I need a good cheaper amp or receiver... will buy used!
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 85 Registered: Oct-05 | I am looking for a cheap stereo receiver of the best quality that I can find. My mother had put me in charge of buying her a home audio system for her living room, which is all hardwood floors (or will be in a week - just had the house built!). I found a steal on a pair of Infinity Beta 50s, recommended power amplifier range of 10-250 watts. The plan was to give her an old Yamaha CA-1010 that needs repairs but was a good amp when it worked, but it needs a lot more work than I had expected so on to plan B. She does not have a lot of money to spend, as she just built a house. I am trying to keep the price under $400 (including shipping or taxes or whatever) and buying used is not a problem as long as it is perfect working order. I have a tuner that I am not using that I can give her, so an amp or a receiver will work. What I am very interested in is a NAD C352 (or possibly a C320BEE even). I have seen them used in the lower $300s, so it is a very good possibility. I just read a bad review of one, and I have read many good reviews of them too. I found a store in Albany that sells them, so I will take a ride down on my day off on Friday and give them a listen. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 86 Registered: Oct-05 | The Denon DRA-685 is also an option. I can get them for under $300 pretty easily. I found a NAD C352 for $400 with a JB Cables power cord, Max. Reference or whatever, one of those really expensive ones. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 733 Registered: May-05 | Which store in Albany sells NAD? The only one I know of is Hippo's, but they are no longer an NAD dealer. They stopped selling them about a year or so ago. The NAD C352 is a great integrated amp. So is the C320BEE (I own the BEE). Their are a lot of threads about them under the integrated amps section. The C352 is the better of the two, but for my applictaion and budget, the C320BEE worked out better for me. Unless you don't like the NAD sound (very few people don't) you can't go wrong with them. They are also notorious for under rating their power output, so don't get too hung up on them being lower powered. I also have a 35 watt NAD integrated (304) which ran circles around my NASC room mate's 100 watt Kenwood. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 87 Registered: Oct-05 | Hippos was still listed as a NAD dealer on the NAD website, so I guess nobody does. I went to Spearit Sound in Northampton today and heard a C372. I really liked the sound of it a lot. The bass definition was great and the highs were not too bad either. Speakers were Paradigm Studio 40s. The C352 is more in my price range, but they had one in a box and none on display so I did not get to hear that. I played a Cambridge unit that was a little cheaper (which is always good) but it only took me about 30 seconds to completely rule that out. I play most my music these days on my home system that ran me all of $40 and that has far better definition on the lows and maybe all around. What I also got to hear is a Jolida Model JD 202A, 40 watt tube amplifier. Costs a little more but it sounds really good. There was a little drop off in the higher low frequencies, but the very low frequencies (lower than you hear on most amps!) were very clearly defined. If my speakers max out at 150 watts, would 40 tube watts be sufficent? Or how about the 80 watt NAD C352? |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 508 Registered: Mar-04 | if you're willing to spend $400, get a $220 panasonic sa-xr55. (or better yet an sa-xr70 for future HDMI use) mine spanks the daylight out of both my NAD stereo and onkyo HT recievers in every way. it's super detailed yet at the same time easy going and non fatiguing to listen to. it's alot of bang for the buck that totally made my jaw drop when i powered mine up. the midrange purity blew me away. it images like crazy too. otherwise, if you're willing to go used, go onto ebay and pick a 1970s reciever up for under $100. many of those old units are overbuilt compared to today's units. the thing that seperates the panasonics from the rest is that it operates in class-d whereas most recievers operate in class A/B. class-d is more efficient and to my ears, way more pure sounding. class d amps from makers such as bel canto, flying mole, acoustic reality, sonic impact, nuforce and halcro among others have all gotten good reviews from what i've seen. i look at my panny as a poor man's halcro. i love it. i'll NEVER buy class A/B again. don't take my word for it though. dig deep into other reviews for ANY panasonic model starting with SA-XR (10 - 70) and see what other's experiences are. edster is just as fanatical about his here as i am mine. i hated mt NAD. it had no treble detai or speed and couldn't image worth crap. my onkyo did that better (if without as strong a bass) but the panny does deep tight bass and even better treble detail, but much more naturally and grain free. to my ears, my panasonic just gets out of the way of sounds and adds nothing that shouldn't be there. it improved EVERYTHING from bass to treble in my system. beware though... people are starting to say us panafanatics are a cult. you can't trust us. LOL note: i am not a panasonic employee nor have i ever been. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 95 Registered: Oct-05 | The NAD C372 I heard had very good detail all around. How does the Panny handle stereo and not surround? That's in her ideal price range too. I am going to have to make an effort to check one of them out. |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 742 Registered: May-05 | Keep Budget Minded's musical tastes in mind. He has the oddest taste in good sound that I've come across. This isn't a personal attack against him. Rather than me get into it, here's a quote from Jan that I couldn't agree more with - "It's good to hear you are satisified with your purchase, though you must have assumed everyone reading this would know you are a treble freak (your own words, I believe), who can never have enough high frequency emphasis in their system and who "detests" bass response and "warmth" because those qualities give you a headache. Not to abuse your comments, but those personal quirks of the reviewer are important to know before anyone can seriously consider an opinion of any product. As I've said before, everyone is entitled to like what they like; but knowing your penchant for what most would consider excessively bright playback puts the Panasonic in a different perspective for someone who prefers a more nuetral playback." You own a vintage Mac. If you like the sound of that as much as you say you do - and for good reason - I'd be willing to bet that you're not going to be thrilled with the Panasonic. I'm really getting sick of hearing about how great that thing is... |
|
Silver Member Username: Stu_pittNYC, NY Post Number: 743 Registered: May-05 | Dean - One more thing... If you're into the vintage stuff, check out the old Marantz gear. I like to think of it as the poor man's Mac. I've been trying to swipe my father's 2220B for years now. Their's a guy on e-bay who sells restored/refubished Marantz gear for good prices. Here's a link to his current e-bay items - http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ50QQsassZsstk100QQssPageNameZDBQ3aOther Items A former regular here bought one from him and couldn't have been happier with it. He said it was like brand new. |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 101 Registered: Oct-05 | ^^ Some of the old Marantz units were fairly expensive! I don't know if they hold value like a MAC. This one is for my mother. I was going to be nice and give her the MAC as a housewarming gift until I got it, I like it way too much to part with it. She liked the way the MAC sounded and wanted to buy an old MAC like it even though she did not want to spend that much... |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 102 Registered: Oct-05 | I found a 2270 on audiogon for $300 that I am considering very much. How do they sound in comparison to a Mcintosh MAC 1900? Fairly close sounding amps? |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 103 Registered: Oct-05 | I've found a refurbished Marantz 2250 and a 2245 either of which I might be able to grab for $150 after shipping. I've found some other 2270s with the lights burnt out but guaranteed to work for $200. Any input on any of these? Btw, thank you all for your input. |
|
GOT SPL? Unregistered guest | go to http://stores.ebay.com/12VOLT-WHOLESALE_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZ1QQftidZ2QQtZkm this store will help u find all the stuff u need to make a kick a#@ sound system at a cheap price. |
|
Unregistered guest | I have all types of amps even a brand new denon that I may consider parting with since I have decided to go all tube. good luck |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 113 Registered: Oct-05 | Thanks fabjack but I just bought a Marantz PM7200. It is a bit more than I wanted to spend but it is brand sp*nking new and I thought the midrange and dynamics were quite good (where the NAD doesnt have these dynamics or midrange but has a lot of lows - I think with larger floor standing speakers, the lows may be a bit excessive?). Shall make an excellent xmas gift, don't you think?  |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 519 Registered: Mar-04 | i didn't take that as a personal attack stu. ALL opinions should be framed by the idividual's personal preferences. i think EVERYONE here really has an exaggerated picture in their mind of what i like though. i DON'T like shrill excessively bright sound at all. my mission M71s on my onkyo are downright painful to listen to, but ANY gear that rolls treble off, slows it down so that metal sounds like plastic or that otherwise obscures treble IS unforgiveable to me. if a cowbell can't go *tunk tunk tunk* and goes *dung dung dung* you bet... i will be a whizzed off camper. to my ears, NAD sounds excessively closed in and muffled. (at lower volumes at least... i ONLY listen at reasonable apartment dweller volumes) it's very fatiguing to listen to NAD for me as i'm always straining to hear the highs that i KNOW are in my CDs. i'd say that my panasonic reciever is just a little bit treble polite and maybe warm too, but it's so grain free and detailed that i can clearly hear sounds at their proper speed. it doesn't hold anything back regardless of the EQ curve. my onkyo is brighter, but the panny does treble much better. NAD can't do treble worth beans on my zeros. it sounds just like cheap sony to me. ANYTHING that obscures transient speed from top to bottom totally whizzes me off. the first time i ever heard REAL bass (to my ears) was from 4 1/2" acoustic suspension infinity 2 ways. true... they didn't move alot of gut massaging air, but what they did move was lightning quick with zero overhang. planars are even better. when a speaker driver can't keep up with the speed of a real acoustic sound... absolutely, i consider it a hideous unforgivable sin. real sounds have no mechanical delay or latent resonant echo. when a sound pops like it should with no late resonance blurring, i get goosebums. when metal turns to plastic or a drum resonates longer than it should, i cringe. i hear the SPEAKER's shortcomings and not the actual sound. a speaker can't disappear until it can move quickly. i try to share my honest opinions. i DON'T expect anyone to share my priorities at all. i like sound that's tonally FLAT really. no treble rolloff, and no added euphonic midbass warmth. reality does not have an artificial EQ curve. i can't wait to get a behringer DEQ2496 and get my in room response flat to within .5dB, but i'll probably roll the lowest octave off though. stick to the facts without making a personal attack, and i'll take no issues stu. heck... if you're accurate enough with what you say, i might even agree with you. LOL your comments weren't radical knee jerk mumbo jumbo, you were trying to qualify my opinions. keep it up. truth is a good thing. i despise big ported speakers. 4 1/2" sealed woofers and planars are the best... zero delay... and zero overhang. (well as close as possible with cones anyways) planars are even faster. i'd give my pudgy 12" "whuh whuh" sealed sub up for a planar bass panel in a heartbeat. *thwak* yes... i like speed and resolution more than scale every time. |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 116 Registered: Oct-05 | ^^ Sounds to me like you do in fact like excessive treble from the last part. Hey - to each their own! |
|
cn308 Unregistered guest | You could go to www.audiogon.com and do a search on NAD, this is what I got for 320BEE (used or demos) Nad 320BEE $250.00 Nad 320bee $270.00 Nad 320BEE $325.00 These are excellent ampls, not quite the c352, but I don't think you'll find many of those under $400 |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 118 Registered: Oct-05 | cn308 - I got a brand new Marantz PM7200 so I am set but thanks. Little more than I originally planned to spend, but I just realized I get an extra pay week this month as well which gives me a lot more money to work with and I'm generous. I had a couple of C352s selling for under $400 and I missed a few selling for a whole lot less as well. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 367 Registered: Dec-04 | There is no real reference to the real thing, Budget, you arecorrect. However, a treble heavy, bass missing getup does NOT sound at all like my drum kit at full session. Sorry. Cheers |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 124 Registered: Oct-05 | Drum kits are both treble and bass heavy! |
|
Anonymous | So what's the story? how does the PM7200 sound? did you get it new or used? Was it worth it? and how does it compare to the CA1010? |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 130 Registered: Oct-05 | Anonymous: Check my post here https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/175072.html |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 527 Registered: Mar-04 | nuck... you're taking my comments out of context. i'm not talking about SCALE like you seem to be. of course a 4 1/2" woofer isn't going to hit you in the gut like a bass drum does. we're talking about 2 totally different things. a live kit (unamplified) has a huge sound, no doubt. but it also snaps much faster than a big sloppy woofer does too. apples and oranges. real drums don't have EXTRA box resonances to compensate for woofer rolloff. the sound that makes ported speakers sound deeper in the bass id PURE DISTORTION. it's adding sounds that aren't in the original sound to make a bigger sound. some people think "bigger is better" some think "less is more" a sloppy ported speaker sounds nothing like a bass drum to my ears. it sounds like the air inside the cabinet resonating and blurring. i like 4 1/2" woofers playing bass drums better than big ported ones not for the scale and oomph, but for the SPEED and snap of the drumhead. to my ears, planars REALLY make drums sound more like drums as they move so fast and stop moving just as fast. *thwack!* some people place their priority TOTALLY on scale and how loud everything gets while mine is, and will always be, how well a speaker can pop as fast as possible and not blur the transients. speed = resolution. real cowbells don't go *dung*, but many tweeters sound like it. LOL again... i don't like EXTRA treble. i don't like a smiley face EQ. what i don't like is a treble DEFICIT. i think part of the reason that many of you might be misunderstanding me is because i listen at lower volumes. i NEVER crank my system. at lower volumes, treble DOES roll off. my speakers sound brighter loud, but i don't do loud. i live in an apartment, party volumes aren't an option. try turning your cone speaker systems down to see if they sound warmer, and MAYBE you'll get where i'm coming from. as to lowest octave bass, you bet i like rolloff. loud bass guitar and bass synths give me a headache. i'm not looking for a realistic bass EQ, i'm looking for a comfortable non fatiguing sound. at the comfort volume, i want bass that's totally clear and detailed and fast. say what you want about smaller speakers and acoustic suspension, but the bigger the woofer, the slower it moves and porting adds resonance to the mix further muddying things. speed and detail are not the same thing as scale and extension. try listening to a bass drum on some planars nuck and tell me if it doesn't sound much faster and alot less distorted than cone woofers. i'm talking about speed and detail, NOT "how big and loud" it sounds. big and ported speakers add what i call a "talking into a partially deflated balloon" distortion to sounds. they sound sloppy and rubbery. the best "cone speaker bass" is probably a good set of headphones. they can move faster than any other cone speakers for sure. to me, anything that slows transients down or adds latent overhang to the ORIGINAL sound is like looking out a window smeared with vaseline like an art photo. it might look pretty, but it isn't real. i'll agree that my tastes aren't in the majority, otherwise, infinity, boston acoustics and many other manufacturs would still be making acoustic suspension speakers. but the "typical" listener thinks "duh... this sounds louder... me like loud good" if acoustic suspension was truly inaccurate, then why would the BBC comission it's famous LS5A monitors that were being knocked off by 4 other manufacturers the last time i checked. i don't care what "the majority consensus" is. i think the majority is full of crap, otherwise accurate speakers would still be made instead of crappy echo boxes that sound louder (not better). sadly... the bean counters at boston and infinity decided to sell out to the hoards of "me want big" people. where's a waterfall plot when you need one? |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 158 Registered: Oct-05 | The thing about acoustic susension speakers you will see in guitar cabinets a lot. More bass, less highs. You don't hear them at full volume until you back off a few feet. I don't think there is anyway you can say a 4 1/2 will do better bass than a 8 or a 10" speaker though. A comprable 8" or 10" will handle bass ever so much better than a 4 1/2" and put out an audible amount to boot. It sounds like less bass is clearer? You do have a point where larger speakers will generally need to be played louder to reach their best sound and smaller speakers are often more efficent. It depends on the size of the room and your listening level I guess. |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics