Sherwood Stereo Receiver (RX-4105) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 11 Old 07-06-2007, 11:35 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
sunpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anyone have experience with this 2 channel receiver? Any input will be appreciated!
sunpole is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 Old 07-08-2007, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jvgillow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mebane, NC
Posts: 2,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yep I had one for a while. Radio Shack has the RX-4109 which has binding post connections instead of spring-clip. It's a pretty simple receiver, no video capability, no subwoofer output or test tone or anything like that. If you just want something for a few 2ch sources it's a decent choice though.

Jeremy Gillow
jvgillow is offline  
post #3 of 11 Old 07-08-2007, 03:43 PM
Member
 
MC752's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
IMO Sherwood is junk, sorta on the same playing field as the stuff at Radio Shack.
MC752 is offline  
post #4 of 11 Old 07-08-2007, 10:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvgillow View Post

Yep I had one for a while. Radio Shack has the RX-4109 which has binding post connections instead of spring-clip. It's a pretty simple receiver, no video capability, no subwoofer output or test tone or anything like that. If you just want something for a few 2ch sources it's a decent choice though.


I have the 4105 in my bedroom and it is a very capable quality unit at a great price. Had it for about four years and never a problem. The 4109 has 5 watts per channel more but I didn't know they changed to binding posts. I like the spring clips better myself although my Pioneer 6.1 has the binding posts as well.

Nothing wrong with Radio Shack stuff either and I think the poster asked for
personal experience with this unit ? There you go.
Jetmeck is offline  
post #5 of 11 Old 07-09-2007, 05:26 AM
Member
 
MC752's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Nothing wrong with Radio Shack stuff either and I think the poster asked for
personal experience with this unit ? There you go.

I have personally never been pleased with anything I have purchased from Radio Shack.
MC752 is offline  
post #6 of 11 Old 07-09-2007, 05:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jvgillow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Mebane, NC
Posts: 2,432
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Tons of people here swear by the Radio Shack SPL meter.

Jeremy Gillow
jvgillow is offline  
post #7 of 11 Old 07-11-2007, 12:13 PM
Newbie
 
pzaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC752 View Post

IMO Sherwood is junk, sorta on the same playing field as the stuff at Radio Shack.

Not to divert the topic, but I wonder how many receivers are produced by Sherwood and badged with a different name.

To quote their 'About Us ' site:

"Breaking Sound Barriers Ever Since
Today the company's leadership continues. Not only is the Sherwood brand synonymous with high performance audio worldwide, but it is an industry secret that Sherwood is the actual manufacturer of nearly one-third of the world's high performance receivers. Many of the products we build are available with brand names which may be better known than our own. But none are built with the same sense of pride as those that bear our own name, nor are any better built or better engineered than those that bear our Newcastle badge. Newcastle is the best we build for anyone."

-pat
pzaur is offline  
post #8 of 11 Old 07-11-2007, 05:05 PM
Advanced Member
 
ematcion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: No longer Castro Valley, California
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

4109 has 5 watts per channel more but I didn't know they changed to binding posts.

Don't forget that the 4109 has a phono pre-amp that the 4105 doesn't.

Avatar - My guard dog, Bogi

ematcion is offline  
post #9 of 11 Old 07-14-2007, 10:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by ematcion View Post

Don't forget that the 4109 has a phono pre-amp that the 4105 doesn't.


Pre amp I get, what is the phono part ?
Jetmeck is offline  
post #10 of 11 Old 07-14-2007, 10:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
ematcion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: No longer Castro Valley, California
Posts: 816
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmeck View Post

Pre amp I get, what is the phono part ?

Since a turntable's output is very low, a phono pre-amp is required in order to amplify its signal. You can buy a pre-amp, but if it doesn't have a phono pre-amp, then you're out-of-luck. Sometimes a phono pre-amp is called a pre- pre-amp.

There're many receivers, stereo or multi-channel, that have a phono pre-amp build in. The Sherwood is an exception.

Avatar - My guard dog, Bogi

ematcion is offline  
post #11 of 11 Old 07-15-2007, 10:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I didn't know there was a difference. Thx for the info.
Jetmeck is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

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