Help with Replacing Stereo Reciever (1 Viewer)

[Razz2o4]

I am trying to help my Fathter replace his Harman Kardon HK880VXI. He is trying to stay in the $500 price range. Does anyone have some good Sugguestions for a replacement. He is using it to power his Bose 601's. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

 

[gene c]

The usual recommendations in the $500 range are the Onkyo 607/608, Yamaha 565/665, Denon 590/1610 and 790/1910 and Harman Kardon 254/1600.

You might be able to find the Onkyo 707 for around $500 on Amazon if your lucky.

Ac4l.com has a factory refurbished Onkyo 707 for $479 plus shipping. Comes with a one year warranty. I'd get either that one or the Denon 790/1910. But the Onkyo 607 is also real popular and can be found for around $400..

 

[Philip Hamm]

I think a multichannel home theater receiver such as the models that gene suggests would be a poor choice for stereo use.

However, the "Accessories 4 Less" web site that he recommends, http://www.accessories4less.com/ , has some very good bargains on great stereo receivers.

http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/category/StereoReceivers/Home-Audio/Stereo-Receivers/1.html

Particularly the Marantz 4023 looks compelling.

Next thing to replace is those awful bose speakers. I assume he's got the old 601s like this: http://www.oaktreevintage.com/web_photos/Speaker_Parts/Bose_601-Series-3_salvage.jpg . Get some real tower speakers in the mix and you can get some really nice sound. Chances are the foam surround on those old woofers is crumbled to pieces by now.

 

[gene c]

Well, for some reason I thought he was going to jump into the surround sound game. Not sure why I thought that.

I think a multichannel home theater receiver such as the models that gene suggests would be a poor choice for stereo use.

But still, there's nothing wrong with using a surround sound receiver to power a pair of stereo speakers. Biggest down-side is the cost. A good two channel receiver like the Harman Kardon 3390 or 3490 can be had for $2-300. If he does decide to stick with stereo then the money saved can be put towards better speakers. On the other hand, should he decide to go 5.1 in the future he would already have the receiver for it if he buys a 5/7 channel avr.

.

 

[John Garcia]

I'd say sticking with stereo is perfectly fine. IMO, if he didn't mind used or refurb, a Marantz integrated amp is a great way to go as long as he doesn't also need a FM tuner. If it is stereo receiver, then either the top Onkyo or H/K stereo receivers (there are only two from each) should be more than enough to handle anything.

 

[fgriffintx]

Josh:
I guess I am in the same boat as your Father. I need to replace a 15-year old+ Sony tuner/amp with something in the 250-$400 range. The Yamaha RX-V467 has been getting OK reviews, but I don't know if I want to wait until the end of May. I've got a couple of small Bose speakers and not sure if I will get the bug to load up to 5 or 7 channels. But I do plan to get a Blu-ray sometime, and have HD cable service (actually, the AT&T U-Verse fiber optic service).
So do you or your correspondents have any suggestions? I have a DVD player and turntable, both of which have 3 wires (i.e. not USB or HDMI).
Thanks,
Frank

 

[Al.Anderson]

I recently went through this when buying a music receiver for my son. In the end I went with a 5.1 system so that he could later use it with SACDs. But if you do go with a stereo receiver I recommend you get one with a sub output; your system will sound better when your typical smaller speakers don't have to reproduce the low end. Harman/Kardan makes a couple of these (it's what I was going to get before I went with SACD capable).

 

[fgriffintx]

Al:
Good point about the base speaker - I guess I just assumed all mid-priced tuner/amps have sub outputs - isn't a subwoofer one part of the 5.1 or 7.1 multiple speaker specifications? Can I tell from looking at the back, or is it in the fine print under specifications?

 

[Al.Anderson]

... isn't a subwoofer one part of the 5.1 or 7.1 multiple speaker specifications? Can I tell from looking at the back, or is it in the fine print under specifications

Yes, if you're getting a 5.1/7.1 and configuring it for stereo you'll be okay (that's what I wound up doing).

But not not all stereo receivers have a sub/LFE line. You should be able to tell by looking at the back.

 

[fgriffintx]

It will be 5.1 or 7.1 for me. Since I only have 2 speakers at the moment, it would seem that 5.1 would be a major improvement. Are there any compelling reasons to consider 7.1 over 5.1? (other than if you want speakers coming out the wazoo?).
Thanks again.

 

[gene c]

At this point and time I'm quite happy with 5.1. I suppose this could change in the future. There's still not a whole lot of real 7.1 material out there but I'm sure more and more 7.1 movies will be released. But a 7.1 receiver will usually allow you to use the 6th and 7th channels to power another set of stereo speakers in another room. That could be useful.

But the least expensive receivers are usually the 5.1 models so 7.1 are more expensive.

The Sub Woofer output on the back of avr's is usually color coded [COLOR= #cc99ff]purple[/COLOR]. But not all manufacturers follow the color coding standard.

 

[John Garcia]

Note also that even though some stereo receivers have a sub pre-out, almost none of them have a built in crossover. The only one that I am sure that does is the Outlaw Audio RR2150 which also has an adjustable x-over as well.

Originally Posted by Al.Anderson



Yes, if you're getting a 5.1/7.1 and configuring it for stereo you'll be okay (that's what I wound up doing).

But not not all stereo receivers have a sub/LFE line. You should be able to tell by looking at the back.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Lots of helpful discussion here! John makes an excellent point regarding sub-outs on current receivers. Most modern stereo receivers have a sub output, but I don't know if they have a crossover. IMO a sub output is a useless item without a crossover. Personally I use an old Pioneer home theater 5.1 receiver in my office stereo music system for exactly this reason; to facilitate the use a sub with bookshelf speakers.

However, in the OP's application his father is using Bose 601 speakers which, if they are of a similar vintage to the receiver which needs to be replaced, I assume are large full range floor standing speakers. No sub in the mix. Also, even if he replaces the 601s I would assume that they would be replaced with a new set of large floor standing full range speakers.

My brother and his wife own a pair of old 601s and if they are still functioning, they are one of the best sounding speakers Bose ever made for what that's worth. Absolutely zero stereo imaging with their diffuse tweeters pointing in every direction, but they certainly can fill a room.

Lots to think about. Personally, I would rather be using a stereo receiver with a proper crossover than my home theater receiver in the stereo in my office, but I have to stick with what's in the budget.

I think any of the stereo receivers sold at accessories for less would work perfectly for the stated requirements. I especially like the more expensive Marantz models still well within the OPs price range.

 

[John Garcia]

You can integrate as sub without the receiver having a crossover, however it isn't a plug and play deal like it would be if the receiver had its own. It means dialing the sub in either by ear or preferably with an SPL meter and tones to get it correct. In terms of the OP, I don't think the sub side is an issue as it sounds like his dad is only using the 601s and no sub.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Originally Posted by John Garcia

You can integrate as sub without the receiver having a crossover, however it isn't a plug and play deal like it would be if the receiver had its own. It means dialing the sub in either by ear or preferably with an SPL meter and tones to get it correct. In terms of the OP, I don't think the sub side is an issue as it sounds like his dad is only using the 601s and no sub.

You have to dial in using SPL meter or by ear anyway unless the receiver has some kind of microphone speaker equalization application built in. I don't understand how that has anything to do with whether there's a crossover on-board or not.

If there's no crossover, but there is a sub pre-out, on a receiver, that means there's no way to send anything but a full range signal to your main speakers. If these are bookshelf speakers which can not handle the lows, the reason you'd be using the sub in the first place, you'll end up blowing the speakers and overworking your amp at higher volumes or at best doubling or tripling low frequencies in your listening room. Makes no sense to have a sub pre-out with no onboard crossover IMO.

You can buy a sub that splits the signal out of the speaker terminals, but in those cases you're not using the sub pre-out.

I agree it's an academic issue for the OP.