Yamaha rx v2500 vs Denon AVR 3805 for HT only
|
Bronze Member Username: DixlonPost Number: 11 Registered: Jun-05 | Which of the two do you think is best for HT only. I hardly ever use the receiver for music. I know Denon has good amps in 3805 and that's why I'm leaning towards them. Second question has to do with remotes. I'm looking for a good remote that can program my TV, DVD player, A/V receiver and Direct TV. Thanks for your help. |
|
Gold Member Username: Paul_ohstbucksPost Number: 1926 Registered: Jan-05 | I chose the yammi over the denon. Soundwise and overall quality of construction, they are very comperable. The yammi OS menus and userfriendliness is miles ahead of the denon. As for remotes?? You have to look at and experiment with them to decide which you like better. After getting my hands on each to play around with them for awhile, it was an easy decision. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 21 Registered: Jul-05 | For HT i would choose the Denon 3805, although do not forget about the Marantz 7500 or 8400. For some reason Marantz does not get a lot of mention on Ecoustics. I guess they just are not owned by many people. If you can, go to a Tweeter. They sell both the Denon and the Yamahas. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1504 Registered: Mar-05 | I have a Marantz 5400 and if I were doing HT only, it'd be more than good enough, and I'd certainly choose it over the Yamaha and Denon especially considering its pricing. On the other hand I never would've even bought the Marantz if I were doing HT only though---I would've stuck with the $300 Onkyo 601. I guess I simply don't see the HT justifying spending much more than that. In fact right now if I were buying an HT-only receiver I'd jump at the pure digital Panasonic sa-xr55 which goes for $200-250 online. Like others on this forum I have opted to add a separate amp to my Marantz for optimal music performance. DiLixon, I strongly believe that you'd get far better bang for your buck going with a less expensive HT receiver and putting the savings into a quality subwoofer, and/or speakers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DixlonPost Number: 12 Registered: Jun-05 | Edster922, I read your message loud and clear but don't i need ample power to drive the speakers? |
|
New member Username: PatnshanWisconsin USA Post Number: 1 Registered: Aug-05 | What speakers? If they are fairly efficient, you should have no trouble with that or any other receiver. HT is generally considered the easier of the two for an amp to handle. I have the Marantz SR-8400 and love it! It is probably more than I need, but love it just the same. I do music and HT, about 40% music, 60% HT. Pat |
|
Robert G Unregistered guest | It's amazing how almost no one on this forum recommends the Pioneer Elite Line, which is excellent for HT. Under-rated indeed. Great power supply, incredible sound and looks like no other. Equal or better than Marantz and definitely way better than Yamaha and Denon. Do not listen to me, if you can, try to audition, you will hear what I am talking about. What kind of speakers do you own? Good luck |
|
Bronze Member Username: DixlonPost Number: 13 Registered: Jun-05 | Robert G, I own a pair of Mirage Bi polar speakers. Would that be a good match for the Pioneer Elite Line? |
|
Silver Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 637 Registered: Jun-05 | It will work fine DixLon,as a mater of fact Soundwaves mass market specialty store here in Ohio My friend is the manager of one of the stores sells the 2 as a combo all of the time. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 1514 Registered: Mar-05 | DixLon, don't get too caught up in power ratings...the majority of manufacturers fudge them like crazy, sometimes I think these audio companies would make great political consultants. Watts per channel numbers usually have about as much connection to reality as election-year promises...shameless marketing drivel. There's a famous chart of real vs. claimed power ratings that someone periodically posts on forums like this, do a search, it's worth looking at. Here's a good summary of which specs might actually amount to a hill of beans: http://www.techlore.com/article/10309/ |
|
Robert G. Unregistered guest | DixLon, As Tawaun already stated; Yes, I think it would be a good match. Again, try to listen (if possible) to all those receivers above mentioned and make the choice according to your tastes ! btw.. The Pioneer Elite power ratings are with all channels driven. http://www.pioneerelectronics.com Good luck ! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 22 Registered: Jul-05 | Robert G, I agree with you that the Pioneer Elite receivers are pretty, but musically they do not hold a candle to Marantz. I do not know what you were listening too but I find that hard to believe. For HT use they be close, but when it comes to music there is no contest.Compare a 7500/8400 to the VSX 52/54/58 and hear the difference. Edster has it right, the setup he suggests is a good one. I don't have any info on the Panasonic digital though. I cannot comment on something I have yet to hear. Others should do the same. |
|
New member Username: SteelhrdPost Number: 5 Registered: Jul-05 | I see that edster says he cannot here the difference in any of the recievers when they are used for ht. I know i don't have a golden ear but i hear distinct diffences in how they handle ht. clarity and soundstage are very important in ht. given it's not the same as muisc but it is important. |
|
Robert G Unregistered guest | Herman, With all due respect: 1) Learn to read...He said he almost never listens to music 2) Did I mention music on any of my previous posts? 3) I do not know what you were listening too but I find that hard to believe  I am still ROTFL 4) Do you really think that there is a night and day difference between Marantz and Pioneer Elite? Please, get real...if anything I think both are very good actually. 5) It is obvious that your auditioning method is pretty poor. Here are some comments of another person on this forum who makes much more sense. I'd like to congratulate AVG for purchasing the Pioneer 55 for less than 600 bucks...wow. If I saw that, I'm sure I'd jump at it. I think that my 56txi is very similar with the 55txi. In fact, I was first considering the 54tx before I got the 56. I just got the 56tx for these three reasons: Better power supply, better remote, better chasis. For sound, the difference is minimal, hardly noticable. It is sad to see the original poster KB to have been gone and without a word, probably because the thread went somewhere else... If however he will still by any chance read this thread again, I will now post some reasons why Pioneer 56 will be a better choice. However, it is important to note that these are my opnions and opinions may vary. In addition, we are comparing two very different products. The Arcam 300 cost 150% more than the Pioneer 56txi, that in itself is like comparing a toyota with a mercedez. That said, here are my reasons: First, the awesome power supply that the 56txi includes with its new unit (one of the upgrades from the 55txi to the 56txi). If you know the Yamahas Flagship RX-Z9 model, you will see that it uses a 28,000uf capacitors which is almost similar in capacity with the 56txi's 27,000uf. These extra large capacitors will help considerably both as filtering agents (power) and as a reserve power. Yes, there are lots of things that involve a good power supply (i.e. transformer, diodes etc). However, for a system that costs this much, its an awesome deal to be included. Note, that the RX-Z9 includes the huge capacitors but it costs almost thrice the 56txi. Second, Pioneers specifications of 110W @ 0.09 THD and 20-20khz is way better than the Arcams 100W @1khz and 0.2 THD. Note that the THD of the 56txi is 3x lower than that of the Arcams. Also, note that Arcam specifies 1khz instead of the 20khz. This is typical for manufacturers to be able to state the 100W. If Arcam was to state the usual 20khz, Arcam would probably be in the range of 90 watts not 100 watts. Third, if you get to open a 56, you can see how cleanly built it is, not to mention good parts used. Everything is laid out in a very organized way compared with recievers in its price range (i.e. Yamaha 2500) and its dsp processors etc are all separated nicely from one another and from the power supply. This can help minimize the interference from each other. Lastly, I think the Arcam is too nice. This by itself costs money, and IMHO, this is irrevelant with the sound. While the Arcam has its pro's like a nice Toroidial Transformer that is assumed to be better at driving hard driven speakers like the Magnepan or the Vandersteen. I think this is irrelevant as there are lots of awesome easily driven speakers now like the JM Focal Labs, or the multi awarded Energy C9's. Yes, Arcam may sound better than the Pioneer, but it should be the case, and should not be contested. If the Pioneer was to sound better than the Arcam then I think the Arcam Manufacturer should go pack up. In my opinion however, the Pioneer 55/56 are awesome deals for the price. This is dollar per dollar an awesome deal. If KB do not intend to listen to ear deafening levels, do not intend to use the I-link, and has fairly efficient speakers, I would even recommend the 54tx. Yes, it is true that the Pioneer is no match for my vaccum tube VTL, or my solid state Mark Levinson or Conrad Johnson. Yes, it may not sound better than the Arcam, but dollar for dollar, I think the Pioneer has done an awesome job in narrowing the gap between the high end and the middle end intergrated recievers. A few years ago, I wasn't a fan of the integrated amps, but with the release of the highly acclaimed Yamaha DSP-A1, I really saw how far the reciever market has gone. But the DSP-A1 is equivalent to the RX-Z9, so it was expensive and not a real bang for the buck. However, the Pioneer's Elite models stand out as a real steal, not only did they narrow the gap between high ends, but also enabled good sound (real music) to be affordable. Take note again, the Pioneer Elites are way better than Yamaha's DSP-A1 (again my opinion). All this said, I'd put my cash with the Pioneer and with the money saved($1,100,) I'd probably spend the extra cash with a new Projector or plasma TV (add some more $$). What good is a Movie experience without a good monitor to watch to? In addition, KB, I really don't know if the Arcam is worth twice the Pioneer. Thus, audition it first, and you might be surprised. I know, I was, that was why I suddenly got one without even planning to. And yes,Bugs, I really like the piano gloss finish. It really looks "ELITE". Unique from the usual gold and silver. All the best, esy Pretty good review heh ? |
|
T2T Unregistered guest | Since my ratios changed a bit, I sold off my Pioneer Elite 54TX receiver. I found out that I'm using my system for 90%+ music and the rest is for movies. In that sense, the Elite didn't do as good of job. After taking the Elite off the shelf and hooking up an older H/K, the music became quite appreciable. If it was a major movie buff, the Elite would one of my top choices - but, for heavier music listening, pick from some of the other choices. I haven't had a Marantz in my setup yet. |
|
Robert G Unregistered guest | OMG....Can you please re-read the Thread Title? Do the words "HT Only" give you any kind of clue ! Geeeeez ! Just curious, which H/K model do you currenlty own? |
|
Robert G Unregistered guest | T2T....Never mind, you have a H/K AVR 125....Please disregard my posts.....Your receiver is not even in the same league as Marantz and P.E. But if it sounds good to you that's what it counts Good luck |
|
Bronze Member Username: Hallen1007Charlotte, North Carolina USA Post Number: 23 Registered: Jul-05 | Robert, it does say he hardly ever uses the receiver for music, you are correcty about that. But if I could buy either receiver that did Ht equally well, then why would I not take the one that has the edge in music quality? If the Pioneer is cheaper in price then in his case I would say go for it. I do like the Elite line, and that review did make sense. But there are better receivers IMHO and Marantz is one of them. I've owned Pioneer , Denon, Marantz and currently am using the 7500, although I may move to the 8500 next week. I am getting off subject, so I will end it here: if the price is a huge influence, get the Pioneer. if not, get the Marantz. I will not even address yor comment about my auditioning methods. |
|
RSF8 Unregistered guest | What have you guys to say about the Kenwood Sovereign line? |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 3638 Registered: Dec-03 | Nice. Very good power supplies. Hated by a few elitist audio snobs everywhere. I am a Kenwood fan so I'm a little biased. |
|
Robert G Unregistered guest | sorry Herman...I was just being stupid. |
|
Anonnn Unregistered guest | What ! Kenwood ! ewhhhhh |
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