Sherwood RD-7405HDR now in-stock at Radio Shack - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 Old 07-24-2010, 12:10 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Mike Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My aging Pioneer receiver is on it's last leg, but I vowed to wait until the new Sherwood RD-7405HDR became available to replace it. Well I just saw one on my weekly walk-through at Radio Shack in Lenoir, NC.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=4272947

It looks really featured-packed for the money. Has anyone here tried it yet?
Mike Walker is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 Old 07-24-2010, 05:34 PM
Member
 
yumagah99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So buy it and review it for us!

I was thinking about that receiver myself, but while waiting a nice SONY went on special...

I generally hear good things about Sherwood receivers, but have not seen one in a B&M store. They have some small differences from most of the other big name lines. Some of them have 5 channel discrete audio inputs: interesting feature but something I'll never use. Also I think the 7405HD does not have DTS decoding - a deal killer for me. And only 2 HDMI inputs would be a minus.
I would be curious to see how the HD reception is on this.

Friends don't let friends use composite video.
yumagah99 is offline  
post #3 of 12 Old 07-24-2010, 11:31 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Mike Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm pretty sure I'll buy one this year, but I'll wait a while longer. I hate to replace components that still work, and still sound good (man is that different than my younger-self, who changed components like socks!)

Besides...my birthday is in Sept, and I've already told my wife that I want a B&N Nook wifi. That'll probably be the next toy.
Mike Walker is offline  
post #4 of 12 Old 08-03-2010, 05:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChrisW6ATV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hayward, Collie-fornia USA
Posts: 4,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Based on the specifications on the Radio Shack Web site, this is a very basic receiver that lacks many features compared to others as little as $100 or so more expensive.

-Its audio is only rated down to 40 Hz, so you will not get any real low bass.
-No DTS decoding, as yumagh99 said.
-It does not mention HDMI audio decoding, particularly multichannel PCM, so it would not be very suitable for use with a Blu-ray player. (You could use an optical or coaxial output from a Blu-ray player, but many discs have DTS audio and you would be out of luck except for basic stereo sound.)
-60 watts per channel is low compared to most other current standalone receivers.

Essentially, it is a very stripped-down receiver, except for having an HD Radio tuner built in. If you have or want to get a Blu-ray player, I would recommend sometihng with better HDMI audio support, and then add the Sony XDR-FHD1 (?) external HD Radio tuner, or if you buy an Onkyo receiver, they have an add-on HD Radio tuner module. You would spend more like $400-450 total, but you would get a much better overall audio experience. If you just want HD Radio and maybe DVD playing at the lowest cost, this receiver might be fine.

Chris

"It's [expletive] lame to watch Jaws, a film that uses the 2.40 ratio as well as any ever produced, in the wrong format on HBO." -Steven Soderbergh, Oscar-winning director

ChrisW6ATV is offline  
post #5 of 12 Old 08-08-2010, 09:11 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Mike Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"The audio is only rated down to 40hz". Nope. The power-output is only rated down to 40hz. Big difference. That's not a frequency response spec. If it has 70watts 40-20khz, that's probably given that way because it really is more like a 60 watt receiver. But people who aren't familiar with audio don't realize that the difference between 60 and 70 watts is a tiny fraction of a db...inaudible and insignificant.

When power specs are given that way on inexpensive equipment it's not to indicate a lack of low bass...it's to make the device appear more powerful than it actually is. And it's silly.

Even if the low end only reached to 40hz, the open e-string on an electric (or acoustic) bass (the lowest fundamental tone on the majority of rock, pop, and country recordings) is 42hz. If a person is interested primarily in a device to listen to these styles of music, a "lack of bass" below 40hz will be of little audible impact. Besides...even if the response spec was only to 40hz, that's not the same thing as there being no bass in the bottom octave between 20 and 40hz. It would mean, at most, that the bass was down by a db or two in that octave. Which is why God invented equalization!

My point is that nothing on that spec sheet disqualifes it from the basic task I'd want it for...listening to music on HD Radio. And using a pair of stand-mounted 6 1/2" two-way speakers (Energy C-3), that receiver appears to offer everything needed to drive them well. They do achieve remarkable bass extension in my living-room...down to 30hz. But of course the laws of physics come into play. A small speaker can play loudly, or have deep bass extension. It's virtually impossible for it to do both.
Mike Walker is offline  
post #6 of 12 Old 08-09-2010, 05:58 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Mike Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
An example of the above. If a receiver has .05 percent distortion at 70 watts per channel from 40-20khz, but in the octave below 40hz, the distortion increases to .3 percent...still at 70 watts...one may rate the receiver at 70 watts per channel @ .05 percent THD from 40-20hz, OR alternately, 70 watts per channel 20-20khz at .3 percent THD. Both would be an accurate spec.

If, as is usual, the distortion is more consistent across the receiver's bandwidth at lower power levels...say at 60 watts per channel the receiver doesn't exceed .02 percent distortion at any point from 20hz-20khz, then you could rate the receiver's power at 60 watts per channel, 20-20khz, at .02 percent distortion.

It depends on what's more important to a manufacturer to emphasize...power output, or distortion.

With real program material, to most people, there will probably be no audible difference between 1 percent distortion and .02 percent distortion. But one looks far more impressive. The ear is surprisingly tolerant of harmonic distortion at low frequencies...particularly in the two octaves below 100hz. Plus, speakers routinely have distortion figures which are orders of magnitude greater than electronics...5 percent THD at 40hz at a sound pressure level of 100db at one meter for a small two-way speaker would actually be quite good. But for an amplifier, that figure would look God-awful.
Mike Walker is offline  
post #7 of 12 Old 08-09-2010, 09:41 AM
Member
 
yumagah99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Another example of power rating games: I had an RCA HTIB with output power as 75watts/channel RMS at 10% THD, 1khz. A rating like that is almost like a "peak music power" rating - not too meaningful. I found the spec sheet for the IC amps the unit had, it had extensive charts and graphs. I studied the graphs and concluded the same amps could be rated in any of these ways:
75 watts RMS 10%THD 1khz
60 watts RMS 1% THD 1khz
50 watts RMS, 0.3% THD, 20-20khz
But the volume control on this unit was set very low, probably because the power supply couldn't provide the juice to actually meet the rated amp specs. The unit didn't clip much even at max volume, but probably never put out more than 20 to 30 watts peak. And RCA advertises it as a 1000 watt system.
A good rule of thumb, if an amp is rated at 10% THD, or no THD figure is given, knock off about 25% to get a realistic power rating.

Friends don't let friends use composite video.
yumagah99 is offline  
post #8 of 12 Old 08-10-2010, 12:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ChrisW6ATV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Hayward, Collie-fornia USA
Posts: 4,205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
A friend and I used to go to computer flea markets and look at the computer speaker sets. They often have ridiculous power ratings. Let's see... A "200 watt" speaker system powered by an AC adapter rated 12 volts at 1.5 amps. Twelve times 1.5 is, um, 18 watts! We decided a "felony violation of Ohm's Law" was any claim of over 100 watts; below 100 watts was only a misdemeanor violation.

Chris

"It's [expletive] lame to watch Jaws, a film that uses the 2.40 ratio as well as any ever produced, in the wrong format on HBO." -Steven Soderbergh, Oscar-winning director

ChrisW6ATV is offline  
post #9 of 12 Old 08-10-2010, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Mike Walker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"Felony violation of Ohm's law". LOL! THAT'S funny!
Mike Walker is offline  
post #10 of 12 Old 08-11-2010, 12:04 PM
Member
 
yumagah99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Bogus claims about wattage have been around as long as audio gear was for sale. One thing to remember about the power consumption numbers on back panels: those are usually measured during the warm-up period for FCC power ratings, which are at one eighth (1/8) of the rated power. So even on amps that are honestly rated for RMS power, the audio output power may be considerably higher than the stated power consumption. It's not a case of outright lies or of magically creating several watts from one.

That being said, I remember a pair of dinky powered speakers for a PC that were boldly labeled "300 WATT SPEAKERS". They probably had real RMS power of about 1.5 watts/channel. I would have liked to see 300 AC power watts run thru those! Get the fire extinguisher.

Friends don't let friends use composite video.
yumagah99 is offline  
post #11 of 12 Old 08-11-2010, 02:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I have never owned an amp that wasn't loud enough turned up 3/4 of maximum volume. That's my power rating. I couldn't imagine using a subwoofer at any power rating in an apartment building. It would drive the neighbors nuts.

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #12 of 12 Old 08-12-2010, 02:37 AM
Senior Member
 
Brad Bishop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

I have never owned an amp that wasn't loud enough turned up 3/4 of maximum volume. That's my power rating. I couldn't imagine using a subwoofer at any power rating in an apartment building. It would drive the neighbors nuts.

I had that happen a couple of years back. Some new neighbor moved in and turned up his subs. At first I figured: "Ok - he got a new stereo and is playing with it," and let it go. After a few days when he was doing it well into the night I finally went over and said, "Please turn the subs down - all I hear in my apartment is your subs." He did. Then a few hours later they were back up. I went back over again and asked again.

I think it went on for a week and then he just disappeared. Maybe someone reported him and the office kicked him out or maybe he never paid his 2nd month's rent.

The good thing about apartments is that if you have an annoying neighbor they typically aren't there very long.
Brad Bishop is offline  
Reply HD Radio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off