I apologize I can not answer your question, I am just now in the market for my first H/T Receiver and DVD Player, and trying to decide. So I will be watching what hothers have to say about your post.
Be careful with that putter..;) I sort of thought that's what you meant. Among other things I just like the warm sound from the NAD. I agree entirely with your listing.
What do you mean by best? Best at the price it is sold at? Better amp, but worse preamp, better amp, but less features, best amp and features, best build quality with least amount of returns and problems, etc .
It is almost an impossible question. Much depends on the speakers you have or want, whether you listen mostly in stereo, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, and even have the capability of listening in 9.1
If you want a receiver with a lot of DSP's (sound effects), with a phono section, powering more than one zone, with an acoustic/speaker balancing feature, etc.
Plus there are $1500 to $5,000 receivers I'd rather have than most listed--particularly toward the top end.
i'm going just by overall quality. same options same price who makes the best quality receiver. same receiver from each company, which gives the best sound, lasts the longest, has the truest power and decibal figures etc.
Geekboy...I wouldn't get a plasma if I where you. I heard that they don't have a long working life compared to the lcd tv's. In time they might improve on the plasma's but as for the right here and right now plasma's should be avoided unless you get a 5 year warranty !
Jeff... yeah, Plasma is 30,000 hours and LCD is 60,000 hours. But, I won't have that (plasma) TV for 15 years and certainly not 30 years for an LCD TV. I'd rather have a better picture.
I think you have a good list going, but as Gman says, it is impossible to make an accurate list such as this. As human beings, we all hear things differently. Therefore, what sounds awesome to one person may sound horrible to another. For example, I personally do not like the sound of Yamaha receivers. To me, the sound is thin and bright. However, there are many on this forum who love the way Yamaha receivers sound, and recommend them often. I have an NAD receiver and absolutely love it. Is that to say that NAD is better than Yamaha? For some, the answer is a very forceful yes, but for others, it is no. Similarly, Yamaha has a ton of features and different listening modes, while NAD has virtually none. Some love the features, while other loathe them. Once again, is that to say that Yamaha is better because it has more features...absolutely not.
The same can be said of build quality. There have been many reports on this form of reliability issues with NAD products. Like I said, I have an NAD receiver and have had absolutely no problems with it at all...while many others have had major issues. Is that to say that you should move NAD closer to the bottom of your list because of potential reliability issues? Absolutely not.
The best advice I can give to you and others on this forum is to go with what you like. We can help you make informed decisions on what receivers may sound better with different kinds of speakers, but in the end, you are the one who is going to have to listen to it, so go with what sounds good to you. If you want to get a Yamaha receiver with Klipsh speakers...then go for it if it sounds good to you.
As for reliability issues...just buy from a reputable dealer and you will be fine...no matter what brand you choose.
Don
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Also, Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, and now JVC all have upscale lines to go along side their base lines. I don't think you can rate any of those companies fairly without spliting the rating for each of the two.
My vote for "best" goes to the McIntosh MHT200. It lists for a mere $6100 so all of us can easily afford it,right? In reality there is no such thing as "best". To try to determine such a thing is a waste of time. The only quantitative factor you can use to compare is bench test results that show power, noise, distortion etc. Even that doesn't take into consideration sound, compatibility with speakers, inputs, features and so on. What's best for you is not best for me and vice versa.
geekboy, do more research. Hours of life was only one advantage. There are many reasons to buy an LCD over Plasma. This is only one of the many comparison studies.
Geek, go DLP... I picked up a Samsung 43" DLP TV 2 months ago and it's incredible! No worry of burn in, no worry of dead pixels and the only thing that wears out is the bulb after 8000-10,000 hours and you can replace it yourself ... The picture is better then Plasma, LCD or rear projection TVS... My 12 year old daughter said it best watching it one night "the TV looks like a photograph moving".. the picture is that good, but you should have a cable company which offers digital Cable for the picture is much better digital vs analog (Direct TV, Dish network and Zoom are also all digital).. Can't wait for HD which our cable company is going to offer real soon... Ohh yea the post topic, NAD (Rotel lost only because I feel NAD gives more bang for the buck, both great products)
I have read all sorts of different life spans for the DLP blubs down to 5000 hours. At 300.00, that will add up over time, though the should drop over time. The DLP TV's do have a great picture. I am going to wait a little longer for the HDTV formats to be perfected a little more.
Your right Stone there has been instances of 5000 bulbs but most people get the extended warranties with such high ticket items (I did) so it would be covered under Circuit City's warranty. The nice thing is though when the bulb goes you just replace it and it's as good as new again.. I've read at other forums the Sam. bulb is running around $250 but will come down a lot soon with Sony, Phillips, Panasonic, Hitachi and others using pretty much the same bulb for their LCDs... DLPs are going to get even better when they get the 3 chip TVs out but that won't be for a long time and at very high prices.. but it will be the future I believe.. Plasma has a short life span compared to DLP and LCD's will always have the problem of pixels going bad.. Not trying to sell you one lol, just I did extensive research before buying.. Another great feature also is my DLP is only 15" deep, fits right into our bookcase/fireplace/entertainment wall..
Indeed, I would be interested to read more about how folks here would rank Rotel, NAD and Marantz. Say, for example, when comparing the 1055, T763 and [insert comparably priced Marantz)?
Sorry my fault I think,,, Rotel is in my opinion top of the list... 1.Rotel 2.NAD 3.Elite/Marantz 4.Hardon Karden/Denon 5 Yamaha 4.Onkyo 5.Pioneer 6.Sony, Jvc
wow, so easily excited about somebody missing a few letters. take your medicine buddy.
Don
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I would agree with Paul T's list with one exception...I would move Denon down (to what should be #6) with Onkyo. Denon's flagship and the AVR48__ series belong at #4, but anything below that belongs at #6. I suppose I would arrange my own list as such:
I noticed you had Onkyo and Integra on the same line. Would it make sense to put the Integra line more with the likes of NAD, Elite, Marantz, and Rotel? While I understand that Integra is made by Onkyo, it's supposed (?) to be a cut above. I haven't had much experience with Integra, but I wonder where folks thing it makes sense to rank them higher?
Good point Skip and Don, Integra is a better line then standard Onkyo, should have thought of that since we listed Elite and Pioneer as separate receivers.... I would definitely move the Integra up.. Must have missed that along with my spelling in my proof read which jeff obregon kindly pointed out in his subtle way... He reminds me a bit of Jacko from the old forum...
Perhaps if we specified a price range it might make this list more practical (in so far as it has any use at all).
If you compare entry level models you'd probably have a different ranking than if you compared top end. Eg JVC and Kenwood aim at the mass market and are probably a better buy that Macintosh at that point - where price is a huge differentiating factor. Conversely, once you start paying near 4 figure sums I'd suggest that Marantz, NAD et al are aiming at this market and "better" is defined in terms of sound quality rather than price.
So to kick off, lets start at the bottom: Anyone care to rank manufacturers for their kit under GBP£250 / USD$350?
i guess for my money, i'm not looking to spend more than $500 but i think you can get a fairly nice receiver for $499? atleast i'm hoping so.
by the way, i heard def tech mythos series speakers today and am druling as we speak. they are the speaker for me. any suggestions on receivers to go with them?
This seems like a fairly silly thread. But whatever floats your boat. Don looks pretty close
Don
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Stone, I agree with you but sometimes these silly threads can be pretty fun (as long as it doesn't get too ugly.)
Skip K, I know that Integra is 'supposed' to be a cut above regular Onkyo but I have never seen a significant difference between the two lines as you would a Pioneer vs. a Elite thats why I keep them on the same line. And if their 'better internals' truly make a difference that I simply don't hear I suppose I would still wish to keep the Integras on the same line as Onkyo because of the higher premium the Integra line commands cancels out any negligible difference. At most I would move Integra up one position (even with Sony ES). Again it's all opinion. But having listened to all, its an educated one. [And I was going for Overall line rank, including all price points since none was specified. So a company that makes a kicka&% flagship may be brought down overall because of a poor perfromance from their lower line]
Kenwood Fan
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I would love to see an HK,NAD,ELITE,ROTEL,MARANTZ etc try to get THX Select, 6.1 (7.1 capable), a learning remote with 3 macros, and 90 watts times 6 continuous all for only 220$. The only answer, is the Kenwood 6070. I may have sounded like an idiot before, but seriously how do you compare Sony JVC and Kenwood to Rotel and ELite?
honestly this is how it goes in my opinion,
1.Rotel 2.NAD 3.Elite & Marantz 4.HK 5.Kenwood/Sovereign Series 6.Onkyo/Yamaha & Denon 7.Sony ES 8.Pioneer USA(NOT Elite) 9.Sony, JVC, Sherwood, etc.
Don
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I did forget that Kenwood had their Soveriegn line. I guess I would bump that up a few notches on my list above the regular Kenwood line. (Like above regular Pioneer.)
Nutty
Unregistered guest
Posted on
You guys definately seem to be rating NAD highly (despite quality control issues). I'm currently trying to decide between a NAD T752 and Denon 2803. I have Mordaunt Short 902's for mains. Would the NAD and the MS's be a good combination ? I'm currently driving the MS's from my toshiba tv's built in Amp, which sounds awful for stereo (sound much better rigged to my old Technics Class AA amp).
I see that Denon appears fairly low down your list, which I find quiet surprising, why is that ?
It does make my decision easier, seeing NAD so highly rated. Any advice would be appreciated ! Thanks.
PS: Looking to spend 500 or 600 ukp (around $1000).
Some of the top onkyo models sound sweet! Hifi magazine gave TX-DX696 top rating. TX-SR800 won the receiver of the year award on another hifi magazine.
Sounds clean, somewhat smooth and non-fatiguing. Good for music too. I would rate it above Yamaha and Denon in similar price models.
Go hear them yourself - you will be pleasantly surprised.
Sam of Chicago
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I agree with Mathew Peulen's rating. Rotels NADs/Marantzs and rest....
For my money, Pioneer packs more processing, build quality, and new technology into their Elite rigs than anybody, even though they don't have comparable power. They top out at about 130W continuous, not enough to power the biggest 6 ohm speakers.
3Alex3
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Question for Taylor-I am considering to buy Pioneer Elite VSX-53TX and I have for front Acoustic Research speakers which works with amplifiers with 20-300W at 6 ohms. I have asked company that sells over the internet will this receiver be able to handle my speakers and they sad that it will power them without any trouble. After I saw your post I would like if you could explain me what do you think about this? Btw. all 5 other speakers are at 8 ohms and are (except of central) floor standing
Sarandon
Unregistered guest
Posted on
These are my favorite brands and they are not in order
To 3Alex3: Pioneer puts a high current power supply in the VSX-53TX, and it is rated at 100W @8ohms to each channel, which isn't as much as some. The thing is, my post was really about situations where you're either running a lot of cable, so you need to run it at high current, or you need a lot of sound, so you need a lot of power at a reasonable voltage. In these situations, your speakers must be low impedance (they must be large, after all,) and they must be driven by high current. Higher current than most receivers can really handle. In your living room, neither of these situations occur. My post was really about extremes, like large home theaters with big projection screens and many seats. Any receiver or amp with high current/high voltage power supplies will push enough air with your speakers.
Teralec
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I would rate NAD a level below Marantz given the huge no. of problems associated with NAD receivers.
Marantz/Pioneer/Yamaha/Denon* Rotel NAD
*Applicable only if units are manufactured in Japan.
The reason is that the units that are manufactured in Japan does use higher quality components compared to those manufactured in China. I have the SR7300 and seen the 2803/3803 using Elna and Nippon Chemicon capacitors. Op amps are mainly by JRC.
I have seen the interior of the SR4300 and NAD 320BEE. I am not impresses by the components inside.
!