Receiver for secondary system

[Soundman]

Hey All,
Lots of projects going on right now for me. If anyone's following any of my posts you'll know that. Anyway, I recently obtained a pair of bookshelf speakers for practically nothing, so I figured I'd put together a system for them. I'm not looking to spend much on this as this is a secondary secondary system. And no... I didn't stutter. This will mainly be used for music. Video features are irrelevent as only audio sources will be connected to this. In fact the only thing necessary is a quality amplifer that can do stereo. Of course multi-channel is a plus for potential expandability down the road, but not a requirement. I was only looking to put $300 into this which I know isn't much these days. But again, I'm not looking for much. I do want pre-outs to add amplification later if I need to, but as for HD audio formats and video features, they are pretty much irrelevent for this setup. I can run everything analog and get just as good performance in most cases. In fact, for this system, most of the decoding can be done by the component source, so I won't need anything too smart for this. Recommendations please. Thanks guys.

 

[Crackerballer]

Keep an eye out at Frys and a few different Ebay sellers (Harmon Kardon sells factory refurbs directly on Ebay with warranties, and they go CHEAP). for a nice cheap system. I got a nice Silver Onkyo 5.1 on sale 2 christmases ago for $99 brand new from Frys, it's even got DTS! We use it as a bedroom setup with a decent set of Yamaha speakers.

 

[Soundman]

Keep an eye out at Frys and a few different Ebay sellers (Harmon Kardon sells factory refurbs directly on Ebay with warranties, and they go CHEAP). for a nice cheap system. I got a nice Silver Onkyo 5.1 on sale 2 christmases ago for $99 brand new from Frys, it's even got DTS! We use it as a bedroom setup with a decent set of Yamaha speakers.

Thanks. I'll keep an eye out for those. I haven't always been the biggest fan of HK, but this looks like it may have a decent amplifier section at 120wpc. I know HK rates their power pretty conservatively. http://www.amazon.com/Harman-Kardon-HK-3490-Receiver/dp/B00198F89A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249059209&sr=8-1

 

[Crackerballer]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Harman-Kardon-HK-3480-Z-AM-FM-Stereo-Receiver-Tuner_W0QQitemZ390076473616QQcmdZViewItemQQptZReceivers_Tuners?hash=item5ad25ea110&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

Saved you $150.

On second thought, Best offer them $150 and I bet they take it.

 

[Soundman]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Harman-Kardon-HK-3480-Z-AM-FM-Stereo-Receiver-Tuner_W0QQitemZ390076473616QQcmdZViewItemQQptZReceivers_Tuners?hash=item5ad25ea110&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

Saved you $150.

On second thought, Best offer them $150 and I bet they take it.

That does look very good for the money, but that is also the older model so it is missing some of the features of the newer model, like digital inputs, etc. I also question it SQ wise. it looks like it weighs 10 lbs less. Of course, I haven't researched either model enough to really know.

 

[jliedeka]

If I were going to stick with two channel and not care about video, I'd probably look for a decent entry level integrated amp.

If you want some surround and video capability but don't care about all the latest features, there are some really good close-out deals on some older NAD receivers at Audio Advisor.

I bought a NAD T-744 for a secondary system. It does 70wpc if you just run two channel. I wanted the video switching but didn't care about HDMI or any of that.

Jim

 

[64met]

Might want to check out vanns.com; they have a Pioneer 919AH-K 9(believe right product number) but its $314 shipped! 120 WPC; 3 HDMI; 1 OUT... good luck!

 

[Lordoftherings]

@ http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/MARSR6001/Marantz/SR6001-receiver-100w-x-7ch--HDMI-home-theater-surround/1.html

 

[Soundman]

@ http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/MARSR6001/Marantz/SR6001-receiver-100w-x-7ch--HDMI-home-theater-surround/1.html

Now that's a deal! Crazy!

 

[Soundman]

Anyone know how these two compare? The prices are slashed considerably on both of these! They are slightly above my original price point, but I might be able to swing it for a performance upgrade.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=NAT744

http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/MARSR6001/Marantz/SR6001-receiver-100w-x-7ch--HDMI-home-theater-surround/1.html

 

[Lordoftherings]

Anyone know how these two compare? The prices are slashed considerably on both of these! They are slightly above my original price point, but I might be able to swing it for a performance upgrade.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=NAT744

http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/MARSR6001/Marantz/SR6001-receiver-100w-x-7ch--HDMI-home-theater-surround/1.html

Not that because it is my very best personal recommendation to you, but it is my sincere conviction that the link that I provided to you, is unequivocally the best and the right one from these two.

*** Just get it man, you'll thank me a thousand times later, and that's fine by me.
And it's not 50 bucks more that will make a dent in your bank account.
Look from the other side (the bright one), and see the zillion of American dollars you save.
And not only that, it's THEE Marantz SR6001, the very best of his kind.
So, what are you waiting for? Jesus walking on water again?

Have a beautiful day,
Bob

 

[Soundman]

Not that because it is my very best personal recommendation to you, but it is my sincere conviction that the link that I provided to you, is unequivocally the best and the right one from these two.

*** Just get it man, you'll thank me a thousand times later, and that's fine by me.
And it's not 50 bucks more that will make a dent in your bank account.
Look from the other side (the bright one), and see the zillion of American dollars you save.
And not only that, it's a Marantz SR6001, the very best of his kind.

Have a beautiful day,
Bob

Why do you like the Marantz better? I'm just wondering. It seems that the NAD might have a better amp section, but I'm not sure. The Marantz does have more features, the NAD weighs more and is rated continuous with all channels driven. Let me know what you think.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Why do you like the Marantz better? I'm just wondering. It seems that the NAD might have a better amp section, but I'm not sure. The Marantz does have more features, the NAD weighs more and is rated continuous with all channels driven. Let me know what you think.

What! You're still around!!! I thought you went to the bank.

I already told you my take on it, take it or take the other one, it's your choice, not mine.
I'm just the messanger.

***** OK, for you, because I really like you; first the list price for the NAD is false advertizing, it is not $999, it's $799. Second, you are talking about weight!!!
The NAD is only few pounds more! Come on now! And the NAD is only 5 channels, and only 50 watts per channel. Did you have a look to the Marantz?
The NAD don't have HDMI at all, the Marantz does.
The Marantz is full jam packed with features, the NAD ain't.
Marantz = reliability + great sound. NAD = unreliable + good sound.
I mean, did you check all the specs and features? It's obvious which one is the right choice.
I can keep at this all day, but the final conclusion would stay the same.
Go to your bank, and get the Marantz SR6001, and just forget about the NAD T 744.

Love you man, that's the best tip that I gave all week, and I gave it to you very personally, with all my heart and love. Do you want me to send you the $350 with that?
Is that will help you better in your decision?

Cheers,
Bob

 

[Pyrrho]

Now that's a deal! Crazy!

It reminds me of the deal I got on my Yamaha RX-V2700, which was open box, but looked perfect. It was $300, with no accessories, so I had to buy the main remote separately (which added almost $100 to the price). You can read about mine at:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=451511&CTID=5000300

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/yamaha-rx-v2700-receiver-review/

The thing is, neither does the decoding for the new formats, so their value is in the toilet. True, one can decode them in the player and convert to multichannel PCM and send it via HDMI, which is what I do, but the value of all such receivers is now very low.

Still, it would probably be a good choice for someone on a budget who needed a bit better amplification than is found on the lower models. But one should expect to need to buy a HDMI switch box, which are sometimes troublesome devices.

 

[Pyrrho]

Why do you like the Marantz better? I'm just wondering. It seems that the NAD might have a better amp section, but I'm not sure. The Marantz does have more features, the NAD weighs more and is rated continuous with all channels driven. Let me know what you think.

To me, the lack of HDMI alone makes the NAD totally obsolete. According to the link, it only has 5.1 analog input, so you cannot do the new sound in 7.1. With the Marantz, you can listen to the new audio formats, if only the player decodes them and converts to PCM to be sent via HDMI, or you can use the 7.1 analog inputs if you prefer (and if your player can do that). I would not pay more to get less. Between these two, there is no contest as far as I am concerned. I don't think anyone should be buying that NAD now.

I think Lordoftherings is a bit over the top on this matter, but he or she has the right choice in this case, as far as I am concerned.

Of course, for two channel use, it may not matter much, but if you really want something expandable for later on, there is no contest. Plus, you save $50 getting the better one. Also, for resale later, I would guess the Marantz to be better. I know I absolutely would not buy a surround receiver without HDMI.

 

[Soundman]

Great answers Lordoftherings and Pyrrho. The reason I considered bot of these is because the prices are good even though the features are somewhat lacking. The is a secondary system so the majority of these features will not be used. Video feautres won't be used at all. This is just for audio. However, HDMI is a great feature as long as it passes the audio. I thought the NAD might have a little cleaner power because of their conservative power ratings. Marantz doesn't say much about how they rate their power. That being said, long term, it does appear the Marantz is a better choice in case I do want to use it's features down the road. Again this is a secondary system and that's why most of these features will probably get very little use. But in the end, I guess I'll just get the Marantz. It does seem like the logical choice for my application. Thanks again, Guys.

 

[Lordoftherings]

It reminds me of the deal I got on my Yamaha RX-V2700, which was open box, but looked perfect. It was $300, with no accessories, so I had to buy the main remote separately (which added almost $100 to the price). You can read about mine at:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=451511&CTID=5000300

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/yamaha-rx-v2700-receiver-review/

The thing is, neither does the decoding for the new formats, so their value is in the toilet. True, one can decode them in the player and convert to multichannel PCM and send it via HDMI, which is what I do, but the value of all such receivers is now very low.

Still, it would probably be a good choice for someone on a budget who needed a bit better amplification than is found on the lower models. But one should expect to need to buy a HDMI switch box, which are sometimes troublesome devices.

Hi Pyrrho,

Not to be rude, but did you read the thread? The OP is not concern with HDMI and all that stuff. He just want the best sounding receiver for a stereo system with mutichannel possibility for the future.

I'm over the top? In a good way, or in a bad way?
Are we here to criticise each other now? Or are we here to work together at helping the OP with the best of our abilities?

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

 

[Soundman]

What! You're still around!!! I thought you went to the bank.

I already told you my take on it, take it or take the other one, it's your choice, not mine.
I'm just the messanger.

***** OK, for you, because I really like you; first the list price for the NAD is false advertizing, it is not $999, it's $799. Second, you are talking about weight!!!
The NAD is only few pounds more! Come on now! And the NAD is only 5 channels, and only 50 watts per channel. Did you have a look to the Marantz?
The NAD don't have HDMI at all, the Marantz does.
The Marantz is full jam packed with features, the NAD ain't.
Marantz = reliability + great sound. NAD = unreliable + good sound.
I mean, did you check all the specs and features? It's obvious which one is the right choice.
I can keep at this all day, but the final conclusion would stay the same.
Go to your bank, and get the Marantz SR6001, and just forget about the NAD T 744.

Love you man, that's the best tip that I gave all week, and I gave it to you very personally, with all my heart and love. Do you want me to send you the $350 with that?
Is that will help you better in your decision?

Cheers,
Bob

Bob, you are too funny!!!!! Allright already. I'll get the Marantz. I know it will make you happy, won't it?! So, how 'bout that $350.00?

 

[Lordoftherings]

To me, the lack of HDMI alone makes the NAD totally obsolete. According to the link, it only has 5.1 analog input, so you cannot do the new sound in 7.1. With the Marantz, you can listen to the new audio formats, if only the player decodes them and converts to PCM to be sent via HDMI, or you can use the 7.1 analog inputs if you prefer (and if your player can do that). I would not pay more to get less. Between these two, there is no contest as far as I am concerned. I don't think anyone should be buying that NAD now.

>>> I think Lordoftherings is a bit over the top on this matter, <<< but he or she has the right choice in this case, as far as I am concerned.

Of course, for two channel use, it may not matter much, but if you really want something expandable for later on, there is no contest. Plus, you save $50 getting the better one. Also, for resale later, I would guess the Marantz to be better. I know I absolutely would not buy a surround receiver without HDMI.

This post from you is fine by me, but I was just wondering about that line that refers to me (>>> ... <<<)?

Care to explain, please?

Also, Soundman, the OP does not seem to mind at all of my good spirit and sense of humor mix with my expertise.
As a matter fact, I sense that he is rather happy with my style.
He is, I am, are you?
I sure hope so. And if you meant good, please, accept my regards.
But, I will insist that in the future, you make the effort of reading the main goal from the OP, before jumping in, just as in a very friendly advice, no more no less.

Great day,
Bob

 

[Soundman]

It reminds me of the deal I got on my Yamaha RX-V2700, which was open box, but looked perfect. It was $300, with no accessories, so I had to buy the main remote separately (which added almost $100 to the price). You can read about mine at:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/productdetail.html?CNTID=451511&CTID=5000300

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/receivers/yamaha-rx-v2700-receiver-review/

Thanks for your concern Pyrro,
That's something I probably wouldn't have thought much about, so I checked the included accessories:
Included Accessories: Remote Control, Manual, Antenna, Power Cord

Anyway, I should be covered. This deal is also certified by Marantz so it should be a fine working unit.