AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › List of Digital Home Theater Receivers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

List of Digital Home Theater Receivers - Page 48

post #1411 of 1885
3/3/06 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

I had a top of the line Technics reciever in my car, & in my House, and found them both to be too bright,,, not enough "ambiance", Yes, it does depend on the speakers you pick, but irregardless the Panny's play bright, & clear. I went to Kenwood in both, and found better channel separation, fullness of sound, extended (high & low) range, and clarity without excessive brightness IMHO.

Also, when testing out recievers years ago, with my first foray of A/V Home equipment, I found the Sony's seemed to have distorted bass, The JVC had bass that appeared too loose (slightly distorted I feel), the Pioneer's seemed to have abit of muddy booming bass, and both the Onkyo with a (nice bass response), & the Pioneer seemed to introduce their own flavor of slightly distorted sound from a variety of different types of music, & voice, from any various broadcast radio stations (hard to describe, but didn't sound natural), although the Sony, Technics, & Kenwood sounded quite natural (normal) at this. Of all I tested, I think the Kenwood had the best "sound of power", and clean tight bass, without distortion,,, IMHO, but if you read their specs, they are designed for this. Just a footnote here, I noticed extended high's with the Kenwood that weren't there with the Technics, and even more extended high's with the Onkyo that weren't there with the Kenwood?,,, In any case, I was sold by the punchy bass of the Kenwood.

The Technics receivers you refer to are traditional analog as opposed to the digital switching type that the xr55/70s are, so I wouldn't expect them to sound the same at all. However I haven't listened to Technics receivers in decades.

Kenwood I tend to lump together with Sony, as being mediocre quality stuff that sells mainly based on name recognition---the car audio electronics of both brands is especially crappy. I did listen to a few Kenwood AVRs in passing a few years ago in BB or CC, wasn't real impressed with them. I would be curious to listen to the Kenwood digital receiver though.

For an analog receiver I'd go with HK, Marantz, and Yamaha in that order.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #1412 of 1885
3/3/06 at 11:18am
I have just received my replacement panny xr55--the last one had a problem, a pop when changing inputs--and I am pairing it with some older Klipsch Fortes. Here is a link to a small review comparing the HK 635 that I had for a short while and the panny. Please remember that this is a completely personal opinion on my account!!!

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/2/6...st.aspx#691160

Klipsch are supposed to be the brightest speakers out there, and so far the only thing I hear is great sound and detail with the panny. Of course I have not pushed the speakers that hard yet--neighbors and such--but that might up the brightness a bit. We shall see.

Hope this helps.
Reply
Reply
post #1413 of 1885
3/3/06 at 11:18am
Quote:
The Technics receivers you refer to are traditional analog as opposed to the digital switching type that the xr55/70s are, so I wouldn't expect them to sound the same at all. However I haven't listened to Technics receivers in decades.

.

IMHO, the recievers from each manufacturer have a similar sound to one another by design, regardless of construction. I could probably tell you blindfolded, which, is which, that's why I chose what I have.

Quote:
Kenwood I tend to lump together with Sony, as being mediocre quality stuff that sells mainly based on name recognition---the car audio electronics of both brands is especially crappy. I did listen to a few Kenwood AVRs in passing a few years ago in BB or CC, wasn't real impressed with them. I would be curious to listen to the Kenwood digital receiver though.

FYI, the I don't consider the Kenwood of mediocre quality as you do, they had been the number 1 choice for car stereo's & amps, for a long time (I'm sure that's not by accident!), I am really not an audiophile so can't say how they stack up for home stereo, but I'd guess they're a cut above most, what with their class of amps, frequency response, clarity and low distortion, or so I've found.

Sony recievers to me is another story, I feel they have a problem producing normal bass.

HK has never impressed me, Marantz, & Denon have always been good.

and Yamaha has always seemed like plain vanilla sounding to me.

In the 60's, and early 70's, Panasonic was just a cheap (but good) alternative to the major American big name brands, they were not audiophile, or videophile, either. In the mid 70's I had to drive to one dealer in Queens N.Y. 50miles from L.I. just to find a top of the line tabletop stereo 26" Panasonic TV/monitor with a data grade picture tube 480dpi capable. with RGB, & 3A/V inputs, & outputs, & external speaker spring clips, plus a remote that slipped into the TV
Reply
Reply
post #1414 of 1885
3/3/06 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

IMHO, the recievers from each manufacturer have a similar sound to one another by design, regardless of construction. I could probably tell you blindfolded, which, is which, that's why I chose what I have.

That's a blind listening test I'd love to see for myself. Kudos to you if you pass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

FYI, the I don't consider the Kenwood of mediocre quality as you do, they had been the number 1 choice for car stereo's & amps, for a long time (I'm sure that's not by accident!), I am really not an audiophile so can't say how they stack up for home stereo, but I'd guess they're a cut above most, what with their class of amps, frequency response, clarity and low distortion, or so I've found.

This is the first I've heard of Kenwood being "the number 1 choice" in car electronics---even if true however, that's fairly meaningless. By sheer sales volume I'm sure Bose could be called "the number 1 choice" in home electronics, and we all know how absolutely wonderful Bose sounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

HK has never impressed me, Marantz, & Denon have always been good.

Oops I forgot Denon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

In the 60's, and early 70's, Panasonic was just a cheap (but good) alternative to the major American big name brands, they were not audiophile, or videophile, either. In the mid 70's I had to drive to one dealer in Queens N.Y. 50miles from L.I. just to find a top of the line tabletop stereo 26" Panasonic TV/monitor with a data grade picture tube 480dpi capable. with RGB, & 3A/V inputs, & outputs, & external speaker spring clips, plus a remote that slipped into the TV

Yep, Panasonic has never been a high-cachet audiophile brand. Which makes it all the more remarkable that so many people who home demo their digital switching XR receivers have found that they equal or surpass their own "audiophile" brand equipment costing several times more.
Reply
Reply
post #1415 of 1885
3/3/06 at 11:46am
Panasonic is usually the first place I look for picture, & sound quality,,, But some can complain they are so sharp on PQ that they look grainy, & dark, but this is something I prefer, so it pleases me to see every last detail. Sound quality is excellent also, but it is so clean, & crisp, it has gotten on my nerves after awhile no matter what the type of music, or volume. Most, if not all of my A/V equipment has been Panasonic, at least to start with, But I found Kenwood audio to be just as clean, & clear, with even more separation, & extended range without the glaring brightness of the panny., while also delivering a more powerful sound thru the range, including the sweetest, tightest, bass punch. My surround sound is awesome, with no lack of direction, or loss of clear dialogue (as what happens with some recievers), and I only have the old Dolby Pro Logic first design,,, I can't even imagine how good it could be with Dolby Digital 5.1, 6.1.or 7.1

To those with the Panny digital recievers, Enjoy the true distinct, clear, bright, sound of music, & video,,, if you can handle it, but it's not for me. I also prefer the stunning ambiance of records over CD's, although without the scratches please. Maybe, a minute nanosecond echo (reverb) on a CD would produce the same effect.
Reply
Reply
post #1416 of 1885
3/3/06 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikDee View Post

To those with the Panny digital recievers, Enjoy the true distinct, clear, bright, sound of music, & video,,, if you can handle it, but it's not for me. I also prefer the stunning ambiance of records over CD's, although without the scratches please. Maybe, a minute nanosecond echo (reverb) on a CD would produce the same effect.

To each his own, of course. Though if you prefer LPs then it's a fair guess that digital amplifcation is probably not for you, regardless of the brand.
Reply
Reply
post #1417 of 1885
3/3/06 at 12:23pm
Quote:
That's a blind listening test I'd love to see for myself. Kudos to you if you pass

Hey Edster, ROTFL The thought of it makes me laugh, but I bet I could tell, at least from the brands I'm familiar with. Anyway, I think I've figured it out.

I guess I like the pure clarity of sound,,,, clean, no coloring/flavoring of the sound by the different brands electronics,,, But, I must desire a certain amount of nanosecond delay in the sound, giving it more amplitude (not too much, or too little delay) I guess it appears fuller then, more powerful to me, but with a tight reign on bass vibration. I think that's why I like the Kenwood over the Panasonic,,, can you imagine a digital Panasonic with an adjustable minute amount of (delay/reverb) It would probably be superb, like the old fashioned classic tube type amps of years ago., with no hiss, hum, static, or clipping!,,, It would be fantastic

On another subject, I prefer Technics (Panasonic) tape decks, & CD/DVD units above all else, except maybe Onkyo, & Pioneer CD/DVD units, but not Pioneer tape decks,,, even Kenwood just can't cut it in either of these departments, or for speakers. IMHO
Reply
Reply
post #1418 of 1885
3/3/06 at 9:26pm
MikDee, if you like Kenwood so much and want to try out a digi-amp receiver, then go for the VRS-7100. My parents are pretty happy with theirs. I matched that receiver with 6.1 Athena speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #1419 of 1885
3/3/06 at 10:35pm
Power outage most of the night,,, this can really humble you.

Anyway, beowolf I am tempted to try the 7100, from following yours, & others posts here, but I really would like a phono input. I know I can use a preamp, but I don't know if that will work the same? Plus, I have a dedicated Kenwood dual tape deck that works along with my old reciever, I'd like to keep it, and I don't know if it would function correctly with the 7100? I am shopping around for a (new) leftover older model, like last years.
Reply
Reply
post #1420 of 1885
3/4/06 at 2:48am
can I ask that people do NOT use or promote the use of the word "irregardless" on account that it isn't a real word?
Reply
Reply
post #1421 of 1885
3/4/06 at 3:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

can I ask that people do NOT use or promote the use of the word "irregardless" on account that it isn't a real word?

You sure can, but you might prefer to PM the offender to amend the post, or report it to an admin if you are seriously offended. You could also send PM's for grammer errors as well.
Reply
Reply
post #1422 of 1885
3/4/06 at 4:00am
"grammar"

actually, "grammatical errors"

- mr Pedantic



(ok it's saturday evening here, and I'm bored waiting for football on TV)
Reply
Reply
post #1423 of 1885
3/4/06 at 5:03am
I think I'll put on a movie (it's also Saturday evening here). I guess I was a bit bored too...
Reply
Reply
post #1424 of 1885
3/4/06 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

can I ask that people do NOT use or promote the use of the word "irregardless" on account that it isn't a real word?

irregardless:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dictionary.com View Post

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Reply
Reply
post #1425 of 1885
3/4/06 at 9:21am
Hey Siriuslycold,

Quote:


can I ask that people do NOT use or promote the use of the word "irregardless" on account that it isn't a real word?

Do you mean because it is not a real word? or on account? whose account,,, LOL

irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
irregardless
Reply
Reply
post #1426 of 1885
3/4/06 at 9:43am
I wonder if SiriuslyCold knows that he misspelled "Seriously".
Reply
Reply
post #1427 of 1885
3/4/06 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyCold View Post

can I ask that people do NOT use or promote the use of the word "irregardless" on account that it isn't a real word?

Wrong.

As per http://m-w.com/dictionary/irregardless

"Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance."
Reply
Reply
post #1428 of 1885
3/4/06 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf7 View Post

I wonder if SiriuslyCold knows that he misspelled "Seriously".

Proper names are exempt from spell checkers

I'm not against the introduction of new words or new usages of words, but just because so many people are making use of a wrong word forces a (American) dictionary to accept it - just rankles

If you really need a word, I suggest you check with The Meaning of Liff.
Reply
Reply
post #1429 of 1885
3/4/06 at 11:42am
I think you've been spending too much time at the "Reefer Club". While we're at it, what is your favorite digital receiver?
Reply
Reply
post #1430 of 1885
3/4/06 at 6:07pm
cajieboy, if you cliked on the reefer club, you'd know

there really hasn't been any new new ones lately other than the Naim and NHT; only Panasonic and JVC look like they've discontinued analog-amped receivers. meanwhile Samsung's 3K ICEpowered monster (not the brand) keeps showing up only at CES. HK seems to have come to a stop - there isn't a upgrade for the ageing DPR2005. Pioneer had a couple, and they keep calling their other amps (1015, etc) HYBRID but never explain what. Sony - S-Master has been implemented in the new line ONLY in the top of the line 7100ES and 9100ES - and their HTiBs. What we're really waiting for is the rumoured 240Wpc Equibit implementation

if digital amps are taking over the world, they surely are taking their time about it.
Reply
Reply
post #1431 of 1885
3/4/06 at 6:47pm
Tell me why the naim is so expensive? The list price is $5650. I think I will stick to my panny and T-Amp.
Reply
Reply
post #1432 of 1885
3/4/06 at 6:53pm
IMHO, all Naim is expensive, period.

cheapest Naim branded goods i've seen is this and this on eBay
Reply
Reply
post #1433 of 1885
3/5/06 at 2:33am
Has anyone used two xr55's, one bi-amping the front two channels, and one driving the other channels? Would it be worth the effort, given that it would probably involve some analogue connections?
Reply
Reply
post #1434 of 1885
3/5/06 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdmaclean View Post

Has anyone used two xr55's, one bi-amping the front two channels, and one driving the other channels? Would it be worth the effort, given that it would probably involve some analogue connections?

I couldn't see any point in doing that, unless your front channels were really hard to drive loads, like 4 ohm floorstanders maybe. Otherwise with standard 8 ohm bookshelves the xr55 puts out ample power even without bi-amping.
Reply
Reply
post #1435 of 1885
3/5/06 at 7:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by edster922 View Post

I couldn't see any point in doing that, unless your front channels were really hard to drive loads, like 4 ohm floorstanders maybe. Otherwise with standard 8 ohm bookshelves the xr55 puts out ample power even without bi-amping.

I only ask because it support bi-amping, just only in stereo. If it was worth it then, I wondered if it was worth buying two to be able to do it multi-channel...

I've never tried bi-amping myself (don't have an xr55 to try it with).
Reply
Reply
post #1436 of 1885
3/5/06 at 11:04am
I am totally new to this (or any) forum, so excuse me if this doesn't turn out quite right. I have just purchased speakers for a 5.1 home theater set-up (3 Energy Take FPS speakers for the front, 2 Energy Take Sats for the rear, 1 Velodyne DLS-4000R Subwoofer, and [for zone 2 -- the outside patio] 2 SpeakerCraft 0E5One outdoor speakers [their upgrade to the Weathercraft 710s]. This system will be connected to a 50" Panasonic HDTV Plasma TV (Th-50PM5OU) from Costco through a new receiver. The TV has one HDMI type A Connector (I don't know what "type A" means). I've been thinking about the Denon AVR-2807 receiver which is supposed to be released at the end of this month (but who knows?). I recently read a positive review of the Yamaha RX-V2600. Both should have HDMI switching and signal upconversion to 1080i and 720p, which the TV accepts. Any advice on whether the Denon is worth the wait? Abt on-line (an authorized Yamaha dealer) is willing to sell me the Yamaha for $1075 shipped. The Denon should be a little cheaper. I'm using a 14 year old Sony STR-GX69ES receiver in the meantime. As soon as I get the receiver, we'll end up doing a wall installation of the TV and speakers. Should I also be looking at other receivers? I really don't want to spend more than about a grand on the receiver. Thanks for any input you forum people may have!!!!
Reply
Reply
post #1437 of 1885
3/5/06 at 11:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfeuer99 View Post

I am totally new to this (or any) forum, so excuse me if this doesn't turn out quite right. I have just purchased speakers for a 5.1 home theater set-up (3 Energy Take FPS speakers for the front, 2 Energy Take Sats for the rear, 1 Velodyne DLS-4000R Subwoofer, and [for zone 2 -- the outside patio] 2 SpeakerCraft 0E5One outdoor speakers [their upgrade to the Weathercraft 710s]. This system will be connected to a 50" Panasonic HDTV Plasma TV (Th-50PM5OU) from Costco through a new receiver. The TV has one HDMI type A Connector (I don't know what "type A" means). I've been thinking about the Denon AVR-2807 receiver which is supposed to be released at the end of this month (but who knows?). I recently read a positive review of the Yamaha RX-V2600. Both should have HDMI switching and signal upconversion to 1080i and 720p, which the TV accepts. Any advice on whether the Denon is worth the wait? Abt on-line (an authorized Yamaha dealer) is willing to sell me the Yamaha for $1075 shipped. The Denon should be a little cheaper. I'm using a 14 year old Sony STR-GX69ES receiver in the meantime. As soon as I get the receiver, we'll end up doing a wall installation of the TV and speakers. Should I also be looking at other receivers? I really don't want to spend more than about a grand on the receiver. Thanks for any input you forum people may have!!!!


I'm in completely the same boat and actually looking at those 2 recievers for my next purchase. I just have different things regarding my plasma and such. I'm running a PIO 1120HD Plasma and I'll be running my HTPC media center. I'm running a 10 year old Yahama Reciever that only has ProLogic! I need to jump into the digital audio world! Finally! I wish to spend around the 1000.00 mark as well. If any one has any good ideas of these recievers or others, please let me (us) know.
Reply
Reply
post #1438 of 1885
3/6/06 at 12:35am
bfeuer99 and DD-HD

this thread is specifically for receivers with digital / class-D / PWM amplification (the list is on the first page, and receivers in question are those like the Panasonic XRxx units, HK DPRxxxx series, JVC RX-Dxxx series or Kenwood VRS-xxxx)

As a result, your question may not be seen by everyone who already own the units you're asking about (Yamaha 2600, Denon 2807). You might want to open a new thread
Reply
Reply
post #1439 of 1885
3/6/06 at 12:28pm
Thanks, SiriuslyCold. But...well...how do I post a new thread? I haven't seen a tab for new threads....and I'm a little embarrassed. Any advice on how to get a new thread started to get feedback on the new Denon/Yamaha receivers?
Reply
Reply
post #1440 of 1885
3/6/06 at 5:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfeuer99 View Post

Thanks, SiriuslyCold. But...well...how do I post a new thread? I haven't seen a tab for new threads....and I'm a little embarrassed. Any advice on how to get a new thread started to get feedback on the new Denon/Yamaha receivers?

Got to main forum, "new thread"button is at top left.
LL
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › List of Digital Home Theater Receivers