Receiver choice for a music lover. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 Old 10-30-2008, 03:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
techmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First timer here so forgive me for all the sins.
I have never owned any Receivers+Speakers or any advance HTIB just some PC speakers. I do have Digital Cable Box and an HDTV. I have been doing research on Receivers and found that there's too much information on internet. I happened to grab some
I don't trust the store representatives of major stores. So here is my question to the experts. What do I loose (from a Music Listener's perspective) if I buy Yamaha 463 versus Yamaha 663 (forgetting 5.1 vs 7.1)?
I know I can buy 463 and a BD player to handle all the advance decodings.or Buy 663 to do the stuff on its own. But do all these advance standards matter when I am mainly listening to mp3/CDs/FM? I don't want to be tied up with just a stereo receiver because I usually enjoy movies(not a whole lot).
I am planning to buy both Receiver+BD Player for just over the cost of Medium end receivers like 663 or Onkyo 606. Will I be justifying my interests(music) by doing so?

Just an FYI, In both cases I am planning to buy Polk Audio 6750 speaker system (5.1).
techmine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 Old 10-30-2008, 05:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,924
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 114
The 663 should have a bit more power. It has more features, and you can use the web site comparison tool to see those (I have seen some anomalies on there, you might want to double check the diffs against the spec page.)

Odds are good they use a very similar design. I would not expect much of a difference in power or sound for that reason. The 663 is a bit heavier, could be a bigger transformer which would mean more power. But the difference could be practically negligible.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #3 of 30 Old 10-30-2008, 07:15 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
techmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

The 663 should have a bit more power. It has more features, and you can use the web site comparison tool to see those (I have seen some anomalies on there, you might want to double check the diffs against the spec page.)

Odds are good they use a very similar design. I would not expect much of a difference in power or sound for that reason. The 663 is a bit heavier, could be a bigger transformer which would mean more power. But the difference could be practically negligible.

Thanks MichaelJHuman for the information. I guess then the two setups are almost the same. There is a deal out there today on web that is selling 663 for 350 (50 more than 463). It has really made my head spin. I guess I can now full featured 663 and be happy later..
techmine is offline  
post #4 of 30 Old 10-30-2008, 10:39 PM
Member
 
78Staff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by techmine View Post

Thanks MichaelJHuman for the information. I guess then the two setups are almost the same. There is a deal out there today on web that is selling 663 for 350 (50 more than 463). It has really made my head spin. I guess I can now full featured 663 and be happy later..

Would be interested in where you found that deal on the web if you don't mind sharing...thanks.
78Staff is offline  
post #5 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 04:55 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If your main priority of listening is more MUSIC than HT, than I would not be considering either one of those Yamaha receivers, and would look toward Marantz. Please read up about them, especially the receivers that have these series model numbers:
4001,5001,6001,7001,8001 (2006 models)
4002,5002,6002,7002,8002 (2007 models)
Many of the models above are still being sold at accessories4less. They are more affordable there than of any other place I've seen online and far more trustworthy than fleabay. Marantz's has also just introduced an even newer line up with the 4003 & 5003 models as well.
kclark is offline  
post #6 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
tvtommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclark View Post

If your main priority of listening is more MUSIC than HT, than I would not be considering either one of those Yamaha receivers, and would look toward Marantz. Please read up about them, especially the receivers that have these series model numbers:
4001,5001,6001,7001,8001 (2006 models)
4002,5002,6002,7002,8002 (2007 models)
Many of the models above are still being sold at accessories4less. They are more affordable there than of any other place I've seen online and far more trustworthy than fleabay. Marantz's has also just introduced an even newer line up with the 4003 & 5003 models as well.


Don't forget to mention that Accessories for less is generally refurb, so look closely at the description.

Techmine, add Harman Kardon to your list for musical fidelity. Harman Kardon sells it's refurbs on ebay from their own store (harman audio) I've seen some spectacular prices there if you're patient and refurbs don't scare you. the AVR147 would probably suit your needs pretty well. Don't let their power specs fool you. Although they look lower than anyone elses they probably compare to other receivers that claim twice that power.

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate
"I am the way and the truth and the light" - Jesus Christ
tvtommy is offline  
post #7 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 06:52 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvtommy View Post

Techmine, add Harman Kardon to your list for musical fidelity.

I agree HK is another brand that is very affordable that is musical and does have good power, but i didnt recommend them due to reading so many posts by owners complaining on avs about their receivers being buggy. I think the OP would be taking more of gamble to go with HK and possibly may wind up encountering some of the same problems, and based from what i've read, Marantz is far more reliable (refurb or not).
kclark is offline  
post #8 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 07:04 AM
Senior Member
 
tvtommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclark View Post

I agree HK is another brand that is very affordable that is musical and does have good power, but i didnt recommend them due to reading so many posts by owners complaining on avs about their receivers being buggy. I think the OP would be taking more of gamble to go with HK and possibly may wind up encountering some of the same problems, and based from what i've read, Marantz is far more reliable (refurb or not).

good point, but from what I understand the x47 models have been improved with the new firmware and the "sparkly fix". Problem is finding them now.

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate
"I am the way and the truth and the light" - Jesus Christ
tvtommy is offline  
post #9 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 07:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,924
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 114
I still don't know what a musical receiver is

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #10 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 08:49 AM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I still don't know what a musical receiver is

I'm with you. Do some receivers play music and others don't I guess I got one of them there hybreds as it plays music as well as HT
atdamico is offline  
post #11 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 08:54 AM
Senior Member
 
tvtommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I still don't know what a musical receiver is

It sings better.

granted this is a subjective matter, but I will say that receivers do sound different and to some that means when you play music through it, it sounds better than others. Mike, I don't want to go to the double blind blah blah blah no one can tell the difference arguement, it's been done many times before.

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate
"I am the way and the truth and the light" - Jesus Christ
tvtommy is offline  
post #12 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 12:31 PM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvtommy View Post

It sings better.

granted this is a subjective matter, but I will say that receivers do sound different and to some that means when you play music through it, it sounds better than others. Mike, I don't want to go to the double blind blah blah blah no one can tell the difference arguement, it's been done many times before.

Funny. I don't mean to start either an argument or have yet another thread digress into a DBT disaster. But what's funny is that you get your opinion in: receivers sounding different is subjective: and then say you don't want to go into DBT etc. arguments. I "might" add that nobody has ever posted any authoritative evidence of any unsighted test that supports the fact that this is subjective. I "might" argue that this is not a subjective matter at all but really an objective matter and that objectivly speaking, receivers sound pretty much the same. NAD, Yamaha, Marantz, Onyko, etc. etc. etc. Unless the unit has been purposly engineered to color the sound (and I'm not aware of any) nobody has ever, consistantly, been able to tell any difference. You might want to refer to the "Do all DACS sound the same" thread that has been running for quite a while

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=dacs

And other than DACS, what would make one receiver sound different from another? Well power requirements "may" but it would usually be under incredbile circumstances.
atdamico is offline  
post #13 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 12:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,924
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 114
These days, I think there's a some reasons for receivers to be different.

Room correction could make a noticable difference. If it does not make a difference, it's pretty useless, actually

DACs could certainly create differences

Rod Eliott wrote an interesting article on how distortion in amplifiers can create differences in sound. And he seems to be a very objective and informed guy

I have trouble understanding how the ruler flat pre amp stages in receivers I have seen measured have any significant effect on sound, but technically, they are also amplifiers

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is online now  
post #14 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 01:05 PM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

These days, I think there's a some reasons for receivers to be different.

Room correction could make a noticable difference. If it does not make a difference, it's pretty useless, actually

DACs could certainly create differences

Rod Eliott wrote an interesting article on how distortion in amplifiers can create differences in sound. And he seems to be a very objective and informed guy

I have trouble understanding how the ruler flat pre amp stages in receivers I have seen measured have any significant effect on sound, but technically, they are also amplifiers

Generally agree and your spot on about EQ, I should have thought about it. I personally don't agree that DACS sound different and until I see evidence to suggest otherwise I'll keep my opinion. The thread I posted is a good read in parts and JJ's contribution is spot on. And as a highly respected engineer in the field, I tend to listen. I agree that power "may" create difference hence my pointing that out, but I still think that the circumstances with which power might play a role would be very unusual. Like very hard to drive speakers driven at very high volume.

But I'll bow out now as I don't want to start yet another such argument, as one of the posters pointed out.
atdamico is offline  
post #15 of 30 Old 10-31-2008, 01:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Rotel is also a very solid brand in terms of build quality and accuracy of power ratings.

As for "all receivers sound alike", I would suggest that the comments concerning the latest trend in receivers to use some type of room equalization is tending to make that statement more accurate.

If, for example, there were a slight design flaw in one receiver that caused a dip in response at a certain frequency and some form of parametric equalizer could correct that, was compared to one that didn't have the design flaw, then the two should (all other things being equal--and they rarely are) sound the same.

Usually what I have found is that the biggest difference in receivers has to do with how well they behave under extreme loads (driving those nasty speakers that sometimes dip below the 4 ohm "safe" zone)----and how well they can sustain reference volume without running out of gas.

My preferred setup is to use a pre/pro along with a robust external amp. Beyond that, I find the terms "musical" versus "non-musical" without meaning. Maybe it is just terminology. I prefer "made with quality components" versus "shoddy construction and false advertizing concerning its capabilities".
petergaryr is offline  
post #16 of 30 Old 11-02-2008, 01:04 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
techmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I still don't know what a musical receiver is

The idea was to limit my search to receivers that don't advertise too much about picture and color. Sony is one. They advertise Bravia TV sync. True color(something like that) and all the crap. One reason I haven't considered Sony for AV receiver is because of all that extra jargon. I know and a lot would agree that Sony is still a very bright name in sound.

Also there are some receivers that don't support AudioCD music(don't ask me why, i read in some reviews). I certainly don't want that.
techmine is offline  
post #17 of 30 Old 11-02-2008, 06:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Emig5m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

I'm with you. Do some receivers play music and others don't I guess I got one of them there hybreds as it plays music as well as HT

When I went from my Carver separates 2-channel system to a Sony surround receiver the sound quality drop on my CDs was so big that I actually stopped listening to CD/2-channel music for years and years and the system was only then used for movie playback. I went through a couple more receivers and none had the sound quality of my separates system for music - all sounded thinner, harsher, low-fi, less dynamic you name it in comparison to the Carver separates.

At this point I had just assumed that a receiver couldn't play music at the quality level of separates. Then I recently bought a Yamaha receiver and was shocked at how good it sounded for 2-channel music. Night and day difference over the Sonys I previously owned at even twice the price! For the first time 2-channel music is listenable to me through a receiver. Not to mention all the EQ'ing in the world (the Sonys had a parametric EQ) didn't help with it's low-fi sound and harshness I experienced in the upper midrange. The Yamaha I run totally flat, no EQ, no bass/treble boosting (it simply doesn't need it) and no matter what you did with the Sony it never came close to what my new Yamaha does running totally flat . So I can personally say from my own personal experience that some can be more (much more) musical then others (meaning some sound low-fi no matter how you set them up and some sound like actual hi-fi equipment even when running totally flat with no EQ/Bass/Treble monkeying.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

I personally don't agree that DACS sound different and until I see evidence to suggest otherwise I'll keep my opinion.

Before I even knew what a DAC was I sold a friend my Pioneer 100 disc CD player to buy a Sony 200 disc that for some strange reason was cheaper then the Pioneer at half the disc storage. When I hooked it up and loaded my CDs I noticed the sound wasn't as clear and bright in the upper-end and it sounded a little muffled and less dynamic then the Pioneer did (like say stale soda that's been sitting open over night doesn't have the sparkle of a freshly open can.) I thought how could this be? Digital 1's and 0's on a CD are 1's and 0's and it shouldn't matter what player it's played on? Later on I learned the Pioneer had a superior DAC (probably one reason it cost more at half the storage) which I would say probably contributed to the performance difference I was hearing before I had a clue as to why there was a difference in digital playback.....

I guess with audio there's a difference between seeing evidence and hearing evidence.
Emig5m is offline  
post #18 of 30 Old 11-02-2008, 06:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Denophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
sympathize with above--carver was ahead of its time--i still have my cm1090 intgrated and tx12 tuner both in use in my system. (not to mention a sunfire amp) bob carver is my hero.

look, top tier are arcam, rotel, sunfire, b&k, maybe adcom--if you have the scratch get one
if not look to hk marantz or denon.
good luck!
Denophile is offline  
post #19 of 30 Old 11-02-2008, 06:48 PM
Member
 
jayman_1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

I still don't know what a musical receiver is


I can tell you how to spell it. ARCAM
jayman_1975 is offline  
post #20 of 30 Old 11-03-2008, 04:11 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Emig5m: what were the models of the sony receiver and the yamaha receiver that you were comparing?
kclark is offline  
post #21 of 30 Old 11-03-2008, 04:13 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayman_1975 View Post

I can tell you how to spell it. ARCAM

We'll see, I just bought one
kclark is offline  
post #22 of 30 Old 11-03-2008, 04:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
Emig5m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 935
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclark View Post

Emig5m: what were the models of the sony receiver and the yamaha receiver that you were comparing?

I don't remember the models of the other two Sonys I had (my friends dad has the one in his basement system - I could find out later this week) but the last one I had was a STR-DE845 which seemed to be the most powerful of the three I had and I'm comparing to the Yamaha RX-663. All the Sonys where horrid for music playback compared to what I was previously used to with the Carver setup. The Yamaha made start listening to music again through a loudspeaker.
Emig5m is offline  
post #23 of 30 Old 11-03-2008, 05:27 AM
 
atdamico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,809
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emig5m View Post

When I went from my Carver separates 2-channel system to a Sony surround receiver the sound quality drop on my CDs was so big that I actually stopped listening to CD/2-channel music for years and years and the system was only then used for movie playback. I went through a couple more receivers and none had the sound quality of my separates system for music - all sounded thinner, harsher, low-fi, less dynamic you name it in comparison to the Carver separates.

At this point I had just assumed that a receiver couldn't play music at the quality level of separates. Then I recently bought a Yamaha receiver and was shocked at how good it sounded for 2-channel music. Night and day difference over the Sonys I previously owned at even twice the price! For the first time 2-channel music is listenable to me through a receiver. Not to mention all the EQ'ing in the world (the Sonys had a parametric EQ) didn't help with it's low-fi sound and harshness I experienced in the upper midrange. The Yamaha I run totally flat, no EQ, no bass/treble boosting (it simply doesn't need it) and no matter what you did with the Sony it never came close to what my new Yamaha does running totally flat . So I can personally say from my own personal experience that some can be more (much more) musical then others (meaning some sound low-fi no matter how you set them up and some sound like actual hi-fi equipment even when running totally flat with no EQ/Bass/Treble monkeying.)



Before I even knew what a DAC was I sold a friend my Pioneer 100 disc CD player to buy a Sony 200 disc that for some strange reason was cheaper then the Pioneer at half the disc storage. When I hooked it up and loaded my CDs I noticed the sound wasn't as clear and bright in the upper-end and it sounded a little muffled and less dynamic then the Pioneer did (like say stale soda that's been sitting open over night doesn't have the sparkle of a freshly open can.) I thought how could this be? Digital 1's and 0's on a CD are 1's and 0's and it shouldn't matter what player it's played on? Later on I learned the Pioneer had a superior DAC (probably one reason it cost more at half the storage) which I would say probably contributed to the performance difference I was hearing before I had a clue as to why there was a difference in digital playback.....

I guess with audio there's a difference between seeing evidence and hearing evidence.



But you know I could argue that I have owned a Yamaha RX-V2095 (the flagship receiver at the time I bought it) a NAD T-763, a Yamaha RX-V995, a B&K AVR-307, a B&K AVR-507, a B&K Reference 50 paired with a Sherbourn 7 channel power amp, A NAD T-175 prepro, again paired with a Sherbourn 5 channel power amp, a Nakamichi stereo receiver, a Technics stereo receiver, and I could go on. I could also say that I believed (and nobody could argue me away from) that the NAD sounded soooo much better than my Yamaha 2095 for music. But then I had a few people from an AV enthusiast group I belonged to come over and we level matched a set of speakers (Dunlavy) to each of my receivers and did some blind listening. Not scientific and I'm not arguing that it was. But not a single person, myself included, could tell a bit of difference between the Yamaha, NAD, or B&K 307 receivers. Which all goes to show that my aecdotal evidence is not any more valid than yours. And you must not have clicked the link and read the thread on DACS. Frankly, unless it is broken, there is strong evidence that suggests that there is not any audible difference.

I said I wasn't coming back here as I didn't want the OP's post to digress into another golden ears vs. objective argument. So I broke my word but don't suggest that somebody that believes, based on evidence and part of the evidence was indeed listening tests, that DACS and receivers all tend to sound the same must not take "listening" into account. That's just silly.
atdamico is offline  
post #24 of 30 Old 11-04-2008, 06:44 PM
Member
 
jayman_1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclark View Post

We'll see, I just bought one

I think i read the thread where you said you bought a 250. I havent heard it but i know my 300 gives me chills when i listen to direct mode from my Arcam DV27+. I'm sure you will be tickled.
jayman_1975 is offline  
post #25 of 30 Old 11-04-2008, 07:42 PM
Senior Member
 
starcycle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with getting a Marantz. If you still want a Yamaha, let me know and I'll sell you mine so I can go get a Marantz.
starcycle is offline  
post #26 of 30 Old 11-05-2008, 06:43 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emig5m View Post

All the Sonys were horrid for music playback

i take it you've never listened to a 5ES or a Amp/Pre-Amp 9000ES combo, because if you did i doubt that you would be stating this.
kclark is offline  
post #27 of 30 Old 11-05-2008, 06:47 AM
Member
 
kclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayman_1975 View Post

I think i read the thread where you said you bought a 250. I havent heard it but i know my 300 gives me chills when i listen to direct mode from my Arcam DV27+. I'm sure you will be tickled.

Yep i did buy a 250, but guess what, seller burned me! the bay has been such a let down for me , the receiver would only power up and none of the buttons on the unit or the remote work, had to put a claim in to paypal.
kclark is offline  
post #28 of 30 Old 11-05-2008, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
oztech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 7,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Its not that one brand is more musical than another its the weak amp section in most
receivers that can not make good use of the clean signal(if it has not been altered through the pre-amp) to hard to drive speakers in a large room playing at loud volumes.
Shop wise get the speakers you like and make sure the receiver you match to them
will do them justice or make sure it has pre-outs so you can add an amp section that
can do the job.
oztech is offline  
post #29 of 30 Old 11-05-2008, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
petergaryr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 6,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
^For the most part, that has been my experience. There are exceptions, of course. The HK I owned for a long time, and the present Denon 2808 I have actually have very good amps in them. HKs in particular tend to "understate" or some would say "state correctly" their rated power.

A number of receiver issues result from an underpowered amp trying to drive a speaker that is not efficient to too loud a level, or trying to control a speaker that dips occasionally into a "danger zone" below 4 ohms.

However, I find I still prefer to mate even the Denon with an external Rotel amp, using only the SB amps of the Denon to power the surround back rear pair of speakers.
petergaryr is offline  
post #30 of 30 Old 11-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Member
 
jayman_1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kclark View Post

Yep i did buy a 250, but guess what, seller burned me! the bay has been such a let down for me , the receiver would only power up and none of the buttons on the unit or the remote work, had to put a claim in to paypal.

man that sucks big time. I feel for you my friend. I can only imagine the let down when you were powering it up for the first time just waiting to hear angels singing and heard nothing. In the future...maybe look at buying audio gear from Audiogon or Canuck Audio mart. Most people selling on there are avid audio lovers who would consider it a major offence against the audio gods to sell a dead piece of gear. Again...my condolences. Just for the record....the Avr 300 is going for insane cheap prices these days. I paid $2000 for mine about a year and a half ago and now i see they are selling used for anywhere from $650 - $1000 and new around $1100. I hope you do someday get to experience an Arcam reciever at the heart of your rig. Cheers.
jayman_1975 is offline  
Reply Receivers, Amps, and Processors

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