ascend + yamaha

[Buckeye_Nut]

The RXV2500 is NOT an entry level receiver.

Do your research.

Seagull, don't listen to him.

SheepStar

LOL.... you beat me to it!!

DITTO!

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

well I did some online research on the
HK AVR635 and while they do say it's stereo
sound is better, they also say it's not the most dependable
and here I'm like gmichael, I think given the choice between
better sound to sudenly in the middle of a movie
the thing just shuts down or any other incovenience
to me its just not worth it!

but ofcourse I'll audition the yammy and see if its that bad
for myself.

thanks.

What "THEY" say is unimportant. It's what sounds good to your ears that is important. The HK tends to be a warm receiver, and for some, that translates to dull and boring sound.

For others, it's quite the opposite. Dont let what someone else likes dictate what you purchase.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Lets not forget the basics during the receiver discussion. And that is that the room acoustics and speakers account for most of what your hear, the receiver by contrast contributes a very small amount.

Very outstanding observation!!!!!!!

People will argue over which is the better "sounding" wire, receiver, dvd player, cables, etc...etc...etc, all the while they're sitting in an untreated room with garbled sound bouncing all over the place.........LOL

Treating room acoustics will make a huge impact on sound quality, but very few people have taken that very important step to treat room acoustics. Ohhh.... the Irony.
I finally got around to going through the acoustical treatment process recently, and it was a sound revelation!!

 

[Sheep]

I think Buckeye_Nut had to much to drink.

SheepStar

 

[soundhound]

Comparing a beginner receiver like the 5860 to the RXV2500 is like comparing apples to oranges.

for his sake, i hope it is. the yamaha htr receivers sound like @ss.

 

[soundhound]

well I did some online research on the
HK AVR635 and while they do say it's stereo
sound is better, they also say it's not the most dependable
and here I'm like gmichael, I think given the choice between
better sound to sudenly in the middle of a movie
the thing just shuts down or any other incovenience
to me its just not worth it!

but ofcourse I'll audition the yammy and see if its that bad
for myself.

thanks.

reading between the lines, i can see exactly what is being said. "its stereo sound is better" means that the yamaha won't have as good music SQ, plain and simple. depending on how good (or bad) the HK is, that is not a good sign if you'll be using this receiver at least partly for music and not just dedicated HT. the music quality won't approach what i would consider a minimum 2-channel quality level, and to me that is unacceptable. maybe others don't care as much, but i like my music to at least sound like music and not cardboard.

these AV receivers simply weren't made for 2-channel audio listening. anyone who thinks they sound okay for that has waxy buildup or must have some other hearing problems. it's totally apparent when you compare them to even inexpensive 2-channel receivers. i guess it has to do with power, i don't know. what i do know is that i've auditioned a number of AV receivers, including yamaha, onkyo, and the panasonic digital receiver that everyone raves about, and comparing them to good 2-channel receivers (including denon, nad, and even an old sony), they all came up short against the 2-channel sound -- way short, in most cases. like i said, the only reason i tolerate the yamaha over the others is b/c i can pre-out it and get decent SQ running it through a 2-channel receiver. it sounds great in that case, but is unlistenable without it. and that's in the same room with the same speakers, comparing them all in the same exact listening conditions, so that is not a variable, as some have suggested.

but in the end, it's all about what sounds good to you. i hope you find it in the 2500, please report back and let us know what you think about it. gl.

 

[jcPanny]

Receiver reliability

Has anyone seen any real data concerning receiver reliability?
I have read lots of blanket statements about reliability but no facts. I think that the amount of problem posts is porpotional to the amount of sales, Yamaha and Denon having much higher volumes then Marantz, HK, etc. HK also sells a significant number of refurbished receivers through their harman audio store on ebay.

Also, a lot of the recent posts concern issues with HDMI which is not a problem with the receiver. Since HK doesn't even offer a receiver with HDMI, you don't see these posts about HK.

I happen to own a Yamaha, but consider Denon and HK viable alternatives.

 

[JennAir]

The mid-fi Yamaha's are very trasparent and the Ascends are know for a flat frequency response.

especially if you're getting neutral speakers like the ascends.

Yes, the Ascends do claim flat response, however, I don't consider them "neutral". I found them to be bright which is not necessarily a bad thing in home theater but for music....it's not for me. FR does not tell you what a speaker sounds like.

 

[silversurfer]

Yes, the Ascends do claim flat response, however, I don't consider them "neutral". I found them to be bright which is not necessarily a bad thing in home theater but for music....it's not for me. FR does not tell you what a speaker sounds like.

It could also be your room, if that is where you heard them.

 

[JennAir]

It could also be your room, if that is where you heard them.

Two different rooms, two different amps, tube and solid state. I'm not saying they're bad, just not what I would call "neutral" but hey, it's just my perspective. My idea of a neutral speaker (other than what I have) is Harbeth but they were out of my price range.