Firstly, I must confess I am very much new to all things related to hi-fi audio equipment. I have been doing research on my own, but there are still many areas where I feel I need the help of your hard-earned knowledge and expertise. Anything you can throw my way would be kindly appreciated.
Specifically, I was wondering if you guys could recommend me several options (I am based in Sweden and thus don't have access to absolutely everything the market offers, so tracking down a single product might prove challenging) for budget surround sound receivers, say within the $500-$700 range.
My main interest is listening to music. I am not looking for the ultimate home theater set-up and as such I don't even care much for the DVD playing capabilities (although SACD support would be a nice). As a matter of fact, I wouldn't mind buying a solid stereo receiver at the moment as I am just beginning to get into this stuff, but I want to be able to scale up my set-up should my ambitions grow in the future without having to get a new receiver.
The receiver would be coupled with a pair of B&W DM601 S3 or DM602 S3 front speakers and needs to able to play back music from my computer (I've got an Audigy 2 soundcard) and sound from my Xbox 360 via digital optical cables. Also, while I do realize power and sound quality tend to go hand in hand, being a an apartment-dweller myself I am certainly not looking to upset my neighbors with sheer volume! :D So being able to play music very loud is not really an issue for me, it's more about the quality.
So the bottom line is, I am looking for kind of receivers that deliver the best music listening experience for under $700 that I can use to play music from my PC. Apologies if something doesn't make a lot of sense, and do feel free to educate me if I am way off in some regard here. This stuff can be quite overwhelming for a beginner to grasp at first.
My bad, sorry about that. I assumed the Amps category was the same for Receivers. Any mods feel free to delete this thread, I have posted a new one on the Receivers section.
my first reciever was a stereo NAD. i HATED it. it totally rolled the treble off so much that it made my speakers sound like they were covered by a wet blanket. to my ears, nad sound isn't that much different from excessively polite sony sound.
i replaced it with an onkyo 55wpc surround sound reciever. i loved that unit because it had a much more lively and detailed treble and because it imaged so much better. it did tend to bunch images a bit more towards center though.
then one day i auditioned a pair of amp fussy magnepan MG12s and was blown away by their totally unboxy sound and top to bottom speed. my onkyo would blow up faced with a 4 ohm load and there was no way i was ever going back to that muffled NAD.
after some research, i learned about panasonic class D recievers and had even read a couple reviews mentioning partnerships with maggies.
i bought one as a stepping stone towards the $550 MMGs i was lusting after but immediately noticed how much life it breathed into my NHT super zeros. it walked all over BOTH previous recievers from top to bottom!
it's treble was even more extended and detailed than the onkyo but at the same time more relaxed. when i went back to the onkyo, i heard the treble grain i never really knew was there. the NAD would whimper if it had to compete with panny treble or should i say whumper?
the thing that REALLY wowed me though was the panasonic midrange. lush female vocals like sade jumped out of my speakers as never before. the difference was on the level of a speaker, not reciever swap.
the bass was much deeper and tighter than the onkyo too although i never had a complaint about NAD bass. that's about the only thing NAD does right by my tastes.
the imaging totally spanked both recievers too. it was way more specific than either yet surprisingly went ALOT wider. on one particular shonen knife track, the image was so wide i thought my surrounds were on, but it was just 2 channel stereo. neither the NAD nor the onkyo ever imaged beyond the speakers.
the panasonic just has a matter of fact "nope, you can't hear me, i'm not here" presentation that amazed me. it seriously lowered listening fatigue too.
i also like how much better it does 2 channel source material in pro logic II surround mode. it just sounds more natural that way than my onkyo ever did, but plain stereo still sounds more natural and detailed. 2ch in surround is for those days you want bells and whistles.
my panasonic reciever isn't total perfection though. it has no phono input. it's really annoying that it has no tape loop feature like recievers have for a long time including the onkyo. it's menu based settings take some getting used to. the remote isn't the best in the world and has features that are useless while ignoring some very important ones. the binding posts are way too closely spaced and can't accept spade lugs and it takes some breaking in for the treble to relax fully.
otherwise, it was a total revelation and i'll never go back to class A/B amplification again. i love it so much that i kept my NHTs as they finally have a clean enough signal that they don't sound rolled off.
it's a slightly quirky reciever, but it makes no apologies sonically and that's what matters most.
one note... if you hate treble extension, you might consider it bright, but my onkyo sounds even brighter but nowhere near as detailed or relaxed in the treble. i was starved for treble detail after hearing it in maggies and B&W metal domes.
bottom line... the unit is exceptionally revealing of minute details, but not in a 'ruthless' sort of way. i was actually surprised that always too bright recordings like those by the buzzcocks actually sounded FLATTER on this extended treble reciever! i expected them to sound brighter still, not more relaxed.
the nicest compliment i think i can pay it though is that i don't even notice it anymore. i no longer strain to hear low level dialogue. i just listen to whatever and the panny just disappears.
my onkyo and NAD could NEVER do anything close to that. they both imposed big fingerprints on the sound.
panasonic SA series recievers offer major bang for your buck. you can't have my SA-XR70! no way
Keep in mind that BM has admitted to liking bright sound so accuracy in audio is not his ideal. If you like poor sounding vocals and a bright overall presentation then the Panny is for you.
no... i DON'T like "bright sound"... i HATE muffled rolled off treble!
so... are you calling B&W speakers bright? go ahead... because THAT'S some of the sweetest treble i've ever heard... lightning fast and extended to frequencies only dogs can hear.
liking treble speed and extension is NOT the same as liking bright sound. stop twisting my words art. i hated my mission speakers PRECISELY because they were too bright, as well as muddy in the midrange.
ironically enough, as painful as excessively bright buzzcocks recordings are on almost anything i've ever heard them on, they actually sound ALOT more relaxed with my "bright" (NOT!) panasonic reciever.
i won't lie and say that it made my NHTs compete with B&W's fine tweeters (the only thing i really like about that brand) but it sure enough brought me several big steps closer.
i wouldn't mind a bit more B&W "brightness".
come on art... put your foot all the way in your mouth and call $10,000 B&W 800 series bright... i DARE YOU!
yep... they're resolved and natural as all get out... that's what i thought you'd say. (before you can say it even)
man do i hate it when people take your words out of context and twist them to fit their own little agendas!
muffled and sluggish treble is UNFORGIVEABLE, but excessive treble sucks too.
i like FLAT EQ that doesn't emphasize any particular frequency range, but i will admit that i DO prefer a bit of bass rolloff because deep LF pop recordings give me a headache.
i ESPECIALLY hate resonant booming bass. yep... i think that 5 1/4" acoustic suspension WOOFERS kick much butt.
you can quote me on THAT! i do so love lightning fast and detailed bass... hey! wait! that's what i like in the treble too! now that i think about it, i like it in the midrange as well. ohh... that must mean i like bright honking horn tweeters right? NOT!
like i said before waaaaaaaaay back several times, i'm totally into driver SPEED. THAT'S my #1 priority. imaging is my #2 priority. those tiny AS infinities that wowed me around 1984 gave me a glimpse of BOTH things that bigger and far more expensive ported speakers can't EVER touch. it goes against the laws of physics.
small acoustic suspension drivers kick all big ported fat hiney, but nothing beats a planar or electrostatic driver for *thwak* value. those "cheat" the laws of physics by using drivers that weigh next to nothing along with applying more energy per square inch.
Sorry BM but you have stated right here on this forum that you like bright sound. If you don't like it don't say that you do. Other than that I only respond to my own children.
treble freak does not = bright. i like EXTENDED AND DETAILED treble.
i also listen at lower volume levels too so that's probably a part of why i hate treble rolloff so much. treble seems to rise with volume.
if i did say "bright", i'm sure it was in the context of "neutral with possibly a bit of brightness" to it.
yes... i AM a treble freak. treble rolloff and lack of detail are unforgiveable to me. if a tweeter or the gear driving it turns metallic percussion, clicks or white noise instruments like maracas into blurs i get very annoyed.
yes... when my zeros FINALLY were able to let me actually hear the beads inside a maraca on a track i'd heard 100 times before, i admit i got a woody.
the only thing that annoys me more than lifeless treble is boomy resonant bass. needless to say, klipsch is one of the worst speaker makers in the world by my tastes. big ported woofers and horn tweeters? *shudder*
some day, i might switch over to metal domes. i didn't like them at first, but they're getting better. i'll give B&W props there.
buget mind you are trouble freek...you not good with amsp like NADS..all you write is panasonog brigt amp...buget mind is big retarded...oooooooh loooook buuuget mind.....pleeeese buget mind tell us abot more that loudest panasonig...macintish beter loudest then panasong. ask good buddie jan ving nuck art and other buddies. you buget mind not so much
and with a whopping 7 posts... you have absolutely NO CREDABILITY!!!
for someone who likes to throw the word 'retarded' around... you sure do have an inordinate number of typographical errors...
oh... let me sink to your level a second... TYPOS
the topic is best BUDGET RECIEVERS and class D kicks all kinds of freedom from distortion butt.
i won't say that NAD is a great brand for a bass freak, but if you like a TINY 1 foot image between your speakers and hate metallic percussion with any bit of life, then NAD is your brand.
if you love an image that easily extends beyond your mains and sound that isn't held back, then class d is where the bang for your buck is.
nope... class D doesn't hype the midbass up une but for that euphonic warmth... it just tells it like it is and i do so love that. NAD edits out imaging width and last octave extension. *phooey*
if you have overly bright speakers like cheap missions though, NAD can tame them the same way dirt cheap sony can.
