Recommendations for Stereo Receiver or Integrated Amp?

[PearlcorderS701]

As you can tell from the emoticons it's just a friendly poke.

Gotcha; sorry for the seriousness of response...

 

[Cristofori]

It didn't seem obvious to me.

I said this... "I suspect many here will be prejudiced against it (the Onkyo A-9555) simply because audiophiles tend to prefer this type of unit for 2-channel music listing, and I believe with some justification."Now considering my thoughts towards budget receivers, and that serious enthusiasts don't consider all in one receivers as an ideal heart of a system, I would think it would seem obvious I could only be referring to the A-9555.

If I understand you correctly, it was what the integrated DIDN'T have that was the "point" of what we were talking about, but whatever the source of intent, I don't need the subwoofer out, at least right now, and I wasn't taking it as the reason NOT to consider an integrated.

I didn't say you were, but that others here were recommending you to stay away from integrateds mostly for that reason alone.

I realize the receiver offers some more "bells and whistles" over the inetegrated amp, and I know that the integrated is a much more serious approach to two channel listening, but that's not the reason I purchased the stereo receiver -- it wasn't for the bells and whistles of preamp out, sub out, etc. It fell into my immediate price point and what I thought would make for a solid choice given the budget criteria from a company I respect.

OK, as long as your happy, that's all that counts. From reading your past writings and initial ambitions, it seemed you really wanted to get that A-9555 and some other, better equipment. I understand the situation with the budget, but If I really wanted a Marantz integrated, but was forced to settle for their lower end receiver... well...

Buying stuff you don't really want just really sucks.

I don't think some of your comments/questions here are entirely appropriate, but I will respond with just this: The situation had changed DRAMATICALLY since I initially began this thread, budget-wise. What I THOUGHT we had to work with initially is simply not there; I don't know how else to explain this to you or anyone else.

No offence, and I'm not telling you what to do here, but if the situation changed that dramatically, I'd be questioning whether I really should be buying a second stereo system all together. This is unrelated to anything else I've said before.

I also recently built my new system on a budget (had vintage gear before). Ideally, I would have liked to get much better stuff, and I don't try to fool myself into thinking I have better, but I did good with what I had. But this is my ONLY system. I don't even have decent car audio at the moment. It's either that or no decent music at all. You on the other hand already have a system #1 to work with.

Just something to think about.

If this is rubbing your spurs the wrong way, I don't know what to tell you; at the end of the day, it's my ears that will "suffer" for this so-called "ultra-budget" selection, so there's really nothing else to say about that, save for the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with you that this is an "ultra-budget" selection simply basing it on PRICE TERRITORY alone.

Your not rubbing me the wrong way personally, it's just reminding me of my own less then ideal present situation and of some audio choices I made in the past if anything.

OK... Price wise ($250) this is ultra-budget, but for the money, you got a great deal considering the quality. You could have done worse (Radio Shack).

This receiver has been VERY well-received by everyone that has demoed it, and it's simply an excellent choice given what Onkyo is asking for it. I'M NOT SAYING THIS WILL COMPETE WITH THE ROTELS AND KRELLS OF THE WORLD. I am simply saying it will get done what I need it to, I am sure of that. If it doesn't...well, BELIEVE YOU ME, I will be the FIRST to come back on this site, enter this thread again, and ADMIT TO YOU THAT I WAS WRONG about the 8555's build quality, power, anything. At that point, I will even begin saving my money for the A-9555 integrated amp or something MORE EXPENSIVE.

Hey, no big deal. It just seemed you would have really liked to get the A-9555, and at that price, it was not out of the realm of the possiblity to wait a little while. You already have a decent system now. Hell... the first group of amps you were looking at was WAY over the A-9555 price. Not to mention the TT, and other stuff.

If it was me, I wouldn't be looking for reasons to defend something I really didn't want in the first place. I'd be saying... "This whole thing kinda sucks" and would be agreeing with the guy who said I should get the really cool integrated I wanted! Then I'd start looking towards the future for ways to help me get the stuff I wanted (needed) as fast as humanly possible.

I don't think some of your comments/questions here are entirely appropriate - Again, this is uncalled for and borders on inappropriate

Hey, don't take me so seriously! Your starting to sound like one of my old teachers or something.

I don't know how else to explain this to you or anyone else - do I need to explain to you again that the SITUATION HAD CHANGED FROM THE INITIAL CREATION OF THIS THREAD?

You didn't have to explain anything to me or anyone else, but thanks anyway. It makes for good forum conversation. And yes, I now see that your situation has rapidly changed.

I don't think was appropriate nor accurate as well; there must be a plethora of sub-$500 stereo receivers that won't operate as effectively as this Onkyo, guaranteed. Read the online reviews on this model, and the owners will explain how they used other brands in this price class and they simply couldn't compete with the 8555.

Actually, there really isn't all that many 2-channel receivers put out by the black boxers these days. Just those few, bottom of the barrel units by Yamaha, Marantz, Sony, Denon, etc. They are all pretty similar, minus the lack of certain features.

What makes the Onkyo so special, other than it's slightly better than average build quality (aluminum front plate) and great price? It still uses the same little EI transformers and general circuitry as do the others. I wouldn't be surprised if it contains parts derived from Sony or some other bigger name. And in what way are the others not able to compete with it? They all sound the same, and watts doesn't matter... remember? This only leaves features, price, and maybe build quality and aesthetics to consider.

Which begs an unrelated thought...Why can't anybody make a truly nice higher end, receiver? I mean, bordering on the quality of the integrateds and higher end separates those same companies make? Rotel is about the only one who has a more upscale receiver, but even that isn't at the level I'm thinking about. Most of the better manufacturers used to make great ones prior to 1981.

As for the turntable, I DIDN'T SAY I WASN'T GETTING ONE AT ALL -- I said I am getting the RECEIVER/AMP for this system first, and then turning my attention towards budgeting for a table.

You said "The table isn't something that needs to be bought right now, though, as we're just going to get some kind of music going in this room -- the receiver or amp was more important in this regard, as we already have a CD changer and recorder in place."

I'm apologize if I misunderstood, but after all that hoopla over the TT, it wasn't unreasonable to assume you weren't exactly going to be adding one to your rack anytime soon with these comments.

Really? That's what I should do? Replace the Polk RTi12 towers that I JUST PAID $900 FOR to REPLACE the R20 bookshelves? That wasn't an upgrade enough in your eyes?

Again, I apologize. I thought that the speaker issue was still unresolved. So you upgraded your Polks with... Polks? Good, that puts those bookshelves to good use with your 2nd system, At least temporarily.

Also, this doesn't apply to today, as this was close to 15 years ago. But I had a pair of Polk bookshelves once. They looked a lot nicer than they sounded. I was duped into buying them for surrounds, which I couldn't hear anyway with the lousy multi-channel technology at the time. Needless to say, those Polks didn't stick around long. I hope things have improved with them considerably.

I don't THINK the receiver choice I made will REALLY flush this two channel system down the toilet, as I have said, as bad as you think. I will report back on it.

No, it won't flush your system down the toilet. I never said it would. I have to keep in mind that this is just a 2nd system after all.

I'm not knocking your particular unit, I'm just generally prejudiced against "mass market style" receivers for serious music listening in general (including my own) and first impressions can and old habits can last a long time. The only exception to this is for me is with vintage receivers, of which you could have got an AWESOME one used for the price of that Onkyo, and you wouldn't have had to do a thing to it. They are built like tanks and last forever.

As I said before, todays receivers appear to be a tad better than what I remember, as this new Marantz seems to suggest. But this is the first new receiver I've owned in a very long time (other than vintage) so I can't really say, and I haven't really had the chance to get to know it yet.

Take care,

 

[Cristofori]

While I am concerned with your feelings regarding what my R20's are essentially capable of, I've been down the "bookshelves on stands" route before -- my wife actually HATED the look of the R20's on their stands in our HT setup and I had to agree with her sentiments that they gave the room a "dorm feel" that was hard to describe; furthermore, I couldn't stand dealing with the speaker cable management issues through the hidden channels in the stands and the constant "leaning" of the stands' feet which were troublesome right out of the box...I just don't think bookshelves are for me.

My situation with bookshelves is different from yours. I don't have stands, mine rest upon some large, very heavy solid oak wood CD storage cubes, and my cables are cut to a shorter distance and hang suspended in the air and are mostly covered by the cubes and component rack, except for between the gaps from the rack to the cubes, which is where I hope to put my 8' dual subwoofers relatively soon (or at least one sub).

I believe these cubes would work just as well as most stands, except for the height may be less than perfect. The isolation cones they rest on ad another 1-1\2 inches in height. Plus, they look cool and hold my CD's (300 each). If I got towers, I would have to find some other place to put my beloved cubes. Not an easy task with my limited room. Maybe if and when I move, I will look into possibly going with towers.

And your wife must be some exception. Most women tend to dislike large obtrusive speakers taking up the room (the kind we like). Hell... some wouldn't even be letting you get a second system at all!

Consider yourself lucky to have her.

That said, I understand that my R20's won't give good floorstanders "a run for their money," but I MUST use these right now for the time being due to absolute budget restraints. I would like to upgrade these at some point to good floorstanders for stereo use, but I don't think this will take place any time soon.

What's ironic about this whole thing is that the Polk RTi12's I just bought for the HT system are really MORE suited to powerful two channel use -- I always thought bookshelves and a sub were more suited to HT than for stereo; I just prefer towers for music.

Being on a budget, you can generally (not always) get much better sounding bookshelves then towers with the same money. They are also more manageable as far as storage, shipping and re-selling go. They are also fun if you like collecting and using different speakers (try having a half dozen towers lying around your room!) They also integrate better with subs, and a good set up can very well give a pair of towers a run for their money!

These are all legitimate reasons to go with a mini-monitor/subs combo, and many audiophiles prefer this type of set up, believing the imaging/bass to be superior. But as you said, many also prefer to use towers. And indeed, there is probably no substitute for truly great tower speakers, but better get prepared to shell out some real hard cash for the good ones!

No, nothing that MUST be listened to right now, but I do have a massive 45RPM collection that I would like to burn to CD-R, and that will be a big project in itself.

Aww... that's no fun! Have an occasional 45rpm party, and listen to them is intended!

 

[Cristofori]

You were the one who initially steered me towards the 8555 from the beginning, based on that SPECIFIC PRICE CLASS we were talking about, so I wanted to let you know that I pulled the trigger on one -- if you can reassure me that it will not PERFORM like a Best Buy Special (if we can actually define this) I could at least get more than one hour's sleep tonight.

OK, I will define what I meant by a "Best Buy Special". That is in my opinion ANY one of the lower end, mass market black boxes form the more well known names that BB currently (and has always) carried. So in essence, your unit is a "Best Buy Special", as they used to carry similar Onkyos years ago.

The other stuff you thought I was comparing the Onkyo to, the Apex's, Sherwood's, Bose's, Aiwa's and the Radio Shack specials of the world, isn't in that category. That's just pure junk. Bought by people who don't know any better, or could care less about audio and who would never bother to come to a forum like this. Which puts you out of that league.

Don't worry, although not ideal or particularly cool, your Onkyo will do fine in a pinch.

I know I'm over-reacting and being really anal here, but I'm an Audioholic. I can't help it!

P.S. In an earlier post, you said something like "I compared the two Onkyo units and found the lesser one to look and feel much cheaper."

I'm surprised you were even able to physically examine the units. I just realized that absolutely NOBODY in the areas I lived in actually carries the brand anymore. At least not the shops I've visited, including the cheap places. As a matter of fact, I haven't physically seen a piece of Onkyo gear in years, not even used.

I'm not trying to suggest anything here, but I wonder why this is if they are so highly touted???

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I said this... "I suspect many here will be prejudiced against it (the Onkyo A-9555) simply because audiophiles tend to prefer this type of unit for 2-channel music listing, and I believe with some justification."Now considering my thoughts towards budget receivers, and that serious enthusiasts don't consider all in one receivers as an ideal heart of a system, I would think it would seem obvious I could only be referring to the A-9555.

I don't think you ORIGINALLY put the reference to "(the Onkyo A-9555)"...

I didn't say you were, but that others here were recommending you to stay away from integrateds mostly for that reason alone.

Because most didn't have "upgrades" like a sub pre out or pre outs in general?

OK, as long as your happy, that's all that counts. From reading your past writings and initial ambitions, it seemed you really wanted to get that A-9555 and some other, better equipment. I understand the situation with the budget, but If I really wanted a Marantz integrated, but was forced to settle for their lower end receiver... well...

Buying stuff you don't really want just really sucks.

I think this is another jab at trying to make me feel bad about what I bought -- it appears instantly obvious to me upon first read, but if I am wrong, you can let me know. What I was trying to explain, especially though my "Bentley" example, is that MANY of us HAVE to "settle" for "lower end stuff"...many will simply not own anything rather than have complete crap, but I don't believe the receiver I chose is "complete crap"...as for making me "happy," I won't know that until it's connected in my system, correct?

No offence, and I'm not telling you what to do here, but if the situation changed that dramatically, I'd be questioning whether I really should be buying a second stereo system all together. This is unrelated to anything else I've said before.

No, we are budgeted for equipment for this second two channel system -- I CAN buy SOMETHING. I just couldn't get the integrated I had my heart set on. In retrospect, I think this 100 watt per channel unit I ordered will do what we need it to in this room -- that's in RETROSPECT and after careful consideration. Now, this does NOT mean that I didn't need or want all the opinions from everyone in here as I received. I took them all and considered them all. And I was appreciative.

I also recently built my new system on a budget (had vintage gear before). Ideally, I would have liked to get much better stuff, and I don't try to fool myself into thinking I have better, but I did good with what I had. But this is my ONLY system. I don't even have decent car audio at the moment. It's either that or no decent music at all. You on the other hand already have a system #1 to work with.

I used to be into car audio heavily, and then I grew out of 15 inch subs in my trunk. Now I just listen through my 2008 model's JBL upgrade system and it's all good.

System #1 is primarly for HT, and that's how we configured it.

Your not rubbing me the wrong way personally, it's just reminding me of my own less then ideal present situation and of some audio choices I made in the past if anything.

I see.

OK... Price wise ($250) this is ultra-budget, but for the money, you got a great deal considering the quality. You could have done worse (Radio Shack). Hey, no big deal. It just seemed you would have really liked to get the A-9555, and at that price, it was not out of the realm of the possiblity to wait a little while. You already have a decent system now. Hell... the first group of amps you were looking at was WAY over the A-9555 price. Not to mention the TT, and other stuff.

I realize this, and I'm shocked by the fact that I actually PUT brands like NAD and Krell up on that list -- in reality, these were way beyond my budget.

Perhaps in ultimate retrospect, I SHOULD have waited until I could get the 9555, as it's what I really wanted. If the 8555 doesn't work out, I will return it and start saving pennies for the 9555, that's for sure.

If it was me, I wouldn't be looking for reasons to defend something I really didn't want in the first place. I'd be saying... "This whole thing kinda sucks" and would be agreeing with the guy who said I should get the really cool integrated I wanted! Then I'd start looking towards the future for ways to help me get the stuff I wanted (needed) as fast as humanly possible.

Hey...no pot shots here, remember?

Hey, don't take me so seriously! Your starting to sound like one of my old teachers or something. You didn't have to explain anything to me or anyone else, but thanks anyway.

Okay........

It makes for good forum conversation. And yes, I now see that your situation has rapidly changed.Actually, there really isn't all that many 2-channel receivers put out by the black boxers these days. Just those few, bottom of the barrel units by Yamaha, Marantz, Sony, Denon, etc. They are all pretty similar, minus the lack of certain features.

That's what I was trying to get at and explain -- this Onkyo just seems of better vintage than the REALLY basic Sonys, Denons and Yamahas (although the Yamaha receivers look much better than the others, to be honest. They seem much better built; I owned one, so I know).

I would really consider the cheap Sony stereo receivers or the cheap Denons to be "Best Buy Specials"...these things are really lightweight and have had poor owner feedback if you look it up.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

What makes the Onkyo so special, other than it's slightly better than average build quality (aluminum front plate) and great price? It still uses the same little EI transformers and general circuitry as do the others. I wouldn't be surprised if it contains parts derived from Sony or some other bigger name. And in what way are the others not able to compete with it? They all sound the same, and watts doesn't matter... remember? This only leaves features, price, and maybe build quality and aesthetics to consider.

Have you looked at the specs behind the 8555? There is an oversized power transformer and premium internal components for this price class -- it's just built better than most. This was the company's calling card for so long.

Which begs an unrelated thought...Why can't anybody make a truly nice higher end, receiver? I mean, bordering on the quality of the integrateds and higher end separates those same companies make? Rotel is about the only one who has a more upscale receiver, but even that isn't at the level I'm thinking about. Most of the better manufacturers used to make great ones prior to 1981.

I think there are a couple still on the market...isn't the Outlaw receiver considered kind of "higher end"? Plus, you have the Marantz models that are definite step ups from the likes of Onkyo, Denon, Sony, etc.

You said "The table isn't something that needs to be bought right now, though, as we're just going to get some kind of music going in this room -- the receiver or amp was more important in this regard, as we already have a CD changer and recorder in place."

I'm apologize if I misunderstood, but after all that hoopla over the TT, it wasn't unreasonable to assume you weren't exactly going to be adding one to your rack anytime soon with these comments.

Perhaps ANYTIME SOON -- but not NEVER.

Again, I apologize. I thought that the speaker issue was still unresolved. So you upgraded your Polks with... Polks? Good, that puts those bookshelves to good use with your 2nd system, At least temporarily.

You're making fun of my decision to upgrade my speakers from the same brand -- but if you look closely, you'll see that the RTi12's I purchased to replace the R20's are a MAJOR upgrade. It's a NIGHT AND DAY difference in terms of speakers; the 12's were Polk's flagship of the RTi line when they were released...so what's so bad about that? I got a killer deal on them.

Also, this doesn't apply to today, as this was close to 15 years ago. But I had a pair of Polk bookshelves once. They looked a lot nicer than they sounded. I was duped into buying them for surrounds, which I couldn't hear anyway with the lousy multi-channel technology at the time. Needless to say, those Polks didn't stick around long. I hope things have improved with them considerably.

I've been using nothing but Polks since I got into HT -- and have nothing but success with them. I've been exposed to many other brands and have used them as well, including JBL.

No, it won't flush your system down the toilet. I never said it would. I have to keep in mind that this is just a 2nd system after all.

Right...this will be used JUST for two channel playback (vinyl, CDs) in a smallish loft area of the second story of our house.

I'm not knocking your particular unit, I'm just generally prejudiced against "mass market style" receivers for serious music listening in general (including my own) and first impressions can and old habits can last a long time. The only exception to this is for me is with vintage receivers, of which you could have got an AWESOME one used for the price of that Onkyo, and you wouldn't have had to do a thing to it. They are built like tanks and last forever.

As I said before, todays receivers appear to be a tad better than what I remember, as this new Marantz seems to suggest. But this is the first new receiver I've owned in a very long time (other than vintage) so I can't really say, and I haven't really had the chance to get to know it yet.

Take care,

I understand and respect your thoughts here; as I have said, if this receiver doesn't work out for our needs for ANY reason, I will return it and get back to you for further opinions.

I have to run out now; be back to reply to the rest of your comments.

 

[Cristofori]

Have you looked at the specs behind the 8555? There is an oversized power transformer and premium internal components for this price class -- it's just built better than most. This was the company's calling card for so long.

Actually, the more I think about it your unit is really a unique item from the past. It looks and is built about the same as a decent receiver was 15 years ago, and priced the same too. Your right about some other low end models being cheaper, by today's unfortunate standards.

Still, your Onkyo would have been considered a "Best Buy Special" 10-15 years ago, which is where my thinking process in terms of quality is still at, and unapologetically so.

There was a plethora of really nice stereo gear made back then at better than today's prices and at 5 times the quality of most of todays average stuff, and much of it was still made in Japan and the USA too. Of course, there is still a lot of great quality gear being made, but at prices that are now out of reach for many of us.

If you've spent a lot of time with various gear over the years, you may understand why I might be so cynical, knowing how far things have gone down hill since. Sure, the technology may be far advanced in some areas, but much of the physical stuff built around that technology leaves something to be desired.

I think there are a couple still on the market...isn't the Outlaw receiver considered kind of "higher end"? Plus, you have the Marantz models that are definite step ups from the likes of Onkyo, Denon, Sony, etc.

I'm thinking more of the way receivers were built prior to 1981. If you want to see what I'm talking about, take a look at the vintage Marantz and Pioneer receivers from the 70's. These have a great following, and still command high prices. Nobody builds them like this anymore, although they still could, if not for the audiophiles who normally insist on separates.

Marantz receivers today are on a par or only a tad better than the other decent manufacturers (Denon, Yamaha), and look somewhat similar.Their HI-FI components and separates are an exception.

As far as an oversized transformer goes, that may be true. But it's still an EI type, not a Toroidal design, which is superior and is unusually used in the better integrateds. If yours has one of these besides the aluminum front plate and everything else for $250, please let me know and I'll buy one myself. Although I might start thinking about the genuineness of the parts used or the working conditions of those who produced it.

You're making fun of my decision to upgrade my speakers from the same brand -- but if you look closely, you'll see that the RTi12's I purchased to replace the R20's are a MAJOR upgrade. It's a NIGHT AND DAY difference in terms of speakers; the 12's were Polk's flagship of the RTi line when they were released...so what's so bad about that? I got a killer deal on them.

No... I was just confused and wanted to clarify. Nothing wrong with upgrading within the same brand, so long as that brand is great.

I will admit though that I don't think highly of Polks. First impressions last a long time with me, and the fact that the Best Buys and Circuit Citys of the world carried boatloads of them makes me suspicious.

I've been using nothing but Polks since I got into HT -- and have nothing but success with them. I've been exposed to many other brands and have used them as well, including JBL.

They may be great for HT. This may be why so many mass market stores carry them.

However, they were not great for my music. At least not the ones I had a long time ago. As I said before, things at Polk have probably (hopefully) improved since then. So more power to you.

I understand and respect your thoughts here; as I have said, if this receiver doesn't work out for our needs for ANY reason, I will return it and get back to you for further opinions.

I suspect you will be happy with it, just hope you can get that A-9555 or something better someday. You might be able to find it on sale or used for cheap, especially if they discontinue it, which they probably will. Just like Denon discontinued their fantastic old school style PMA-2000MkIV integrated that had been around for years (like the Technics SL's) and which I had intended to buy but was too late.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

My situation with bookshelves is different from yours. I don't have stands, mine rest upon some large, very heavy solid oak wood CD storage cubes, and my cables are cut to a shorter distance and hang suspended in the air and are mostly covered by the cubes and component rack, except for between the gaps from the rack to the cubes, which is where I hope to put my 8' dual subwoofers relatively soon (or at least one sub).

I believe these cubes would work just as well as most stands, except for the height may be less than perfect. The isolation cones they rest on ad another 1-1\2 inches in height. Plus, they look cool and hold my CD's (300 each). If I got towers, I would have to find some other place to put my beloved cubes. Not an easy task with my limited room. Maybe if and when I move, I will look into possibly going with towers.

Yeah, that's definitely a differerent situation -- and experience -- with bookshelves than I have had; the ultimate HASSLE behind putting the ridiculously cheaply-made stands together, then going through a few pairs because they were broken in the boxes, and then the "leaning" issue I had with them because the feet weren't correctly aligned...I gotta tell you: I'd never go with speakers-on-stands again.

Your situation seemed indeed more "enjoyable" to say the least.

And your wife must be some exception. Most women tend to dislike large obtrusive speakers taking up the room (the kind we like). Hell... some wouldn't even be letting you get a second system at all!

Consider yourself lucky to have her.

Indeed; I realize this. She actually PREFERRED the floorstanders in the HT room, although she won't let me allocate for new floorstanders in the two channel room right now.

Being on a budget, you can generally (not always) get much better sounding bookshelves then towers with the same money. They are also more manageable as far as storage, shipping and re-selling go. They are also fun if you like collecting and using different speakers (try having a half dozen towers lying around your room!) They also integrate better with subs, and a good set up can very well give a pair of towers a run for their money!

I'm sure this is so, to a point; I just prefer the simplicity of placing some towers to the left and right of the system rack, aiming them for correct placement and arrival, and calling it a day. I wouldn't be the kind to actually "collect" different speakers and try them all throughout a room like that.

These are all legitimate reasons to go with a mini-monitor/subs combo, and many audiophiles prefer this type of set up, believing the imaging/bass to be superior. But as you said, many also prefer to use towers. And indeed, there is probably no substitute for truly great tower speakers, but better get prepared to shell out some real hard cash for the good ones!

Yes...I've been made aware of these shockingly high price tags since I've been shopping them...

Aww... that's no fun! Have an occasional 45rpm party, and listen to them is intended!

LOL; do you have a large 45 collection?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

OK, I will define what I meant by a "Best Buy Special". That is in my opinion ANY one of the lower end, mass market black boxes form the more well known names that BB currently (and has always) carried. So in essence, your unit is a "Best Buy Special", as they used to carry similar Onkyos years ago.

I don't agree with this.

The other stuff you thought I was comparing the Onkyo to, the Apex's, Sherwood's, Bose's, Aiwa's and the Radio Shack specials of the world, isn't in that category. That's just pure junk. Bought by people who don't know any better, or could care less about audio and who would never bother to come to a forum like this. Which puts you out of that league.

Indeed.

LOL -- AIWA...I haven't heard that name in a DOG'S age...

Don't worry, although not ideal or particularly cool, your Onkyo will do fine in a pinch.

I know I'm over-reacting and being really anal here, but I'm an Audioholic. I can't help it!

I do believe this receiver will do WAY better than a unit to use "in a pinch"...honestly.

P.S. In an earlier post, you said something like "I compared the two Onkyo units and found the lesser one to look and feel much cheaper."

I'm surprised you were even able to physically examine the units. I just realized that absolutely NOBODY in the areas I lived in actually carries the brand anymore. At least not the shops I've visited, including the cheap places. As a matter of fact, I haven't physically seen a piece of Onkyo gear in years, not even used.

Yes, in my neck of the woods there are retail stores called "RC Willey," and they carry Onkyo -- the full line, in fact. I was able to see that the less expensive model in their receiver duo was really "cheap" feeling and looking compared to the one I just received on my doorstep (the 8555).

I'm not trying to suggest anything here, but I wonder why this is if they are so highly touted???

I don't know if they are "so highly touted" but I know they have some loyal following; again, I am stating that it's agreed in many audio circles that their stuff is simply better built than most...in their respective price categories.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Actually, the more I think about it your unit is really a unique item from the past. It looks and is built about the same as a decent receiver was 15 years ago, and priced the same too. Your right about some other low end models being cheaper, by today's unfortunate standards.

Still, your Onkyo would have been considered a "Best Buy Special" 10-15 years ago, which is where my thinking process in terms of quality is still at, and unapologetically so.

Well, it's unjustified in that just because the unit cost under 300 U.S. dollars, it doesn't mean it's as good or as powerful as a transistor radio from the 1970s.

If you wish to keep believing that this unit is a relic of a diminshed planet of audio which was swept away by an exploding purple sun, and therefore I shouldn't have purchased it in 2010, well, I am uncertain how to react to that; it's considered one of the better stereo units on the market, currently, especially in this day and age of multichannel receivers and products -- compounded by the reality of its price point.

There was a plethora of really nice stereo gear made back then at better than today's prices and at 5 times the quality of most of todays average stuff, and much of it was still made in Japan and the USA too. Of course, there is still a lot of great quality gear being made, but at prices that are now out of reach for many of us.

Probably true.

If you've spent a lot of time with various gear over the years, you may understand why I might be so cynical, knowing how far things have gone down hill since. Sure, the technology may be far advanced in some areas, but much of the physical stuff built around that technology leaves something to be desired.

I will give you that -- the physical build quality of these mass-market devices has truly gone downhill, and you can experience that just by attempting to lift the box when you get one home. However, that said, I must report that the TX-8555 receiver that just shipped to my door is reasonably heavy and has a great deal of heft to it -- this is without getting it out of the box yet.

I'm thinking more of the way receivers were built prior to 1981. If you want to see what I'm talking about, take a look at the vintage Marantz and Pioneer receivers from the 70's. These have a great following, and still command high prices. Nobody builds them like this anymore, although they still could, if not for the audiophiles who normally insist on separates.

Absolutely agreed -- you remember FISHER? Now THEY made some serious gear...I can recall in the house where I grew up, the people my folks bought the house from had a pre-installed Fisher tuner/amp and turntable built into a wooden wall unit-kind-of-thing in our den, along with high-end built-in speakers on either side of the room...this thing ROCKED, and we NEVER should have gotten rid of it. I can't even recall what happened to the system over the years, but I know it was disassembled and only G-d knows what happened to the pieces. But Fisher was some serious shizznit...they just don't make it like that anymore, that's for sure.

Marantz receivers today are on a par or only a tad better than the other decent manufacturers (Denon, Yamaha), and look somewhat similar.Their HI-FI components and separates are an exception.

Their REFERENCE line is very impressive....but just SO damn expensive; I don't know if I could justify the prices. I used to like this brand very much -- I always considered Marantz the "affordable end of high end" and over the years, I have owned CD changers and CD recorders and now own the more current CC4001 five-disc CD changer (although I am having some quality control issues with this unit -- such as the programming not responding to my input commands). I would have purchased another Marantz CD recorder when my DR700 died, but I ended up going with a TASCAM professional unit because 1)Marantz doesn't make consumer-level recorders any longer, just pro versions and 2)After the issues I was having with the changer, I didn't want to buy another Marantz product.

As far as an oversized transformer goes, that may be true. But it's still an EI type, not a Toroidal design, which is superior and is unusually used in the better integrateds. If yours has one of these besides the aluminum front plate and everything else for $250, please let me know and I'll buy one myself. Although I might start thinking about the genuineness of the parts used or the working conditions of those who produced it.

I know the unit has a newly-designed hairline brushed aluminum faceplate for vibration-robbing ability, as well as a discrete output stage (rare at this price point), and if I am not mistaken, it does have a Toroidal design matrix, but I will have to confirm this and get back to you.

No... I was just confused and wanted to clarify. Nothing wrong with upgrading within the same brand, so long as that brand is great.

But that statement is relative -- what you think about Polks doesn't mean what I upgraded to wasn't a definite step up. Trust me -- from the R20s, it was.

I will admit though that I don't think highly of Polks. First impressions last a long time with me, and the fact that the Best Buys and Circuit Citys of the world carried boatloads of them makes me suspicious.


They may be great for HT. This may be why so many mass market stores carry them.

I too do not like the fact that these chain stores started carrying them -- BUT, the last time I was in Worst Buy, they were carrying the lowest of the lowest Polk towers and bookshelves you could possibly find. They were NOT carrying the RTi line of towers I purchased.

However, they were not great for my music. At least not the ones I had a long time ago. As I said before, things at Polk have probably (hopefully) improved since then. So more power to you.

I never bought into the whole "this brand is better for HT than for music" hoopla, to be honest with you; I think that's a crock. Depending on how your system is configured, and what kind of associated gear it's connected to, this can all play a big role. That said, I have heard different speakers and different brands have different tonal characteristics -- for example, Klipsch are very forward and bright sounding, as their reputation has garnered, so this could be benefitial in a stereo or HT situation IMO.

I suspect you will be happy with it, just hope you can get that A-9555 or something better someday. You might be able to find it on sale or used for cheap, especially if they discontinue it, which they probably will. Just like Denon discontinued their fantastic old school style PMA-2000MkIV integrated that had been around for years (like the Technics SL's) and which I had intended to buy but was too late.

I have heard great things about Denon's amps and that line; Crutchfield actually sold their monster integrated amps at one point and I've seen them around online...pretty impressive stuff.

You're probably right, that Onkyo will discontinue this amp which is a shame, because it looks beautiful and promising -- there just, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be a flourishing market for this stuff anymore...the few diehard consumers like you and I who value a good two channel setup are not in these companies' business plans. It's really sad to say, but the majority of people who buy gear today gravitate to the HTiB systems and drool over Bose because HSN or QVC told them to.

 

[Cristofori]

Yeah, that's definitely a differerent situation -- and experience -- with bookshelves than I have had; the ultimate HASSLE behind putting the ridiculously cheaply-made stands together, then going through a few pairs because they were broken in the boxes, and then the "leaning" issue I had with them because the feet weren't correctly aligned...I gotta tell you: I'd never go with speakers-on-stands again.

REAL speaker stands are heavy and made of some kind of metal, with adjustable feet for leveling and a hollow shaft for weighing down with ball bearings or something. They are initially expensive ($200-$400) but should last a lifetime and of course can be used for any kind of bookshelf/mini-monitor you may own in the future.

I would hate bookshelves too if I had to deal with cheap, wooden stands.

Your situation seemed indeed more "enjoyable" to say the least.

Yes, it's OK. It's more a matter of practicality if anything. I'd still rather have some proper stands, but my limited room situation would make that difficult.

I'm sure this is so, to a point; I just prefer the simplicity of placing some towers to the left and right of the system rack, aiming them for correct placement and arrival, and calling it a day. I wouldn't be the kind to actually "collect" different speakers and try them all throughout a room like that.

Again, for me it was a matter of practicality and cost. I simply couldn't afford the same quality floor standers as I could bookshelves, and over time I really started to like the different bookshelves I've had.

I used to have some big Infinity Studio monitors with 15" woofers (great pair of speakers!), but these were when I still lived at home in our big house. I couldn't imagine having speakers like this now in the smaller rooms I've lived in since. I've tried, and they look ridiculous and are probably being robbed of their sound quality and performance from the lack of space.

Also, a great pair of bookshelves can sound better and still have more bass with 6" woofers then a mediocre pair of big floorstanders with 12" woofers. I've learned this through trial and error. The amount of bass my B&W bookshelves put out in my room (without a sub) was nothing short of amazing!

When I sold my mint $450 B&W bookshelves on Audiogon a while back (done so out of necessity), I was still able to get $300 for them (and they sold immediately). Even though I get discounts in shipping UPS were I work, it still cost around $30 to ship after my exceedingly excellent packing job . Had these been the large floorstanders from that line, I probably never would have been able to sell them at a decent price, as the shipping costs would have been too expensive for the buyer.

I know not everyone thinks about or is concerned about this, but I always think of possible re-sale/trade in situations. Unless you have something really fantastic or special, huge speakers are generally difficult to get rid of at a fair price. If you got the money and the room for them, then more power to you.

LOL; do you have a large 45 collection?

I used to have a lot more then I do now. I mostly pick up late 70's/80's type stuff for cheap when I can find them.

With 45's, it's important to have the original pressings, as most reissues sound like total crap. And the only ones I can usually find in NM condition are those from that era.

 

[Cristofori]

I don't agree with this.

OK, but can you provide any examples? BB doesn't even sell 2-channel receivers anymore at the level of yours and mine, and serious HT enthusiasts wouldn't settle for the usual entry level models BB carries. In what way are the current crop of BB's offerings not "Best Buy Specials"?

LOL -- AIWA...I haven't heard that name in a DOG'S age...

I bought a Sherwood receiver years ago in a pinch for around $120. The thing was a piece of crap, and blew away any notions of the "all amps sound the same" theory. This was one of those instances where I lost money listening to that advice (all amps sound the same - thanks Audiogon!) and found it to be lacking, even though I wanted to believe it. But deep down I knew it wasn't totally true. I was just fooling myself and trying to get away with being cheap.

Needless to say, I haven't seen anything at all by Sherwood in a long time. I think even BB has washed their hands of them!

I do believe this receiver will do WAY better than a unit to use "in a pinch"...honestly.

Even though I consider allocating $250 for some type of amp "in a pinch", you wisely came here for advise and are probably getting the best possible unit you can for the money. It will certainly be much better than that above mentioned Sherwood I had.

 

[Cristofori]

Well, it's unjustified in that just because the unit cost under 300 U.S. dollars, it doesn't mean it's as good or as powerful as a transistor radio from the 1970s.

Hey... I like my transistor radio from the 70's, and I hook my portable single cassette recorder with the one speaker, big ugly buttons and retractable handle up to it, so you'd better watch it buster!

If you wish to keep believing that this unit is a relic of a diminshed planet of audio which was swept away by an exploding purple sun, and therefore I shouldn't have purchased it in 2010, well, I am uncertain how to react to that; it's considered one of the better stereo units on the market, currently, especially in this day and age of multichannel receivers and products -- compounded by the reality of its price point.

If it was one of the good relics from a diminished planet of audio which was swept away by an exploding purple sun still being made today... I'm all for it.

Probably true.

Absolutely true.

I will give you that -- the physical build quality of these mass-market devices has truly gone downhill, and you can experience that just by attempting to lift the box when you get one home. However, that said, I must report that the TX-8555 receiver that just shipped to my door is reasonably heavy and has a great deal of heft to it -- this is without getting it out of the box yet.

So... the beast has arrived? Excellent! I can't wait to hear about it. I'm sure you will most likely be happy. If your not, you can PM me to save yourself some public embarassment... just kidding!

Yes, some of these new units are so cheap they move around when your pushing buttons or connecting cables or headphones. Very annoying after you spend time aligning your units on your rack perfectly.

I had a Project TT once that had the power switch under the left side of the plinth (annoying). Sometimes when I turned it on (especially while drunk) it would slide out of place or wobble on it's three feet. I guess four feet would have just cost too damn much.

You can be guaranteed that a Technics SL-1200 would never dream of doing such a thing!

Absolutely agreed -- you remember FISHER? Now THEY made some serious gear...I can recall in the house where I grew up, the people my folks bought the house from had a pre-installed Fisher tuner/amp and turntable built into a wooden wall unit-kind-of-thing in our den, along with high-end built-in speakers on either side of the room...this thing ROCKED, and we NEVER should have gotten rid of it. I can't even recall what happened to the system over the years, but I know it was disassembled and only G-d knows what happened to the pieces. But Fisher was some serious shizznit...they just don't make it like that anymore, that's for sure.

Check out this brief link on the King of all receivers... the Pioneer SX-1980. http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.com/sx-1980.htm This was the most powerful, heavy and impressive stereo receiver ever made. As far as receivers go, nothing like it was ever produced before or since. To reproduce this same unit today, it would cost over $4000! An excellent example of one of these can still reach into the four figures on ebay!

Their REFERENCE line is very impressive....but just SO damn expensive; I don't know if I could justify the prices. I used to like this brand very much -- I always considered Marantz the "affordable end of high end" and over the years, I have owned CD changers and CD recorders and now own the more current CC4001 five-disc CD changer (although I am having some quality control issues with this unit -- such as the programming not responding to my input commands). I would have purchased another Marantz CD recorder when my DR700 died, but I ended up going with a TASCAM professional unit because 1)Marantz doesn't make consumer-level recorders any longer, just pro versions and 2)After the issues I was having with the changer, I didn't want to buy another Marantz product.

Yes, the reference line is impressive, but over priced. For serious Marantz fans only. Although I've seen these units sell for considerably less then the MSRP.

I know the unit has a newly-designed hairline brushed aluminum faceplate for vibration-robbing ability, as well as a discrete output stage (rare at this price point), and if I am not mistaken, it does have a Toroidal design matrix, but I will have to confirm this and get back to you.

If your unit has a toroidal transformer with everything else it has and is claimed to be, then it would constitute one of the single best deals on the audio market today. On a par with Behringer speakers and Emotiva gear.

I'm almost certain that it doesn't though, as there would little reason for Onkyo to have a higher end integrated amp if it did.

But that statement is relative -- what you think about Polks doesn't mean what I upgraded to wasn't a definite step up. Trust me -- from the R20s, it was.

No... but what I do know is that when conversations and articles about really good speakers come up, the Polk name is scarcely ever acknowledged.

I never bought into the whole "this brand is better for HT than for music" hoopla, to be honest with you; I think that's a crock. Depending on how your system is configured, and what kind of associated gear it's connected to, this can all play a big role. That said, I have heard different speakers and different brands have different tonal characteristics -- for example, Klipsch are very forward and bright sounding, as their reputation has garnered, so this could be benefitial in a stereo or HT situation IMO.

I said they MAY be better for HT. I wouldn't know, as I said before I bought my Polks for surrounds and center channel and I could barely hear the things due to the lousy multi-channel capability at the time.

And it's very possible that certain speakers can be better for HT than music, even the audio atheists would agree to that. Speakers are highly variable. Some speakers can be colored or darkly voiced to perform better with loud movie soundtracks.

I just read another post were a respected Audioholic recommended against using Behringer Studio Monitors for HT use due to their extremely flat and neutral characteristics. That's great for music, but not always ideal for movies.

I myself have been content with most of the TV/Movie 2-channel sound out of my speakers, but that aspect of sound isn't as important to me.

I have heard great things about Denon's amps and that line; Crutchfield actually sold their monster integrated amps at one point and I've seen them around online...pretty impressive stuff.

Yes, that Denon was great, and I was going to get one from Crutchfield but they were gone once I had the chance. They were around for a long time, and show up frequently used on Audiogon and ebay in near mint condition. I may go ahead and get one just yet if a great deal comes along, but I think I may go with Marantz.

I'd like to have a matching system as much as possible, both for looks and compatibility issues, and Denon doesn't make the other components that suit my needs. Marantz is the only one that comes the closest to making all the gear with the features I want (minus the tape deck).

You're probably right, that Onkyo will discontinue this amp which is a shame, because it looks beautiful and promising -- there just, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be a flourishing market for this stuff anymore...the few diehard consumers like you and I who value a good two channel setup are not in these companies' business plans. It's really sad to say, but the majority of people who buy gear today gravitate to the HTiB systems and drool over Bose because HSN or QVC told them to.

I don't know, the integrateds and separates are still in demand, and most of the major manufacturers still make one. Denon still has a "high end line", but they look spacy and weird and I don't care for them.

Thing are different in Europe/Japan though, were they still appreciated good 2-channel and quality. They regularly get these units from the major producers that are great and look beautiful but are unavailable in the USA. Take a look at them and see what I mean.

I've been complaining about this for years, but I and others like me are forced to suffer because of the masses of humanity in America who tolerate mediocrity and whose main goal in life is visual stimulation.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

REAL speaker stands are heavy and made of some kind of metal, with adjustable feet for leveling and a hollow shaft for weighing down with ball bearings or something. They are initially expensive ($200-$400) but should last a lifetime and of course can be used for any kind of bookshelf/mini-monitor you may own in the future.

I would hate bookshelves too if I had to deal with cheap, wooden stands.

The stands I bought for the R20's weren't that cheap at over $100 a piece for the Sanus Natural Foundations...I didn't have any experience with "real" stands.

Yes, it's OK. It's more a matter of practicality if anything. I'd still rather have some proper stands, but my limited room situation would make that difficult.

I understand. I just prefer towers.

Again, for me it was a matter of practicality and cost. I simply couldn't afford the same quality floor standers as I could bookshelves, and over time I really started to like the different bookshelves I've had.

I suppose, understandable.

I used to have some big Infinity Studio monitors with 15" woofers (great pair of speakers!), but these were when I still lived at home in our big house. I couldn't imagine having speakers like this now in the smaller rooms I've lived in since. I've tried, and they look ridiculous and are probably being robbed of their sound quality and performance from the lack of space.

Ahhhhh...the "living at home" days...reminds me of when I dragged my Becker DJ cabinets up to my room -- with their 18" sub drivers -- and shook the dishes off the wall of my neighbor's house...

Also, a great pair of bookshelves can sound better and still have more bass with 6" woofers then a mediocre pair of big floorstanders with 12" woofers. I've learned this through trial and error. The amount of bass my B&W bookshelves put out in my room (without a sub) was nothing short of amazing!

You know something? I can believe that -- tonight I hooked the Onkyo 8555 up to my Polk R20 bookshelves, and the bass was absolutely SHOCKING. I mean you could FEEL the bass from a room away when I cranked up a Gwen Stefani CD (the only disc I could reach for in storage) -- this receiver really kicks *** and really made my R20's come to life, for what they're worth; so I believe in the "bass from a bookshelf" theory now.

When I sold my mint $450 B&W bookshelves on Audiogon a while back (done so out of necessity), I was still able to get $300 for them (and they sold immediately). Even though I get discounts in shipping UPS were I work, it still cost around $30 to ship after my exceedingly excellent packing job . Had these been the large floorstanders from that line, I probably never would have been able to sell them at a decent price, as the shipping costs would have been too expensive for the buyer.

Understandable.

I know not everyone thinks about or is concerned about this, but I always think of possible re-sale/trade in situations. Unless you have something really fantastic or special, huge speakers are generally difficult to get rid of at a fair price. If you got the money and the room for them, then more power to you.

Well, I can understand this, it's just that I don't ever think of resale; I suppose a lot of people do, especially with cars.

I used to have a lot more then I do now. I mostly pick up late 70's/80's type stuff for cheap when I can find them.

But why? Just to have it?

With 45's, it's important to have the original pressings, as most reissues sound like total crap. And the only ones I can usually find in NM condition are those from that era.

I have MANY original pressings from my DJ days, and have quite a collection now; many of the titles are on Columbia's "Collectibles" label, with some being reissues and some being original cuts.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

OK, but can you provide any examples? BB doesn't even sell 2-channel receivers anymore at the level of yours and mine, and serious HT enthusiasts wouldn't settle for the usual entry level models BB carries. In what way are the current crop of BB's offerings not "Best Buy Specials"?

No, that's not what I was saying; I was disagreeing with another aspect of that response. I DO agree that the receivers they're selling NOW from Sony and Denon are of the REAL cheap "BB Special" variety.

I bought a Sherwood receiver years ago in a pinch for around $120. The thing was a piece of crap, and blew away any notions of the "all amps sound the same" theory. This was one of those instances where I lost money listening to that advice (all amps sound the same - thanks Audiogon!) and found it to be lacking, even though I wanted to believe it. But deep down I knew it wasn't totally true. I was just fooling myself and trying to get away with being cheap.

LOL...Sherwood...

I recall an article in Home Theater over the summer in which they reviewed a Sherwood surround receiver and they had just gotten on the HDMI bandwagon -- the thing put out like 1/8th of its "rated" power and it got a laughable review by the mag; I can't believe that company is still in business.

Needless to say, I haven't seen anything at all by Sherwood in a long time. I think even BB has washed their hands of them!

Indeed...where do you buy those things anyway? Is there like a Sherwood Fanatic site or something?

Even though I consider allocating $250 for some type of amp "in a pinch", you wisely came here for advise and are probably getting the best possible unit you can for the money. It will certainly be much better than that above mentioned Sherwood I had.

Oh come on, how can you even compare these two? Let me tell you -- LISTENING to the TX-8555 tonight through the R20's cranked up, THIS RECEIVER IS IN NO WAY BEING USED "IN A PINCH"...trust me. The dynamics were ridiculous, the punch was tactile in response and pitch and the amp just sounded clean. This was DEFINITELY worth the sub-$300 price I paid.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Hey... I like my transistor radio from the 70's, and I hook my portable single cassette recorder with the one speaker, big ugly buttons and retractable handle up to it, so you'd better watch it buster!

My Onkyo receiver can blow it out of the water!!!

If it was one of the good relics from a diminished planet of audio which was swept away by an exploding purple sun still being made today... I'm all for it.

The point was, I wasn't as far off with regard to that analysis as you thought I was.

Absolutely true.

Maybe...

So... the beast has arrived? Excellent! I can't wait to hear about it. I'm sure you will most likely be happy. If your not, you can PM me to save yourself some public embarassment... just kidding!

LOL. Indeed, it has arrived and I got it hooked up to the R20's for a "test run." MAN, does this thing CRANK...I know it's "rated" at 100 watts x 2, but after adjusting Onkyo's "IntelliVolume" level matching system for the amp, the dynamics coming out of this thing were ridiculous...for what I spent, in that context. UNBELIEVABLE bass from the bookshelves; to the point they sounded like good towers were sitting there...lots of headroom and wide dynamics...the receiver really does sound good.

Yes, some of these new units are so cheap they move around when your pushing buttons or connecting cables or headphones. Very annoying after you spend time aligning your units on your rack perfectly.

Funny you mention this...I just tonight began thinking how I'd like to get rid of the open-glass-shelved Bell'O "Audio Tower" I'm using for a rack for the two channel room, as it's really not concealing any wiring and just looks cheap at this point...any recommendations for a good rack for audio gear?

I had a Project TT once that had the power switch under the left side of the plinth (annoying). Sometimes when I turned it on (especially while drunk) it would slide out of place or wobble on it's three feet. I guess four feet would have just cost too damn much.

You can be guaranteed that a Technics SL-1200 would never dream of doing such a thing!

What is it with you and getting drunk, then dropping or smashing audio equipment? Is this a common occurance in your habitat?

Check out this brief link on the King of all receivers... the Pioneer SX-1980. http://www.silverpioneer.netfirms.com/sx-1980.htm This was the most powerful, heavy and impressive stereo receiver ever made. As far as receivers go, nothing like it was ever produced before or since. To reproduce this same unit today, it would cost over $4000! An excellent example of one of these can still reach into the four figures on ebay!

Wow...I'll have to read that when I get a chance...

Yes, the reference line is impressive, but over priced. For serious Marantz fans only. Although I've seen these units sell for considerably less then the MSRP.

Really? Where? I'd like to see that because I know retailers like Crutchfield have prices that can send me into the ER for Marantz Reference...

If your unit has a toroidal transformer with everything else it has and is claimed to be, then it would constitute one of the single best deals on the audio market today. On a par with Behringer speakers and Emotiva gear.

I'm almost certain that it doesn't though, as there would little reason for Onkyo to have a higher end integrated amp if it did.

You're probably right, but I'll double check...I know it DOES sound kick *** though, with its discrete output stage...

No... but what I do know is that when conversations and articles about really good speakers come up, the Polk name is scarcely ever acknowledged.

Well, in the realm of speakers, there are absolutely INFINITE numbers of choices up and down the price spectrum -- as I said, I wrote an article about a guy who owns "Loimanchay" speakers, and they go for like $150K U.S. per pair, depending on how you configure them. If you discuss speakers amongst people who buy FROM THIS CLASS, of course Polk wouldn't be mentioned; again, it's a "bang for the buck" mid-fi choice that's enjoyed by many.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

After hooking up the 8555, I went down into the HT and threw in a live Peter Gabriel CD and cranked up "Red Rain" through the Polk RTi12's powered by the Onkyo 605...want to know something? I THOUGHT THEY WERE PERFORMING IN FRONT OF US. The soundstage was ridiculously wide and the drums could be felt almost through your chest (I had to back the volume down because the wife just didn't care for it that screaming); I'm happy with my Polk RTi12's.

I said they MAY be better for HT. I wouldn't know, as I said before I bought my Polks for surrounds and center channel and I could barely hear the things due to the lousy multi-channel capability at the time.

Okay...I'm just reporting that they're a popular HT speaker.

And it's very possible that certain speakers can be better for HT than music, even the audio atheists would agree to that. Speakers are highly variable. Some speakers can be colored or darkly voiced to perform better with loud movie soundtracks.

I'm sure this could be debated; I just don't succumb to the whole "this speaker MUST be used for two channel!" argument when it comes up.

I just read another post were a respected Audioholic recommended against using Behringer Studio Monitors for HT use due to their extremely flat and neutral characteristics. That's great for music, but not always ideal for movies.

Probably true then. I would just pick a speaker I liked to listen to and place them where I needed them, and if they didn't work in that situation, try and find a solution.

I myself have been content with most of the TV/Movie 2-channel sound out of my speakers, but that aspect of sound isn't as important to me.

WHAT!!!!??????!!!!???

Yes, that Denon was great, and I was going to get one from Crutchfield but they were gone once I had the chance. They were around for a long time, and show up frequently used on Audiogon and ebay in near mint condition. I may go ahead and get one just yet if a great deal comes along, but I think I may go with Marantz.

Can't go wrong with Denon or Marantz. But did you ever see that beast of a power amp Denon sells with the VU meters? Holy Christ on a Cracker...that thing is a BEAST!

I'd like to have a matching system as much as possible, both for looks and compatibility issues, and Denon doesn't make the other components that suit my needs. Marantz is the only one that comes the closest to making all the gear with the features I want (minus the tape deck).

Interesting...I used to believe in the "getting all the gear from one manufacturer" theory, so it all kind of worked together well and looked good in a rack...today, my pieces are from all different manufacturers. I even used to own a Kenwood tape deck because I had the integrated amp!

I don't know, the integrateds and separates are still in demand, and most of the major manufacturers still make one. Denon still has a "high end line", but they look spacy and weird and I don't care for them.

There may be a small demand, but most are turning towards multichannel (receivers) and that's why we don't really have an abundance of good choices -- although perhaps you're right because I was just reading in the Absolute Sound that there is an overwhelming PLETHORA of available ultra-high-end stuff around for those who can afford it -- ridiculously expensive tube amps and turntables and the like.

Thing are different in Europe/Japan though, were they still appreciated good 2-channel and quality. They regularly get these units from the major producers that are great and look beautiful but are unavailable in the USA. Take a look at them and see what I mean.

You're right -- I KNOW the Europeans (especially the British) are hardcore audiophiles and they demand gear that's seriously over the top; hence why there are great British-sourced audio companies.

I've been complaining about this for years, but I and others like me are forced to suffer because of the masses of humanity in America who tolerate mediocrity and whose main goal in life is visual stimulation.

Indeed...let's keep Bose and AIWA in stock for these folk, shall we?

 

[Cristofori]

The stands I bought for the R20's weren't that cheap at over $100 a piece for the Sanus Natural Foundations...I didn't have any experience with "real" stands.

No offence, but I think you got ripped off. Right now in Audioadviser.coms current catalog the Sanus Steel Foundations all metal stands are going for $149 a pair, and the Target FS-Series sand-fillable all metal stands with the adjustable spiked feet are going for $119 a pair.

This is a great deal, and I'm tempted to get some!

Ahhhhh...the "living at home" days...reminds me of when I dragged my Becker DJ cabinets up to my room -- with their 18" sub drivers -- and shook the dishes off the wall of my neighbor's house...

Yes, I miss them. Music always sounded so much better back then...

You know something? I can believe that -- tonight I hooked the Onkyo 8555 up to my Polk R20 bookshelves, and the bass was absolutely SHOCKING. I mean you could FEEL the bass from a room away when I cranked up a Gwen Stefani CD (the only disc I could reach for in storage) -- this receiver really kicks *** and really made my R20's come to life, for what they're worth; so I believe in the "bass from a bookshelf" theory now.

Great! Have you also now canceled your pending subscription to the "all amps sound the same theory" as well?

Although the acoustics in your new room may be different, I think it was a little more than that alone that brought the new life into your speakers.

But why? Just to have it?

No and yes. Sometimes I might pick them up just to have them if they are cheap enough (25 cents), but it just so happens there are a lot of tunes from the late 70's and 80's where there were only a few tunes I liked by a given artist, and I wouldn't want the whole LP/CD.

In many cases, the 45's are a lot easier to find then the sometimes OOP CD's or LP's or expensive compilations I don't want, and you can still find them in acceptable condition for dirt cheap, even cheaper than legitimate downloads, which I still refuse to do. Plus, a really great original master 45rpm can sound wonderful.

I have MANY original pressings from my DJ days, and have quite a collection now; many of the titles are on Columbia's "Collectibles" label, with some being reissues and some being original cuts.

In 90% of cases that I have experience with, the later reissue 45's of rock/pop music sound MUCH WORSE than the originals. If you happen to find any original pressings on 45rpm that you currently have as a reissue, pick them up and compare. The differences can be shocking. Or visa-versa, if you find a reissue of a known original that you own, pick that up and see how much worse it will most likely sound.

This is all assuming you get a defective free, NM example. The QC on many 45 pressings was rather poor with some labels.

 

[Cristofori]

LOL. Indeed, it has arrived and I got it hooked up to the R20's for a "test run." MAN, does this thing CRANK...I know it's "rated" at 100 watts x 2, but after adjusting Onkyo's "IntelliVolume" level matching system for the amp, the dynamics coming out of this thing were ridiculous...for what I spent, in that context. UNBELIEVABLE bass from the bookshelves; to the point they sounded like good towers were sitting there...lots of headroom and wide dynamics...the receiver really does sound good.

Great! If your that impressed with it right from the very start, it is probably going to be fine later down the road. If you keep having to convince yourself that the stuff you bought is great when your really not quite sure, that's were the problems come in.

I'm not sure what "IntelliVolume" is, but it sounds like one of those "bells and whistles" type of thing that would normally put a scowl across this audio conservatives face. I wouldn't be surprised if the (probably) better A-9555 doesn't have (or need) any such feature.

Funny you mention this...I just tonight began thinking how I'd like to get rid of the open-glass-shelved Bell'O "Audio Tower" I'm using for a rack for the two channel room, as it's really not concealing any wiring and just looks cheap at this point...any recommendations for a good rack for audio gear?

What you want in a rack for a stereo system is something vertical that you could put a TT on top (if you plan on getting one) and something that is open on all sides so you can easily access and/or clean your components. This is also important for ventilation. I remember putting my old big Carver amp inside a stuffy rack with glass doors and the poor things warning lights were flashing signifying that it was overheating! I took off the stupid glass doors and there were no more problems.

Those confining, claustrophobic old school racks with the glass doors/shelves are for people who care more about furniture and looks rather then the performance of their audio components.

I know you mentioned having problems with the Sanus wooden speaker stands, but I recently bought their expandable "Euro Rack" system for AudioAdviser.com. I got the vertical 5-shelf rack for $279.00 (free shipping), which was very easy to put together, and came neatly packed in a surprisingly small box.

You can start out with a 3-shelf version for $179.99, and had a shelf separately later on as it suits your needs. It's a pretty good rack for the money, and looks nice too. It also comes with both adjustable spiked and flat sliding feet and a cable management system which is just a hole running through the middle of the back of each shelf, but helps to keep your spaghetti straight.

A better, but more expensive choice would be the SolidSteel 3-Series, which is made in Italy and is $499 for the 4-shelf version. Unquestionably better built then the Sanus, it's shelves rest on isolated cones attached to the steel frame itself.

Of course, you can spend more than your entire system on a rack if you wanted to, but these examples offers some of that "middle of the road truth" in terms of quality and price that I've mentioned before.

WHAT!!!!??????!!!!???

Yes. Believe it or not, there have actually been recent periods of my life where I didn't own a TV at all. TV today is mostly a mind-numbing, brainwashing waste of time and I didn't miss it at all once it was gone. The only reason I have one now is because one was given to me for free, plus I got free digital over the air broadcasting. No matter what happens, I will NEVER pay another dime for cable again!

And 2-channel stereo sound from some movies can be pretty excellent. I remember watching Logan's Run on DVD and there was this scene where these birds were chirping all around in the background and you could have SWORE they were in the same room with you. And this from a cheesy 70's movie on top of that. I wonder what these same effects would have been like on a good surround system!

What is it with you and getting drunk, then dropping or smashing audio equipment? Is this a common occurance in your habitat?

Did I mention getting drunk and dropping my equipment before? I thought this was the only time?

Actually, I only dropped my audio equipment once when drunk. I brought down my NAD C325 BEE integrated amp and cheap Sony SACD carousel downstairs to my friends apartment to play some SACD discs. One the way back up, I dropped them! They still worked ok, but had paint from the wall and a few scuffs to the front from the fall.

To add insult to injury, we compared the NAD to my friends beat up, old Sony integrated amp from the late 80's, and the Sony was more powerful and seemed to sound better than my new, overly hyped NAD unit I was duped into buying. My friend cares little for high end audio, and was not biased at all towards his unit, which he got for next to nothing. But even he noticed a difference in favor of the Sony, and I had to admit I did too.

Needless to say, the NAD was sold on ebay not long after, minor damage and all. Chalk it up to yet another episode of over hyped, bad audio advice!

Really? Where? I'd like to see that because I know retailers like Crutchfield have prices that can send me into the ER for Marantz Reference...

I occasionally see them offered as demo models on MusicDirect or Elusivedisc for far less then the MSRP. Right now MusicDirect has the pair of Marantz KI-Pearl Series Special Edition Integrated amp/SACD player units for $4,995.

This is still mega-expensive, but going by the MSRP prices on Marantz' website, buying these units separately would cost $6,600!

You're probably right, but I'll double check...I know it DOES sound kick *** though, with its discrete output stage...

I'm glad everything is working out for you with this purchase, but if you can imagine, that A-9555 would probably be better even still.

Now, if only my Behringer Studio Monitors would finally arrive...

 

[PearlcorderS701]

No offence, but I think you got ripped off. Right now in Audioadviser.coms current catalog the Sanus Steel Foundations all metal stands are going for $149 a pair, and the Target FS-Series sand-fillable all metal stands with the adjustable spiked feet are going for $119 a pair.

This is a great deal, and I'm tempted to get some!

No offense taken; I probably did get ripped. I bought these "in a pinch" as you like to say from BB because I needed them right away for my R20's when we moved into our last condo.

Yes, I miss them. Music always sounded so much better back then...

Indeed...it sure did, didn't it? I just CAN'T seem to get into music like I used to anymore...back when it was a strictly two channel setup, with one rack of gear, and two speakers toed in towards the listening spot -- simple, clean and to the point.

Great! Have you also now canceled your pending subscription to the "all amps sound the same theory" as well?

Not quite yet...

Although the acoustics in your new room may be different, I think it was a little more than that alone that brought the new life into your speakers.

Indeed. I'd bet you're right. I'm also not crossing the R20's over any longer through a surround system with a sub; don't forget, the FULL signal is now being pumped from the TX-8555 into the R20's directly.

No and yes. Sometimes I might pick them up just to have them if they are cheap enough (25 cents), but it just so happens there are a lot of tunes from the late 70's and 80's where there were only a few tunes I liked by a given artist, and I wouldn't want the whole LP/CD.

Oh -- I thought we were talking about SPEAKERS...sorry...

In many cases, the 45's are a lot easier to find then the sometimes OOP CD's or LP's or expensive compilations I don't want, and you can still find them in acceptable condition for dirt cheap, even cheaper than legitimate downloads, which I still refuse to do. Plus, a really great original master 45rpm can sound wonderful.

I'm tempted to begin buying the newly-minted "heavy gram" vinyl that's been coming out on classic LP reissues...the local BB by me has some albums I'd pick up like Boston's debut, The Eagles' Hotel California, NWA's Straight Outta Compton, Def Leppard's Pyromania...these are awesome LPs.

In 90% of cases that I have experience with, the later reissue 45's of rock/pop music sound MUCH WORSE than the originals. If you happen to find any original pressings on 45rpm that you currently have as a reissue, pick them up and compare. The differences can be shocking. Or visa-versa, if you find a reissue of a known original that you own, pick that up and see how much worse it will most likely sound.

It also heavily depends on the equipment/cart and turntable being used.

This is all assuming you get a defective free, NM example. The QC on many 45 pressings was rather poor with some labels.

I've experienced this.