Controversial. Why spend $1,500+ on a Receiver?

i wouldn't, but just like everything else in life you don't need a vette to go the grocery store either. it's the Americana that we live in. for me i look at features/cost ratio, and this year i would have to say it's the onkyo 818.

What will likely make the most difference is which EQ process is used. In the case of Audyssey, MultEQ XT32 is currently the best version Audyssey offers.

You don't necessarily need to spend $1500-$2K on a receiver, but you can get more power and cleaner power than what your RX-v465 offers just by spending a little more money. The more expensive receiver normally will also have a better power supply and the ability to handle tougher loads. Whether you can tell the difference with your speaker setup I can't answer.

The 465 doesn't have a discrete amp section whereas the 665 and up do use discrete amps. According to the literature Yamaha home theater receivers that use a discrete amp configuration, which means there are independent output devices for each of the 7 channels. It is the higher grade components that ultimately deliver better sound performance.

Have you tried swapping your receiver with something more expensive to see if there is an audible difference?

I would just look for a receiver in my price range that has all the features I want. For my main receiver I wanted 7.1 capability, multichannel analog inputs for SACD/DVD-A and 7.1 pre outs for adding an external amp, analog to HDMI video conversion and upscaling, multi-room/multi source capability, Audyssey MultEQ XT, etc. I managed to get a Denon 989 for $549, half price MSRP a little over 3.5 years ago from Amazon. I think the Denon 3312 was the same price for a day or two earlier his year from Amazon.

For my bedroom receiver all I needed was 4 HDMI inputs and analog to HDMI conversion. I managed to get a new Denon 591 for $199 from Fry's.

The receivers do sound similar but the Denon 989 sounds better. Maybe if I had tougher speakers to drive the 989 would make an even bigger difference but my Energy RC and Jamo speakers are pretty easy for the receivers to handle.

To be honest, all you are paying for in a receiver now a days for quality is the processing that it does with the sound bit streams... IE 5.1, PCM, etc.. Video is pretty standard now with HDMI and has been for years... They charge you more for 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 11 channels etc, dual HDMI outputs, seperate zones, blah blah blah... So basically your paying for features. Personally, the only reason I pay for higher quality receiver, is so it can be my Preamp device to process all the digital signals. I then use the pre-outs on the receiver to my amplifiers and then to my speakers. So I really dont care what the wattage is rated at for the receiver as long as it has pre-outs on the unit. Receivers sound quality will never be filtered as well as a good quality amp.

With that in mind, some brands have better internal amps than others, better power filtering, noise filtering etc... But for me, I dont care as I am using my own amps. As long as its passing a clean signal to my amps because the build quality of the receiver is decent, I dont care about the brand name per say...

And the Onkyo 818 has that for the price point that no one else does.

Spending more on a receiver generally gets one or more of...

- more watts per channel
- pre-outs and/or pre-ins
- better room correction
- more channel capabilities
- more inputs
- more outputs
- more zones
- network capabilities
- HD radio
- an extra remote
- a bigger electric bill

plus some of the following:

- DSD support
- audio rate control
- better DSP for decoding AND processing
- higher spec'ed DAC
- special filter implementation
- upsampling
- better vp, more picture control options
- dual HDMI out
- higher grade components
- gold plated connectors
- better build
- better looking
- longer warranty
- not made in Asia
- pride of ownership/bragging rights...
etc.

Actually for non-mass market brands, more $$$ = less features. Sometimes less is more. No good really have 20 features you paid for but never or hardly use.

Just like everything else in life, some people buy expensive clothes, cars, houses, yachts, food, wine, holidays, and in my case, also grand pianos. Not always entirely justified, or fulfill the mere necessity, or the most bang for the buck.

Hello,
That is exactly why I did so. That being said, the number of $1500 AVR's is getting sparser and sparser. The era of uber AVR's like the Denon AVR-5805 (still the most impressive to me), Pioneer Susano, VSX-49 and 59txi et al is over. Denon has or is about to stop selling the AVR-5308CI, Yamaha no longer offers an RX-Z Series AVR, Marantz Reference AVR's have not been around for years, and Pioneer and Onkyo's THX Ultra2 Plus AVR's are relatively inexpensive compared to past Ultra2 offerings.
Cheers,
AD

If you don't need/want the best Audyssey version, check out the Onkyo 717 for ~$550. It even has pre-outs if you ever want to use a separate amp. It runs about $400 less than the 818.

i hav some doubts regarding hometheatre...

i hav read in many sites that a HT with seperate components ie preamp and seperate power amp perform better than a AV receiver
based HT.
so i would like to use an Av receiver with multi channel preout (onkyo tx nr 717, 549$ online )
and four sherwood rx 4109 stereo receiver( 100$ each) as power amp for 7 speakers...and i will hook up the powerd subwoofer directly to my onkyo (preamp)
so total cost is 550+(4*100)= 950$ for this low budjet preamp + power amp configuration

i am a little bit confused because some say that preout found on back of mid range AVR is not good and their output may be distorted
so i dont know whether it is better to use a AVR for that 1000$ or to go for this preamp/poweramp configuration..
i am planning to buy either polk audio blackstone tl1600 or energy take classic 5.1 speaker system

so on the whole my question is very simple..whether should i go for a single AVR and speaker..or to use a mid avr as pre amp and 4 sherwoods as poweramp.???
which will sound better?? which is more cost effective??
i also hav a 3rd option that is onkyo 9400THX HTiB now available for 680$ online .actual price 1000$..

so please help me to choose... either
1. an AVR with speaker
2. onkyo txnr 717 with 4 sherwood rx 4109 stereo receiver
3. onkyo 9400 THX ..
thanx in advance



guys the above figure is a similar set up i told about onkyo...here pioneer is the receiver dats alll

some go for seperates style.. by AVR with preouts and using 4 stereo receivers for 7 speakers...dey say using sepearte amps reduce the load on AVR and avr play mid range more clearly..
for eg..u can buy ONKYO TX NR 717 for 550$ and 4 sherwood RX 4109 ( 4*100 =400$) ...total 950$..
look at this style...

but some prefer buying a higher end AVR for that 950 or 1000$....

what do u think about the 2 setups?????

Yikes! Four $100 receivers for the power? How good could a $100 receiver be? How sensitive are those speakers? If they are reasonably efficient, just use the 717, as it is a fairly powerful receiver.

If you must use separate power, I'd look for a used Adcom, Parasound, or other brand 3-channel amp for $400 or $500. Check audiogon.com. You don't need a separate amp for your surrounds; just use the Onkyo for those speakers. You mainly would want extra power for the front L/R and center speakers, which a three channel amp will provide.

BTW, I am using the pre-outs on my Onkyo 809, and it sounds great to me.

More features and in some cases, Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

Our latest upgrade was a Marantz, SR5007 ($750.00 delivered) and for us, it hit the middle ground squarely in that, for us, it had all the whistles and bells; a full set of pre-outs, a pair of sub-outs, DolbyDigital decoders, HDMI/Toslink connections/switching and Audyssey, MultEQ XT. Personally I like having a pair of sub-outs as opposed to using a Y-splitter and when we find need or have the spare cash, we can upgrade the AVR system with an outboard Emotiva, XPA-5 Amp, delivered, $900.00; very nice.

The point, when one asks a question such as yours, to me, the question needing to be answered by you, the original poser of the question, what do you want or expect out of your choice in AVR's?

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/22/12 at 12:10pm

Just remember, everything sounds exactly the same........except this LONG list of reasons why they don't sound the same. But it's NOT the amps. I mean they are all basically EXACTLY the same, there is NO REASON for anything to sound different.......except , of course these NON-amp reasons why they ?CAN? sound different.

So they are all the same, but they are also NOT the same either. And because most DON'T sound the same, but because features and design are ALL DIFFERENT, we've decided what PARTS make things sound different and what PARTS we INSIST will sound EXACTLY the same. The great thing IS, you can't prove one way OR the other.

You can listen to a "wide?" range and variety of products like.... Onkyo and Integra.....or......Marantz and Denon......I mean look at the ?WIDE? range of variety there. And I can't tell the difference between ANY of them.

There are MANY people here who buy a new Onkyo or Denon every few years, and except for different features, they generally agree they can't tell any SQ difference between them. If that ?WIDE? range of variety and multi-brand experience doesn't prove it to everyone, I don't know what else these people need to do.


AVS is fun.
Edited by dean-l - 9/22/12 at 2:42pm

For those looking at the onkyo 717, please do yourself a small favor and get the prior model onkyo 709 instead. The audyssey RC system in the 717 is only 2EQ and doesn't even equalize the subwoofer. The 709 has audyssey XT.

The entire receiver industry (and most consumer electronics for that matter) revolve around people buying a new "box" every couple of years.

New features are needed to give us a reason to upgrade, even when our old boxes work fine...

I'm not saying there aren't game-changing technolgies that are rolled out to the public.

AC3 audio
DVD
HD DvD/Blu-ray
HDMI connectivity

Are all excellent examples of game-changing features, and great reasons to upgrade.

Back to your original question, why does somebody spend $2000 on a receiver? Is it twice the $1000 receiver? FOUR TIMES the box a $500 receiver is? No. So then why does anybody do it? There's only one reason.... Because they can.

by the way the speakers are reasonably sensitive/efficient....85db..87db sensitivity...
sherwood rx 4109 is a stereo receiver with 100 watts /ch
.08% THD...

is that enough to drive energy take classic 5.1
or
pioneer sp bs 21 speaker sysytem

Naseef123: Please stop reposting the same post several times. Once is enough. Please give the moderators time to approve the post...if you post multiple times, it creates more work for the moderators. Also, please watch your language (posts deleted). We are an all ages site.

I am looking at the 717, and keep hearing about what you state here. My question is this. I have a Yamaha with a similar system, and my brother has an Onkyo with a similar system. In both of our cases we have disabled as the sound never was very good. We were able to get better sound when manually adjusting our setup.

Has there been a lot of strides made over the last 3 years (Brothers Onkyo) or 2 years (My Yamaha). I ask this because I am looking at the Onkyo 616 and 717, and do not want to pay for this Audyssey (by getting an 818) if I won't use it. Why is this all the talk, and do most people really use it and see a difference. I assume it adjust differences in space between speakers, delays, etc? If so could I not save the money and spend some time to do manually by myself?

Also is the TX-NR717 worth the extra cost over the TX-NR616 (better/cleaner amp, sound, THD, etc)?

Thanks,

(Posting a second reply to this question.)

To a certain extent, I've researched the above question and bought a bit of the high-end choices and this last upgrade iteration, we bought a step lower as opposed to equal or a step higher. Why? Because despite the years between purchases, there wasn't added value to the more expensive choices. But, in the near future, we will be adding (I will, my wife won't be) an outboard Amp as an improvement on amplifier efficiency.

The total bill will be almost the price of a Denon, 4311Ci, which comes with Audyssey, MultEQ XT32, a major improvement (licensing fees) over the MultEQ XT. We purchased a Marantz, SR5007 at a delivered price of $750.00 and near term, will add one of the Emotive, XPA series amplifiers. At this time and point, I'm really not sure which one. The point, I would say that one would spend $2k on an AVR for several reasons, better amplification specifications (able to handle more demanding 4 ohm loads), the ability to put out more watts of stable power per channel and an upgrade in provided room analyzer.

Hope the above helps answer your question.

@tshrimp...

the "big" differentiators between avrs today is their dsp, specifically room correction...

yes, audyssey "works" and imo/ime, you'd be foolish not to use it... this has been objectively proven many times....

the other stuff you mention is essentially inconsequential in any avr that isn't a complete pos...

realistically, only 2 things "matter" when it comes to sound reproduction (assuming the electronics aren't complete crap and are driven within spec)... the speakers and the room they are in... "the room" is far more important than many realize, and room correction schemes exist for a reason...