Best $1000 Receiver? (for 90% Movies)
|
Anonymous | I'm a n00b in the market for a 'nice' receiver... I would like THX, but not a must and I watch 90% Movies. I'm getting the Bose AM15 for free (from work) and I need to know what will complement them the best. Although I'm not opposed to selling them and buying something better if the price is right. ;) The H/K AVR7200 looks nice and I've listen to the Yammie RX-V2500 and really like it, especially through Klipsch RF-35 towers... >  I'm even considering keeping the AM15, buying the RF-35s as front and moving the bose front to sides for 7.1 - what do you guys think?? |
|
New member Username: EdisonPost Number: 279 Registered: 12-2003 | Klipsch is better than Bose to me - its good idea not to use them as fronts, unless you like their sound. I like this Panasonic sa-xr45 ($300 shipped). It is a new digital amp technology, and the future pannys will use this tech as well. Sounds smooth and clean with a great bass. |
|
New member Username: JohnnyPost Number: 48 Registered: 12-2003 | nOOb, I would recommend that you stick with one kind of speaker throughout your system...especially across the front and center speakers. Tonal balance and timbre matching is very important in all speakers, but extremely important in the front three speakers. If you have your heart set on keeping the bose package, I would recommend that you get the Klipsh speakers at least for the front and center, and use the Bose speakers as surrounds only. However, I would strongly consider selling the Bose package and get an all Klipsh system. That system is worth over $1000...you could get some great Klipsh speakers for that amount...especially if you were going to get Klipsh mains anyway...that would mean you would have $1000 or more to spend on a center, surrounds, and sub...definately workable. As far as the receiver goes, I cannot recommend the HK 7200 enough. This thing is mammoth. It can be had right now for $749 (shipping included) from http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?dpno=349082. For that price, this receiver is absolutely the best buy you can find, in my opinion. It has 115 watts x 7, which is even on the conservative side. It also has a very warm sound that would work wonderfully with Klipsh. |
|
New member Username: Elitefan1Post Number: 121 Registered: 12-2003 | I second the motion for the H/K 7200. This is a truely great receiver and one of the best bargains I have seen in my 30 plus years of audio obsession. Simply can't be beat for the money. Anon, What speaker brands are available in your area? I ask this as I think the first thing you should do is get those Bose out of your house ASAP. Klipsch and H/K sound ok together but for my ears the Klipsch are too bright and harsh no matter what's driving them. Monitor Audio makes much better sounding speakers IMO and are great with H/K along with Elite, Marantz and NAD. |
|
New member Username: NcavmanPost Number: 18 Registered: 12-2003 | I have to agree with Johnny and therealelitefan. The 7200 is now at a price point where the average joe like me can afford. It sounds wonderful at a whisper as well as at incredible volumes. Give it a listen soon before they are gone. Check it out: http://ww1.onecall.com/PID_18440.htm 1.800.788.9113 NEW $899 - $50 rebate =$849 from an authorized HK dealer. Tell them Kevin Margraves referred it. Let us know if you get one and how you like it. |
|
Anonymous | Great input guys, thanks! I'm planning to eBay the AM15's (seems the easiest way to dispose of them, and I should get around $900 or more) I'm hearing great things about the H/K 7200, so I'll try to hear it soon. I am curious if at the same price you would still choose the 7200 over the Yamie v2500 (THX select). Perhaps I've given in to marketing, but that THX logo makes me feel good. I am not tied to the Klipsch by any means, I just heard them compaired to the AM15s and really liked it. My main goal is to have the BEST theater reproduction experience for a grand total of $1800-2000 bucks. |
|
New member Username: FergyPost Number: 8 Registered: 01-2004 | Don't feel like you've given completely into marketing for that THX logo. It's about the only certifier for sound quality out there. THX actually do test the equipment for sound quality. The HK is a great receiver,and traditionally HK has had a warmer sound than others. Klipsch isn't generally warm sounding so it would be a better match than other amps that would make the Klipsch sound bright and harsh. For movies though this is less critical. I personally don't like the bose sound. Speakers make a bigger difference in sound quality than the receiver does. Then again, I don't really prefer the Klipsch either. |
|
Roger Simmons Unregistered guest | Please help me understand. (I don't pretend to have much experience here; I just began my research 8hours ago.) Why is the H/K 7200 such a bargain when the Yamaha HTR 5590 is less than $600? The Yamaha seems to have almost as much power. What am I missing? |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 125 Registered: 12-2003 | Roger: you're missing the hidden truth about power specification (measured in watts) used by some manufacturers. Some manufacturers use tricks to make their receivers "appear" to have the power that they don't. They do this by testing their system with just ONE channel being driven and sending a 1KHz tone through that channel. Real audio from your stereo, CD, TV, movies, etc... is more like pink noise (broader range of frequencies). Since they use just one tone... they get better performance. They then slap their 110W x 7 sticker on the front of the receiver. You get it home and wonder... what happened? Exactly what happened to me. I bought the Sony STR-DE995 which is advertised at 110W x 7. Nothing could be further from the truth. I returned that receiver back the next day to Best Buy. I then, several days later, bought the Harman Kardon AVR-525 rated at 70W x 7. Yes, the H/K has MORE power than the Sony STR-DE995. I would venture to guess that it would be AMAZING if that Sony were actually pushing 50W x 7. Beware of those manufacturers which don't like their ratings with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN. When you see the watts per channel (WPC) make sure it reads "all channels driven" and doesn't have any mention of a 1KHz test tone used to test it! Example: Here's the Sony STR-DE995's specification... 110W x 7 @ 8 ohms, 1kHz, 0.7% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) There are two problems you should IMMEDIATELY see, and one you DON'T see! The 1kHz and the 0.7% THD! The 1kHz means the test tone wasn't pink noise... a company which was honest would show "20Hz - 20kHz". The second is the 0.7% THD. I mean, the older amplifiers were really bad, but newer equipment is better than that. The thing you DON'T see, if the "all channels driven" declaration. Shame on Sony. I don't mean to single out Sony (the non-ES line), but I had a specific experience with them. Except for the Sony RX-Z9, I don't know if I'd ever buy another Sony product. As for the Yamaha HTR 5590... I think it's an "okay" receiver as well. They don't play with the specifications (too much)... although I can't really tell from what they show. But, they do list the channels as being tested 20Hz - 20kHz so it's not the 1kHz "trick" that Sony uses. I'm going to guess here... seeing the HTR-5590 only consumes 400W (power from the wall) and the Harman Kardon AVR-525 consumes 1,040W (all channels driven to rated power... from the wall). This tells me that the H/K has a better power supply and can handle the dynamics better. I would venture to "guess" that the Yamaha HTR-5590 can't REALLY do 100W continous with ALL CHANNELS DRIVEN with pink noise. Just my $0.02 |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 126 Registered: 12-2003 | Ooops: the earlier post with 1,040W for the AVR-525 should have read "AVR-7200". Sorry. |
|
New member Username: UnicronwmdPost Number: 53 Registered: 12-2003 | In my opinion, any money you spend on the HK 7200 will be wasted on the Bose. I say either get the Klipsch or take a look at some of the Infinity Alpha speakers. |
|
New member Username: HawkPost Number: 93 Registered: 12-2003 | Roger: You have asked a very reasonable question and shows why so many consumers end up getting burned when buying audio equipment. We all trust the manufacturers of these products to be honest in their representations of their products. The fact is, most are not. geekboy's explanation has nailed it. However, I will amplify and extend what he has to say. Just to give you an example, last year Yamaha offered the RX-V730 receiver, rated at 75 wpc with six channels. Now, if you look closely at their spec sheets, you can see that Yamaha is playing games with the consumer because it will be specified as 75 wpc (L + R), 75 wpc (C + CR) and 75 wpc (SL + SR). This means they only rate the receiver 2 channels at a time. BUT, when you drive all six channels at a time, you get no where near the rated power because they put a puny, undersized little power supply into the receiver that is wholly incapable of driving all six channels at a time. Sound & Vision magazine did a bench test on the RX-V730 and found it clipped at a mere 38 wpc when driving 5 channels and it dropped to 37.5 wpc when driving six channels. That means it only had 50% of its rated power with no dynamic headroom! The Yamaha 5590 has been correctly analyzed by geekboy, but let me take it one step further--if the Yamaha only consumes 400 watts from the wall, how can it possible put out 700 watts (100 wpc x 7) if its power rating were accurate (it can't). Remember, a power supply is merely a transformer that converts AC power to DC for use by the audio equipment. Geekboy also correctly exposes Sony, which is one of the worst offenders here. I would also note that Sony had one of its high end receivers, the DA4-ES (of their highly touted "ES" line) also tested by Sound & Vision. However, S & V never reported its power bench test as Sony told S & V that "the receiver was not designed to deliver full power to all channels simultaneously." Now, just how many buyers of this receiver do you believe Sony told this to? I bet not one. Bottom line, most receiver makers lie in their power ratings, and if it isn't an overt false declaration, it is an obfuscation where they don't tell you everything and leave you with a false impression. And it is not that they miss by a little bit, either. Many of these brands miss their power ratings by a very wide margin. A couple of year's back, Marantz had its 7200 bench tested by S & V and this receiver, rated at 105 wpc x 6, clipped at 27 wpc! This year, the Onkyo 900 (their flagship receiver) was also tested by S & V and they found it clipped at 54 wpc, less than half of its rated 125 wpc x 7. H/K is one of the few receiver makers out there that have honest power ratings throughout their product range. NAD and Rotel appear to be the other two that you can rely upon, plus a few of the very high end brands such as McIntosh. Sorry to rant, but this is a hot button with me. Please understand, as I said above, your question is a reasonable one, but it is the mass market receiver makers who are deceiving the public with their ubiquitous 100 wpc ratings. |
|
Roger Simmons Unregistered guest | Very illustrative examples. Interesting to see how an unregulated market can consistently dupe the consumer. Thanks! |
|
Unregistered guest | Does anyone know the "true" wpc for the Pioneer Elite 55txi. Pioneer says it puts out 100wpc. Is this accurate? |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 29 Registered: 12-2003 | How do the Pioneer Elite models stack up as far as power ratings? Just curious. Thanks. Brent |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 127 Registered: 12-2003 | Eric and Brent: please don't get me wrong. I like Pioneer Elite. I have a 53" Elite RPTV (well, I let my brother hold it because I didn't want to transport it to my new Florida home -- silly me). I have always liked the look of their equipment... that shiny black. Pioneer Elite is not the worse offender of the WPC (watts per channel) claim, but they are a contributor. Example: the Pioneer Elite 45tx is advertised as 100W x 7 amplifier. The specs show that it's... Continuous average power output of 100 watts* per channel, min., at 8 ohms, from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz with no more than 0.09 %** total harmonic distortion (front). Continuous Power Output Front ............ 100 W +100 W (20 Hz -- 20 kHz, 0.09 %, 8 Ω) Center ........... 100 W +100 W (20 Hz -- 20 kHz, 0.09 %, 8 Ω) Surround ......... 100 W +100 W (20 Hz -- 20 kHz, 0.09 %, 8 Ω) Surround Back .... 100 W +100 W (20 Hz -- 20 kHz, 0.09 %, 8 Ω) Not too shabby. Now look at the power consumption in watts... Power Consumption .. 600 W Not bad either... I would expect at least 700W but I'm not too concerned. What bothers me is the statement which follows. Notice the asterik (*) above... here's what Pioneer Elite writes about it in the manual: * Measured pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission's Trade Regulation rule on Power Output Claims for Amplifiers. What a cop-out. They're basically saying... we know that the FTC's rule is lousy and not accurate, but we CHOOSE to use their measurement guideline! But, I still like them. |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 30 Registered: 12-2003 | Do you think they improved on their vsx-53 or vsx-55 series? Brent |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 129 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: If I had to guess, which is only what this response is... then they haven't changed the way they do this. This is based on looking at the VSX-49txi. It still has the "FTC" disclaimer on it just as did the VSX-45tx. They did, however, improve the power in the VSX-49txi, so I would venture that there were improvements in the VSX-55tx product. (FYI: the VSX-49txi power consumption -- from the wall -- is 710W... an improvement over the VSX-45tx's 600W.) |
|
New member Username: SpshondPost Number: 12 Registered: 01-2004 | RXV1400, what do you guys think about that & its 110 Wpc. Please advise before i purchase. i'am returning my denon 1804 because the sound is crap. please advise on harmon Karmon as well if you think that 700 will go further , or any other receiver at that |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 132 Registered: 12-2003 | Rico: I don't know. Yamaha has been one of those companies... you know. In any event... take it home and see what it does for you. I've heard, overall, good things on the RXV-1400. I can't, however, find any information on its "real" power ratings. |
|
aman Unregistered guest | This seems to be a popular thread, so I am posting my query here. I have the Energy Take 5.2 system with the subwoofer and for a receiver, I was using the JVC RX 6000 VBK for the last couple of months. Before the energy system, I had a JBL SCS135SI home cinema system with the same JVC amp and it sounded crappy. Then, I bought the energy take 5.2s and life was good. The sound was crisp and the imaging was better. i felt like i got a good deal for my money on the take system. My receiver - the JVC - wasn't upto snuff or so I thought - because going close to the speakers and putting my ear up to the grille, I could hear white noise and that was a reflection of a poor THD on the JVC. Besides, the JV did not have PL II. So, I upped and got me a Denon 2803. What a disappointment !! Tons of features and PL II. But the sound was a shrill whistle in my ear. I tried changing settings from PL II music to PL II cinema but the sound was still so bright, then I turned the cinema EQ on and the sound was muffled a bit, but it started to sound unreal. Short story - I am done with the Denon, and I am going back to the JVC unless there is an audiophile here that can help alleviate my woes. I am willing to spend more to buy into a better receiver, please suggest. I think I am now a believer in the oft repeated axiom that all speakers and receivers don't marry well and its not the impedance on the speakers or the power on the receiver that I am talking about. Bottomline, do you think that denon 2803 is too bright when used with the energy take 5.2 system? Would you recommend something else? |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 31 Registered: 12-2003 | Speaking of Prologic II. What is the big deal with this type of surround sound? I mean, what format is it best used for? Possibly watching VHS tapes? I am not being a smart a**, I'm just curious because I hear a lot of people talking about it like it is a really big deal. Please someone, enlighten me. Brent |
|
New member Username: SpshondPost Number: 14 Registered: 01-2004 | Please someone enlighten me about my question, Yamaha 1400 what do you guys think about it with the Energy Encores with SubWoofer. Thank you |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 32 Registered: 12-2003 | Ok. POOF! You're enlightened. Just kidding. I am sorry but cannot help you with your question. Have never owned a Yamaha or the speakers that you speakof. Brent |
|
Don Unregistered guest | Brent, The Elite line..starting with last years 43tx & 45tx are quite powerful. Magazine's (not S&V, they haven't tested either) rate both at their spec'ed wattage (Some even claim higher performance, 135W x 5, which can be attributed to different measuring techniques.) The newer 53tx & 55txi have the exact same guts and therefore are not improved upon, but most see P.E. as a step above immeadiate competition as far as amp strength and load tolerance. [I just wanted to clarify as Geekboy's post sounded a bit confusing concerning model # releases (i.e. 49txi is a flagship for Elite that came out before the 45tx and cost 4 times as much.)] |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 33 Registered: 12-2003 | Thanks Don for clarifying that for me. It is too bad that no one has tested these units like they have tested the others. I know about everyone on this board is a HK lover but not me. I don't think it means a lot to have all that power if there are quality issues. I think HK was a great company many years back and made very high quality receivers but I am not so convinced these days. The first newer HK I purchased, other than the one I bought in 1988, was purchased in 2001. After three years, the svideo has gone out and the front panel lights have a short in them. This doesn't say much for quality and that is why I won't own another one. That is why I went with the Pioneer Elite. But man, the way people plug HK on this board, you would think they are getting a piece of the profit. Brent |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 34 Registered: 12-2003 | Thanks Don for clarifying that for me. It is too bad that no one has tested these units like they have tested the others. I know about everyone on this board is a HK lover but not me. I don't think it means a lot to have all that power if there are quality issues. I think HK was a great company many years back and made very high quality receivers but I am not so convinced these days. The first newer HK I purchased, other than the one I bought in 1988, was purchased in 2001. After three years, the svideo has gone out and the front panel lights have a short in them. This doesn't say much for quality and that is why I won't own another one. That is why I went with the Pioneer Elite. But man, the way people plug HK on this board, you would think they are getting a piece of the profit. Brent |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 134 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: a point of clarification, if you will. I hope you don't consider me plugging H/K. I use it as a reference when measuring the power capabilities of a receiver. If I had my choice... I would have a B&K 507 (if I had a receiver) or all Parasound Halo separates. (My wish may come true some day.) Every receiver I've owned has had a problem. My Kenwood had a firmware issue which I sent in and waited 4 weeks to get back. My Sony... well... that thing just didn't function right. Receivers I wouldn't mind owning... NAD, B&K, Integra, Pioneer Elite, and Rotel. The receiver I have... an H/K. I'm just afraid you're reading too much into the postings. |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 35 Registered: 12-2003 | Geekboy. I am sorry if it sounded like I was picking on you but it wasn't you, it is just many others on this whole chat board. If you look down through the threads, every other one is talking about HK. Nothing against you my friend. I understand what you were saying about the HK. And I know that every receiver has a potential problem It is just that people on this board are HK happy. I have even talked with some audio stores that quit carrying HK because of their quality issues. Guess I might have just got a bad one. That is my luck Brent |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 135 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: understood. I hope I didn't get a bad one either! NC AV Man is having problems with his (he bought it about 1 year ago... an AVR-7200). There was at least one other recent person with a problem, but it seemed to be their CD player. |
|
aman Unregistered guest | Brent:I use prologic II to listen to stereo CDs and TV broadcasts that are in stereo. Nicely separates the sound. PL II differs from PL significantly in that the rear channels are stereo as opposed to mono in PL. Most CDs are recorded on 2 tracks and PL II makes it sound like surround, however, VHS is mostly recorded on 4 tracks and PL II works with that too. With VHS, the rear channels are mono. I still haven't had anybody even remotely answer my question. Hawk? Geekboy? Anybody? Please. |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 137 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: one day maybe we can cut through all the noise and get to the real deal. What's the big deal with Prologic II? I don't know. It's probably because the rear channels use to be non-stereo and not full range (hence dipole speakers were great for the rear channels on Prologic/matrixed audio sources). The caveat, is that the source has to have been encoded in Prologic II (although there are "emulation" modes... I don't like these either.) The rear channels are now semi-discrete and have more range. Plus, there's additional processing logic in PL II which makes the sound richer. Prologic II is good for broadcast television, cable, vhs... really for ANY traditional stereo broadcast. It is especially good for Prologic encoded sources (like some TV broadcasts and older HiFi VHS tapes). I, for one, don't think it's a big deal. I don't like Dolby Prologic anymore! I only like it for my cable/satellite stations which are not broadcast in Dolby Digital (because I like my vocals coming out from my center channel)! So, for me, it has a purpose, but I'm not "excited" about the new format. I dont know what it is, but it's probably me. I don't like most DSP modes provided by manufacturers. I like true non-matrixed audio... I guess that means I like discrete audio. Prologic II is a poor man's discrete audio. It was designed for television stations who can't afford to go digital (HDTV) to provide discrete-audio-like programming. There are some TV stations I won't even listen to because of their mono audio. Maybe this will allow me to at least entertain watching those channels. |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 36 Registered: 12-2003 | Aman and Geekboy. That helps me a little. But, correct me if I am wrong. By listening to cd's or radio stations in PLII, doesnt' that put everything out of the center and not much out of the fronts? I would think this defeats the purpose of music listening as the idea is to be able to appreciate your front speakers? I could be wrong about that. If you are going to use your center for music, why not just use 5-channel stereo? I can maybe see listening to VHS tapes like this but it seems a waste of good front speakers to listen to music like this. I might be all wrong and have this all mixed up. But, thanks for the explanations guys. Brent |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 138 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: I agree on the NOT using it for listening to music. As I stated, I don't like many DSP modes. I especially don't like them for music! (I know, some folks like them for music... using Hall, Concert Hall, and all those others.) I like "stereo" music and "discrete" (DVD-Audio and DVD) music only. I can't stand listening to music in Prologic, VMax, Hall, Cinema, DTS Neo... anything, but stereo. UNLESSS it has been originally recorded in DVD-Audio or DVD (Dolby Digital or DTS) discrete format. I guess it comes down to personaly preference. I, like you, see no need for it with music, but someone likes it! That's why they have a DSP mode called "PL II Music" on my receiver! |
|
New member Username: NcavmanPost Number: 26 Registered: 12-2003 | Geekboy... a correction please, I have never had an issue with my 7200, so far it has been perfect. For the comment from someone about so many H/K lovers here... I have been through a lot of brands and am not a particular 'brand lover'. I buy what my ears like this time around it was the 7200. And I thought this board was heavy pushers of NAD or Elite. |
|
aman Unregistered guest | Brent: Listening to music on PL II is a good idea if you like to be enveloped by music, i.e., if you are hooked to surround HT sound and would like the same spacious effect with your sound. With PL II, I get most of the vocals from the center channel and mostly music from the front speakers. There is center width control available in the music mode which allows for your music to be spread between the frint three speakers as you like. I hate the DSP modes too because they sound unreal but listen to PL II, it is not a DSP mode. PL II also allows for a balance between front and back levels. Agreed it does not do justice to the stage reproduction when you have music out of your rear channels but then again, I would be hard pressed to reproduce an exact sound stage listening to 2 track music. |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 143 Registered: 12-2003 | NC AV Man and others: I retract my previous post about NC AV Man having problems... it was someone else. |
|
Don Unregistered guest | 1. This thread is getting way off track, but I like the 'idea' of PLII. There are PLII movie and music modes. Music mode tries to offset the center channel more where as the movie mode feeds the main dialogue to the center but doesn't collapse the two fronts either as did Prologic. I like to use it on certain stereo programs for Cable and love it on older VHS movies that are encoded in ProLogic! Sometimes the surround works well and other times it doesn't...so I turn it off. PLII is not a good alternative to a 5 channel discrete movie however (DD, DTS, etc.) It can be likened to L7 although truthfully I do think I prefer L7 to PLII for most programming. 5 channel stereo just duplicates the front channels on the surrounds and doesn't use any algorithms to attempt at copying a DD soundfield, nice for party's though. 2. I haven't heard of nearly the problems for HK for the 7200s as I did for the 8000's, which were a money/time pit. I think HK realized their prior quality issues and are attempting to remedy the concerns. Time will tell. 3. As for aman's question...what is it? I'll give it a shot. |
|
New member Username: HawkPost Number: 112 Registered: 12-2003 | Rico: I don't think anyone answered your question--I hope I am timely here. I have not seen a bench test of the Yamaha RX-V1400, so I cannot report any facts concerning its power. I can say that based upon past Yamahas, I would not expect it do do any better than 50% of its rated power when driving five channels. However, if you are retunring your Denon "because the sound is like crap", then you do not want the Yamaha. Denon has caught Yamaha, sales-wise, and Yamahas has responded by tailoring the sound of its newest line to sound more like Denon! I have confirmed this in side by side testing of a Denon 1804 and a Yamaha RX-V740 (the model below the 1400). I have also spoken with the local Yamaha dealer and the Yamaha sales rep for this area which confirm that Yamaha has changed the sound to sound more like Denon. After carefully auditioning almost all of the brands out there and most models available under $1K, I can tell you that most tend to sound alot alike. There are differences, but not that much as most tend to have a very homogenized sound, like my Denon 3803. However, I have found several models that definitely sound better; that is, they sound more real and engaging. The H/K is one of those receivers. As I have said on another thread, it is one of the best out sounding receivers out there, but is best paired with brighter sounding speakers such as Monitor Audios or JMlabs as the H/K has a very laid back sound. Another is NAD, which are the best sounding receivers to me for less than $1K (either the 743 or the 753). Another great one is the Marantz 7300, which you can still find being closed out for under $700. I have not heard the successor 7400 yet, but it would be worth investigating. Finally, I also really like Rotel. They are closing out the 1055 model, so you may be able to get a good deal on one. Other than that, you have to go to the $2K models and up to get sound that would be better than your Denon 1804. BTW, what speakers do you have? Good luck! |
|
New member Username: HawkPost Number: 113 Registered: 12-2003 | aman: My condolences on the 2803. I have the 3803 and I know what you are talking about. However, it isn't that the Denon is too bright, but it is too dry. The Energy speakers are rather bright and mated with a dry sounding receiver like the Denon, can make the sound seem "shrill." A better match for the Energy system would be a Marantz. Don't know what your budget would be, but a 5400 or 6400 should work very well with your speakers. Also, look around for a closeout on the 7300, which a truly one of the great sounding receivers which would work very well with the Energys. You should be able to find it at a very good price ($650-700). I hope this helps. |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 37 Registered: 12-2003 | Hawk. Just curious but how do you think the Pioneer Elite sound compares to the above mentioned brands you spoke about? I always heard that Pioneer Elite produced the warm laid back sound you speak of with HK. Or, do you think it has the same modular sound as Yamaha and Dennon? Brent |
|
New member Username: HawkPost Number: 117 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent: No, what you heard is correct--the Pioneer Elite is very much like the Harman/Kardon. PE is a very well built receiver (especially the x7 and x9 models) and they have tailored the sound of the receiver to sound like a tube amp. Now, it is not my favorite, but I do understand what they are doing and I think they have executed their design very well. |
|
New member Username: FergyPost Number: 9 Registered: 01-2004 | I really wish someone would test these amplifiers better. I was once duped by a many featured Sony receiver, but since have seen the light. Is there any way we can get some of these magazines to talk some actual # about the products they review? I don't mind hearing about how the sound on this amp was warm and on that amp was bright, but I think some really hard tests should be put to these amps to find out where they clip at. I know the same happens in car audio, just look at Pyramid amps claiming 1000w @ 4ohm, but clips at 100w/1ohm. What's surpising to me is that what once were good brands Denon, Sony, Onkyo, Yamaha; have traded their names in for mass market appeal. Personally I think Sony started it and the marketing guys had a coupe over the engineering staff at the other companies so they could compete. HK and Pioneer Elite have held on better, though they play the games too. |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 144 Registered: 12-2003 | Fergy: you know... blame Congress and the FTC (who ultimately implemented this scheme). Then blame the high tech manufacturers. The manufacturers get to claim that they're "following the letter of the law". Just look at what the disclaimer in Pioneer Elite's manuals. I really don't care that a receiver is 70W per channel. I have a receiver from a manufacturer which didn't inflate their number, regardless of FTC rule. Any company which hides behind the FTC rule is just simply playing games with the consumer... but wait... most consumers don't know. And most consumers don't have the saavy to know. And they don't even care. Most of us (consumers) just buy right off the shelf after looking at (visual appeal) and "listening" to the receivers on the "shelf" at their local Best Buy/Circuit City. Once one manufacturer does it, the rest can only compete by offering the same measurement. What can you do. Yamaha isn't gonna sit by why Sony runs around claiming more watts per channel. It's a sad silly little game. Fortunately, though, some of us actually do our research and don't fall prey. I, unfortunately, didn't even follow my own advice when I bought a Sony (high of their low end). Luckily, I immediately knew something was "wrong" and returned it. I loved the look on the Best Buy woman's face -- who took my return -- when I told her... "it doesn't work with my speakers". |
|
Milton Harris Unregistered guest | Rico, I listened to the Energy Encore (with the Encore 8 sub) and the Yamaha RXV 1400 and found it to be clean and crisp, but not too bright. Listened to Hotel California and Diana Krall, with the fronts only and in surround. I am considering this package, but was actually looking at a RXV 740, but they did not have one in the same sound room as the Encore package. Does any know if there is a difference in sound between the 740 and 1400? |
|
New member Username: SpshondPost Number: 16 Registered: 01-2004 | Milton, I just purchased the 1400 to go with my Encores. It sounds amazing. I made the dealer put the setup together & they said it would be okay. I also purchased a voltage conditioner. It sounds awesome. Definitely much better than the Denon 1804. The 1804, to my ears was a bit muffled. The Yamaha is crisp. I compared the sounds of gladiator Hell scene. The fire sounds extra ordinary. thanks so much guys. I made my decision & it worked out great.. |
|
New member Username: GmanPost Number: 147 Registered: 12-2003 | Hawk was kind enough a few months back to post a link to the Sound and Vision site that had tested receivers from 2000-2002. From the testing it appears that once the Pioneer Elite gets to the 45TX, 53TX, or 55TXi, it probably gets within 10% of its rated output with 5 or 6 channels driven. Below those models the amps appear to be considerably less robust with more channels driven. With Elite 47TX, 49TXi, and the new 59TXi it seems the amps are the same and all excellent. While they are listed at 130 watts per channel at 8 ohms, it certainly appears they are very robust for a receiver--looked like the most powerful in the tests. The 49TXi clipped at 148 watts with 5 channels, 144 watts with 6 channels--so it looks like a safe assumption it is close to 140 watts at all 7 channels. Plus it had in the top 2 or 3 best signal to noise ratios. So Pioneer makes a wide variety---much cheaper receivers with much less robust amplification and toward the top end seems to be as good or better than any other receiver in the power envelope area. NAD and HK seem to be the most consistent throughout their receiver lines. As your two front channels and the center are the ones most likely to be pulling the greatest power, that is probably the reason many manufacturers think it is alright to have the wattage drop considerably with more than 3 channels being driven. But in certain movie effects and some DVD-Audio and SACD surround discs there is often quite a bit going on in the surrounds--depends on the engineer of the disc and the effect they are going for. Some of the new "smart" amps, such as the new PE 59TXi and I think the NAD T773 (and maybe other NAD models as well) are able to pull extra power to the fronts when necessary (when the rears are not pulling much power). I am pretty sure there are other companies that do this on their more advanced and expensive models. The long-winded writing above is mainly there to emphasize it is wise to pick your speakers first before your receiver or amplification (if possible) That--and if you want to save money and be wise---purchase 6-8 ohm speakers. Almost any amp can drive them and there are plenty of wonderful speakers built with this spec. |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 38 Registered: 12-2003 | Gregory. If I have the Elite VSX-53TX, it is safe to assume that if it is rated at 100 watts per channel for 7 channels, then it probably is getting really about 90 watts per channel? I hope that I purchased one of the higher models in the Elite line with the buying of this receiver. Thanks. Brent |
|
Don Unregistered guest | Brent, yes that's what Greg said. And as I already informed you, your 53tx has the cohones it claims to have, unlike so many others for the same price. |
|
New member Username: GmanPost Number: 149 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent-- I wouldn't worry about it. It is a good receiver and you or your speakers would never know the difference between 90 or 100 watts. But it doesn't have the same robust amplifier as the 49TXi does, or the new 59TXi. If it did, you would have paid at least $1500 for it after discount. But I am sure it has a much better amp than the Elite 43TX and the 41TX. It is a step down from them, particularly in the amplification department. That is why they don't weigh over 60 lbs and cost more than $1650 after a discount. I have never seen the 55TX or the 53TX have a review that tested their power envelope. Heck, I have never seen any professional review. All I know is that almost everyone that uses them with good 8 ohm speakers never has a problem playing them as loud as they want and most everyone that has one that I have talked to loves them. The 53 and the 55TX are not built or meant for huge rooms and 4 ohm speakers. None of the receivers that are classified as THX Select are meant for very big rooms and 4 ohm speakers. But this receiver is excellent with 86-87db and higher 8 ohm speakers and will blast them plenty in a room that is 20 x 15 or smaller. You could probably even get away playing in a slightly bigger room. Think nothing of it--enjoy your receiver. Doesn't it drive your speakers well? |
|
New member Username: HarboltPost Number: 39 Registered: 12-2003 | Don and Gregory. Thanks for the reassurance. The 53 does drive my speakers well. It is just nice to know that I haven't been duped by an electronics company and paid for something that isn't. I have very efficient Klipsch speakers and so yeah, the receiver drives the heck out of them. Man Gregory, if you can tell me where I can get a 59 for only $1500, I would sell my 53 in a heartbeat and get that one. I thought the 59's were about $3000. Anyway, thanks again for the reassurance. Brent |
|
aman Unregistered guest | Thanks a ton Hawk !! I don't understand what you mean by dry. I think you will have to give us lay folk a primer on the meaning of terms like "warm", "fuzzy", "dry", "bright" and "laid back". I might be mistakenly using these terms without knowing really what they mean. I know they are qualitative but still you may be able to say something. Does any of these things have anything to do with the amount of negative feedback put into the amps? Denon sounds very good in the bass and even mid range on my energys, why do the highs sound extremely bright? Is it a flaw with the response of the energys or with the denon? Why was my low end JVC sounding more balanced with these speakers? One last question: Do you think I am better of getting rid of the denon or the energy system? Wow, thats a lot of questions. But I guess living in a small place with no real audio retailers nearby, I don't get to hear a lot of configs. |
|
New member Username: GmanPost Number: 150 Registered: 12-2003 | Brent-- Well, I meant that the old 47TX had the same amp section without the extras as the 49TXi. It can still be found at around $1600. The 49TXi can be found from around $2,000 to $2,700. Often the price level has to do with whether it has USA warranty. Now sometimes there are online sellers that say they will honor a warranty if you bought it from them--but you better hope they are reliable that way. Same can be said for the new 59TXi---seen it from $2,988 to about $3795. You can bet the low price has no warranty. If you can wait a few months after enough receivers are sold and there isn't so much pent up demand, I am sure the price will come down closer to where the 49TXi used to be--from $2600-$3200. |
|
New member Username: HawkPost Number: 135 Registered: 12-2003 | aman: I am sorry if I am confusing you. Hey, we all struggle to describe the sound as we have no objective measurements that are meaningful for how a sound differs from another, so we resort to adjectives which may or may not be understood. Whether this is the result of the amount of negative feedback, I do not know. However, there is a glossary published by Stereophile which you may find useful. I suggest you print it out like I did for future reference. Here is the link: http://www.stereophile.com/printarchives.cgi?50 Also, here is the link to a speadsheet maintained by another person which documents the results of Sound & Vision's bench testing of receivers through April of last year (per Greg's comments). He has stopped updating it, so I am thinking of updating it and maintaining it myself given the fact that so many receivers do so poorly and I think this information is very useful for those of us who are interested in this subject: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm |
|
New member Username: GeekboyPost Number: 151 Registered: 12-2003 | Hawk: I was going to do the same thing. I have the ratevsac already up at http://audio.erobinson.net/ratevsac.htm I updated only the Marantz SR5400 from this month's Sound & Vision. It came in above rated power! Woo Hoo! Let me know what you want to do. |
|
Anonymous | I am joining those who have voted for the HK7200 This thread started by an enquiry about a good $1000 receiver. I got a HK7200 last week. Earlier tonight I connected JBL S310 speakers and a new Audio Technica 120 turntable. To test what I have connected so far I listened to a few FM stations then began playing a few tracks from some 30 year old LP's. WOW! I heard some mid-range and high-end instrumentations that I did not know were on the records. I had reasonable good systems in the 70's (Luxman. Onkyo, Yamaha, AR, JBL and Dual etc. For my delived price of less than a $1000, I am voting for the HK7200. I auditioned, Yamaha2400,Onkyo 801&901, Pioneer Elite55, Marantz6300, NAD752 and HK630). The Elite, Marantz and HK7200 were the semi-finalist. Finalist-HK7200 & Elite 55. I liked the Elite55 because it had USB and Firewire connections. Hated the glossy black color and the salesman in that store refused to allow me to change modes and volume. HK won on default and by the fact it is now selling at half the list price. I am pleased with the sound of my old vinyl. |
|
New member Username: NcavmanPost Number: 33 Registered: 12-2003 | Anon, great to hear you are satisfied. No matter what brand or model you bought, being happy with your decision is the most important thing. Your top 3 finalists would make anyone happy. For some fun, add some surrounds and try your old LP's through the 7200's Logic 7 processing. |
|
New member Username: BigfanPost Number: 4 Registered: 01-2004 | anon - curious what led you to HK over NAD? was it the hk's 7x1 amp? i am trying to decide between these 2 receivers (along w/integra 7.3). |
|
Anonymous | bigfan. I compared the receivers in four different stores. Fortunately I found a store that had the Marantz and the the NAD. IN MY OPINION the Marantz sound was better than the NAD. So the NAD was eliminated halfway through the process. I spent 2 months, drove a couple hundred miles and spent countless hours reading specs and opinions. To reduce the risk of second guessing yourself, put in the time/effort and make a decision. I got some personal advice from Hawk, NC AV Man, John A and a few other regular contributors. I have a computer that has all the "bells & whistles". After Thanksgiving I went on the internet seeking info about connecting the computer to a new audio system. Budget $1500. Found this site, read the opinions, specs and applied my prejudices. The budget has more than doubled. To date, I am happy with my decisions. |
|
New member Username: BigfanPost Number: 6 Registered: 01-2004 | how did you connect the hk to your computer? how good is the sound from the computer source? i'm considering integra for the ability to use a wireless router w/the net-tune feature for this purpose. |
|
Anonymous | bigfan Have not connected to computer as yet. After reading my computer manual I telephoned an Audio/Video cable shop and explained my needs including the fact that the systems will be 23 feet apart. He recommeded Belden 1808A cable with a 3.5mm stereo connector at one end (for the sound card) and 2 RCA connectors at the other end (for the receiver). Cable should arrive Tuesday. I hope it works. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NcavmanPost Number: 36 Registered: 12-2003 | Anon, you probably are aware of this already but you can decode MP3's on the 7200's DACs. It would take a DL150 USB convertor ($20 ebay), or just a regular optical cable from your computer's sound card to the 7200. The advantage is that MP3's would sound much better since they would be decoded on the 7200 and not on your PC sound card hardware. Just something to consider. |
|
Anonymous | KLIPSCH The best speaker ever built!!! |
|
aman Unregistered guest | hawk: thanks for your advice. i visited the site that you recommended for the glossary, have to say that it left me even more confused. However, the sound and vision site for comparing ratings was good. What shocked me there was the SR 7200 by marantz and its power at clipping, is that a typo there or is that really it? I also checked geekboy's site and seemed to have the same info on the marantz. Hawk, if you would, please would you mind explaining how you would describe the difference between dry and bright receivers. i know its not very objective, but given the differential between my knowledge and yours, i would defer to your subjectivity. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics