How important is a receiver?
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 1 Registered: Jul-04 | Okay - I am naive. I just bought a SACD/DVD-A player and now am looking at my probably 15 year old receiver (Sony STR-AV770) and wondering if that is the new bottleneck. I have not been that impressed with multi channel sound - for now I just want good sounding stereo. (Although next I will probably want the multichannel sound). So, the question - how important is the receiver? I always heard that the source and the speakers were the crucial parts - but maybe things have changed in the last 15 years. (Paradigm speakers and decent wires in use) |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 2 Registered: Jul-04 | Given that everyone who responds to the message above (if anyone does) says it makes a big difference, how would you all compare say - the Onkyo TX-sr501 to Panasonic SA-HE75 or SA-HE100 (Consumer Reports best buys) |
|
Bronze Member Username: NealmPost Number: 18 Registered: Jun-04 | donald, you could definitely benefit from a newer receiver over that old sony. without even looking at particular models its usually a safe assumption to say that onkyo is better than panasonic for receivers. in general companies that are known for consumer electronics put out sub par audio devices (cough sony cough). what is your budget for a new receiver? you say that "for now I just want good sounding stereo. (Although next I will probably want the multichannel sound) " which leads me to believe that you would be best off spending a little more than you originally anticipated to ensure that you'll get something that you can live with. you might even be able to find a refurb online that meets your specs. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NealmPost Number: 19 Registered: Jun-04 | donald, you could definitely benefit from a newer receiver over that old sony. without even looking at particular models its usually a safe assumption to say that onkyo is better than panasonic for receivers. in general companies that are known for consumer electronics put out sub par audio devices (cough sony cough). what is your budget for a new receiver? you say that "for now I just want good sounding stereo. (Although next I will probably want the multichannel sound) " which leads me to believe that you would be best off spending a little more than you originally anticipated to ensure that you'll get something that you can live with. you might even be able to find a refurb online that meets your specs. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 604 Registered: Dec-03 | or you could try an alternative route if your reciever has preamp outs. and pick up a nice 2 channel amp. |
|
Silver Member Username: ValeemPost Number: 110 Registered: Dec-03 | Does your 15 year old sony have DD and DTS decoding? If it does not you will definately benefit from a new receiver. Never mind just the previous two features you will also get things like improved ADC's, DAC's, opamps and newer capacitors. Also PLII or PLIIx. I think things have definately moved on since your sony was new. |
|
Silver Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 328 Registered: Feb-04 | For SACD/DVDA it would be much better to get a new receiver with new identical amps for all channels. The Onkyo 501 is a fine choice if you cant afford the 601. I have no experience on the Panasonics, but if I remember right they're rebadged old good quality Technics units. In that price class you should also check the Sony DA1000ES/DB790 wich is very good quality and really does not sound as bright as some older Sonys. It's also very powerfull, easily beating the NAD T743 and many others. |
|
Silver Member Username: ValeemPost Number: 111 Registered: Dec-03 | .....and an improved processor too. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 607 Registered: Dec-03 | yes if you want to go surround a new reciever is warrented but if you are only concerned with 2 channel . an amp is a very feasable option! |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 3 Registered: Jul-04 | Hey THANKS! |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 4 Registered: Jul-04 | Hey THANKS! |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 5 Registered: Jul-04 | In answer to one of the questions above, I want to spend $100 to get a "good" receiver. I am accepting that I will probably need to spend $200-300. I just don't hear that much difference with my old receiver when hooked up to the new SACD/DVD-Audio player (a little difference but not much). So, maybe my limit is around $250. Then I will be off to buy a new phone or laptop. Somebody stop me! |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 1018 Registered: Dec-03 | There really is no point in the SACD/DVD-Audio player if you only want stereo sound. These formats really shine in multi-channel set-ups and not in stereo. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 615 Registered: Dec-03 | berny i have to disagree with you. anyone who even just plays 2 channel can greatly benefit from both formats. they are higher resolution than cd's.and allways have a 2 channel track and most of the time surround. so yes surround can have added benefit of being remastered for that but 2 channel can definatly benefit from the higher resolution formats. if people didn't want better resolution for their 2 channel setups they wouldn't pay $2500 for a cd player. so yes 2channel great surround even better. |
|
Bronze Member Username: DrumsuckSt. johns, Newfoundland Canada Post Number: 27 Registered: May-04 | http://www.harmanaudio.com/search_browse/default.asp?sp=S&brand=HK there are many remanufactured stereo and surround receivers from HK that will greatly improve your sound and fit in under budget. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NealmPost Number: 20 Registered: Jun-04 | donald, in this situation you "could" go with a two channel amp but I definitely wouldnt in this situation. if your old receiver was not sooo old id say think about it. you'd spend 200 alone on the amp but for a litle more you can get a receiver that has a little less power than the amp but should serve you well enough and offer you surround if you decide to use it occassionaly. you should take a look at some of the older model refurb h/k receivers selling in your price range. http://www.harmanaudio.com/search_browse/product_detail.asp?urlMaterialNumber=AV R%20225-Z&status= wouldnt be a bad starting point. dont forget that you can run a h/t receiver in stereo mode and at higher watts per channel than in surround mode. its kind of like having a stereo receiver built in (dont flame me for describing it like that but im just trying to describe it to donald the best i can). |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 617 Registered: Dec-03 | has anyone actually read his post! "I have not been that impressed with multi channel sound - for now I just want good sounding stereo. (Although next I will probably want the multichannel sound). " so he just needs to decide if he wants 2 channel or multi. if he really only wants 2channel then get an amp. if he wants multi then get a reciever. if he buys an amp now and moves upto a reciever later it's not like the amp is a waste. he could use the amp still for the main speakers. or if he got a 5.1 reciever with rear preamp outs he could use the amp to power the rear channels. so either way will work. so it just come down to what he prefers more now. |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 6 Registered: Jul-04 | THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL THE RESPONSES. I think I will probably get a multi (5) channel receiver and give my current old one to my sister in law and her kids. And now for some heresy - I think I might even buy a panasonic (Panasonic SA-HE75) rather than the Onkyo (Onkyo TX-sr501) becuase it can be had for almost $100 less (at least from what I have seen so far) and the Consumer Reports evaluation couldn't find much difference in sound. Granted CR has come out with some wacko reports (like Milwaukee's Best is the best tasting beer, and like their report on handhelds last year) but I am not sure I could hear a difference between the two models with my slight hearing loss. I WILL go to the local big box store and or stereo shops and listen to various models. Then I will probably come back and admit you all are right. But if not, it is the Panasonic for me. |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 7 Registered: Jul-04 | Hope I don't sound rude or unappreciative. I guess it comes down to my own ears trying receivers out. Thanks for all the informative responses and links. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 622 Registered: Dec-03 | no problem donald all the best to you. hopefully at least you learned something hear! as i was just trying to give you alternatives that maybe you didn't realize. take care. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NealmPost Number: 21 Registered: Jun-04 | i wouldnt stick to only the receivers reviewed in consumer reports but i found a refurb of the onkyo at http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?dpno=157373&store=ecost&source=ECOSTD EAL&adcampaign=email,ECOSTDEAL for 145. i found the panasonic for 145 at amazon. |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1613 Registered: Dec-03 | Just to agree with Kegger, hi-res is still an improvement over CD, even just for stereo. Berny is right, too, that multichannel adds a lot more. Donald, I don't see which SACD/DVD-A player you have. To get the most out of those formats, you need an amp or receiver with good, basic analogue stages; all the processing is done in the player. Therefore there is no reason why a 15-year old amp/receiver should not do a good job, at least for stereo. Not much has happened to amplification since 1989. |
|
Bronze Member Username: NatediggidyBaltimore, Maryland U.S.A. Post Number: 40 Registered: May-04 | Hey D.K., greetings from up the road a-piece. I'm going to go at this from another angle. Which Paradigm's do you have? IMO, your ears "hear" more of what the speakers are doing than the electronics ahead of them. Your average receiver (even a 15yr. old one) is more "neutral" sounding than all but the very best of speakers. Try your set-up with other speakers and see what happens. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 646 Registered: Dec-03 | nathan where the heck were you on that speaker war! thread. where i stated that the speakers were more important. but anyways he is correct if you don't like the sound of your speakers. a new reciever isn't the awnser. if you like the speakers but are missing that little something extra then a 2 channel amp or new reciever may provide that. |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 8 Registered: Jul-04 | THANKS AGAIN for all the responses. One question and then more info. Isn't there a significant difference in amps and or receivers when you are looking at wattage, and total harmonic distortion? A receiver with a THD of 0.01 should sound much better than a receiver with 1.0 thd or 0.9, correct? Or not? And then the wattage should be - what - at least 50 watts per channel when measured by the RMS method? My Sony receiver (I have read on this list somewhere) has 80 watts for each A channel (and 10-20 watts for each B channel) - but the way Sony measures it it is probably equivalent to 40 watts RMS. That would be pretty wimpy and should affect sound, shouldn't it? Someone asked about my system setup. See if you can spot the bottleneck (I guess that is the game we can play with this info). I have a Pioneer DV-563A dvd/sacd/dvd-audio player. At least 16 gauge, but probably 12 gauge monster cable wires (I could check if this is important), the Sony STR-AV770 receiver, and the next to the bottom of the line Paradigm speakers - "Titans" ( http://www.paradigm.com/Website/SiteParadigmProduct/ParadigmModels/Performance/p erformance.html ). And some 46 year old ears with mild high frequency hearing loss. Anyway - I think my speakers are not as good as some of the more expensive Paradigms, and Paradigm is a very good brand from what I read, but they seemed good enough for the price. I had some Bose 201 speakers which I took back cause even though the bass was better than my ancient speakers, the rest was not. |
|
Silver Member Username: KeggerMICHIGAN Post Number: 690 Registered: Dec-03 | donald yes more than likely your sony has pretty wimpy amps inside and a dedicated 2 channel amp would give you more/cleaner power. but how much is hard to say! specs can be so streched/skewed that most of the time don't really mean much including those distortion ratings. if i had to say where the bottleneck would be. first i would probably say get a new amp. but i don't know those particular speakers. so it might be them. if you could do one of 2 things or both. take your speakers to a dealer who has some nice equipment and see if they sound bettter. get a 2 channel amp to try in your home. one of those should lead you to the culprit. |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 9 Registered: Jul-04 | Sony Receiver specs (from a listing on ebay). I was wrong on the wattage. (another site said made in 1990). No thd mentioned so it is probably bad. Sony Dolby Surround Sound Receiver - STR-AV770. 4 channel receiver for front and rear surround sound! Power output at 8 ohms 220 Watts/ 4 ohms 280 Watts. Power output of surround amp is 20 Watts. Inputs include: Phono, DAT, CD, Video: 1, 2, Tape: 1,2 Outputs include: DAT, Tape: 1, 2, Video: 1, Monitor |
|
Gold Member Username: John_aPost Number: 1634 Registered: Dec-03 | Donald, Some people object to repetitive recommendations of NAD on this forum, but I have to say, reading your posts, you ought to think about an NAD receiver. The quality of the analogue amp sections is outstanding for th price, I don't think many would disagree with that. Then you worry, rightly, about power and whether they quote THD etc. The NAD specs are honest. They have a whole web page about this and I thought at first they were making excuses for poor specs, but it is not so, their amps/ receivers really do the job, I can vouch for that. http://www.nad.co.uk/power/ There are other good makes about which you could say the same, I know. I am fairly sure Sony is not one of them, not Yamaha. Those guys will do anything on the border of legal to get the biggest number - on paper, which is where it matters to them. |
|
New member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 10 Registered: Jul-04 | Epilogue... I found a Onkyo TX-SR500 on line for real cheap and ordered it. Aparently some of the 500s have a problem with the LFE bass to the sub. But I don't have a sub, I am not sure that a sub is that important to me, and by the time it may be important to me there will be much better receivers on the market. Boy - when you compare the specs (thd, watts) for the onkyo to the panasonic and Sonys of the same price - Onkyo seems to be much better on paper. And most people say better in your ear, too. Well, when it comes I will enjoy it and so we have come to the end of our little adventure. Thanks for all the help. Don |
|
Bronze Member Username: DonaldekellyWashington, DC Post Number: 11 Registered: Jul-04 | Update The TX-SR500 was damaged so the guy did not send it. So I ordered a TX-SR501 from ecost.com using one of the links given above. I feel that - after informing myself - I followed much of the advice given to me in my choice. Thanks again. If you are still reading this thread - get a life!  |
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