Like

Need affordable receiver suggestion

 

New member
Username: Aoday

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jul-11
Hey guys,

I'm sure you get these threads all the time but any help would be appreciated. I am pretty much a noob when it comes to home audio. I recently got the Mirage Nanosat 5.1 speaker system and I need a receiver so I can put them to use! I am a college student so you know, something cheaper (around $200? I'm not really sure) would be a plus. I am mostly going to use it for music and a bluetooth adapter that lets me play music wirelessly from my laptop would be helpful.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16494
Registered: Jan-08
Welcome to eCoustics AoDay!

http://shopper.cnet.com/av-receivers/yamaha-rx-v371/4014-6466_9-34533967.html

http://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-YBA-10WH-Bluetooth-Wireless-Receivers/dp/B0013Z9F6G
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14326
Registered: Dec-03
Just a suggestion.. if you plan to use this system for music, and not television/movies, you may want to sell that 5.1 speaker system and just go with a good pair of floor standing main speakers.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1661
Registered: Oct-10
I agree with Glasswolf that stereo is best for music. Is there any chance you can expand the budget to say $400 - $500? You might want floor speakers or a pair of book shelf speakers and a subwoofer.
 

New member
Username: Aoday

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jul-11
Thanks for the replies everyone. Is there a specific reason that stereo is better for music? I would be using the tv/movies, just not as much. What do you guys think of the yamaha receiver that Plymouth posted vs. this one?

http://www.amazon.com/Pioneer-VSX-820-K-Home-Theater-Receiver/dp/B0039XQL2G
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14336
Registered: Dec-03
Yamaha makes good receivers, and while I might suggest Onkyo as an alternative, they would cost a bit more as well.

sub/satellite systems like you have are great for TV and movies, as you have discrete 5.1 and 7.1 audio channels on a DVD, or even with dolby digital/DTS on cable/satellite TV and OTA HDTV, but music is recorded almost exclusively in 2 channels, and has no ambient effects audio like gunshots, squeeling car tires, or crowds in the background that need rear speakers, nor does it have a dedicated center channel that handles 70% of your dialog audio.

floor standing speakers are typically designed for audio.. for listening to music, and will often have a warmer midbass since you have a larger cabinet, and the ability to have larger drivers that aren't dedicated solely to sub-bass. That siad, sat/sub speaker systams can reproduce music fairly well, and many people are perfectly happy with that for music as well as TV and movies, but I just personally prefer a dedicated pair of good speakers for critical listening of CDs, vinyl and the like... so while I do have a 9.2 audio setup for movies in my living room, I also have a pair of KEF 104/2 Reference main speakers, and a pair of martinLogan Ascent ESL panels each with dedicated amplifiers for listening to music, and the experience is better as such, at least to my ears.

It's all personal perception in the end, though.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16424
Registered: May-04
.


" Is there a specific reason that stereo is better for music?"


First, you need to tell us how you plan to use the system. You indicate you would have a preference towards music over video, is that right? In either case, how would you be listening to the system? If you are engaged in mostly background wallpaper, then a dedicated two channel system might not be the most preferable. As a college student, does your time allow you to simply sit and listen to music with the intent of enjoying the music for what it is vs just as background? If you will virtually never sit and listen only to music - no working on the computer, no texting messages to friends, no reading, etc. while the music plays, then possibly you might not find a two channel system more enjoyable. A lot of times those of us on this side of the forum expect you to use your system as we use our own. We own high quality systems because we engage in the sort of listening which requires full attention to those qualities a high quality music system can bring to the listening experience. Most of us are very aware of the three dimensionality of the "soundstage" full of performers and we have opinions as to which components most accurately portray, say, the sound of brushes vs sticks on a cymbal when we discuss two channel music reproduction. Not many of us care whether a cymbal sounds that much like the cymbals we hear in a live performance if we are listening to a 5.1 system. And to achieve what we feel are satisfactory results with our two channel systems we have invested a bit more money than most college students have to spend on a music system. So I would ask you to give some consideration to just how much time you will devote to music and music only without other distractions. If the answer you come to is that you will probably not have the ability to sit down between two well set up loudspeakers in your room to pay attention to just how well the system dissappears and the performers appear, then the matter of a dedicated two channel system is far more negotiable IMO.

If after you've thought about how you might use the system I would suggest you consider allocation of resources. Looking on the web I see the Mirage system on sale for anywhere from $349 to $799 and we have no idea just how much money you have to set aside for speakers. Quite obviously, when you are discussing quality of components, the fewer speakers you have to spread across the total amount of money you can spend will influence just what you might expect from the system. Putting higher quality components into two speakers is simply easier than puttting equal quality into five speakers plus a subwoofer. The two channel speakers will stand a better chance of being more accurate and playing somewhat louder with slightly more refined sound than will the 5.1 system just by allocation of resources. This would again come down to the expectation you have for reproduced music in your room. If your impression of music is that it should be rather amourphous and spread across the entire listening space, then a two channel only system is less likely to impress you. If your expectations of reproduced music tend more toward visualizing where each performer exists on that "soundstage" and detailing every move they make on their instrument, then that is more towards what you can achieve with a good two channel music system. If your preference is still for videos with more realistic effects which occur around you, then a two channel system most often looses to the multi-channel option. That's not to say two channels can't pull off movies or videos but they lack the viceral impact of effects which fly over your head or bounce echoes around the room.

If your budget for speakers is closer to $400, then you will have a few more decisions to make. Certainly, at $400 I would think high quality speakers will mean two stand mounted speakers and not two floor standing speakers - once again due to allocation of resources. On a tight budget buying simple is generally your best advice. If your budget is $800 for speakers, then you can open up your options somewhat though, IMO, a pair of standmount speakers with a very good sub will be the more musical approach to achieving high quality music reproduction. No matter which way you go spending less than $1k on speakers means there will be compromises and deep bass and loud volumes will certainly not be the most important qualities of such a system - two channel or the Mirage sat/sub.

How much room do you have to devote to the placement of speakers? Believable music reproduction somewhat depends on having the ability to place speakers within your room in locations which most people don't expect. Normally, you'll find that having the speakers close to a wall or the floor will make for less than stellar sound quality with muffled voices and sloppy - though substantial - bass. So a two channel music based system will perform more to expectations if the speakers can be pulled out away from the walls and placed in what is typically an equilateral triangle between the speakers and your listening chair. About eight feet in each direction works on average. You do have a dedicated listening chair, don't you? That place where you will sit and listen to the music and the performers who created it? See, now, if you don't have that and you can't or prefer not to have that one dedicated position for listening, then everything we've suggested for a two channel system begins to sound a lot less believable.

As far as amplifiers/receivers go, $200 isn't alot of money for either two or five channels. I can suggest a nice little $100 amp that is very basic and turns out very high quality music if that's the route you've decided you can accomodate; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/685077.html Otherwise, for $200 in a 5.1 receiver you should understand that most HT receivers in that price range are not built for longevity - allocation of resources, don't you know? A $200 HT receiver will probably get you through college but not much further before it requires repairs that simply aren't worth the money invested in a $200 HT receiver. While there are individual exceptions to that rule, expect most HT receivers to not be worth very much in a few (3?) years time. On the other hand, there are numerous two channel amplifiers that go for decades. And, if you really don't need or want a radio tuner attached to the amplifier, you can buy a higher quality two channel "integrated amplifier" - which is what that $100 two channel amp comes out to be. With internet radio opening up the option of access to thousands of stations, the need for an analog tuner is becoming far less of a selling feature for receivers. Does your college have a radio station? Is it important to you that you listen to that channel over a tuner on your receiver?

Music over your computer can be dicey as far as overall quality goes. For the most part, computer generated music is fairly compressed and low quality. While that is more acceptable through headphones, once you plug a lower quality source into a higher quality speaker, the speaker does exactly what it was meant to do. High quality speakers tend to show you the high points and also the flaws of the signal and low quality source material will generallly sound like low quality source material over high quality speakers. Garbage in = garbage out, don't you know? A few adjustments to your computer and knowing where to get your music from will often bring up the quality of computer generated music. However, most of us who listen to two channel music prefer to spend some money - at least a few hundred dollars - on an outboard digital to analog converter.

Don't forget to add some money for cabling to hook eveything together. While it's not a big expense, five speakers require more cable than will two.


I don't know if that answers more questions than it raises but those are kind of the most basic facts about starting in audio today.





https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/683171.html#POST1957791




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Plymouth

Canada

Post Number: 16529
Registered: Jan-08
Like Glasswolf say you can look also for a Onkyo which is the direct competitor of Yamaha which fit very well with the Mirage, for sure the stereo amp will give more for the money but you buyed a 5.1 home system speaker then I recommend you to buy a 5.1 or 7.1 receiver to get the potential of the Home theater so it's not so bad that someone can say.

Using a amplified subwoofer you will lost less quality!
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1671
Registered: Oct-10
AoDay, in my experience, Mirage Speakers work well with Denon receivers.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14342
Registered: Dec-03
for what it's worth, if you do look at Denon, definitely look at Onkyo as well. Just about every review I've seen states, and in my personal experience, having owned quite a few models of both brands suggests that Onkyo's audio amplification stage is better than Denon's for musicality. Most of the people to whom I've spoken prefer the Onkyo for audio output, and dollar for dollar, the Onkyo model will usually offer better features than the Denon.

Mind you, I very much like both companies, and I strongly urge you to audition both personally before pulling the trigger on whatever you choose.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1677
Registered: Oct-10
Well put Glasswolf. I prefer the sound quality of Denon, but Onkyo certainly has its merits.

Ao, keep us posted on what you end up with okay?
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1678
Registered: Oct-10
One thing to keep in mind though regarding features, many of the so called "features" on HT receivers range from useless nonsense to doing more harm than good. IMO, the audio signal path should be kept as simple as possible.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14351
Registered: Dec-03
when I say offer more features, I mean in each price range, the onkyo is usually one model above the denon in offerings.. ie, THX certifications, number of inputs/HDMI ports, power ratings, and so forth.. to get a denon and an onkyo receiver that offer all or most of the same things, you have to go one price level higher on the denon.. and that is usually a jump in price of several hundred dollars at least.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1689
Registered: Oct-10
True GW, but for the extra coin, the Denon may very well last longer. Just a guess.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14372
Registered: Dec-03
How long to you need it to last? I have some Onkyo components (an EQ, an integrated amp, and a couple M50x Integra and Grand Integra amplifiers) that date back to the 1980s.
I really don't think Denon's lower level consumer products are really any better than Onkyo's in any way.. of possibly even Yamaha's. Now if you're looking at their flagship stuff, it might be a different matter, but then you have other things to compare with at that level.
 

New member
Username: Aoday

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jul-11
Wow everyone is so helpful on this forum haha. Thanks for the descriptive post Jan, the difference definitely makes sense, but like you said I will mostly be listening to music for background play so I will most likely stay with the 5.1 setup since it's more flexible in terms of use.

As for how long I need it to last, obviously the longer the better but I'd expect it to last for a few years (4?). It seems like all the one's I've seen are pretty split between yamaha, pioneer, denon, and onkyo. Although the only one with a bluetooth adapter I've seen was a pioneer and yamaha receiver. Do the others not have them?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14377
Registered: Dec-03
I know onkyo uses wifi streaming as opposed to bluetooth, most likely because they don't have to pay royalties to IBM for the use of wifi as they would with bluetooth. They do have an ipod/iphone dock, however. My only other suggestion would be to avoid sony and kenwood. I've had nothing but nightmares from those brands over the past twenty years.
The reason I mentioned longevity is that I tend to keep stuff for ten or more years when I make a big purchase. Some people upgrade every year or two. It just depends on the person.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1690
Registered: Oct-10
Glad we could help Ao!

GW, I'd much rather have anything made by Denon than anything made by Yamaha over at least the last 15 yrs. Many people, including me, feel that Yamaha hasn't cared much about sound quality since at least the mid 90s, maybe longer. How many HDMI inputs do you need? Blu-ray, and either HD cable or HD satellite. What else? Also, for picture quality, it's better to run video signals direct to your TV and use a universal remote with macros so that it will switch your tv and receiver to the same source at the same time.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14389
Registered: Dec-03
I prefer to use the receiver for upscaling video, and not have a crapload of cables running to the television, since I have a single gang cable drop behind a 1.2" thick flat screen hanging on the wall with nothing visible for cabling. That said, HDMI? Bluray, satellite, cable, xbox, playstation, wii, home computers, HTPCs, video recorders/cameras, digital SLRs with full HD video capability (read: Canon 7D for example), and for upconversion, SVHS, Laserdisc, older game systems, etc etc..
One other thing to consider, is that I don't tend to buy a new AVR every year or two. I buy one every 5 to 10 years, so I like to have enough inputs to expand to whatever comes out next that turns into the new "must have" device.
If all you have is two devices, then fine. go directly to the TV and bypass the abilities of more advanced receivers to do things like audio sync and so forth. Whatever you prefer.
Yes, I prefer to keep the signal path as short as possible, but sometimes you have to weigh the pros and cons for your given situation.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1694
Registered: Oct-10
Well GW, to each his own of course. I actually run 4 sources right now, disc player (blu-ray, cd, etc.) VCR, cable box, & iPod dock. I'm not a gamer. My sons are into that and they have their own systems. With music being my main thing, sound quality is my number 1 consideration and Yamaha just doesn't cut it in this area. One other thing to consider since you mentioned upscaling, many TVs also up scale. You don't want to over do it on upscaling. It can do more harm to picture quality than good. Just something to consider.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14391
Registered: Dec-03
the upscaling chip used in the flagship onkyp AVR is outstanding, but yes the cheaper ones aren't that great. If you're really into audio though, your best bet is not to bother with mid range AVRs anyway and use a pre/pro, monoblock amplifiers, and a CD transport with an external DAC unit... I mean if you really want the best outcome.
I like the newer AV receivers offering things like Audyssey DSX, adjusting for room accoustics, etc, and ISF calibration features. However, I still use external amplification for my speakers. No AVR is that fantastic when it comes to the amplification section. Especially when the unit has to provide anywhere from 5 to 11 channels these days.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16450
Registered: May-04
.

"I like the newer AV receivers offering things like Audyssey DSX, adjusting for room accoustics, etc, and ISF calibration features."


I'll bite, how's a receiver determine correct ISF calibration? I've yet to see a display that didn't require the technician get into the sub-submenus for those adjustments. If it only tells you the calibration is off, I can do that for a few bucks.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1695
Registered: Oct-10
I agree GW, a receiver with 5 or more channels running off a single power supply is not going to sound super great. If said receiver has seperate power supplies for each channel, they'll be cheap and the receiver will cost way more than it's worth. If I were really into HT and had the $ to go with separates, that'd be the route I'd go. I can't even consider high end for music just now and music will always take priority. So, I get what I can afford and make it sounds as good as possible. IE, I have the 2.1 channel receiver that sounds best to my ears within my price range and the same is true of the speakers, subwoofer, sources, interconnects and speaker wire.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1696
Registered: Oct-10
So GW, what kind of speakers & sub are you running in your system?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14394
Registered: Dec-03
http://www.glasswolf.net/stuff/av/index.html

also a mark levinson pre/pro with a krell KSA-200 and a pair of martin logan ascent ESL speakers for music. I've been shopping around for a good amplifier recently with the idea of building a new sub or two for the home theater. I've been looking at building an enclosure for a 15" or 18" sub, and veneering it in an exotic veneer. It'd go nicely in my living room.

Jan, you misread. The receiver has settings specifically put in place for ISF calibration. The receiver doesn't do the calibrating of the video. Additionally, the receiver has Audyssey, which calibrates teh audio based on room acoustics which I'm sure you know.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1698
Registered: Oct-10
I hope you have a big room for subs that size.

How exactly are the calibrations done? I'm guessing something external connected to the receiver is required?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16451
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan, you misread. The receiver has settings specifically put in place for ISF calibration. The receiver doesn't do the calibrating of the video. Additionally, the receiver has Audyssey, which calibrates teh audio based on room acoustics which I'm sure you know."


Yes, I'm familiar with the Audyssey software. I haven't heard it demonstarted so I won't make any real comments on it but it does seem to be a tad ridiculous to expect this software to be all that effective when it's included in the price of an HT receiver. And my opinion of just piling on more buttons and googaws isn't all that high to begin with. The better to make the receiver disposable in two years time because no one can actually fix the d@mn thing.

Similarly, I have no idea how the video processing would even be demonstrated in a showroom. But in this case my logic would tell me this is pretty much a BS feature. Either the video circuits pass a signal without interfering with it or they screw with it. If you have to designate the display has been ISF callibrated for the receiver to accurately pass a signal ...


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1701
Registered: Oct-10
Assuming we talking about the TX-NR5008, this is a $2700 receiver. So, there is at least a reasonable chance that the ISF cal and room acoustics adjustments are decent. Just because a piece of audio or a/v gear is mass market, that does not mean it's completely worthless. Neither does it mean that included features like those in GW's receiver are necessarily BS. My suggestion would be to see about getting a demo of such features before simply assuming that they are garbage. Of course the demo will only tell if these features work initially. Longevity can only be determined by owning said unit over time.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16455
Registered: May-04
.

GW, can you tell me what the receiver does differently when it is set up for an ISF calibrated display?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2450
Registered: Oct-07
An ISF cal is for the Display. How does the receiver get mixed up in this? Is is the ONLY source?
Each source needs its own cal to look best. I cal'd using my DVD player and a calibration disk, than tried to make the small dish input match.

Than, of course, some people don't like the look of a cal'd display. It doesn't look 'hot' enough or bright enough.

If you want a 'taste' of what a cal'd display looks like, get something like Digital Video Essentials, which will, if used properly, get you to well over half way to an ISF cal. For a fraction of the $$.
In store displays are always set for brighter / hotter, more saturated color to grab the eye. NTSC is the color system in the US. It stands for No Two Same Color.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16456
Registered: May-04
.

"An ISF cal is for the Display. How does the receiver get mixed up in this?"


Glasswolf said this, leo ...


"The receiver has settings specifically put in place for ISF calibration. The receiver doesn't do the calibrating of the video."


I'm now trying to find out just what the receiver does or why it matters to the receiver whether or not the display has been calibrated to a specific set of points. IMO the video enhancement circuits in the receiver really shouldn't be messing with such things as whether cyan meets ISF standards. Until I find a good answer to that question, this will remain a BS feature that adds nothing other than complexity, cost and interference to the repair tech who must deal with any receiver incorporating this software.

I've always considered ISF calibration to be overblown in its suggestion from the HT magazines. There are clients to whom I suggested the set up but for most Dallas clients, they just wanted to make sure that big blue star on the Cowboys helmets was nice and clear - Sports setting and crank up the contrast! As you've stated, to be truly accurate, the display would have to be calibrated for each input which isn't allowable on many consumer oriented products. And once the display or projector has been calibrated most people who have the procedure done don't really have environments which support the settings on the display. Today there are sufficient guidelines to be found in on line reviews of most decent TV's or projectors which will allow the average consumer to get very close to the ISF ideal without having a tech do all of the adjustments; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=isf%20calibration&type=


Still, why should the HT receiver care whether the red chroma has been adjusted for ISF standards? I don't get it. And I see no way for this feature to be demonstrated through a showroom display. It comes down to the salesperson pointing at the remote and telling the client, "Here's another geegaw you're going to pay for that you'll never understand and never use that will ensure this receiver needs to be sent to the regional service center for any problems".


One of the lessons I learned in sales was to never tell a customer what was about to happen in a demonstration, it wastes both people's time and often the client can't tell anything has happened. Only tell them what has just ocurred - on the off chance that what was supposed to happen actually didn't come off or the client preferred the pre-demonstration mode.

One of the best demonstrations I ever had the opportunity to use was the auto-reverse feature on the 1980's Nakamichi cassette players. Fast forward the tape to near the end of one side, hit play and as the player recognized the leader tape vs magnetic tape the auto-reverse Nakamichis slid out the cassette tray so the customer could see exactly what was happening and then it physically flipped the tape to the opposite playing position before it automatically and silently drew the cassette tray back into the machine and commenced play mode of the "opposite" side of the tape. It never failed to get a laugh from the customer and wide eyed appreciation of the mechanics. Anyone considering a Yamaha, Lux or Denon player who could bump their budget a hundred bucks or so was just as automatic in their response to the Nak's as was the player itself. The tape player closed the sale for me! All I had to do was ask whether the client preferred the deck in black or silver face.


Receiver adjustment for ISF display calibrations just doesn't sound nearly as impressive.






.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14400
Registered: Dec-03
as you said, each device should have it's own calibration, and since the TV has fewer HDMI ports than the AVR, would it not make sense, using the AVR as a video switch, to calibrate each device's video output via the AVR?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16460
Registered: May-04
.

"via the AVR?" How's that gonna work?


We're treading waters I can see little use for, GW.

" ... and since the TV has fewer HDMI ports than the AVR ..."

And they'll all be obsolete - again - once they change the HDMI codes -again! Really, should a receiver have more video inputs than a TV? I'm thinking not.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Glasswolf

Columbia, South Carolina

Post Number: 14401
Registered: Dec-03
Here's a more important question:
Why can't we just update HDMI revisions via firmware flash?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 16461
Registered: May-04
.

Here's an even more important question; for $2700 why can't manufacturers build a component that actually sells on its sound quality rather than the number of features on the front/back/remote?

I suppose, even more importantly, just how long does the manufacturer/retailer/consumer think a $2700 AVR full of features and short on power supply is going to last?

I've worked in a shop which was the regional service center for both Yamaha and Marantz. One of my best friends was the person most companies turned to to solve the real BS problems they had created for themself. And from experience I can tell you each of those three has a distinctly different answer to that last question.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2452
Registered: Oct-07
Jan Said:
'm now trying to find out just what the receiver does or why it matters to the receiver whether or not the display has been calibrated to a specific set of points. IMO the video enhancement circuits in the receiver really shouldn't be messing with such things as whether cyan meets ISF standards. Until I find a good answer to that question, this will remain a BS feature that adds nothing other than complexity, cost and interference to the repair tech who must deal with any receiver incorporating this software.


EXACTLY:: And another good reason I'll avoid HT for the forseeable future. 25 pages of onscreen menu, a PAPER manual the size of a phone book, while the manufacturing company generally treats it as a planned obsolescence commondity.

The display should be calibrated AT THE DISPLAY and per input.
 

Gold Member
Username: Superjazzyjames

Post Number: 1703
Registered: Oct-10
Bottom line GW, If you like your receiver and what it does, enjoy it.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us