Best AV Receiver Brands?

[gene]

OK guys, We would like to hear your opinion on which brand you feel makes the best AV Receivers and why?

What is important to you?

• Features
• Sound Quality
• Ease of Use
• Reliability
• Connectivity
• Build Quality
• Power

When you're done gawking at Olivia Munn, cast your vote and check out our AV Receiver Reviews

Note. we didn't put a specific brand image to avoid biasing your opinion and we figured it would be a good change of pace to have something nice to look at other than AV Equipment for once

 

[brianedm]

I've never had anything but Denon. I've been through 3 and all have been rock solid with what is supposed to be the best room correction software. My vote probably shouldn't count though. Some friends have other companies receivers that I've played around with, but until you live with a brand for a while you can't really judge.

 

[macddmac]

I own 2 Denon, 2 Yamaha, 1 Integra, and 1 Sony. Out of the six, the Denon's have been in the shop 3 times between them VS. 0 for the other 4.
I still vote for Denon based on features ( primarily Audessy), UI, and the remotes.
Cheers, Mac

 

[surveyor]

View attachment 12068

OK guys, We would like to hear your opinion on which brand you feel makes the best AV Receivers and why?

What is important to you?

• Features
• Sound Quality
• Ease of Use
• Reliability
• Connectivity
• Build Quality
• Power

When you're done gawking at Olivia Munn, cast your vote and check out our AV Receiver Reviews

Note. we didn't put a specific brand image to avoid biasing your opinion and we figured it would be a good change of pace to have something nice to look at other than AV Equipment for once

1.Denon, Yamaha
2.Marantz, Pioneer
3. Harmon Kardon, Sony

 

[Cos]

View attachment 12068

OK guys, We would like to hear your opinion on which brand you feel makes the best AV Receivers and why?

What is important to you?

• Features
• Sound Quality
• Ease of Use
• Reliability
• Connectivity
• Build Quality
• Power

When you're done gawking at Olivia Munn, cast your vote and check out our AV Receiver Reviews

Note. we didn't put a specific brand image to avoid biasing your opinion and we figured it would be a good change of pace to have something nice to look at other than AV Equipment for once

Ranking: Importance
1. Sound Quality
2. Build Quality
3. Connectivity
4. Reliability
5. Power
7. Ease of use

Not surprisingly I go with what I use first. I have had many Yamahas in my past along with Marantz

My Rankings:
1. Integra / Marantz
2. Denon / Yamaha / Anthem

 

[fmw]

I don't have experience with all of these brands. I owned a Marantz receiver once when Saul Marantz still owned the company. I keep buying Pioneer products because they have been satisfactory and perfectly reliable every time. I have two Pioneer Elite products at the moment and they are as good as anything on the market in my opinion. But you must understand that my opinion isn't based on much personal experience outside the brand. I have a Denon tuner which is excellent. I've never owned a Yamaha product (other than a digital piano). They have a great reputation but I've never been motivated to move away from Pioneer. The smaller volume brands for me would simply represent an unnecessary cost because they do not benefit from economies of scale. I'm sure they are excellent products but they would have to perform meaningfully better to get me to pay extra for them.

 

[Steve81]

What is important to you?

• Features
• Sound Quality
• Ease of Use
• Reliability
• Connectivity
• Build Quality
• Power

All of the above, and aesthetics to cap it all off

In terms of features, I'm to some extent a less is more kind of guy. That's not to say I don't appreciate useful features like auto-calibration, but I can skip the networking features, 11 channels of surround, numerous DSP modes like "football mode", etc. Hell, I'd strongly consider Outlaw's bare bones pre-pro when my current Onkyo dies.

Sound quality? Yeah it's got to sound good!

Ease of use is pretty important. Auto-cal is nice for quickly setting distances and levels, though its still not perfect (i.e. poor choices in crossover selection). A good (preferably simple) remote obviously goes a long ways too.

Reliability? Well I'd just assume not run into bugs, failures, etc.

Connectivity? Heck, I could get by with 3 HDMI inputs (cable, blu-ray, xbox) and one output, one optical input (apple airport express to stream music), and a set of preouts for an external amp. I'm just as happy to see the legacy connections getting ditched, mostly because it frees up some room on the back panel for better spacing of binding posts, etc.

Build quality? I don't need excessive jewelry necessarily, but I can appreciate high quality binding posts & RCA jacks, a little brushed aluminum, etc as much as the next guy.

Power? Yes please

Aesthetically speaking, I really dig the Marantz look. Heck, if my Onkyo died tomorrow, I'd be sorely tempted to pick up a SR5007 to replace it. That it has a full set of preouts and MultEQ XT for less than a grand retail is also a bonus.

 

[surveyor]

Features
1. Sound Quality
6. Ease of Use
2. Reliability
4. Connectivity
3. Build Quality
5. Power

1.Denon, Yamaha
2.Marantz, Pioneer
3. Harmon Kardon, Sony

 

[little wing]

I have only owned HK and Yamaha. Actually the RX-V2500 was my first Dolby Digital receiver and it's still going strong. I had models from Integra and Denon in my system for demo (Can't remember the models) but returned them both and got the Yamaha. It had the best sound for stereo in my opinion. I don't upgrade gear very often, but when I do, I will be looking for:

1 Sound quality
2 build quality
3 connectivity
4 ease of use
5 features
6 Looks

I am looking at Anthem, although I am not crazy about the looks of Anthem receivers, or the fact that Anthem doesn't have 7.1 channel inputs. If got an Anthem it would render the 7.1 analog outs on my Oppo 105 useless. I'm sure the DACs in the Anthem are fine, that just doesn't sit well with me. I feel most of these receiver manufactures try to cram way too many features into one box. With smart TVs, blue ray players, and receivers connected to the internet, features wind up getting duplicated anyways. Another thing I don't understand is all the video processing. If you have a decent display and a decent player why do you need more processing. I don't know, maybe I'll just hang on to the Yamaha until I can spring for some decent seperates. That's my 2 cent rant..

 

[Pyrrho]

I own 2 Denon, 2 Yamaha, 1 Integra, and 1 Sony. Out of the six, the Denon's have been in the shop 3 times between them VS. 0 for the other 4.
I still vote for Denon based on features ( primarily Audessy), UI, and the remotes.
Cheers, Mac

Wow. They can make an unreliable product and you still think it is best. There is no way I would say that an unreliable product is the best, no matter what we are talking about. And in the case of a receiver, it isn't hard to make one that is reliable, so any that are unreliable just plain suck.

 

[templemaners]

What is important to you?

Features
Sound Quality
Ease of Use
Reliability
Connectivity
Build Quality
Power

My order would be:

1. Reliability - If it doesn't work or is buggy to the point where I want to throw it out the window, the rest of the list is irrelevant.
2. Connectivity - Needs to be able to hook up all of my gear. Minimal amount of legacy connections are a plus.
3. Features - Need a product that will do everything I want it to do. Room correction/speaker setup options (multiple crossover points, etc) is what I want.
4. Ease of use - I want a easy to understand GUI and a remote that is somewhat intuitive.
5. Build quality - I don't want something that looks and feels cheap, but I assign no value to having fancy binding posts on the back or VU meters on the front.
6. Power - Doesn't matter what's in the receiver as long as there is preouts on the back, which would likely connect to something with far superior amplifiers.
7. Sound quality - Don't believe for a second that any brand has a distinct sound or anyone could tell the difference when level matched and DSP's turned off. I'm looking at the speakers/room combination when it comes to sound quality, not the receiver.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Shouldn't Marantz be grouped with Denon, just like Integra is grouped with Onkyo?

Marantz/Denon

Integra/Onkyo

Anyway, I think Marantz/Denon, Yamaha, and Pioneer Elite are the best three.

If Onkyo had better reliability and customer support, I would rank them up there as well.

RELIABILITY (1) is the MOST IMPORTANT factor to me, followed by FEATURES (2).

 

[PENG]

I agree the newer Denon/Marantz models should be group together but not the older ones.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agree the newer Denon/Marantz models should be group together but not the older ones.

I wonder if Marantz will ever have an equivalent to the AVP-A1HDCI?

Then you will have no choice but to buy it for sure.

 

[Pyrrho]

...

What is important to you?

• Features
• Sound Quality
• Ease of Use
• Reliability
• Connectivity
• Build Quality
• Power

...

1. Reliability is the most important. If it does not work, it doesn't sound good and isn't easy to use. It is useless if it does not work. I buy receivers to give me pleasure, not to irritate me and waste my money on junk.

2. Sound quality matters next in importance. However, any decently made receiver will sound pretty much the same as any other one, when they are set up the same and exclusive proprietary signal processing is shut off. And since I normally don't use too much extra signal processing, this isn't going to be a factor in selecting a receiver. In other words, practically speaking, this is the last thing to worry about. It is theoretically second, but practically last.

3. Connectivity matters quite a bit, as otherwise, one cannot hook up all of one's gear to it. However, I have no excessive needs on this end of things, so nearly any mid-level receiver will be fine for this. I prefer something that can hook up some legacy items, but at the moment, I am using 1 composite video connection and the rest HDMI for my main home theater. For my second "home theater" (which is just 2.0), I am using S-video and composite only.

4. Features are important, and are mostly what one gets as one goes up in price (along with connectivity). However, a mid-level unit is good enough for features for me.

5. Ease of use matters, but for most things, I am not going to be adjusting them every day, so this, again, is not going to be hard to be satisfactory.

6. Build quality matters some, but I really don't want to pay for more than is actually useful.

7. Power is almost unimportant. Usually, either one will be able to drive one's speakers with just about anything, or one will want to buy separate ąmplification anyway. Certainly, for the price increases in receivers, one gets little power for one's money as one goes up the model lines. In my case, with my current speakers (which I do not intend to ever upgrade), just about anything will drive them satisfactorily, so this isn't going to be an issue for me.



Basically, the way I select a unit is to buy one that is from a reliable brand, that has the connectivity and features I need. Last time I bought a discontinued model for much less than the normal price, so I have a higher model than ever, but I doubt that I will go with such a high unit next time. I only want to spend more money if I get something actually useful for it; I don't need bragging rights about having a high end unit that sounds the same as a middle unit. And I don't want to pay extra for features that I am not going to use, or for more power than I need (which, again, if more power is needed, it is usually better to go with a separate ąmplifier anyway, so I am not going to be buying a higher model receiver for power).

The practical upshot of this is, if I were looking for a new receiver, I would probably be looking at something like the bottom of Yamaha's Aventage line. But I am happy with my old RX-V2700, which does everything I currently need it to do. When it dies, or I decide I need something it can't do, then I will buy another receiver to replace it, and not before that (unless I find a deal that is just too good to pass up, but it would have to be an incredible deal, as I don't need it).

 

[fmw]

Interesting. For me reliability is #1 as it is for you. Build quality is next if it relates to reliability. Features are not very important to me. As long as the unit will decode whatever the movie has for an audio format, I'm good. Sound quality is meaningless. All the AV receivers today have flat frequency response and inaudible distortion. I just run the calibration program and that's good enough for me since I don't consider movie or TV audio to be that good anyway. On direct stereo they all sound the same. I can't make much use of connectivity because i"m in the country and have limited bandwidth available to me. I listen to Pandora a little and that's about it. Ease of use is built in to my Harmony One remote. It handles all of that with a touch of the screen. Power? My AV Receiver never goes above 20 watts per channel except on the powered subwoofer. Any AV receiver can handle that. In my bedroom I have a Pioneer VSX-522 bottom of the line AV reciever. It has 80 watts per channel. It can decode DTS or Dolby. It provides 80 watts per channel and has 5 amplifiers. It has a perfectly competent FM tuner. It cost less than $200. If my expensive Pioneer Elite receiver in the home theater would blow up tomorrow, I could put the 522 in its place and not really miss much. I prefer to spend my money on the TV and the speakers. AV receivers are not very important to me as long as they are reliable.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Features are not very important to me. As long as the unit will decode whatever the movie has for an audio format, I'm good.

Features:

1) Decoding DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD, which older units cannot
2) Having AirPlay, which older units do not have
3) Having enough HDMI Inputs and Outputs
4) Audyssey XT32, Pro-Calibration, and Dual Sub-EQ, ARC, and other RC (although I don't care)
5) Network (like music streaming)
6) USB Input (for external cooling fans )
7) Pre-amp outputs for ext amps
8) 3D Video, which older units do not have (although I don't care for)
9) Pure Direct and Direct 2.1 mode (instead of only 2.0 mode)
10) Separate setup (bass, XO, Speaker size) for both movies and music

There are probably many other features people want. I think features are very important.

I also think RELIABILITY and BUILD QUALITY go hand-in-hand.

 

[Adam]

Not much love for Pioneer Elite on the poll, except for my sole vote when it first opened.

I don't own, nor have I used, all of those brands. It's a tough poll for just about anybody here to give a really knowledgeable opinion on. I've used Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer Elite, and Yamaha (but the Yamaha was before auto calibration came out). I went with PE because it's the only Pioneer brand up there, and therefore the only brand with MCACC. I've been a big fan of that since I ran it the first time in 2005. Having recently tried Audyssey (first on a Denon, then on an Onkyo that I still have hooked up), I don't like it as well. I can't speak to YPAO or other systems.

 

[fmw]

Not much love for Pioneer Elite on the poll, except for my sole vote when it first opened.

I don't own, nor have I used, all of those brands. It's a tough poll for just about anybody here to give a really knowledgeable opinion on. I've used Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer Elite, and Yamaha (but the Yamaha was before auto calibration came out). I went with PE because it's the only Pioneer brand up there, and therefore the only brand with MCACC. I've been a big fan of that since I ran it the first time in 2005. Having recently tried Audyssey (first on a Denon, then on an Onkyo that I still have hooked up), I don't like it as well. I can't speak to YPAO or other systems.

Well, there are two of us. In my experience forums like this one tend to develop "universal truths" over time that the group seems to follow. I think Pioneer Elite was more of a factor 10 or 15 years ago. Apparently the brand has lost some popularity over time. I can't explain why. It is the nature of forums like this one. I also think Harman Kardon gets short shrift for some reason. It has been a long, long time since the center of my stereo system was an HK Eleven and Twelve - more than 40 years. Those were wonderful components. Strong, military wired, great specs that you could check whenever the HK folks had a clinic at the local HiFi store. I also have a fantastic HK CD player that I put in to replace a very expensive unit from Audio Research after I learned that all CD players sounded the same. It is about 15 years old and still works perfectly. I've replaced it with a Blu ray player and a hard drive and put it in a closet. It is obselete but certainly not dead. I don't know why the HK brand isn't more popular.

 

[fmw]

9) Pure Direct and Direct 2.1 mode (instead of only 2.0 mode)

Just curious. If pure direct simply bypasses the processor, what do these modes do differently from one another?