|
New member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 10 Registered: Aug-04 | Hey guys i was asking in an earlier thread about a decision of what reciever / speaker setup was a good match and i came to the the conclusuion of the yamaha rx-v1400 and the definitve tech procinema 80 sub/sat set. Now i was wondering how does this kind of system compare to a bose system like 1 of the higher end systems in the $2000 to $2500 price range ( better or worse and why )? Also is the yamaha rx-v1400 priced at $700 and the def techs priced at $800 the best setup in this price range is there a better setup that any of you guys can reccomend because im planning on purchasing within the next few days (let me know reciever and speaker setups if you think no)? |
|
Bronze Member Username: SeamusPost Number: 42 Registered: Feb-04 | Wow Scott, you obviously haven't seen the earlier BOSE threads on this forum, otherwise you wouldn't have asked for advise on Bose while planning to purchase within the next few days !! There are threads on opinions on Bose which run into hundreds of posts. A discussion on this topic always brings out rather strong passions from both sides. I will not get into the positives and negatives of BOSE, but tell you about my experience. Till sometime ago, BOSE defined hi-fi for me. So I got myself a Lifestyle hometheater system. Lived with it for some time, but I must say I wasn't as thrilled with the sound as I had expected to be. There are enough articles on the Net that have the frequency response measurements of the Acoustimass system. My experience seems to back-up what the articles claim (the "frequency hole") - on the recently issued hybrid SACD of "Dark Side of the Moon", the voices in the background, which were just a murmur in the original mix, have been given more prominence. However, the Bose completely left them out. My small computer speakers did a better job. I now have a NAD T763 driving PSB Image speakers, and there is just no comparison. The new system is better in absolutely every respect - better clarity, better separation between channels, much better midrange, tight and fast bass, sublime highs. The best part - it cost about the same as the BOSE (I'm not in the US. Here the BOSE LS systems are even more expensive). Based solely on my experience, I would advise you to go for dedicated HT receivers and speakers instead of the BOSE. I haven't heard the Yamaha RX-1400, but have read here that some people find them too bright. You must trust your own ears. Apparently, the 2400 is a much better unit. Try out some of these specialised manufacturers - audition a BOSE as well. Your decision will be made in an instant. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 11 Registered: Aug-04 | Well this is the thing I agree 100% with what you are saying and yes i have read alot of reviews on the site but they are all like you say 1 person sais it sucks and wouldnt use it as a doorstopper and the other person sais you havent heard high end home theatre unless you have heard a bose. I was leaning 85% towards your opinion , to be honest i didnt really even consider a bose , i was planning on going with a real ht reciver and speakers like you said. I just wanted some real clarification because this system will be used for a long time and i dont want to make a wrong decision and be unhappy in the future because it is a significant amount of money. As far as the yamaha goes i was looking at the 1400 and the 2400 but i really dont know exactly what the diffrences are. If someone can kind of explain them better i would be able to decide weather its worth the extra money for me. Now as far as listening goes all the places i have been to do not have any policy where i can just say can i here this yamaha in a seprate room hooked up to these speakers they just wont do it. beasically they selected the reciever and a good set of speakers in a room that has 50 diffrent kinds of speakers and recivers and i heard it like that. so when i hear it im not so sure i am getting the full affect because of all the things hooked up in between and because of speaker placement , where as the bose is set up with its own little test thing and is all around you set up correctly with poles coming off of it putting the sats right behind you 5 feet away. i know that this helps alot to make the bose apear better but i was under the imprecion that it was just fooling me. bascially i know that what i am getting is the better way to go i just would like to know if the 2400 is worth the extra money and why. also i am planning on getting the def tech pro cinema 80s for the reciever will this work well with the 2400 or would i have to upgrade to the procinema 100s. |
|
New member Username: HokievtPost Number: 7 Registered: Aug-04 | Bose isn't bad. It just isn't worth the money. In the old days, every stereo shop (that didn't sell Bose) would use the 901's as the "before" speakers. The comparison was always "It sounds as good as the 901's". The selling point was that you got "901 sound" for half the money. Bose's best selling points are reputation and ease of buying. But you pay for that. |
|
Silver Member Username: LandrovalPost Number: 489 Registered: Feb-04 | Indeed. Bose is ok if you pay 1/10th of the price. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 12 Registered: Aug-04 | i here ya. i agree because i see that any system worth while is at least $2000 from bose. but as far as the last part of my post which is the 1400 vs the 2400 can you guys help me out with what the major diffrences are and also if i get the 2400 would i need to get the def tech pro cinema 100s or will the 80s be good. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 26 Registered: Jul-04 | The RX-v1400 is 110Wx7 channels, 31 DSP modes and basic remote. The RX-v2400 has 120Wx7 channels, 33 DSP modes, zone two capability and a more detailed, better laid out remote. Personally I think the RX-v2400 is worth the extra money. You can't have too much power with the Yamaha. and the zone two and upgraded remote are nice features. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 13 Registered: Aug-04 | thanks so much for the info i was hoping someone could reply and clear this up. it seems like the 1400 also has the multi zone feature. the other features definatley seem to be good now the 120w per channel instead of 110w a channel is this a major diffrence or is it not so much or so noticable. also what is the dsp exactly sorry if it seems like a dumb question and is 33 instead of 31 really make so much of a diffrence. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 14 Registered: Aug-04 | sorry forgot 1 more thing. when i look at these recievers and like the 1400 sais 770 watts alot of people tell me thats not the true value what does that mean and what is the true value. |
|
Bronze Member Username: SeamusPost Number: 43 Registered: Feb-04 | OK Scott, here I go again. I'll try and relay the knowledge I've gained on this forum and some research on the net. 7x110W is more than enough power for a normal sized room with the usual furniture - PROVIDED the amp or receiver can deliver it. Here's what really happens - many manufacturers (and a few Japanese ones are notorious for this) rate their amps with only one speaker at only a particular frequency without any distortion ratings. What you should look out for is the actual power delivered with all channels running, specific speaker impedance, across the entire frequency spectrum (20Hz to 20kHz) with a specific THD. Do a search on google, and some of the results are mind-boggling ! More often than not, the power ratings are advertising claims which cannot be substantiated in actual tests. Here are just 2 links that could explain this : http://www.epanorama.net/documents/audio/amplifier_power.html http://sound.westhost.com/power.htm There are reviews by magazines which quote what power a particular amp or receiver delivered in their tests, under actual use conditions. Now for the other big issue - DSPs. You'll see a lot of varying opinions on this one. Personally, I feel that music and movies should be heard like what the artist (or the recording engineer) wanted you to hear it as. I do not want to know what my music would sound like in a church or a hall. I have a NAD receiver, and NAD is at the other extreme from Yamaha in number of DSPs. I do not use a single one - I feel music sounds the best when the signal is not altered. What is more important than the claimed power and the number of DSPs is the quality of sound, and this is where you'll have to make up your own mind. Like I said in my first post, some people find the Yamaha to be too bright (stressing the upper frequencies), although the new ones are supposed to be much better. I can suggest a few other brands for you to try out - NAD, Marantz, Denon, HK etc are all excellent choices. NAD, Marantz & HK are renowned for being conservative in the power rating they claim. There are others like Rotel and Arcam, but at much higher prices. Find a high-end audio shop and ask them for an audition. The specialists not only know much more about audio, they are usually very happy to spend time with a potential customer even if it doesn't result in a sale. All the best. Keep us posted. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 28 Registered: Jul-04 | The wattage ratings are often "selling points". But I would always opt for a little more power, especially in this case. The Yamaha RX-v2400 does sound very good. I have heard it. There is a review of it at audioholics.com and it acheived a very high rating. The lower end Yamahas do sound very thin and bright (Htr-5760, 5730) and I would not recommend these. I believe the 2400 is worth the extra money. Some people do not. DSP modes are not important to me but some people really like them. I think the 2400, as well as the Flagship RX-Z9 are very good units. There are very few quality control issues with Yamaha too. I personally like the sound of Harman Kardon slightly more, but the ergonomics and layout of the yamaha, as well as the remote is better. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 15 Registered: Aug-04 | thanks so much for the help guys and for clearing these things up. now i just have to decide if it is worth getting the def tech pro cinema 100s instead of the 80s if i opt for the 2400 instead of the 1400 because i do not know if the 80s will be able to handle the power of the 2400 post any opinions and if anyone has any experience with the def techs and the yamaha let me know. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 57 Registered: Feb-04 | Scott, There is a miniscule difference between between 110W and 120W and I wouldn't worry about it at all. Doubling power is noticable (3 dB increase), but anything less than that isn't very much. That said, somewhere in the web someone has collected a table of models, advertised power ratings and measured power ratings with all channels driven. Someone on this forum provided the link once and i can find it right now. Some brands do a lot better then others at matching their specs. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 16 Registered: Aug-04 | thanks alot for the advice pete would you be able to post that link. also i jsut was at the store today looking at the recievers and with that in mind it seems liek the only other diffrence is the remote. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 30 Registered: Jul-04 | The RX-v2400 has 2 more zone two outputs, one composite and one S-Video. The 1400 has none |
|
Bronze Member Username: BienPost Number: 21 Registered: Apr-04 | Have you considered the Denon 3805 among your choices? I know that it lists slightly higher than the Yamaha 2400 but you may find it at a very close price range. If you are concerned with power, I definitely would not rule out NAD in your comparisons, I personally own a NAD receiver as well and I feel that it does not fall behind the other receiver brands with higher stated watt ratings. |
|
Bronze Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 58 Registered: Feb-04 | Scott, here is the link in question: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm You'll find a few receivers rated at 75 to 100W per channel dilevering only 35W with all channels driven. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 17 Registered: Aug-04 | Thanks for the link it was very helpful. kim im not so conserned with power i just want to leave the system alone in the future , i dont want to have to hook up amps to it or anything like that. I just want the reciver to be able to be strong enough to handle a room thats 20 by 20 or 25 by 20 you know what i mean. Basically just a good size room so i can have this reciver for years to come and if i put it in a pretty big room i just wanted to have the assurance that the reciver will hang in there. I am pretty sure that i will have to buy diffrent speakers or keep the def techs ( pro cinema 80s)and add on to them but i just want to know it will work well if i added 2 mains and then used the def techs for the rest thats all i care about not the power because also as far as loudness goes i am not trying to shake my walls down or anything just a really nice clean sound . |
|
Anonymous100 Unregistered guest | Hi Scott, Don't waste your time with the Bose, they are designed for older folks with fading hearing capability (no dis-respect intended), as you get older you start to lose your hearing, specially in the midrange frequency, funny enough that's exactly where BOSE will reproduce with ease therefore many older folk find them attractive because they can finaly hear what they've been missing all these years, as far as direct reflecting, don't get me going...if you had proper imaging you would'nt want to bounce them of the wall (plastic enclosure, 3" midrange driver to reproduce full range sound...sick) Also do yourself a favour a look at the Denon 3805, Nad 763, Marantz 8400 or even the Rotel 1056. (all around the same $ give or take $200) The Yamaha's have a good reputation for Home Theater but not so good for stereo, that's where the above noted receiver will out perform the Yammi, as far as the difference between the 1400 and the 2400 look at the features not the power since they both draw the same current. I know that we all have different opinions and hearing but i've heard all of the above and i would look away from the Yammis....trust your hears Good Luck. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 35 Registered: Jul-04 | Don't judge all Yamaha's the same. The 1400 and 2400 sound great. Better and cheaper than the Denon 3803 and for the money is a great HT receiver. The lower end models do not compare. Read the review on audioholics.com. The RX-v2400 is around $740 online. Several hundred dollars under the Rotel and less than the Marantz you listed. |
|
Anonymous100 Unregistered guest | As I mentionned, this is my opinion I personally heard side by side the 2400 vs the 3803 and there was no question the denon had more detail, airyness and a much better sound stage it also didn't sound compressed at higher volumes, but that's my opinion and the same one of pretty much all the dealers I know in the area that sell both products...don't get me wrong the Yamaha is good, but not as refined as the other mentionned receiver...Someone said to me in reference to sound quality "the Rotel does to the Denon what the Denon does to all the other receivers within their respective price point" I'm just pointing out that there will always be a better mouse trap...there's always going to be another receiver thats sounds better than the other, you just have to trust your ears and test all the receivers within your budget (give or take a fiew dollars) jump for the highest tree branch and if you can't reach it then grab another one on the way down, you owe it to yourself. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 18 Registered: Aug-04 | well here is the deal guys i bought the rx-v2400 yesterday along with the yamaha dvd-c940 5 disc player and i hooked it all up. now i just need to get the def tech pro cinema 80s. i was using a sony reciver that came with everything speakers sub reciver and dvd player and i took it all out except for the speakers. i am going to use them for a few days until i can get the def techs. now the sony speakers are 6ohms and there is an option to change this on the reciver so i changed it from 8 ohms to 6 and i hooked everything up and it seemed to be working fine , but about 20 minutes into a dvd the reciver shut off and when i turned it back on it said check speaker wires. i did and i do not see anything wrong in my opinion and i have no idea why its shutting off can someone help me out maybe they have some advice or know something. |
|
Bronze Member Username: BleustarPensacola, Florida Post Number: 39 Registered: Jul-04 | jump for the highest tree branch and if you can't reach it then grab another one on the way down, you owe it to yourself. That is a great analogy! |
|
New member Username: David_pPost Number: 4 Registered: Aug-04 | I am someone who suffers from an idiopathic type of tinnitus (ringing in ears) at a decible level that makes picking fine quality speaks a bit dicy. Bose, when I went to the Factory store, was just shopping anything that had 1/4 of its cost devoted to its name. While looking, someone introduced me to a Canadian company, Energy, that I had never heard of. One listen is all it took. I was surprised that I was that taken by a Brand of speaks I had never heard of...and by that time I had listened to a lot. In any event, with these speaks in my home, I am able to discern higher notes, highhat work and percussion that had been previously masked by tinnitus. I know this is an odd recommendation, but I am, and was, sold. |
|
Anonymous100 Unregistered guest | jump for the highest tree branch and if you can't reach it then grab another one on the way down, you owe it to yourself. That is a great analogy! Thanks, But now to find out that Marantz is coming out with a Sr-8500 in December so I might wait a bit...there's always going to be a better unit around. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ScottblockPost Number: 21 Registered: Aug-04 | that is very true but if i am thinking of that i might as well never get it because a year from now there will be a reciver that will beat that lol. i am jsut curious for the time but i went out and bought the 2400 the other day and it is phenominal i jsut dont understand what the up conversion is can someone explain. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Awj53West Sacramento, CA USA Post Number: 18 Registered: Jun-04 | This comes from a bose rep!! NO HIGHS, NO LOWS...MUST BE BLOWS, ERR bose!!! No caps on the brand name, not worth the effort! Alvin |