HT receivers with excellent stereo sound?

[myu]

I've been looking seriously at home theater receivers in the $400-$600 range and have been overwhelmed by the choices out there. So many different considerations and technologies. But if there's one thing that remains most important to me, it's sound quality. I want to use a system primarily for listening to music, but then also enjoying home theater once in a while. My plan is to have the basic 5.1 (two front, two rear, one center, and a sub woofer) as a speaker arrangement, with the potential for 7.1 in the future.

Now I'm not looking for the most comprehensive HT solution... something that features the standard/popular codecs and sound/video processing of today, but does not have to be super sophisticated. Again, sound quality is most important.

Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, and Denon all seem to do very well with home theater sound, but get mixed reviews on music quality. Those who boast of it being "the best they've heard" don't appear to be audiophiles, while audiophiles file complaints about receivers creating bright, flat, or weak music reproduction.

The two I've seen come up most as being more "warm" and "natural" sounding are HT receivers by Cambridge Audio and Marantz. Specifically, I've been checking out the Cambridge Audio 540r and the Marantz SR5002/SR5003.

Has anyone here listened to any of these models in addition to the competing brands and have comments to share? Much appreciated.

 

[tundraSQ]

"audiophiles" don't listen to $500 avr's
Also "audiophiles" hate speaking in terms like neutral and warm...they want their gear to be invisible....so that you are not hearing the device...just the music.

I don't think you will notice any SQ differences between units in your price range, so buy the one that gives you the most features that you will use.

 

[pzaur]

Here's a good read.

I have a Yamaha 663 and love it. Great features at a great price. The Pioneer 1018 would also be worth looking into. A few more features at a fantastic price (it wasn't available when I picked up the 663). Keep in mind CES is happening now and the 2009 models will be rolling out very soon meaning the 2008 models will drop in price.

Speakers will be the biggest offender for bad sound.

-pat

 

[john72953]

At the price range you're looking at you won't find any difference in real tonal qualities between the vast majority of commercially available HT Receivers, so I wouldn't rack my brains trying to figure out which one is more musical.

Instead, I'd seriously audition the speakers you would match with the receiver of your choice. They will have a much greater impact on the overall presentation of the sound you want.

The previous poster was correct in his opinion as well.

 

[jostenmeat]

My 2 cents

I've been looking seriously at home theater receivers in the $400-$600 range and have been overwhelmed by the choices out there. So many different considerations and technologies. But if there's one thing that remains most important to me, it's sound quality. I want to use a system primarily for listening to music, but then also enjoying home theater once in a while. My plan is to have the basic 5.1 (two front, two rear, one center, and a sub woofer) as a speaker arrangement, with the potential for 7.1 in the future.

Now I'm not looking for the most comprehensive HT solution... something that features the standard/popular codecs and sound/video processing of today, but does not have to be super sophisticated. Again, sound quality is most important.

Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, and Denon all seem to do very well with home theater sound, but get mixed reviews on music quality. Those who boast of it being "the best they've heard" don't appear to be audiophiles, while audiophiles file complaints about receivers creating bright, flat, or weak music reproduction.

The two I've seen come up most as being more "warm" and "natural" sounding are HT receivers by Cambridge Audio and Marantz. Specifically, I've been checking out the Cambridge Audio 540r and the Marantz SR5002/SR5003.

Has anyone here listened to any of these models in addition to the competing brands and have comments to share? Much appreciated.

The best things you can do for SQ don't cost a dime. Proper speaker positioning (you'd be surprised at how bad these choices can be), and listener positioning.

That said, IMO for today, I believe by faaar and awaaaay that the most valuable feature in a midlevel receiver is room correction. However, RC cannot make up for massive compromises in speaker positioning, listener positioning, lack of treatments at first reflections, etc.

I use Audyssey MultEQ XT, and I freaking think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its pretty powerful and advanced, providing hundreds of filters, and the most inexpensive way to get it, AFAIK, is how I did. A refurbed Onkyo 805. Please note that XT is a superior product to regular MultEQ, or 2EQ. Some expensive products will offer more target curves, and then there are even pro versions which require, well, a pro with his computer to come over.

There are many other products out there, but its going to be near impossible to find fairly done tests comparing them. They include France's Trinnov (which some people love that correction can be turned off over 300hz), Pioneer's MCAAC (which people love that one can still tweak basic EQ to personal preference after calibration). Yamaha has YPAO, but I fear it doesn't work in the time domain as with all the others.

This is coming from someone with separate HT and stereo. With the latter, I am using a Cambridge integrated. As soon as I found out how impressed I was with XT in the HT (and that's after SIGNIFICANT treating of the room with plenty of heavy curtains, 9 large acoustic panels), that I immediately looked towards this for my stereo.

The economies of scale seem to disallow this product in the 2ch world. The most cost effective way to add it to my stereo seems to be a multichannel HT receiver acting as stereo prepro.

Therefore, my individual vote is to get the best version of this RC that you can. For best effectiveness, with money in the pocket, please consider where you sit, and where your speakers sit.

 

[myu]

Thanks for the quick feedback, folks--much appreciated.

I should have mentioned that I do have existing speakers, one set I'm keeping (Klipsch Heresy II's) and I'm also on the lookout for a new set for the rears and replacement sub woofer (old one just doesn't cut it any more). And I definitely hear you about how the speakers are genuinely important. It is of course the "final word" from an audio system.

Is there really much of a "matching" factor when it comes to the receiver and the speaker? Of course, ohm ratings must be accounted for, and mean power consumption (you don't want a 50W amp powering speakers that flourish at 100w). But if you've got that covered and both elements are of very good quality, shouldn't it all work? Or is there some additional subtlety to matching them?

I guess postings made by people about their experiences with audio equipment should be taken with a grain of salt... if someone says their Yamaha amplifier drove the speakers sounding "bright" and then a Marantz amp delivered a "warmer" sound, there could be a variety of factors influencing it (one of which being the time difference between samplings... ever had a "bad ear" day? ).

Anyway, it looks like mid-range receivers from Denon and Marantz both employ Audyssey sound configuring capability, while Yamaha does something else... so scratch that brand (plus, I had an issue with an earlier Yamaha receiver that went bad without any abuse or harsh environmental conditions; stuck on auto-protect, so the thing is a door stop now).