1. Home
    2. >
  2. Forum
    3. >
  3. Home Audio Forum
    4. >
  4. Receivers Forum
    5. >
  5. Archive through December 29, 2003 Forum
    6. >

Worst Receiver EVER!

 

L to the H
Posted on   
I am the current owner of a JVC 7010VBK, it has no power and makes my floorstanding DCM 10's sound like crap.

I want to sell this cheezy thing to someone and get something new that has some bump to it. I was looking at some Yamaha receivers and the Onkyo 8511. After reading a bit on audioreview.com I am not sure on what to go with. Anyone with experiece with the onkyo have some advice?
 

Anonymous
Posted on   
I liked the onkyo - it is discreet (better parts old fashioned way) and high current (warm sound) animal. And at 100 watts per channel, it is a good buy. Sometimes I see one on www.ebay.com for about half. While you are there, you might want to check out other gears for more power. email me at gonglee1@hotmail.com if you want more advices. I had much better luck making an infromed decision when buying. Stereo can be confusing. I like companies like adcom, acurus, nad. They are respected names in mid-fi, and will give you more satisfaction probably. You can find them used on ebay, or www.audiogon.com

I hope this helps. You have pretty nice speakers - with right matching of cd player and quality cables (vital), you are well on your way to sonic heaven. Stay clear of surround sound receivers though - they don't do music well.
I will get more advices at www.audioasylum.com before buying though. You can chat there, and ask the seasoned experts - they will help you alot.
Remember to make a informed decision when buying, and your ears will thank you for it.
 

Hawk
Posted on   
L to the H:

Are you looking for a stereo receiver (2 channel) or a multi-channel HT receiver (5-7 channels)?
 

L to the H
Posted on   
I'm not really sure right now. I want something that will serve me well in the future, so when I get out of college and no longer just need uber loud music it could do the whole home theater thing.
The receiver will be hooked up to my computer for the next year or so atleast.

I checked out the Yamaha RX-V530 today online and it looked alright but I didn't find many helpful reviews.

One of my friends has a Onkyo 8511 and is very happy with its performance but complains that it doesn't have many features, volume isn't even displayed digitally.
 

Hawk
Posted on   
L to the H:

DO NOT buy a Yamaha x30 receiver. It would sound just like your JVC. Lousy power supply, poor output transistors and a truly crummy sound that is very bright and annoying (like fingernails run across a chalkboard!). The Onkyo 8511 is an ok receiver, but it is merely stereo. If you really want to future proof your receiver, get a good, musical HT receiver.

However, your interest in the Yamaha does tell me what your budget is, so I would suggest the following:

1. Go to Saturday Audio (www.saturdayaudio.com) for their special on an NAD 742 receiver (MSRP $649--their price $449). It is five channel, but produces a beautiful sound--sounds more like quality separates. Very musical and it resolves digital sources better than any other receiver under $1500. (That is, when playing digital sources, you can hear things clearly that other receivers either muffle or don't even reproduce). Best value around.

2. If you can't afford the NAD, go to Accessories 4 Less (accessories4less.com) for a Marantz 5200 for $329.99. This is last year's model, but it will do a good job for you and will sound a whole lot better than the Yamaha. I know, I have already compared them.

I hope this helps.
 

L to the H
Posted on   
Sure does, thanks for the advice, I'll go check them out.

If I have any more questions I'll report back.
 

L to the H
Posted on   
I went and checked out the NAD and it looks pretty nice but I am totally confused now.

It is 50 watts per channel, the marantz is 85. From what I have been reading it seems almost like the amount of watts per channel has nothing to do with the amount of "power" a receiver has.

Would that NAD receiver be able to do the job with 2 floor standing 12's?
 

Felonious
Posted on   
NAD is famous for under rating their amps.

Knock your socks off with 50 NAD watts man.

:)
 

Hawk
Posted on   
No problem:

About three months ago, I went to a demonstration at a local dealer. This guy is pretty cool--his attitude is that everyone hears things differently, so it is up to the customer to decide what he or she likes best. He set up a comparison of four different receivers, and I did not know which one was which until I had ranked all four. Each receiver was volume matched so that no receiver appeared to have more power. He used the same source material and the same speakers. The four receivers were the NAD 742 (50 wpc - $649), the Onkyo 700 (100 wpc - $799), Denon 2803 (90 wpc - $799) and a Harman/Kardon 325 (70 wpc - $799).

Well, the NAD sounded cleaner and more powerful than any of the others. It resolved the digital source material better (you can hear things like the dialogue in "Ronin" clearly, where it is muddled or entirely inaudible when played through other receivers). On two channels stereo, you can hear all of the instruments and the soundstage on good recordings is solid and well defined (piano on the right, bass on the left, etc.). NAD made its mark on the industry by doing stereo better than anyone else. Even though it is only rated at 50 wpc and the Marantz is 85, NAD provides more current than any other brand of receivers. Current is the key.

What most people don't understand is that receivers are rated in watts per channel because 35-40 years ago, that was all they could deliver. My first stereo in 1975 was a whopping 12 watts per channel and that was pretty good power then. Because stereo companies started making wild claims about their power, the FTC issued a rule requiring that the power be specified in watts as the amount of "continuous power" the receiver can deliver. But today, 100 wpc is almost standard because power supplies and capacitors have become so good. Most receiver makers still lie, as many receivers can deliver the power continuously, but only through two channels. Sound & Vision magazine regularly tests receiver power and finds most brands lose anywhere from 30-60% when tested and all channels are driven at the same time. See the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/3401/ratevsac.htm

But one of the things that distinguishes NAD is that their current line of receivers meet or exceed their rated power.

It is like the speed of computers. 10 years ago, 50 megahertz was a fast computer--today, my computer is a 1.7 gigahertz (34 times faster) and I am looking to upgrade! Well, today, the more honest rating is how much amperage can the receiver deliver, but they still have to rate it in watts because of the FTC rule passed 30 years ago. Wattage claims are almost worthless, especially in this world of 5, 6, and seven channel receivers (I am sure an 8 or ten channel receiver will happen soon). Suffice it to say that NAD's 50 wpc are more powerful than anyone else's 85 to 100 wpc. I have tested a 742 driving a pair of floor standing Magnepans, which I guarantee you are more power hungry than your floor standing 12's, and the 742 did just fine. You see, what makes the 742 sound so much better is the fact that NAD uses a much higher quality power supply, and this allows it to have a higher dynamic power than the Marantz.

If you can swing the price of the 742, get it. The sound is like quality separates and you can add speakers for the other channels as you go along. I only recommend the Marantz if you can't afford the 742, but they are not close in terms of the quality of sound. The Marantz is very good, but the 742 is the best receiver available for less than $500. Listen to it and you will see what I mean.

I hope this answers your questions.
 

L to the H
Posted on   
It sure does, and I think you have me sold on this NAD receiver.

Thanks a lot.
 

Johnb
Posted on   
Wow! That was easy. Look at one receiver recommended by one person who hates every other manufacturer out there. I wish all my questions were that easy to answer.
 

L to the H
Posted on   
From all the looking I have done theres not much else in my price range, which was under 400 dollars. I wanted something that was going to prove to be useful in the future when I get a home theater setup, and do a good job playing some music.

If you have some other advice that is useful by all means post it here.
 

Hawk
Posted on   
Johnb:

I have to assume you are talking about me and you are just plain wrong--I don't hate every other manufacturer out there. In fact, I have a Denon for myself, and if you examine the other threads currently on the board, you will see that I have suggested an Onkyo, a Pioneer Elite and a Marantz to different people in different threads, all dependant upon what speakers they have and what they want. Hardly someone who "hates every other manufacturer out there!"

For L to the H, who really wants a very musical receiver, but wants the ability to go to a HT receiver at a later date, I think the 742 is the best choice. I am disabled, so I have a lot of free time on my hands. When I am able to get out, I enjoy shopping for audio products and I can sit and really listen to the demonstrated products. I can say I have heard almost everything out there available in the US (I haven't heard a Sunfire receiver yet, though), so I have a pretty good idea what works well with what other products. Different products have different sounds and some do music really well and some are only good at HT--a choice made by the manufacturer. In short, one size does not fit all. If someone tells me thay want seven channels, are driving all 8 ohm speakers, and it is for 90% watching DVDs, I will no doubt suggest something other than an NAD.

If you have something else and you like it, congratulations. I trust you are enjoying it. If it addresses the needs of someone seeking info on this forum, share it with us. But don't be snide about it.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us