power supply like the larger Yamaha's, Denon's, H/K's, NAD's, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if $2000 -$3000 separates aren't yielding much benefit other than flexibility for upgrades and more power (which may or may not be needed). And spending $4000-$5000 on the separates might generate more improvements, but then we have to ask if a decent receiver (the Arcam for example) with superior speakers would sound better than high-end electronics with inferior speakers...I now which setup I'd pick.

I use my RX-V1400 as a pre-pro and have every intention of getting a "real" pre/pro (Anthem probably) someday, but I'm curious as to how much better the processing stage could be? 1's and 0's appear to be processed quite well by this deplorable japanese a/v receiver. I think the pre-amp stage will bear the most improvement, particularly for my analogue inputs for SACD/DVD-A but otherwise I've been quite impressed.

I really think there's demand out there for some really powerful a/v receivers with good amplifiers for each channel at a decent price point, and we're not getting it. You either have to pay a huge premium for a ton of features that you either won't use, or will use but will become out-dated fast, or buy a feature heavy receiver with limited power capabilities. I have my Adcom/Rotel amps hooked up the receiver, but if I could get that Yamaha with more quality power I would give up this setup.

I just couldn't find a receiver with the power I needed, the features I wanted at a reasonable price...At the time I wasn't planning on having DVD-A/SACD feed my receiver analog signals so I decided to use it as a pre/pro...

Anyway, I guess manufacturers can't make individual models tailored to everyone's needs and keep prices reasonable, so we're forced to choose on or the other...that's a real shame.

[edtyct]

Kex,

For me, in a small nutshell, the differences in sound quality amount mainly to matters of power supply and headroom and the extent to which the processor, in whatever component it's housed, can allow a simple path for analog or even two-channel digital sound. I'm not much into DSPs, but a good surround mode for stereo music that doesn't seriously dilute the original impact too much is always welcome (Neo 6 or DPL/DDIIX). The chips for soundtrack reproduction, though not a slam dunk, usually are satisfactory in the components manufactured by reputable companies. In the heresy of heresies department, I don't even care enough about THX to pay the fee to implement it, if that will mean giving up more valued features at a certain price point. The Arcam again would seem to fit the bill on that score.

Then there's the matter of proprietary circuitary and other enhancements. The fact that Arcam has invented a new, apparently audible, technique to reduce digital noise is interesting to me. I'd like to spend some time with the 300--fat chance--which is the only Arcam at this point to include it (not even its big brother has been able to incorporate it into production yet). I appreciate the artistry that goes into the design of high-end products, as opposed to the mere packaging of parts and features that characterizes many components, but as has been said many times here and elsewhere, there is a law of diminishing returns in audio/video. I guess people have to decide, one way or the other, where on the scale that it takes effect. Thanks to many of the contributors here, people can do it in an informed way. By the way, I'm taking vicarious pleasure in reading about everyone's experiences here, since my house is currently getting a face lift (built c. 1760), and I have only a bare minimum setup to hear/see anything.

Ed

[drseid]

I duno if anything can beat the yamah rx-v2500. It is such a beast of a reciever and is so revish. Probly the only one that could would be the rx z9.

Enjoy your Yamaha receiver, but yes, there are many that can "beat" it... But they can also be bank breakers like the aformentioned superb Lexicon receiver (ouch)...

Maybe a better question would be if you would *need* to beat it? If the answer is "yes," then it is probably time for separates anyway.

---Dave

[dsp36]

Astro,
From a price point perspective I'd be interested in what other receivers you considered before your purchase, along with the speakers you hooked it up to. I'm currently in the market for an A/V receiver, and the 2500 is high on my list also...I like the features that come with it, along with the YPAO functionality. I'm also considering the following:

Denon 3805 - already mentioned in dispatches above!
Onkyo TX-NR901 - Like the nettune idea
Harmon Kardon 7300 - reasonable comparison to the Denon

My one concern is that most receivers I've reviewed (below $2k) have component output, but few have a HDMI output...as my TV can take either, should I sweat this or not? It's currently hooked up to the cable box via component.

My key requirement is for HDTV viewing, DVD's, and my CD library...I'm no audiophile, so I'm looking for a good all-rounder that will work well for years to come. I'm going to hook these up to a Boston Acoustics System 520.

My one concern (and someone mentioned it above) with the Denon would be quality and customer service, I've read they're very poor since a recent takeover.

I've read with interest some of the responses, along with peoples wish lists for what a receiver should be...I guess it boils down to each to their own! Any further comments to help with my decision would be welcome.

Thanks,

Dean

[Geoffcin]

I duno if anything can beat the yamah rx-v2500. It is such a beast of a reciever and is so revish. Probly the only one that could would be the rx z9.

And what do you mean by "beat it"? Do you mean a reciever that sounds better? I've spent some time checking out a lot of receivers in this price range and I had a hard time telling ANY difference in sound quality between the major brands. I could tell the flagship Pioneer Elite from the more modest ones, but even that was not so easy. It was so NOT easy that I decided to go with a modest reciever, and use a seperate amp to power the mains.