Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hardware Classifieds' started by EvanW, May 16, 2005.
please state price and condition
I have a JVC stereo receiver in great condition. It looks just like the current models that sell today for around $199. It is a great receiver and powers speakers well. I have the remote control for it, too. I'd take $50 plus shipping for it if you are interested. Let me know, thanks
I have a Denon DRA-325R in good condition, no real dents scratches or marks. Doesn't have original remote, manual or box. Looking for $65, shipping included.
im looking for this for my friend ill ask him though im interested in the denon myself.
Sounds good, just let me know. I can send you some pics if needed.
pics would be nice e mail is [email protected] or instant messangers are MSN- [email protected] or AIM- omegus iv
Sherwood RD-6105. 2 mos old. Sound comparable to receivers costing triple the price. Excellent professional writeup, review, and picture of the receiver can be found HERE. Price is $150 + shipping.
kevin, why do u try and rip me off the RD-6500 is 160$ at cicuit city the RD-6105 is 140$ http://www.buy.com/retail/product.as...=0&dcaid=15889 at buy.com thats probably why u directed me to a australian site so i would see the price tag but the only sherwood thats good anymore is the newcastle series and no i will not pay u 10$ more for a used receiver, please dont do that.
I'm glad I decided to take a look at this thread after unknowingly being slammed by you EvanW. If you were any type of decent human being, you would've looked a little closely at the specs of the receiver before calling me out as some ripoff artist. The RD-6105 is a DD/DTS receiver that retails for $249.95 (I got it here locally for $185 tax included), while the RD-6500 that you referenced in your post above is a Dolby Digital ONLY receiver that retails for $179.95. Even though the 6500 seems as if it is superior to the 6105, it is actually inferior to the 6105. I guess you overlooked that in your haste to come back here and call me out on a public forum. How dare you publicly accuse me of ripping you off. I directed you to the Austrailian review site because it is the ONLY professional review of that receiver availiable (and a very good one at that) on the web. If you would've emailed me and kindly explained to me that this receiver could be found $10 cheaper on buy.com (which I did'nt know), I would've gladly adjusted the price for you to make the receiver a better deal w/ shipping. Do you honestly think that I'm trying to rip you off over $10?...$10??? Also, if you do a search on this site, you will see that quite a few own this receiver and give it glowing reviews for the best bang-for-the-buck in a sub-$200 receiver. If you have any shread of decency, you will publicly apologize for your words above. If you try to defend yourself, you will only embarass yourself even more. BTW, check your email for the uncensored version of my feelings about you and feel free to post back here and let everyone know what I said.
havent read ur other post yet but when i see it 10$ cheaper at buy.com a a higher model number at circuit city for 10$ more new then i got pretty mad myself because ive been ripped several times but i dont see how i am making myself look worse by defending myself i found it cheaper new its kinda like this guy that tried to sell some S-312's on here a while back for like 700 when they were about 600 new at several sites but yea ive been ripped off for 5 bucks before god knows why but i was. i would have looked closer at specs if i had found any
And like I explained to you above, even though the RD-6500 is a higher number than the RD-6105, the RD-6105 is actually the superior model because it's DD and DTS whereas the RD-6500 is DD only which is why it retails for a lower price. I don't understand why, but manufacturers are inconsistent w/ model numbers like this from time to time. And like I mentioned before, I would hardly call $10 a ripoff.
i got ya on the model numbers but when i saw it i got mad and it seemed funny to me the way it went to a austrailian site.