Best Receiver for the $?
|
Bronze Member Username: JmjacksEaton, OH United States Post Number: 15 Registered: Nov-05 | I want the best bang for the buck what is the best receiver for the money. I would like to stay around the $500 price range. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 12760 Registered: May-04 | . Unless you want to spend McIntosh money; http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1885 Registered: Oct-04 | The Outlaw RR2150 is a great choice (although I haven't heard it, it has a tremendous reputation), but $-4-$ the Harman Kardon HK3385 for $199 http://www.jr.com/harman-kardon-3385-receiver/pe/HK_3385/ is hard to beat IMHO. Not a lot of bells & whistles, but it does the all the important things right. |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 3 Registered: Jun-08 | What will your receiver be for? Do you want, stereo, 5.1 or 7.1? |
|
Gold Member Username: Mike3Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1349 Registered: May-06 | What, did everybody forget Nuck's Rotel????? |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1886 Registered: Oct-04 | Is it less than $500? |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1887 Registered: Oct-04 | Hmmmm...I hadn't realized HK had updated their line; this new HK3490 for $329 looks pretty sweet http://www.jr.com/harman-kardon/pe/HK_3490/ . I like the RDS tuner upgrade over the HK3485, and the new Dolby feature might come in handy for the occational flick. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7114 Registered: Feb-05 | If 2 channel is what you are looking for I would consider an integrated amp such as the NAD C325BEE. |
|
Bronze Member Username: JmjacksEaton, OH United States Post Number: 16 Registered: Nov-05 | Thanks for responding everyone. I'm sorry I should have been a little more descriptive. I'm looking for a good all around receiver I want something 7.1 for home theater & I want to be able to jam if I want to. If anything comes to mind please let me know. |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 6 Registered: Jun-08 | The yamaha HTR 6160 is about $600 and I think it's a pretty good bang for the buck, if you plan to go blue ray and if you want to spend the extra 100. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10414 Registered: Dec-04 | The new Onkyo 606? replaces the equally capable 605, for whatever reason. Look for pricing on the older model. James, the 7.1 is a waste, the rear channels are mixed mono and are a waste, IMO. 5.1 is the ticket, and the outgoing Onkyo is a good unit, by well informed reports |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 7 Registered: Jun-08 | Nuck, are the rear channels mixed mono in true hd and dts hd? to my knowledge they are not, but I have not heard true hd in 7.1 yet. Or are you talking about dolby digital ex? |
|
Silver Member Username: Unbridled_idChicagoUsa Post Number: 357 Registered: Mar-04 | Saturday audio has the NAD t-754 for $499 which is a nice price. The model does not have hdmi capability and has six channels... |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 3047 Registered: Sep-04 | James, Note the difference between rear and surround channels. Surround channels are those found in 5.1 systems, are fully discrete and encoded on the disc. Rears are extra channels which are mono but are also on the disc if encoded as such (not many discs are encoded with the EX or ES variants of Dolby/DTS). This is true in the HD variants too. 5.1 is more than adequate for many applications. 7.1 does improve things but you need the space for it. In your price range there are two receivers that do everything you want (to my knowledge anyway): Onkyo's TX-SR 606 at $400 Yamaha's new RX-V663 at around $500 I have played with the Onkyo, both in 605 and 606 form. Very good machine, excellent value, which stole the march on the world by being the first AV receiver to offer TrueHD and Master Audio below $1000, and by a 6 month margin. The machines have proved reliable and simply very good value for money. I have not heard the Yamaha, but since they're second on the block one would hope they've played catch-up well enough to offer robust competition, even if the 663 is 25% more expensive. I will probably not get a chance to hear the Yamaha so don't wait for a review. Regards, Frank. |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 8 Registered: Jun-08 | Frank, I already know the difference between surrounds and rears, but I am no expert or anything. I still believe that in trueHd and dts hd, all 7 channels are discrete, unlike dolby digital ex! This link indicates it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.1#7.1_Channel_Surround_.28digital_discrete:_Dolby _Digital_Plus.2C_DTS-HD.29 If you can find a link to somwhere that explains that trueHD and Master audio do NOT provide discrete 2 channels for the rears and that they are mono, can you please post it, because all the information I have found says the hd formats provide discrete 2 channels for the rears. |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 9 Registered: Jun-08 | And yes, I know it has to be encoded on the disc. |
|
New member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 10 Registered: Jun-08 | Ok, Sorry for the triple post, but I want to make my question clear. This is my understanding: 7.1 with mono rears = dts ES, dolgy digital EX 7.1 with discrete 2 channel rears: dolby digital plus, dolby true hd, and dts HD/Master. If I am wrong please provide proof. I am not looking for an argument or anything, I am only looking to understand things fully. I already know how the older decoders work, but there seems to be alot of confusion regarding the new ones. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 11 Registered: Jun-08 | Oh and Jamey just so you know, the RXV663 is the same as the HTR 6160. Like, it's the same reciever, just sold by different retailers. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10420 Registered: Dec-04 | James, the 5.1 is about all you get without a source. The other channels are just copies...how deep is your room? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 13 Registered: Jun-08 | "Without a source"??? What are you talking about? Anyone who has hddvd ot blue ray HAVE that source. I have 23 hd dvd movies right that each have discrete 7.1 on them. Also, when I first suggested the 7.1 reciever, I stated It was useful if he plans to go blueray, which ensures he has that "source". My room? ... I am not the one in this thread that said he wanted 7.1. But, yeah my room is deep enough, although 7.1 would cause some minor convienience issues. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 15 Registered: Jun-08 | Nevermind that last post, I can see now that although those movies are endoded in a format that can handle discrete 7.1, the movies themselves are made 5.1 and not 7.1 I see your point now. But it's only a matter of time before we see true hd/master 7.1 |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 16 Registered: Jun-08 | Hey, Nuck, do they even make 5.1 recievers with true hd, dolby digital plus, dts master decoders? ... I've never seen one. Because if not, wouldn't it be worth it to go 7.1, just to get the higher bit rates for blue ray, even if your using a 5.1 speaker setup? |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10422 Registered: Dec-04 | James, I do not know about true hd in 5.1 However, for the higher bit rate, and the bi-amping via unused channels from the receiver, then sure, 7.1 is good. However, I kind of eschew mass market 7 x 100w receivers that weigh 20 lbs. Honestly, I have fallen behind the latest in codecs. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1622 Registered: Jun-07 | James, there is no such thing as True DTS and Dolby HD in 7.1. Uncompressed PCM is also only 5.1 as there has not been a Blu-Ray player or AVR that retrieves anything more than 5.1 in the HD/PCM audio formats. Will you see 7.1? Can't see it. Not anytime soon, if ever. 7.1 died horribly. For pure sound quality, I like Unbridled's comment on the T754. IMO It tops the 606 and Yamaha on sound. (My dealer is also seelling them for 500. BUT! I think Frank and Nuck's recommendation on the Onkyo 606 is the best bet, as it sounds very very good, and is fully future proof. As future proof as your going to get anyway. 7.1 is marketing material as much as Unconverting is. Its crap. Buy the best AVR you can, that has the features you want, and sounds good. To me, right now, the Onkyo, Onkyo/Integra line is up there. I heard the highest Integra line just a month or so ago, it was nice. Does it top the Rotel,NAD, Arcam line is the sound quality department...ahhhh I dunno. Does it kill them in features? Oh hell ya. They seem to run a bit hot though, so make sure you have a good place for it. Cheers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 18 Registered: Jun-08 | Nick, I already realized what you just pointed out, well most of it, but it seems that TrueHD AND dts Master only exist on 7.1 recievers even though they may not actually use 7.1. That's all I am saying: To get the higher bit rates, it's seems one needs to get a 7.1 reciever, and this thread was about recievers. So are you saying the Onkyo 606 sounds better than the Yamaha 6160 for HT? Because the Onkyo seems to have mroe power, but it also has a higher THD. Feature wise they seem to be identical except for an ipod dock option it seems. I have never heard the Onkyo though, but I know right now a buddy who owns a 7.1 channel Harmon Kardon, and even he thinks my Yamaha sounds better, expecially on movies. But that could be speaker issues. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1630 Registered: Jun-07 | Could be a lot of things that makes your system sound better than his. Room, Source, Speakers, Synergy. IMO, the Onkyo line right now sounds better than both Yamaha and H/K. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 20 Registered: Jun-08 | Hmm, you have me curious now. I would like to hear the Onkyo 606 hooked up to my same setup. I only have Energy c-series speakers though. Do you think the Onkyo 606 would sound better on those speakers? It's sort of strange though, that we are talking about what "sounds better", like it's so absolute, when not only is that a subjective thing, but it also depends on the gear. Certain recievers may be more well suited for certain speakers. Am I wrong? Any idea how the 606 sounds with Energy c-series? They sound pretty f-in good on the yamaha I know that. My newest reciever is the 6160 and I can still trade it in if I want and grab the Onkyo. But so far I am really happy with it. Also, I noticed the Onkyo 606 has a higher total harmonic distortion percentage than the Yamaha HTR-6160. I was told by a very informed person that the THD is probably the most important thing when reciever shopping. Was I told wrong in your oppinion? |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1631 Registered: Jun-07 | "Hmm, you have me curious now. I would like to hear the Onkyo 606 hooked up to my same setup. I only have Energy c-series speakers though. Do you think the Onkyo 606 would sound better on those speakers?" I have not heard Energy and Onkyo together. "It's sort of strange though, that we are talking about what "sounds better", like it's so absolute, when not only is that a subjective thing, but it also depends on the gear. Certain recievers may be more well suited for certain speakers. Am I wrong?" Yes, everyone hears differently, and everything sounds different given a change in the gear elsewhere. Giving just my personal experience, I feel, that the new line of Onkyo AVR's sound very good. "Any idea how the 606 sounds with Energy c-series? They sound pretty f-in good on the yamaha I know that. My newest reciever is the 6160 and I can still trade it in if I want and grab the Onkyo. But so far I am really happy with it." If your happy with the Yamaha/Energy setup then look no further. Enjoy the movies bud. "Also, I noticed the Onkyo 606 has a higher total harmonic distortion percentage than the Yamaha HTR-6160. I was told by a very informed person that the THD is probably the most important thing when reciever shopping. Was I told wrong in your oppinion?" Specs on paper are total BS!! The guy who told you that should not be selling audio gear. Was this at a Box Store of some kind? In that case, this would explain his stupidity. I have seen 150 dollar AVR's claim they have higher power ratings and lower THD than a 3000 dollar Arcam....which one do you think is telling the truth and sounds a million times better?lol You guessed it, the Arcam. Trust your ears, not specs. I think if the Yamaha is providing you with everything you need and you like the sound,then you should keep it, and enjoy. P.S. I didn't mean for this post to sound snobby, just about to head to bed, and thought I would give a quick feedback. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7147 Registered: Feb-05 | Good advice Nick. My Yamaha reciver does just fine for movies. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Voodoo_painterCalgary, Alberta Canada Post Number: 21 Registered: Jun-08 | Nick, thanks dude, not snobby at all, I like it when people reply to everything like that. The guy who told me that Nick, is an electrical engineer who is into car audio, just a buddy, not a sales person. But he also told me to buy equal priced polk speakers over Energy because their frequency response goes up more on the high side. But I honestly don't think they sound as good, so I went with Energy. I also don't understand how much one can possibly hear past 20khz since most adults can't even hear up to 20khz anymore. Like, lets assume for arguments sake, that the spec guys in this case are actually telling the truth. Well, even if there is a drop down by a few khz, who the hell needs speakers that go above and beyond like maybe 23khz? A mutant or something? I just don't see the point, and I havn't heard it either. I would like though to at least hear this Onkyo. I don't trust other people's oppinoins to make my final choice, but I certainly like to check out and compare what other people think is good. Like I did with the guy who told me to buy the polks. I didn't buy the polks, but at least I listened to them. If the Onkyo really sounds better to me, with my speakers, I would change to it. I am happy now, but if it sounds better, it sounds better. I would like to give it a try, that's all. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10425 Registered: Dec-04 | Your thinking is correct, James. If you can drop the Onkyo right in place in your room, all the better. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1633 Registered: Jun-07 | "The guy who told me that Nick, is an electrical engineer who is into car audio, just a buddy, not a sales person." Those damn engineers..LOL. Some of them rely on specs, and measurements way to often. Only thing that can be used for measurement in this hobby, is your own two ears. "But he also told me to buy equal priced polk speakers over Energy because their frequency response goes up more on the high side. But I honestly don't think they sound as good, so I went with Energy" To my ears Polk do not sound good at all, and Energy do. I think you definitely made the right choice. "much one can possibly hear past 20khz since most adults can't even hear up to 20khz anymore" Your right, most humans can't. But even if they could, just because a speaker can go up to 20khz, doesn't mean the speaker will sound good doing so. Know what I mean? Specs, and measurements does not make a product sound good. I like the way Nuck is thinking on this James, and you too. Wherever you get the Onkyo, they should have some kind of return policy. I would only A/B it against the Yamaha, in your own room with your energy speakers. Have fun doing it. I love playing with this stuff.lol. But most importantly, enjoy the music/movies. Cheers. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AfjGaboroneBotswana Post Number: 84 Registered: Jan-08 | christopher, is there a review on the hk3490 anywhere. a friend of mine is planning to buy one. i had the 3480 and didnt really like the pre part of the receiver. do you know if they've done anything to that in the upgrade? |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1889 Registered: Oct-04 | I've not seen a review of the HK3490 yet. What didn't your friend like about the "pre part" of the receiver? |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1890 Registered: Oct-04 | Not much of anything here http://pebuzz.com/review/564.html , but it's all I could find. |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1891 Registered: Oct-04 | I found this too http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-9967817-47.html#comments , it's not a real review, but the comments are interesting. Most seem to think a Stereo receiver is silly concept, which it absolutely isn't (this is cnet after all), and that HK's inferior to other "high-end" brands, which is pretty stupid too. HK builds pretty high-quality, very high-value, equipment for the masses; and personally I'm thankful that in this era of 7.1 gimmickry, HK still chooses to mass-market a good'ole stereo receiver, the fact that, in the case of the HK3485, it sounds, and yes, looks, as good as it does, all for about $200, makes it all the better, IMHO. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2869 Registered: May-05 | cnet is a bit ridiculous. IMO the more channels, useless features, and stupid looks (like Bose and B&O), the better the rating. Very rarely have I heard them comment on sound quality other than 'it sounded excellent.' If my memory serves me correctly, they said a Bose product sounded bad, got sued, and changed their tune very quickly. Good ol' cnet. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 3054 Registered: Sep-04 | James, I owe you an apology. Dolby TrueHD offers up to 8 fully discrete channels. The rears may not be matrixed mono, which is the definition for Dolby EX (and DTS-ES). Sorry sir, my mistake. I assume that DTS offers similar specs. On that basis, the only way to guarantee that you get every ounce of resolution from your blu-ray disc is to have a 7.1 speaker system connected to a 7.1 receiver. I should warn you that I have not seen any discs yet with truly high quality (24/96) soundtracks on them. I'm hoping this will change as the studios ramp up blu-ray production. Everything I've seen so far has disappointingly been sampled at 48khz, but that's not to say future masterings won't be better... Once again, my apologies. I checked on the Dolby site to verify and you were right. On the subject of the receivers, if the Yamaha is the equivalent of the 663 I'd be surprised if it were any worse than the Onkyo. Yamaha have had a good 6 months to catch up with Onkyo so it seems reasonable that they'd do their homework. If your Yamaha does trueHD and DTS/MA then I'd expect it to be the same as the 663 and therefore at least worthy competition. Since you like the combination with your Energy's I don't see much point in risking a change for the worse. Regards, Frank. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1637 Registered: Jun-07 | "Dolby TrueHD offers up to 8 fully discrete channels. The rears may not be matrixed mono, which is the definition for Dolby EX (and DTS-ES). Sorry sir, my mistake. I assume that DTS offers similar specs." The two HD Audio formats have the Ability to do 8 channels but no movies have been mixed as such yet. Not any I have anyway, there might be some in the near future though.(I hope not). 8 channels is too much IMO. I agree with Frank....if you like what you have...keep it. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AfjGaboroneBotswana Post Number: 86 Registered: Jan-08 | thanks for those reviews chris. im all for a stereo receiver. there is a segment of the market that wants just a 2 channel and products like these are perfect for them. i didnt like the hk. parts of it were really good. the lower lows were really tight and the lower highs had very good presentation and separation (better than my current nad c272). the mids apart from the vocals were pretty terrible. the upper highs were harsh. the upper lows were dull. and when you put it all together it wasnt musical at all. i guess (IMO) the reason people would like the hk is because they condition themselves to listen to good parts of it and let that overide the not so good parts. in saying that for the price they are pitching it at its value for money, esp when you;ve got a power hungry speaker |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1638 Registered: Jun-07 | When I did my A/B test between a H/K 645 and a NAD T763, I could find absolutely nothing the H/K did better. Or even came close to the NAD in regard to sound quality what so ever. I had high hopes for the H/K too, but was very let down. Now it may be that H/K did not mix well with my current setup of that time as well. So who knows. I HAVE however heard the exact 645 sound good in other setups. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AfjGaboroneBotswana Post Number: 88 Registered: Jan-08 | i guess the diff would be between the hk 645 and the 3480 then. or our ears. the reviews on the 3480 were amazing. not one of them even slightly prepared me for what i heard |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 3058 Registered: Sep-04 | Nick, I agree that no movies have been mastered with 8 discrete channels yet. In fact, I haven't found a single one mastered with 24/96 on the 5.1 channels yet. However, the fact remains that the format is capable of these so if one wants to be as future-proof as possible, one has to bear in mind the functionality. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1643 Registered: Jun-07 | True Frank. I am also in the market for a new AVR now. As my NAD has finally sorta crapped out on me. The best deal I can find right now is the Cambridge Audio Azur 540 V2 which is being blown out for a meeezzzlyy 399.99 because of the V3 with HDMI just came out. I figure I could live without a little while longer without HDMI. Or a lot longer depending. And the 540 sounds very nice. I also just completed my theater off with another pair of Paradigm speakers(new). |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 3062 Registered: Sep-04 | For that price you can get an Onkyo 606 and have all the futureproofing. Why consider anything else? |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10508 Registered: Dec-04 | Nick? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7261 Registered: Feb-05 | Wow...Onkyo. I know they're better than they used to be, but not that much better. Then again I need no future proofing (what is future proofing with HT anyway, they've said that every year and then something comes out rendering last years future proof product obsolete). I run the video from player to the TV. No Blu-ray...not until we really know the winner. Not between Blu-ray and HD but between Blu ray and a the music/movie server. Look back to near the beginning of my tenure here. You will see as we were debating SACD vs DVD-A...I said neither...the server will win out against any disc format. I'm happy with my ole' Yamaha for HT until which time I put together a really good one. Then I will be looking for simple with excellent sound. Something that in my experience mass market AVR's just don't provide. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1650 Registered: Jun-07 | No Onkyo for me...I am dedicated to buying from my dealer and he does not carry Onkyo. You guys are going to kill me...lol..but He offered me another NAD AVR that retailed for 1299.99 for 500 taxes in...sealed...new. So I took it. Its the new Titanium series that supposively has the grouding issues fixed. We will see. The old NAD still works fine on any analoge signal. THinking about handing it over to my mom for two channel listening. It would be fine for her. "Then I will be looking for simple with excellent sound. Something that in my experience mass market AVR's just don't provide" I agree with Art. A NAD AVR isn't for everybody. But I too prefer sound quality any day over features. At the moment I wont need Hdmi switching, or HD Audio format decoding...and can't really seeing myself needing it for a while. My dealer also said within the next year or two I can trade my new NAD in for something else. I think eventually the Music/Movie server will win. But it won't be for a while. The reason I think this is because a lot of average joe's out there can't afford or have the know-how to build a decent PC that has the Hard Drive space capable of competing with Blu-Ray. Each movie of Blu-Ray quality will take up roughly 30 gigs, and soon to be 50 gigs of Hard Drive space. Also, the average mass market crap PC on the shelves does not come with diddly squat for hard drive space. However, as hard drive sizes are getting larger very fast, and cheaper very fast, Blu Ray disc will be just buying time until the obvious happens. HD Quality Movie Servers. I built a machine the other day in a full Rackmount case that had 9 1TB drives in it. That is a total of 9TB's of hard drive space. For those who are not sure what a Teribyte is...1 Teribyte = 1000 Gigs. So the machine had 9000 Gigs of hard drive space. Those 1000 gig drives are fairly new on the market but have already dropped 30 percent in price. Once those drives are a regular cheap drive in an everyday computer...watch out...as I think HD Movie Servers will start to take over. Until then...Blu Ray will be the norm. And even when Movie Servers become popular Blu Ray will still be everywhere. We have just seen over a decade of DVD format still be the norm in a world where anybody could of had Movie Servers that accomplished the deed of holding many DVD movies. So...we will see. Should be a good battle.lol. Perhaps SOny will market some overpriced Movie Servers.lol. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10512 Registered: Dec-04 | Isn't it so much fun?!? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7264 Registered: Feb-05 | Good post Nick. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1651 Registered: Jun-07 | Nuck- It is fun...as long as I have my two channel system...The movie companies can do whatever they want..I wont sweat it.lol. New stuff is so much fun...did I add that I was blown away at how well the new Paradigm Monitor 7's sound? I was actually shocked as I had went into the store thinking everything I was going to hear in that series would suck. The Atoms were good, and the 7's were great. The 9's had too large of a enclosure and sounded boomy, the 11's..ahh were ok. The Titans and Mini Monitors were absolutely horid.lol I wouldn't take them for free. Well maybe free.lol. I bought the 7's for the fronts in the theater. I prefer them to the MA's for movies. But the MA's were better for music. The detail,pace,and hard hitting low end of the MA's were clearly better. The MA's though are more of a clinical sound where as the Monitor 7's were just plain effortless and warm and just nice on the ears. Its almost a shame they will be wasted just for theater and tv purposes...but once in a while I will bring them upstairs.lol. Art- Thanks man. I wanted to personally mention to you that the new Paradigm Titans were truley brutal. You were right. As I had expected. Also, my dealer had the Rega R3's and R5's on display on some Bryston Gear. Beautiful speaker. Very nice sound. Kind of reminds me of the Monitor Audio line, different, but they have that typical UK sound which is very musical. The R3's I can see as a budget killer for sure. Big sound, for under 2 grand. Again, reminding me of the MA RS6's. I wish I could had A/B'd a pair of the R3's with the Monitor Audio's. The R5's I thought added a little more to the midrange depth and low end. I think if I were picking between the two Rega R speakers to go in my Bryston setup I would have picked the R5's due to the fact no sub would be used. I would love to hear them on Rega gear for the synergy. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7266 Registered: Feb-05 | Thanks for that info Nick...you have a very high quality and fun HT. Guys are will they ever fix the banner in way BS. I can't read part of half the threads here...damnit!!! |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1654 Registered: Jun-07 | Art- Thanks bud. Also,I find this forum completely un-readable while using Internet Explorer. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ For anybody who wants a much better browser and one that views this forum perfectly. Click on the link above and download the free version of Mozilla FireFox3. Its great. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 7269 Registered: Feb-05 | For me it doesn't improve with Mozilla...then I get the stupid ads all over the place. |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1892 Registered: Oct-04 | Safari might be worth a look, I haven't tried it though http://www.apple.com/safari/download/ |
|
Gold Member Username: ExerciseguyBrooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1893 Registered: Oct-04 | I just tried Safari and I think it's worse. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1655 Registered: Jun-07 | That sucks guys. I think that Admin has to do something about it. |
|
Moderator Username: AdminPost Number: 4105 Registered: Dec-03 | Please advise if all pages are unreadable or just some of them? |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 2890 Registered: May-05 | Just some of them. I'll post a few links in the "Banners across text" thread in Suggestions area. |
|
Gold Member Username: Frank_abelaBerkshire UK Post Number: 3070 Registered: Sep-04 | I'm using IE7 with no problems whatsoever. Nick, if the NAD is this year's model, at least it can cope with uncompressed PCM which means you will get full resolution from a high res disc such as Blu-ray. The problems with media servers remain the usual issues: 1. Longevity. PCs age faster than a fast thing going down a cliff. 2. Security. With no permanent medium such as a disc, the media server is a pain in the butt when it decides to go phutt! Therefore, you now need to include mirroring or RAID to ensure your data is not lost. This adds complexity which the ordinary punter in the street does not wish to contemplate most of the time. 3. Delivery. Currently, the UK 'enjoys' an average of 2.6mbps download rates. The US is lower at about 1.9 megabits per sec (that's mega BITS guys, which needs to be divided by 10 on average to get how many bytes we're talking about). More advanced nations enjoy far higher download rates, such as South Korea (40mbps), Japan (22mbps) or Holland (20mbps). At 30GB a movie, download times are hopelessly long, so we would have to place our hope in streaming. Given you need more than the average download rate in the more affluent countries for high res content, there seems little chance this will take off in the short term. So it seems to me that until the infrastructures are in place to deliver higher rate downloads, physical media will remain. |
|
Bronze Member Username: AfjGaboroneBotswana Post Number: 93 Registered: Jan-08 | i live in botswana, africa and i just upgraded to 256kpbs. damn i thought it was fast. |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1656 Registered: Jun-07 | Frank - 1.) Yup. This goes back to it being only for guys who know how to up-keep and to build such a system. 2.) Exactly. Full Sata Raid must be used. If not, you can lose a lot of data all at once in a hurry. 3.) At home I enjoy 10mbps. 1.9 sucks.lol But yeah, 50 gig download would be like 2 days. lol Brutal. I think eventually Blu Ray may be the full norm, and PC Servers will be for enthusiast. I have been wrong many times before however.lol |
|
Platinum Member Username: NuckPost Number: 10517 Registered: Dec-04 | Try using any bittorrent and the ISP's here have a choke on it! |
|
Gold Member Username: Nickelbut10Post Number: 1660 Registered: Jun-07 | lol yup. FWIW there must of been something else wrong with that old NAD AVR because the new one I got absolutely slams it in the Sound Quality department. Hits harder, sounds warmer, and seems to have 'more' surround sound. I am loving it. No hiss, no pips and pops, dead silent. Excellent. Love the Titanium color too. Even my wife heard the difference right away. |
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