Need to replace your A/V receiver?

Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>I see several people wanting to replace their current A/V receiver with a different brand. Fact is, you will be throwing away money!

If your receiver is up-to-date as far as features, and has pre-outs for the front or all channels, just add an amp. This way, you will be concentrating on all money being spent on true power!

A few amps to consider: Rotel, B&amp;K, Adcom, ATI, &amp; NAD. There are many more expensive brands, but these seem to be resonably priced!</font>
 
rgriffin25

rgriffin25

Moderator
<font color='#000000'>Zumbo,

I am glad to hear that you are satisfied with the latest addition to your Home theater. I must admit that I was somewhat suprised to read that you were buying a seperate amp. Especially after such praise and admiration for your 1400. What was the deciding factor that pushed you to the other side? &nbsp;
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>When I learned that I was lied to about the power output of my receiver when all channels are driven. Although I believe the $551 price I gave for the 1400 is the best buy at that price, I wanted to be sure my speakers were happy. I did not believe it would make as much of a difference as it did. So I thought I would start this thread to help people not waste thier money thinking one brand will make that much of a difference over another brand if the features are the same. If you want to make a difference, this is the way to do it.

The Yamaha serves as a good pre-amp. And I am not mad at Yamaha. I needed the receiver anyway. It replaced a low-end Pro-Logic Onkyo.  
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>Your RX-V1400 will provide more than enough power for any sane person. &nbsp;Adding more power makes no sense at all. &nbsp;From where I sit you will be wasting both money and electricity.</font>
 
Rip Van Woofer

Rip Van Woofer

Audioholic General
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Guest : <font color='#000000'>Your RX-V1400 will provide more than enough power for any sane person.</font>
<font color='#000000'>See, that's the flaw in your reasoning right there. You're assuming we're sane around here!


Actually, if you have a large room and/or inefficient speakers it might not be enough. Although I think in Zumbo's case it has more to do with the paragraph above.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>Unfortunately I must diagnose Zumbo with ANN Audiophile Nirvana Nervosa which is at epidemic proportions on this website. According to the CDC the disease originated in the US but more recent strains arise from the far east and Canada. There is no known cure but marriage is known to have a palliative effect which may in some cases result in complete remission.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<font color='#000080'>OK, now to really mess with you guys... Let's switch from amplification specs to video processing for a moment.

You know all the fancy component video upconversion features that are so desired in current receivers?

Forgettaboudit.

After going through ISF certification classes we're revising our whole outlook on this. It is FAR better to bypass all video switching in the receiver so that you can go direct to the different inputs on your display. We had heard this said before, but convenience and lack of experience in ISF-certified calibration techniques left us grey on the issue. It is now very much black and white.

Good displays can calibrate each input independently, allowing you to get the best system performance from each source component (cable box, DVD player, HTPC, et all). If you utilize the video switching in the AV processor/receiver, you are stuck using just one universally-calibrated display input - and that is truly a shame once you start getting into the differences in output quality and characteristics of DVD players vs. other components...

We'll expound upon this shortly - this is going to be huge once people realize what this means...

What's that disease called?  :)</font>
 
R

RX-V2400

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>There are some of you here (like people with questions for names) who at some simplistic level equate &quot;power&quot; with &quot;volume&quot;.

You need all the power you can afford to give sonic purity and clarity, because some of little peaks and neuances that you hardly hear often need massive short power bursts to duplicate the recording faithfully.

Zumbo is just plagerising me (I don't mind - its flattery) and saying, yes the Yamahas have good sonics and great features, but for top notch sound they need a bigger power supply which can be added, not by upgrading to a $5000 reciever, but my putting a couple of monoblocks on the front end.

If you can not see the basic truth in this you need &quot;go back to go&quot; and read Audio 101.</font>
 
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>True, so true. And BTW, it is not as loud(distorted), as it was. The purity and truth to the music is there like never before.

If anyone thinks this was money wasted, I hope you are not the decision maker in your family!  
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>Here it is HAWKE: Mad Audiophile Disease (also called Audio Nirvana Nervosa or MAD/ANN syndrome) is an infectious disease of unknown origin that poses a serious public health hazard. It is associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms of obsessive compulsive behavior, phantom aural apparitions, delusions of grandeur, deposits of inert heavy metals (especially gold, silver, copper, and tin) in the ear passages, as well as decreased bank account balances. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has preliminary evidence that suggests the latest outbreaks come from imports from Canada or the Far East. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of vaccines to immunize against this scourge are planned for the near future. &nbsp;

Please show that you care about those who suffer from MAD/ANN syndrome by listening to and enjoying your favorite music today.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>That's all good and well, Clint- it'd be nice to bypass the video section of the receiver, but whaddaya do when you use a FPTV with one DVI, one Component &amp; one S-Vid input? &nbsp;Some of us have to rely on the receivers vid switching capabilities (even though we didn't need ISF certification to tell it degrades the video!
).

I have a Denon DVD-2200, Xbox &amp; PS2 that all look better with the component out running thru my AVR-3802 than running S-Vid straight into the PJ. &nbsp;And I already can't have all three hooked up w/component d/t lack of inputs (really that's no biggie, though- the PS2 is collecting dust bunnies since I got an Xbox).

Actually, that's the main reason to upgrade receivers: &nbsp;lack of inputs. &nbsp;When I got my '3802, 4 digital inputs was pretty good. &nbsp;Now it's a joke- there are $200 Panasonic receivers with that many inputs! &nbsp;Consider all the things w/digital outs; CD player, DVD, PS2, Xbox, DBS/DSS...that doesn't even cound things on the horizon.

One last point on Power- if some is good, then more is better and too much is just right. &nbsp;My Denon is rated at over 110 wpc, yet even with an outboard amp running the front L/R/C, leaving only the 2 rears running off the Denon, the difference in authority &amp; sound quality was very surprising when I unhooked the 200 wmp amp driving the center and tried it off the rec. &nbsp;And my speakers aren't particularly low in the sensitivity dept, either.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Rob Babcock : <font color='#000000'>Some of us have to rely on the receivers vid switching capabilities (even though we didn't need ISF certification to tell it degrades the video!</font>
<font color='#000080'>True, some of you will need to do some switching in the receivers, however my comment was more geared towards people with some of the more input-hearty diaplays.

Also, upconverting composite and s-video to component as the newer receivers do isn't going to result in greater quality (just as switching isn't necessarily going to ruin or degrade quality). The key is that you should try to calibrate for the most commonly used (or perhaps most appreciated?) inputs.

For those with a plethora of input needs - I can see switching as a major need. Lots of people I've talked to place this as a &quot;need&quot;, however, who only have a DVD player, cable box and game console.</font>
 
zipper

zipper

Full Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Back to Zumbos' original point. I agree wholeheartedly. Merely upgrading from an rx-v620 to a 3300 (same speakers) changed the sound remarkably. It's not about wanting more volume, but rather a higher quality of sound at lower volumes.The gentleman who feels it is not sane to add more power will feel different once he experiences this for himself.
&nbsp;My plan is to order some Axiom m60's,listen for a bit, then, most likely,get a 5x200wpc amp or a couple of monoblocks.As much as I enjoy the increased warmth provided by the 3300,I crave a little more.</font>
 
P

pds

Enthusiast
<font color='#000000'>AMPLIFIER POWER.  If you are operating an amplifier within its' operating capabilities (I.E. not overdriving/clipping) there should be no difference whatsoever in audio quality between a 200 or a 2,000 watt amplifier.  An amplifier is only supposed to take a weak signal and make it stronger.  It is not supposed to change/enhance audio quality in any way.

Perhaps Gene or Hawke would care to comment on this statement.
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Babcock

Rob Babcock

Moderator
<font color='#8D38C9'>I think that while typical listening levels generally require only a few watts, there are many program peaks that require hundreds of watts to reproduce accurately. &nbsp;A larger amp will be driven into clipping less often than a smaller amp. &nbsp;This equates to better sound.</font>
 
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>pds. With the added power, you are able to keep the volume lower to achieve the same sound level. With the added amp in cruise, and not using the receiver's amp power at higher levels, the sound quality is MUCH greater. This should be common sense!  
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

pds

Enthusiast
<font color='#000000'>No Zumbo, it does not make any sense</font>
 
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>K!
What about now?
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

pds

Enthusiast
<font color='#000000'>Zumbo, I stand by my original statement. &nbsp;Just because an amp has more power does not mean that it sounds better. &nbsp;You are saying that running your large amp at a lower level makes it sound better. &nbsp;Nothing could be further from the truth. &nbsp;As long as an amp is running at its' designed power output, it will sound as good as any other amp.

An amp is one of the last places to upgrade for quality sound. &nbsp;The order is: &nbsp;Audio Source, Speakers, and last of all amp. &nbsp;

Incidentally, there are a lot of people out there with very expensive tube amps that have far less power than what you are putting out. &nbsp;I seriously doubt that they would agree that your system sounds better because it has more power.

I would still be highly interested to get Gene's input.</font>
 
Z

zumbo

Audioholic Spartan
<font color='#000000'>K. My system sounds the same as it did before I added my amp. I was just soooo mad I spent the extra money, I thought I would try to get other people to make that same mistake! You figured me out!


Would you know of anyone that might be interested in some ocean-front property in Arizona?
</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top