I'm pretty sure I only need a stereo receiver, and I've seen that both H/K and Marantz make them, IMO two of the best budget manufacturers. They would also go well with the speakers I'm planning to get, which I've narrowed down to between the Paradigm Monitor 7's and Athena AS-F2.2.
Only problem is, from reading extensively online apparently receiver makers aren't pouring their R&D or effort into stereo receivers since no one buys em anymore, and they aren't even as good at cranking out stereo sound as the manufacturer's digital receivers! I don't need all the gizmos, I just want as good a sounding receiver as possible for under $400 (street price).
So whats the deal? Anyone else know about the stereo receivers (HK-3480, Marantz SR4320) sounding crappier than the digital ones?
I think the question is not really stereo vs. digital, Wesley, but two-channel vs. 5.1 "surround sound" audio-visual receivers. The amplification is the same, it is just the number of channels.
My own preference would be for good two-channel. If that is enough for your purposes, you will probably get a better amplification for your money.
Oh my bad, I thought "stereo vs. digital" was the same as "two-channel vs. 5.1 surround sound". Guess I was wrong there.
You nailed what my question really is: I only want and need a two-channel receiver, but I've heard that two-channel receivers from the companies like Marantz & H/K aren't as good as their 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 receivers, because no one buys two-channel and therefore they don't spend as much time making sure they're as good as possible.
Wes - While 2 channel receivers are becoming scarce, they still do sound better than surround receivers for music, dollar for dollar. I don't think you'll find anyone here who will argue that one. IMO, the reason for this is that you're only paying for features you need. The bells and whistles that come at a price in a surround receiver are eliminated. The money you spend goes into 2 channels of music, and not much more. You're not paying for processors, DSP modes, volume leveling, 5 internal amps instead of two, etc.
While a $400 H/K stereo receiver most likely won't sound better in 2 channel mode than a $2000 H/K surround receiver, the $400 stereo stereo receiver will run circles around $400 surround receivers, and maybe even ones twice it's price.
Sorry to keep posting. Seperates are seperate pre-amps and power amps. The units are split from each other. These are usually pretty expensive, but also usually sound much better than receivers.
You mentioned a budget of about $400. I have heard the Marantz and H/K reveivers you mentioned. Both are very good, and you couldn't really go wrong with either. They sound different than each other though.
Another option to consider would be an integrated amp. These are basically like stereo receivers, only without radio tuners. If you don't listen to much radio, or have satellite radio in your house, you may want to consider an integrated. They have a better build and sound quality (dollar for dollar) than receivers.
At $400, you could look at the Cambridge (can't remember the specific model, Azur something A), or NAD C320BEE. IMO these sound better than the receivers you mentioned. I went through the same process as you, but in the end picked up the NAD 320BEE. For me there was no comparison. You may find differently though.
Another thing you may want to pay attention to is if the units have have pre-amp outputs. This will allow you to upgrade with bigger or better amps in the future if the need or desire arises. I think the only one mentioned that doesn't have this feature is the Cambridge integrated.
" I've heard that two-channel receivers from the companies like Marantz & H/K aren't as good as their 5.1, 6.1, 7.1 receivers, because no one buys two-channel "
Personally I think that is all wrong - sounds like a bad, and possibly dishonest, sales pitch.
Good two-channel is going to go on being the core of a quality audio system.
Those are reputable brands you mention. Consider adding say NAD and Denon, go to a good dealer, and ask the same question - I think you will find those guys have not lost sight of two-channel stereo.
"Separates" is when you get different components from specialist manufacturers, instead of buying an "all-in-one" or "out-of-the-box" system. You get better quality from separates, and also you get to keep the parts that work so it is a better long-term investment- any future upgrade only needs to be of a component you think you need to improve. Going all the way, you might not get a "receiver" at all, but a separate stereo amp and radio tuner; even separate pre-amp and power amp.
Some people worry about compatibility but most inputs and outputs are standardized these days, and a good dealer will advise you if say, a certain amp/receiver is not ideal for your speakers.
Zorro
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Wesley McKain,
Separates are the combination of a pre-amplifier + power amplifier.....this set up will give you, in most cases, the best sound for music.
You can also have A pre- Amp + Receiver combo.
NAD make excellent amplifiers. The NAD C162 + NAD C-272 is just great value for the money. The downside is that separates can get pretty expensive, however, you can find nice used gear on e-bay or audiogon
Good luck
Zorro
Unregistered guest
Posted on
oops!
I guess we all posted just about the same time ! lol
In my experience, surround sound is only worth it if you watch a lot of Hollywood action flicks, or if you plan on listening to a lot of multichannel SACD/DVD-A music. If your taste in movies runs more towards dramas, comedies, and other low-kaboom type stuff, it is a waste of money which could be better spent on getting the best quality 2-channel setup you can afford.
I agree with Edster 100%. Had it not been for an honest salesman, I would have ended up spending about $4000 on a surround system to basically watch Seinfeld, Sports Center, and a few comedy movies. I have absolutely no complaints about watching these with my 2 channel system.
I do have an expensive multichannel system and I still agree with Eddie. Bottom line if music is your priority buy a musical receiver or integrated amp first. If later you want multichannel you can build from your 2 channel system. NAD and Rotel both make great integrated amps for near what you want to spend.
By Fall, Outlaw Audio should have their brand new stereo receiver (the RR 2150 at roughly $550). From what I've read they have increased the power envelope from 75 watts/channel to 100 watts/channel. In addition, it will have a USB Port for playing music from your computer or IPOD (or similar USB equipped MP3 player).
Otherwise, there are always NAD stereo receivers available used at Audiogon.com for much less. But they won't have the power and features of the Outlaw.
Thanks all for the good advice. I ended up buying the following:
Marantz SR5400 receiver Marantz DV4500 dvd player Athena AS-F2.2 speakers
I got just an INCREDIBLE deal on the speakers, and really the whole system. For all that stuff, I paid a whopping $916 (for which I pat myself, and you guys, on the back). I figured that I'd better go with at least a 6.1 channel, and since the Marantz's have pretty good power ratings and the 5400 was on sale, I went with that.
i just purchased used magneplaner mg 10s.im using an onkyo integra 100wpc reciever. the sound is very good, but ive heard could be much better w/ more power. any specific suggestions for an upgrade w/out a large investment?
We have more people getting tube (also known as "valve") amps and never looking back, dave. SP has a point. Take a browse through threads under the "Amps" topic.