Recommendations for Stereo Receiver or Integrated Amp?

[anamorphic96]

Thanks everyone, for all your suggestions so far...I appreciate all of them. And thank you Anamorphic for providing that link for the Marantz; it looks tempting except for the claimed 40 watts X 2.

Here's the breakdown of the situation; I don't really want to get into the complexity of a stereo power amp and preamp combo (not that anyone suggested that but I'm just pointing it out), so that leaves me either a stereo receiver or integrated amp.

I would prefer an integrated amp because I don't really want or need to use a tuner for this application. I understand I can just "ignore" the tuner section of a receiver, but I feel an integrated would just be a bit more "serious" for this room.

Now, given these criteria, I could select:

-The Onkyo stereo receiver recommended by Anamorphic
-The Onkyo integrated digital amp I provided the link to (seems awfully expensive though)
-A Marantz stereo receiver
-A Marantz integrated amp
-A Yamaha integrated amp or stereo receiver
-The Outlaw integrated amp (or was it a receiver?)
-A Denon stereo receiver, maybe? (don't know how good these are)
-NAD amp or receiver

Or perhaps a handful of higher-end "boutque" brand models that anyone could suggest (Cambridge, PeachTree, etc.).

I still stand by going with the Onkyo TX-8555 or HK3490. This frees up money for better speakers. The speakers will dictate the sound you hear. Not the receiver or amp you buy.

However if you feel you need something more then go with the Marantz or NAD.

40 watts means nothing. It comes down to how efficient the speaker is and the size of the room. Look at the speakers they where driving in the Marantz review. The amp made those speakers sing. Even at higher volumes. Most of the time you are never using more than a few watts of power.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I still stand by going with the Onkyo TX-8555 or HK3490. This frees up money for better speakers. The speakers will dictate the sound you hear. Not the receiver or amp you buy.

However if you feel you need something more then go with the Marantz or NAD.

40 watts means nothing. It comes down to how efficient the speaker is and the size of the room. Look at the speakers they where driving in the Marantz review. The amp made those speakers sing. Even at higher volumes. Most of the time you are never using more than a few watts of power.

You say "if I feel I need something more" to "go with the Marantz" (or NAD) but you initially suggest the Onkyo or HK...but aren't the HK and Onkyo MORE powerful than the Marantz? Or are we talking different units here?

I totally hear you about freeing up the money for better speakers -- due to the fact that I am going to need a pair of towers for the HT setup to replace my current Polk R20s PLUS a new pair of towers for the 2-channel room, I am going to be pissing away money on gear over the next few months. Perhaps I should take the cheaper receiver route...

How do you feel about the Onkyo stereo amp verus their integrated amp I provided the link to?

 

[anamorphic96]

When talking audio. Watts per channel does not mean much. Its the impedance of the speaker and it's rated sensitivity. These specs are what matter most. Most of the popular speakers today have a sensitivity of around 88-91db with 1 watt of power at one meters distance from the speaker. What this means is the speaker is producing a sound pressure level of 88-91db at one meter from the speaker. Granted you will need more power the farther you are from the speaker but not a huge amount. This is why you really only need a few watts to obtain pretty loud sound pressure levels.

Another thing to keep in mind is a 100 watt amp will only produce 3db more sound pressure than a 50 watt amp. For every doubling of power output you only gain 3db in output. So 40 watts goes along way unless you are driving difficult speakers with a low impedance and sensitivity. Lets say 83 to 88db.

To be honest you should be looking at speakers first then finding a receiver/amp to drive them properly. The receiver or amp will have little to no effect in regards to the sound you hear. they only amplify the signal. The speaker dictates the sound. Then the room. So decide on what you are going to use for speakers then find a proper amp to drive them.

Hopefully this helps.

 

[anamorphic96]

I'm not sure what prices you saw on the Onkyo amp but you can get it at jr.com for 499.

 

[Josuah]

There is a dealer where I live that sells both those makes, but they focus mainly on Marantz' HT gear. I never got to hear the good stereo stuff. However, being a former NAD owner myself, I can attest that the stuff really isn't all that great.

I was embarrassed to find out one day that the C320BEE I was duped into buying from all the hype that it didn't even sound as good as my friends beat up late eighties Sony integrated amp when doing comparisons!

I agree with this (but cannot attest to the old Sony ). The main line NAD gear isn't that great. I only have experience with comparing the $500-$700 Onkyo line to the $2000 Marantz gear, but the Marantz sound quality is orders of magnitude better.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

When talking audio. Watts per channel does not mean much. Its the impedance of the speaker and it's rated sensitivity. These specs are what matter most. Most of the popular speakers today have a sensitivity of around 88-91db with 1 watt of power at one meters distance from the speaker. What this means is the speaker is producing a sound pressure level of 88-91db at one meter from the speaker. Granted you will need more power the farther you are from the speaker but not a huge amount. This is why you really only need a few watts to obtain pretty loud sound pressure levels.

Another thing to keep in mind is a 100 watt amp will only produce 3db more sound pressure than a 50 watt amp. For every doubling of power output you only gain 3db in output. So 40 watts goes along way unless you are driving difficult speakers with a low impedance and sensitivity. Lets say 83 to 88db.

Thank you; I am completely aware of the miniscule dB increase when jumping from 50 to 100 watts and all those concerns. After taking everything we're talking about into consideration, I won't overlook that Marantz with 40 watts per channel.

To be honest you should be looking at speakers first then finding a receiver/amp to drive them properly. The receiver or amp will have little to no effect in regards to the sound you hear. they only amplify the signal. The speaker dictates the sound. Then the room. So decide on what you are going to use for speakers then find a proper amp to drive them.

Hopefully this helps.

This did indeed help, thank you. Although, I disagree, respectfully, a tad bit with this:

The receiver or amp will have little to no effect in regards to the sound you hear. they only amplify the signal.

I have heard different receivers and integrateds over the years, driving the same speakers, that had different tonal characteristics; for example, the complaint many have of Onkyo's kind of neutral, borderline "metallic" characteristics in their receivers/amps I can actually hear with my own ears. There's a warmth that's missing from their electronics and separates that I simply can't describe accurately.

At any rate, being that I am going to need two pairs of towers at some point -- a pair for the HT room and a pair for the audio/media loft -- what would you recommend for music tonality and performance? Since I won't be using a sub in the audio room, I'd like something with more "punch for the buck" with larger built-in woofers...perhaps something from Def Tech, with their powered subs built into the towers?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I'm not sure what prices you saw on the Onkyo amp but you can get it at jr.com for 499.

Thanks; I'll check into that now.

Onkyo's list for this thing, on their site, was $699 or $799, I forget which.

How do you rate this against the stereo receiver you recommended from them?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I agree with this (but cannot attest to the old Sony ). The main line NAD gear isn't that great. I only have experience with comparing the $500-$700 Onkyo line to the $2000 Marantz gear, but the Marantz sound quality is orders of magnitude better.

Which $500-$700 Onkyo line? Their amps, receivers?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

Okay. Just got done doing some online research. The way I see it, here are what's available in terms of what I searched, and what I'd be looking at, retail price wise, for most of them:

Onkyo A-5VL Digital Integrated Amp ($700)
Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp ($800)
Onkyo TX-8555 Stereo Receiver ($350)

Marantz PM8003 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Marantz PM5003 Integrated Amp ($450)
Marantz SR4023 Stereo Receiver ($500)

Yamaha RX-397 Stereo Receiver ($300)
Yamaha RX-797 Stereo Receiver ($550)
Yamaha A-S700 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Yamaha AX-497 Integrated Amp ($450)

Now these would be more high-end selections...

Krell S-300i Integrated Amp ($?)

NAD M3 Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C375BEE Intrgrated Amp ($?)
NAD C355BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C326BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C325BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C315BEE Integrated Amp ($?)

Outlaw RR2150 Stereo Receiver ($?)

Integra DTM-5.9 Stereo Receiver ($?)

There are also some Marantz REFERENCE models that are out there, but daaaaamn...this stuff costs cash. The one I looked at was the:

Marantz Reference PM-KI-Pearl ($3600)

And there are a handful of more integrated amps, which run into the $5000 area; this would be out of my budget.

Now, based on this, does anyone have any suggestions as to which I should be looking at more so than any others, or which I should essentially avoid? Here are the ones that have sparked my interest and which I like:

Onkyo A-9555, TX-8555
Marantz PM5003, SR4023
Yamaha AX-497...or any of the stereo receivers, I suppose

Are there any other high-end makes I should be looking at which would be somewhat affordable? I looked at the Krells and NADs and even the Integra receiver, which seems to be a souped-up rebadged Onkyo 8555, but are there any others I should be considering? How about Pioneer Elite?

Should Yamaha even been considered on this list? I had one of their stereo receivers in an old system and it cranked pretty good; the only factor that made me place them on this consideration list.

 

[WmAx]

Yamaha P2500S professional amplifier. Top quality. High power. Drive any load. Non non-sense transparent amplification. If your pre-amp has only consumer RCA outs, you will need to get a Samson S-Convert adapter to convert the RCA consumer line to pro-level line output to feed the pro amp.

-Chris

 

[anamorphic96]

Okay. Just got done doing some online research. The way I see it, here are what's available in terms of what I searched, and what I'd be looking at, retail price wise, for most of them:

Onkyo A-5VL Digital Integrated Amp ($700)
Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp ($800)
Onkyo TX-8555 Stereo Receiver ($350)

Marantz PM8003 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Marantz PM5003 Integrated Amp ($450)
Marantz SR4023 Stereo Receiver ($500)

Yamaha RX-397 Stereo Receiver ($300)
Yamaha RX-797 Stereo Receiver ($550)
Yamaha A-S700 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Yamaha AX-497 Integrated Amp ($450)

Now these would be more high-end selections...

Krell S-300i Integrated Amp ($?)

NAD M3 Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C375BEE Intrgrated Amp ($?)
NAD C355BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C326BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C325BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C315BEE Integrated Amp ($?)

Outlaw RR2150 Stereo Receiver ($?)

Integra DTM-5.9 Stereo Receiver ($?)

There are also some Marantz REFERENCE models that are out there, but daaaaamn...this stuff costs cash. The one I looked at was the:

Marantz Reference PM-KI-Pearl ($3600)

And there are a handful of more integrated amps, which run into the $5000 area; this would be out of my budget.

Now, based on this, does anyone have any suggestions as to which I should be looking at more so than any others, or which I should essentially avoid? Here are the ones that have sparked my interest and which I like:

Onkyo A-9555, TX-8555
Marantz PM5003, SR4023
Yamaha AX-497...or any of the stereo receivers, I suppose

Are there any other high-end makes I should be looking at which would be somewhat affordable? I looked at the Krells and NADs and even the Integra receiver, which seems to be a souped-up rebadged Onkyo 8555, but are there any others I should be considering? How about Pioneer Elite?

Should Yamaha even been considered on this list? I had one of their stereo receivers in an old system and it cranked pretty good; the only factor that made me place them on this consideration list.

If it where me I would go with the Onkyo receiver or one of the NAD amps if the speaker had a difficult load.

You are are truly over thinking this in my opinion. You need to figure out and firm up how much you want to spend and go with whats available in that price range. Everything you listed is well made and will work well. If you don't like the Onkyo and feel amps sound different then look at the NAD amps as many people feel they lean to the warm side. I don't agree because there have been scientific double blind tests to prove that all well made solid state amps when operating within there specs and not clipping; sound the same. If the amps being compared are not level matched to within .1 db then the louder amps will tend sound different and more often then not be chosen as the better amp. No disrespect but your comparison of amps has no merit unless done under blind level matched conditions.

For speakers go out and listen and pick what your ear likes. It's extremely subjective. There are to many great speakers.

I have made my case on how I feel you should proceed. Good luck in your journey. Keep us posted on what you purchase.

 

[KEW]

I would stay away from the Yamaha receivers. My brother had a RX-797 which just couldn't handle low impedence. You may not have the low impedance issue, but I would still consider this as an indicator of poor design or build quality. He replaced it with an Onkyo TX-8555 without any regrets.

The Yamaha A-S700 is a different animal and is probably a good unit.

+1 for anamorphic96's comments.

Speakers matter.
Room acoustics matter.
Tone control and volume settings mattes.
Choice of amps - not so much. Just make sure you have adequate power and reliability (as best you can establish it).

You have quite a range of cost among your list. Put the extra money into your speakers. If you've got your final speakers, get something like this:
http://www.noiseout.com/Acoustic-Wallpaper.pdf

PS: I don't know how good of a product this specific brand is, but improving your room acoustics is more productive than buying a more expensive amp.

 

[Cristofori]

Thank you; I am completely aware of the miniscule dB increase when jumping from 50 to 100 watts and all those concerns. After taking everything we're talking about into consideration, I won't overlook that Marantz with 40 watts per channel.

When I brought up the 40 watts vs 80 watts between the Marantz integrated amp and their receiver choices I mentioned, that wasn't the main issue. The 40 watts was just yet another con rather than a pro for the integrated.

The others were a lack of pre-out/main in sub woofer inputs, no tuner, and only slightly better build quality in the integrated than their receiver. All for only $50 less. Seems you get a lot more bang for the buck going for the receiver, not to mention more watts, which isn't exactly a bad thing.

If you have $1000 to spend on a integrated, go for the SR8003, which is what I would hope to own someday, along with the magnificent SA8003 SACD player.

 

[Cristofori]

Okay. Just got done doing some online research. The way I see it, here are what's available in terms of what I searched, and what I'd be looking at, retail price wise, for most of them:

Onkyo A-5VL Digital Integrated Amp ($700)
Onkyo A-9555 Integrated Amp ($800)
Onkyo TX-8555 Stereo Receiver ($350)

Marantz PM8003 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Marantz PM5003 Integrated Amp ($450)
Marantz SR4023 Stereo Receiver ($500)

Yamaha RX-397 Stereo Receiver ($300)
Yamaha RX-797 Stereo Receiver ($550)
Yamaha A-S700 Integrated Amp ($1000)
Yamaha AX-497 Integrated Amp ($450)

Now these would be more high-end selections...

Krell S-300i Integrated Amp ($?)

NAD M3 Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C375BEE Intrgrated Amp ($?)
NAD C355BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C326BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C325BEE Integrated Amp ($?)
NAD C315BEE Integrated Amp ($?)

Outlaw RR2150 Stereo Receiver ($?)

Integra DTM-5.9 Stereo Receiver ($?)

There are also some Marantz REFERENCE models that are out there, but daaaaamn...this stuff costs cash. The one I looked at was the:

Marantz Reference PM-KI-Pearl ($3600)

And there are a handful of more integrated amps, which run into the $5000 area; this would be out of my budget.

Now, based on this, does anyone have any suggestions as to which I should be looking at more so than any others, or which I should essentially avoid? Here are the ones that have sparked my interest and which I like:

Onkyo A-9555, TX-8555
Marantz PM5003, SR4023
Yamaha AX-497...or any of the stereo receivers, I suppose

Are there any other high-end makes I should be looking at which would be somewhat affordable? I looked at the Krells and NADs and even the Integra receiver, which seems to be a souped-up rebadged Onkyo 8555, but are there any others I should be considering? How about Pioneer Elite?

Should Yamaha even been considered on this list? I had one of their stereo receivers in an old system and it cranked pretty good; the only factor that made me place them on this consideration list.

Wow! Some of the stuff you have listed wouldn't even be within reach of most buying an amp for their 1st system let alone a 2nd!

This IS a 2nd system we are talking about right?

Other than the M3, I certainly wouldn't include that other NAD stuff in that high-end bracket of yours.

 

[j_garcia]

My PM7200 is only 25W in class A mode and it has no problem filling my room. It does get pretty warm doing it though

 

[Cristofori]

If it where me I would go with the Onkyo receiver or one of the NAD amps if the speaker had a difficult load.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but why? It seems you believe all decent amps are the same. If I felt that way, I'd recommend going with whatever had the looks and features at the right price the OP wanted, and the ability to drive 4 ohm loads is fairly common with most of the better makes, which wouldn't be an issue for many people even if they couldn't.

You are are truly over thinking this in my opinion. You need to figure out and firm up how much you want to spend and go with whats available in that price range.

I can agree with this.

I don't agree because there have been scientific double blind tests to prove that all well made solid state amps when operating within there specs and not clipping; sound the same. If the amps being compared are not level matched to within .1 db then the louder amps will tend sound different and more often then not be chosen as the better amp. No disrespect but your comparison of amps has no merit unless done under blind level matched conditions.

Not having participated in a blind test myself (I would love to), I have questions...

Were the people involved highly interested in audio? Under what conditions are the tests done under? Did they really like or know the music they were hearing? What kind of mood were they in? Were they comfortable/nervous? Did they spend prolonged periods getting to know the amps? Have you ever taken the test yourself?

What do you consider a "well made amp". If the amp sections sounded the same, what about the performance of other things like tuners, or balanced connections, special buffered inputs, etc. How about a perfectly working quality vintage solid state amp compared to an equivalent new one? What about an opposite extreme like some Apex amp vs. a high-end Bryston or something?

And why do some tell me that all audible electronics supposedly sound the same when all visual electronics or many other things in the consumer have obvious differences? Have we perfected something (audio) to a degree that any half way decent manufacturer using different parts/methods can always achive the same results? That would be a first for humanity!

There are so many variables I question whether tests like this really tell the whole story, and the OP's comparisons of amps may have no merit (if true) in some cold, calculated scientific way on paper, but they may to the OP himself. If he feels good about the component and he THINKS it sounds better, then it does sound better!

That is what's really important.

 

[PENG]

If he feels good about the component and he THINKS it sounds better, then it does sound better!

That is what's really important.

I buy that theory if the person feels that without being influenced by the hearsays or highly skilled sales consultants. If a person has already come across those hearsays, such as NADs are warm, Rotel is cold, Bryston is neutral, all amps sound the same etc., and keep asking others to confirm one of such hearsays such as NADs are warm that he would like to believe, then to me it is an indication that the person is unsure about whether he heard the differences or not; and is wanting to hear from others to confirm what he would like or choose to believe that NADs are warm (just an example).

It is like what you said, if he thinks it sounds better, then it does sound better, but then why bother asking? In short, if you have to ask, and ask again, you can't be sure about what you say you hear, meaning may be the difference isn't that audible to begin with.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

If it where me I would go with the Onkyo receiver or one of the NAD amps if the speaker had a difficult load.

Thanks for your honest opinion here. I am just curious why you recommend such a polarizing two selections; the Onkyo receiver and NAD amp are different animals altogether, aren't they?

Still, that said, I am definitely eyeballing the Onkyo integrated amp...do you think this would work as well?

You are are truly over thinking this in my opinion. You need to figure out and firm up how much you want to spend and go with whats available in that price range. Everything you listed is well made and will work well. If you don't like the Onkyo and feel amps sound different then look at the NAD amps as many people feel they lean to the warm side. I don't agree because there have been scientific double blind tests to prove that all well made solid state amps when operating within there specs and not clipping; sound the same. If the amps being compared are not level matched to within .1 db then the louder amps will tend sound different and more often then not be chosen as the better amp. No disrespect but your comparison of amps has no merit unless done under blind level matched conditions.

Again, please don't get short or frustrated with my inquiries or depth of interest in these matters; I apologize dearly if that's what you believe is happening at this juncture. It's not that I want to "over think" this selection process, but it does mean a lot to me and it will take a big chunk of our alotted budget to outfit the separate music media room, so I want to be sure I am seeing all possible options (outside of the ridiculously esoteric stuff). I value everyone's opinion here.

For speakers go out and listen and pick what your ear likes. It's extremely subjective. There are to many great speakers.

I have made my case on how I feel you should proceed. Good luck in your journey. Keep us posted on what you purchase.

Thank you; I will definitely keep you all updated on what I selected. For the speakers, my criteria has been two fold and more daunting, as I am going to need a new pair for the HT front stage and a pair for the music room for two channel listening.

With regard to speakers, for the two channel system, I would like to get a pair that have somewhat larger woofers since I won't be using a sub up there...these don't have to be ridiculously high-end either...perhaps something that's even a few models old that sport large woofer sections...something like vintage JBLs perhaps? Do you have any suggestions there?

 

[PearlcorderS701]

I would stay away from the Yamaha receivers. My brother had a RX-797 which just couldn't handle low impedence. You may not have the low impedance issue, but I would still consider this as an indicator of poor design or build quality. He replaced it with an Onkyo TX-8555 without any regrets.

Thank you, KEW...I shall cross Yamaha receivers off the list -- that helps make the list and decision smaller and easier!

I am definitely considering that Onkyo 8555...what kind of application did your brother use it in?

The Yamaha A-S700 is a different animal and is probably a good unit.

I don't think I'd have the $1000 budget for this, but I put it on the list just as a possible...thanks though.

Speakers matter.
Room acoustics matter.
Tone control and volume settings mattes.
Choice of amps - not so much. Just make sure you have adequate power and reliability (as best you can establish it).

Gotcha...

You have quite a range of cost among your list. Put the extra money into your speakers. If you've got your final speakers, get something like this:
http://www.noiseout.com/Acoustic-Wallpaper.pdf

PS: I don't know how good of a product this specific brand is, but improving your room acoustics is more productive than buying a more expensive amp.

Thanks for the tips here; I don't think I'll be doing any acoustic adjustments to the room, but I will definitely look into decent amplification and better speakers.

 

[PearlcorderS701]

When I brought up the 40 watts vs 80 watts between the Marantz integrated amp and their receiver choices I mentioned, that wasn't the main issue. The 40 watts was just yet another con rather than a pro for the integrated.

I thought you were saying that I shouldn't look at the 40 watts per channel as "too weak" or "lacking"...

The others were a lack of pre-out/main in sub woofer inputs, no tuner, and only slightly better build quality in the integrated than their receiver. All for only $50 less. Seems you get a lot more bang for the buck going for the receiver, not to mention more watts, which isn't exactly a bad thing.

So, you say consider the SR4023 receiver, or another model of theirs?

If you have $1000 to spend on a integrated, go for the SR8003, which is what I would hope to own someday, along with the magnificent SA8003 SACD player.

I didn't see an SR8003, just a PM5003 or 8003 -- did you mean the PM5003?