Best new reciever under $600.00 (1 Viewer)

[Shiu]

Of course it is the sound that counts most, but for those who likes to talk about "weight", on a dollar per pound basis, you cannot beat the Sony 4ES. It weights 21 kg (according to the manual) without the box, slightly heavier than the HK AVR525. Yes, the transformer is huge, for its rating.

 

[Mark Hedges]

I would not consider the Outlaw 1050. For a surround reciever to be competitive it has to keep up with the latest decoding modes and the 1050 is getting long in the tooth. If they upgrade it w/ DPLII etc. then I would absolutely consider it.

Mark

 

[Mark Dickerson]

Angelo:

A friend just pointed me to the Receiver recap page for Sound & Vision Magazine. (Check out http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm). This chart recaps the results of all of the equipments tests they have done on receivers over the last several years. However, although they tested the Sony DA4ES, S & V did not test the Sony DA4ES for power. In their chart, S & V footnotes the reason they did not test the Sony DA4ES's power output: " because, Sony tells us, the receiver was not designed to deliver full power to all channels simultaneously." Are you kidding me! ! ! "Not designed to deliver its rated power across all channels"?! That is a lame excuse and an admission that they are puttin in a power supply that is incapable of delivering what they promise. And, it proves my point about how these receiver makers lie to the consumer.

I don't doubt that the Denon or the Sony has a big power supply, but is it any good? Not all P/S are of the same quality. It is obviously undersized if they claim 100 wpc, but can't deliver it into all channels. Quality has to be judged through listening.
Furthermore, while I fully understand that the manufacturer is having to make choices about the type of components to put into a receiver to make a certain price point, they are under no obligation to LIE about their power output in order to sell the receiver.

BTW, the same chart says that the Denon 2802 does 61 wpc when driven into six channels simultaneously, considerably below the manufacturer's rated 90 wpc, but in all fairness, Denon does better than many other manufacturers units (see the Yamaha listings). I actually like the Denon (like I said, I was strongly considering buying one last fall) but when Denon asks me to lay out 800 dollars for a receiver, it had better deliver what they promise. Furthermore, I compared a Denon head to head with an NAD 742 and a Harman/Kardon 325. The Denon came up sounding thin and washed out compared to the other two receivers (and the NAD was only rated at 50 wpc x 5!). The Denon has a very good preamp section, but the amp is just not up to snuff IMO.

While I don't demand that a receiver maker exactly make their rated power, I do think their delivered power should be within 10% of their rated power. And, I learned about the lack of power after I heard the head to head demonstration of the three receivers. The weakness of Denon's amp section was I emperically proven in the demo.

 

[Mark Dickerson]

Pablo:

My comment was only about the x300s, which were manufactured in Japan (not the 4300, however). Unfortunately, the x200 series, which you have, had a serious power deficiency. However, if you have efficient speakers, it shouldn't be a problem. The British audio mags love the Marantz x200s for their good sound.

I have a large room and inefficient speakers, so power is really important to get decent sound.

 

[Pablo Abularach]

Mark,

My comment was only about the x300s, which were manufactured in Japan (not the 4300, however). Unfortunately, the x200 series, which you have, had a serious power deficiency. However, if you have efficient speakers, it shouldn't be a problem. The British audio mags love the Marantz x200s for their good sound.

I agree with you, and I'm very happy with my SR6200

 

[ChrisWiggles]

I have a 5300, and matched with paradigms it has a very laid back presentation. It's not in your face at all (largely a product of the speakers), and I often think this is what people mean when they say Marantz lacks power. How can you really tell if it lacks power without turning it up all the way. I've reached insane volumes with no problem, 7 speakers being pushed. Yet, at these insane volumes it never really sounds LOUD and pushy, which a lot of receivers can do. I'm definitely with Pablo though, power is nothing if it sounds bad. I think it again has more to do with the sound that is laid back and sweet, it never sounds irritating and loud because it's just that, a sweet sound, so when you are at very high volumes, it doesn't bother you cause the sound is so nice.

 

[Shiu]

Mark:

Please allow me to make a few points regarding your response to Angelo.

1.

Furthermore, while I fully understand that the manufacturer is having to make choices about the type of components to put into a receiver to make a certain price point, they are under no obligation to LIE about their power output in order to sell the receiver

I have never seen any original Sony document that claims (or LIE about)the 4ES or 7ES are rated for all 7 channels driven simultaneously at rated power. They certainly talks about each of the 7 channels being rated for 110 Watt minimum RMS at 8 ohms 20 to 20Khz 0.05% THD. As you mentioned, S & V tested the 4ES. I wish you quoted the sentence preceding the one you quoted, which stated:

"Sony's STR-DA4ES produced excellent numbers throughout, with noise performanace within about 1 dB of the theoretical ideal, excellent power readings that show its specs to be quite conservative, and accurate, closely balanced channel response. (Our standard all-channels-driven power meaurement could not be taken because, Sony tell us,.........................you have the rest.....)

I also pasted the HKAVR525 specs (directly form their website) here:

Stereo Mode
Continuous Average Power (FTC) Per Channel : 85 Watts per channel @

 

[anthony_b]

Per sound and vision magazine the power rating on the Sony 4es is very accurate per there tests. Actually they said it was "Conservative".