|   Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | Woochifer
Aug 14, 2001 7:31 PM | | At this new price point, the Yamahas are a lot more price competitive compared to comparable models. I think they're excellent receivers, but for consumers using features as a criteria, the V1000 at least did not match up well with other receivers at the $1,000 MSRP price point.
With a list of $600, the RX-V800 is an absolute steal! I'm surprised that the RX-V1000 still goes for $200 more than the V800, since the two receivers share identical amplifiers and neither one has a rear center channel output built in (both can decode ES-EX and the V1000 has a preout). Anyway, that's how it looks right now! I'm not necessarily celebrating because now that great deal I got on my V800 is not such a bottomfeeding price anymore! Now, I'm curious as to whether a new model's in the offing to take over that $1,000 price point, or if they'll roll back the RX-V3000 as well. |
| re: Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | Brad-
Aug 14, 2001 10:20 PM | | Undoubtedly, the Yamaha receivers offer great amplifiers and performance. The problem is that is not enough. Now a days, more emphasis is put on the preamp/processor stage and Yamaha lacks behind the competition by a good margin.
Many say how seperates are the way to go, but that's obviously incorrect. If you had a 5.1 channel format processor/preamp and a separate 5 channel amp, they're both obsolete. You need to upgrade both or at least keep the 5 channel amp and an addition stereo amp.
By my estimate, the new prices are O.K., but the new Denon AVR2802 still has the RX-V1000 beat but only lags by it's slightly lower power of 90 watts/channel.
Here's my price list:
RX-V520: $300
RX-V620: $400
RX-V800: $550
RX-V1000: $700
RX-V3000: $1200
If the Denon AVR3802 sounds better than the AVR3300 and either as good as my RX-V2095 or very slightly below, I would have to go with it for a $1000. It's just the best bang for your buck receiver, simple.
Really with technology changing so fast and receivers going obsolete just as fast, I'd consider the AVR2802 first. |
| re: Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | Woochifer
Aug 15, 2001 1:05 PM | | I disagree. With quality separates, you get a noticeable improvement in sound quality over most receivers, which to me is more important than whether a unit's processor can decode 6.1 formats or if it has DPLII. If I had the money, I would rather go with quality 5.1 separates than an upgraded 6.1 receiver. If the surround formats are more important, then the latest format changes are more likely to get adapted quicker in the receiver market than with the more specialized separates; but, the reasons for going with separates generally center not on the latest features but on output quality, which to me never goes out of style. Besides, if you go with monoblock amps, all you need to do is upgrade the preamp and add however many monoblocks you need -- a less drastic approach than chucking an entire receiver just to get a surround format upgrade.
In that respect, I also don't think that a well made 5.1 receiver is obsolete or will be anytime soon. Most of the DVDs that have already been released are in either a 2.0 or 5.1 format, and aside from recent releases encoded in a 6.1 format, most of the material coming out on DVD (reissues or special editions) in the foreseeable future will not be in a 6.1 format. Even if every DVD was issued in 6.1 formats, so long as you have a receiver that can handle Dolby Digital, you can play it back in 5.1, which I still think sounds pretty damn good. If Sony ever makes its 8-channel SDDS format available for home use, I don't think it will render existing equipment obsolete either. Whether or not it's worthwhile to keep up with every new technology is entirely subjective. Obsolescence implies that your equipment has been orphaned and something with clearly superior functionality has completely supplanted it. Examples include 8-track tapes and Wang word processing systems. I would not put 5.1 surround or even DPL into this category.
And on Yamaha, I agree that they have not kept up with the latest features. Even though I personally think that a lot of the extra features packed into receivers nowadays represent only incremental improvements, if that, the market does respond to these new bells and whistles. Yamaha's price decreases are probably an acknowledgement of that.
But, my main reason for going with Yamaha over other receivers had little to do with surround formats or features, but with sound and build quality. My own empirical and unscientific approach (drawing on my own experience, friends' experiences, and friends who work in audio sales) indicated that Yamaha has better reliability than other brands, and my own experience with a Denon DVD player made me wary of their construction quality.
P.S. Your price list looks sweet, but at the same time it's killing me because I already bought mine! Oh well, that's the price I pay for my four months (and counting) of enjoyment ... |
| re: Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | jaday
Aug 15, 2001 5:56 PM | | Woochifer
I seem to fall in your camp of thinking.
For me.... Sound quailty takes priority.
As for 6.1/7.1 etc.. etc...
Where are people putting all these speakers????!!!!!
If I had a bonus room in the basement dedicated to HT && the extra $$$ to purchase additional speakers with the same timber match....
I would be very excited about these 6.1/.1 formats.
But I don't have either so my priorities are not with those features.
fo Me.... 5.1 works and looks swell..... BUT .....
if the new sound fields can make my existing 6 speaker (sub included) setup sound better.... im all ears.
j |
| Couldn't agree with you more... | Woochifer
Aug 15, 2001 6:08 PM | | I would also have trouble accommodating the rear center speaker in my room since my sofa is pretty close to the rear wall already. I could probably fit it in and make it work, but my life is complicated enough without my home entertainment system adding to the mix. :)
Some pretty substantial room reorientation, changes with furniture, among other things, would be in order if I someday decide that 6.1 (or 7.1 or 10.3 or 25.5) is something I cannot live without. As it is, I'm content to just enjoy what I've already paid for! |
| re: Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | Brad-
Aug 16, 2001 9:58 AM | | RE:"I disagree. With quality separates, you get a noticeable improvement in sound quality over most receivers, which to me is more important than whether a unit's processor can decode 6.1 formats or if it has DPLII. If I had the money, I would rather go with quality 5.1 separates than an upgraded 6.1 receiver."
Well you have your opinion, while "some" separate combos may sound better, "some" separate combo may also sound worse than "some" receivers.
If you have separates in the same price range as receivers, separates may not sound better. A separate amp may produce higher overall current but that doesn't dictate sound quality.
Also, separates are exotic in that most people don't see them, know about them, or want to buy them. Being there is a very low demand for them, that drives the cost up. Also, many of the separate component companies are very small, with few resources. That also causes them to raise their prices since they can't sell or buy parts in bulk to save much of the building expense.
As always, higher price doesn't equal better, just different.
Myself, I can't justify paying over $2000 for a receiver when more life important issues could be solved with money greater than that.
RE:"In that respect, I also don't think that a well made 5.1 receiver is obsolete or will be anytime soon."
I disagree because Home Theater A/V is based off of home theater formats. You may still use that receiver for what you want, but won't be able to use it for upcoming or even recent software formats. The same can be said about computer, I know people still using Pentium 200 processors because that will handle what they use it with, but they can't use it will the upcoming or even recent software. There's no denying, their computers are obsolete, as these 5.1 receivers, but obsolete doesn't mean you can't still use them for what you want.
RE:"But, my main reason for going with Yamaha over other receivers had little to do with surround formats or features, but with sound and build quality."
My reason also as I went with the RX-V2095. That doesn't mean that receiver isn't obsolete, as it is. Right now, I don't intend to use any 6.1 formats as I have no room or want to find room for rear surround speakers. I will miss DPL II as many of the DVDs, S-VHS, VHS, and television programming I watch is still only in stereo.
RE:"P.S. Your price list looks sweet,"
I should had been clearier in my price list. That list is MSRP of which "I" feel is the worth of the receivers. That's not a list of what I found but only of what I feel is a justified MSRP price of this day.
To me, home theater is just like computers "NOW". Always striving for the better experience. Without updates, the better experience can not be achieved, being obsolete in compatibility. |
| re: Looks like the RX-V800/V1000 both got lowered by $200 ... | Woochifer
Aug 16, 2001 5:32 PM | | "Well you have your opinion, while "some" separate combos may sound better, "some" separate combo may also sound worse than "some" receivers."
Very true, but in my experience once you go above $1,000 most of the separates I've heard have a noticeable edge in sound quality over a receiver in the same price class. I would never go over $2,000 for my head unit either, but if I upgrade my receiver, it would be to improve sound quality rather than adding new features, and with that caveat I'm more likely to go with separates. It's all relative, but that's my subjective observation.
"I disagree because Home Theater A/V is based off of home theater formats. You may still use that receiver for what you want, but won't be able to use it for upcoming or even recent software formats. The same can be said about computer, I know people still using Pentium 200 processors because that will handle what they use it with, but they can't use it will the upcoming or even recent software."
I think we're talking about very different markets here. Successful formats in home entertainment last a LOT longer than the latest software does in computers. VHS was the dominant video playback format for about 20 years before DVD came along. CDs have dominated audio for over a decade. In both of those cases, you've had enhancements to the existing technology, but nothing that made new software incompatible with older hardware. You can play back an HDCD or SBM remastered disc on a 1982 vintage Sony CDP-101, and you can play any VHS movie from your local video store on an RCA Selectavision VCR from 1978; BUT, you CANNOT use Office XP on an IBM PC 5150.
With an installed base of nearly 20 million households in the U.S., I doubt that the entertainment companies will begin issuing DVDs that can't play back in at least a 5.1 format anytime soon, if ever. (Besides, they usually resist introducing any brand new non-backwards compatible formats; look at how long it took some of the studios to finally get on board with DVD.) With computers, there's more of a culture of planned obsolescence. I think in home entertainment, consumers are generally less accepting of continuously upgrading their equipment. I know I am.
"I will miss DPL II as many of the DVDs, S-VHS, VHS, and television programming I watch is still only in stereo."
I think you've got a very nice setup as it is! Once you get outside the hype, DPLII does has its shortcomings. I read one review indicating that it does some rather strange things to the tonal quality. To me, steering directional information into the surrounds from a two-channel feed is not worth that kind of trade off, but it might be to you.
"I should had been clearier in my price list. That list is MSRP of which "I" feel is the worth of the receivers. That's not a list of what I found but only of what I feel is a justified MSRP price of this day."
I heard you just fine. I should have said, this price list WOULD BE sweet. But, then again I'd probably be lying, since I've already plunked down my Benjamins! |
| |
