[g.costanza]

While understanding that the speaker-receiver interaction is vital... generally speaking...is there a consensus on this forum as to what the top 5 receiver *models* (not brands) under $500 (street price) would be, based on SOUND QUALITY alone? I'm talking either new or up to 5 years old.

 

[jeffrey r]

LOL--there is no consensus on this forum about anything, let alone the top 5 receivers under $500 in the last 5 years. There are a lot of very good receivers though, especially now in that price range.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The consensus is that they all sound the same when properly calibrated!

 

[Russdawg]

Unbelievable for the money. Behaves alot like my Arcam AVR 350. (I own both).

http://spearitsound.amazonwebstore.c...source=froogle


You can also read a few reviews on it.

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/ampli...2_2718crx.aspx

 

[mpgxsvcd]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Russdawg /forum/post/14170312


Under 500 nothing else can touch it, behaves alot like my Arcam AVR 350. (I own both).

http://spearitsound.amazonwebstore.c...source=froogle


You can also read a few reviews on it.

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/ampli...2_2718crx.aspx

Too bad it can't do lossless audio! DD and DTS just don't cut it these days!

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd /forum/post/14170332


Too bad it can't do lossless audio! DD and DTS just don't cut it these days!

Not to mention no HDMI, and only 6.1.


There is a reason it's half price.

 

[T2k]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd /forum/post/14170332


Too bad it can't do lossless audio! DD and DTS just don't cut it these days!

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/14170382


Not to mention no HDMI, and only 6.1.


There is a reason it's half price.

Topic is about sound quality, not features.

 

[T2k]

My take is H/K, say the new 254, BTW.

 

[Bokchoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by T2k /forum/post/14170518


Topic is about sound quality, not features.

Last I checked, lossless audio is an improvement in sound quality over lossy audio. Having two rear surround speakers instead of one is pretty good for sound quality too.

 

[WilliamZX11]



Quote:
Originally Posted by T2k /forum/post/14170518


Topic is about sound quality, not features.

Right. So how will 7.1 lossless audio sound on a 6.1 unit?

 

[Russdawg]



Quote:
Originally Posted by mpgxsvcd /forum/post/14170332


Too bad it can't do lossless audio! DD and DTS just don't cut it these days!

He made no mention about any new format and he would go used up to 5 yrs old and 500 dollars. When did lossless come out? He said he's interested in nothing but Sound Quality. I gave him my 2 cents.

 

[T2k]



Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/14170976


Right. So how will 7.1 lossless audio sound on a 6.1 unit?

Just fine. Which part of the sound quality can't you comprehend?

He's interested in an AVR with great sound quality, up to $500, including all candidates from the past 5 years.

 

[T2k]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokchoy /forum/post/14170532


Last I checked, lossless audio is an improvement in sound quality over lossy audio.

Last time I checked all this has nothing to do with sound quality of the receiver.

Quote:
Having two rear surround speakers instead of one is pretty good for sound quality too.

Number of rear surrounds have literally nothing to do with sound quality.

 

[T2k]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Russdawg /forum/post/14171250


He made no mention about any new format and he would go used up 5 yrs old to 500 dollars. When did lossless come out? He's interested in nothing but Sound Quality. I gave him my 2 cents.

Exactly. And besides this IMO, honestly, even though things might be subjective and I'm sure 663 etc sounds good but in this case I'm quite sure it won't be any current Yamaha...

 

[MichaelJHuman]

I personally buy AVRs based on features. Of course sound quality is important, but I am unwilling to deal with exchanging receivers just to try to get better sound. And I mistrust judgements on sound quality in reviews. User opinions are even less trustworthy due to people's biases.


You may also want to take a look at the auto setup/room correction on the receivers. That seems like it could have a more substantial impact on sound than the analog signal path in the receiver.


Also note that AVRs often have glitches. Those can be important. For example, some people are pissed off that Yamaha receivers had an issue passing blacker than black over HDMI. That's just one example. These AVRs are getting complex, and manufacturers seems to be unable to to make an AVR without some glitch/annoyance.

 

[Bokchoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by T2k /forum/post/14171669


Last time I checked all this has nothing to do with sound quality of the receiver.




Number of rear surrounds have literally nothing to do with sound quality.

Oh, I understand now. He's looking to spend $500 on being semantically correct, and not to get the best audio experience.


MY BAD.

 

[Jack Gilvey]



Quote:
And I mistrust judgements on sound quality in reviews. User opinions are even less trustworthy due to people's biases.

And sighted, anonymous user ancedotes about "sound quality" are basically worthless. We all see people every day who seem to have a hard-on for certain brands, and parrot it at every chance.

Quote:
You may also want to take a look at the auto setup/room correction on the receivers. That seems like it could have a more substantial impact on sound than the analog signal path in the receiver.

Absolutely. For example, I've never owned a Denon AVR, but the full Audyssey suite in the forthcoming crop (even the cheap ones) should have far more positive impact on sonic quality than the fluff that typically gets worried about 'round here (brand of DAC, power, weight, HDMI revision, HDM decoding...all that nonsense).

Quote:
Oh, I understand now. He's looking to spend $500 on being semantically correct, and not to get the best audio experience.


MY BAD.

Gotta say...I've really been enjoying your posts.

 

[Drew_veloce]



Quote:
Originally Posted by g.costanza /forum/post/14169075


While understanding that the speaker-receiver interaction is vital... generally speaking...is there a consensus on this forum as to what the top 5 receiver *models* (not brands) under $500 (street price) would be, based on SOUND QUALITY alone? I'm talking either new or up to 5 years old.

Oh dear. Haven't you learned that asking for consensus here leads to anything but?

 

[eljr]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gilvey /forum/post/14173163


And sighted, anonymous user ancedotes about "sound quality" are basically worthless.

and the band played on.........


and on


and on


and on


and on


and on


ad infinitum


ad nauseum

 

[MichaelJHuman]

I take that comment to mean you are tired of hearing such comments on random user reviews of audio quality?


Perhaps some will take user reviews at face value, and could use a reminder on applying critical thinking to the user selection process.


Heck, many people have a tendency to believe emails loaded with erroneous facts. Lot's of people believe we only use 10% of our brain, because that false fact is so often stated. I think we can all use a reminder to apply critical thought to any person's statements - mine included