|   PLEASE recommend an A/V Receiver that is good for Music | asas
Mar 6, 2001 9:27 AM | | I want the cability for home theater use, but I'm primarily concerned with quality of music reproduction. I'd lie to spend less than $400. Thanks. |
| Nakamichi AV-8 - hands down | Valnar
Mar 7, 2001 11:55 AM | | You'll be sacrificing some features and the remote isn't the greatest, but it's easiest the best sound around for the price.
After that, I'd recommend a low end Denon or Onkyo, but the good ones are more than $400. Stay away from Pioneer and Sony.
Robert |
| re: PLEASE recommend an A/V Receiver that is good for Music | igor
Mar 8, 2001 7:16 AM | | That's a tough one under $400. I can't comment on the Nak, I'm sure it is decent though. I have the Onkyo 575x, and it is a great value for what you get. It is great for HT, but it does a good job for just audio too. 70 watts, and it is a true 70 watts. I would also recommend you stay away from the lower end Pioneed, Sony, JVC, just not worth it. The only draw back with the 575x is that you can't connect a separate power amp to it. You have to buy the 676 to get that. But for $400 or less, you really do get a lot. I would also look at the Denon 1801, or 2801 if you can spend a little more. I might also look at the Marantz sr5000. If you can swing it, the Marantz sr7000 is very nice for music and HT, about $600-700. Good luck. |
| re: Primarily for music? You won't find it for $400... | Ace W
Mar 9, 2001 6:21 AM | | Certainly not a receiver. The only $400 receivers are very poor quality ones that won't deliver in any number of channels.
Those same receiver companies (Denon, Marantz, NAD, etc.) however make some integrated stereo amps with as much filter storage, power transformer, etc. as their entire 5 channel junker at the simular prices. They also usually use torioidials instead of cheapies (not even shielded properly at that price) . More than 2 channels is useless if you dedicate the system mostly for music. |
| re: Primarily for music? You won't find it for $400... | Valnar
Mar 10, 2001 5:45 AM | | That is a myth. There is no reason why a multichannel receiver or preamp of good quality can't sound as good as a stereo receiver of similar build quality.
Robert |
| re: Valnar forgets to mention one thing... | Ace W.
Mar 11, 2001 12:51 PM | | You are right Valnar! A good stereo receiver at <$200 is like a $400 multichannel. It will sound about the same at much less because it only has to have the circuitry and power supply for 2 channels. Of course, at under $200, it will be sound just as bad as the multichannel because it also has an equivelently wimpy supply for 2 channels instead of 5.
An integrated amp (not a receiver) tends to improve the standard. The typical receiver companies that make the better receivers also make these. These are mostly 2 channel and tend to have dedicated rails for each channel. They are much better in every respect to the SIMULAR priced multichannel unit though they might be rivaled by one costing about 3 times more. I have seen Denon. Marantz, and others. I will say that the Denon my friend has is better in supply to a simular priced 5-channel Denon receiver. It has more filter storage than the receiver does for all 5 channels. It is nothing compared to seperates, but it sure beats a receiver for music. |
| re: Primarily for music? You won't find it for $400... | a consumer
Apr 7, 2001 10:03 PM | | I agree that there is no reason other than the manufacturers have conscioulsy chosen to sacrifice stereo for multi-channel. But, never-the-less it is TRUE and not myth in the HT receivers that I auditioned. Forget the "similar build quality". The receivers that I tried all had superb build quality. Their 2 channel performance had been sacrificed for the HT bells and whistles. My 13/14 year old Dolby Pro Logic receiver delivers far superiior music performance than any of the new mid-fi HT's that I tried.
Audition before you buy. |
| Addendum | a consumer
Apr 7, 2001 10:10 PM | | The HT performance was fine in all of the receivers that I tried except for a Pioneer Elite that malfunctioned in any surround mode. The two channel on the Pioneer was better than most, however. Pioneer VSX-24tx I think it was. |
| re: Primarily for music? You won't find it for $400... | TWB
Mar 11, 2001 1:20 AM | | Can you say audiophile snobbery?... |
| re: At least my advice is helpful... | Ace W.
Mar 11, 2001 12:58 PM | | You obviously don't know much since you neglected to help this guy out. I don't consider myself an audiophile, but I do know the truth. The truth is receivers are crap when it comes to 2-channel music. The other truth is that if music is the primary concern and the budget is only $400 then keeping to an integrated amp (simular to a really great 2 channel receiver) is the logical choice.
Most people don't want to just buy something when you can have better for thier purposes. If he was mostly HT, a receiver would be a logical choice at that price, but he said "primarily music". |
| |
