New, cheap ($200-300) HT receivers are pretty bad: (1 Viewer)

[Kenneth Harden]

Been playing with some entry level Sony and Yamaha receivers in the $200-300 range.

While I have not really evaluated the sound quality, I can say they are WAY, WAY, WAY underpowered for anything but small satellites in small rooms. Even with the Crossover set at 80 Hz., the receivers run hot and are totally gutless to play in 2-channel on very efficent, easy-to-drive speakers.

I just expected a bit better, even at these prices.

On the other hand, playing with a Denon 3805 proves beyond all doubt, that you need to COMPLETLY ignore the specs. The Denon had some serious, clean output, while the little guys were straining to reach a decent level.

Some of the older 5.1 cheap receivers (like my Sony STR-DE675 (soon to be replaced by a Denon 3805)) have decent output, but it seems in the race to get a 6.1 and 7.1 receiver, lower costs, and add more features, power is absolutly taking a back seat.

 

[RyanJE]

You can only get what you pay for though. Its hard to compare a denon 3805 and a 2-300 dollar receiver.

 

[Kenneth Harden]

My beef is it seems they are not even meeting the basic requirements that many people want.

For example, it would be like a new car being sold in the USA for $5,995 that had a top speed of 60 MPH. It might have a niche (urban areas - or driving small satellite speakers in a small room), but it is very much lacking.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

But they all claim the same 100watts/channel. Its more like a $5995 car that factory says has a 0 - 60 time of 4 seconds, but is really 11.

 

[Arthur S]

Kenneth

You only tried a couple of brands. Not all receivers in the $300 price range suck. The Kenwood 8070 has some pretty good amps and can be had for around $300. THX Select, PLIIx.

Also, like Ryan said, it doesn't make sense to compare a $200 receiver to a $1,200 receiver. How about comparing those $200-$300 receivers to the Denon 1705, their $400 model.

 

[Kenneth Harden]

Arthur:

Yes, just giving my gut reaction to trying these out.

For $500, would you rather have the Pioneer 1014 (forum favorite?) or the Sony 997? Hmmm....

I am just dissapointed that these large companies could not do better, just a huge compromise in quality, IMO.

 

[DorianBryant]

For the most part I agree, but there are exceptions.

The Kenwood 8070 is not really a $2-300 as its MSRP is closer to $600.

Also, if you consider that price range, try the Onkyo 502. Rated at 75 watts per channel it does deliver. Not much on features but I have one hooked up to 3 JBL 940's. These are 4 ohm, 300 watt, 4 way speakers with both an 8 and 10" woofer. The Onkyo plays them plenty loud!

 

[Arthur S]

>>>>The Kenwood 8070 is not really a $2-300 as its MSRP is closer to $600

 

[DorianBryant]

Yes , but the receivers Ken was referring to are closer to MSRP. The Kenwood is closer to the 1014, HK 235, Onkyo 602, etc

 

[RyanJE]

Its just a matter of lack of knowledge. Think about it, how many people on this forum would actually buy a receiver or speakers from best buy. Im mean just go there one day looking to buy a receiver, grab one off the shelf and call it a day. Business's bottom line is profit and they are just selling to the masses ( i.e. mass marketed units). And it works because of people who dont care to be educated on the subject, how do you think Bose does so well? But if you really think about it, it doesnt matter because most people who buy mass marketed junk dont realized its mass marketed junk because the dont care. The only ones that do care are the ones who are serious about this hobby and find out they got shafted when they started ( like me with my sony de-595). But hey, I chose to keep learning and now I own a sweet a$$ pioneer 1014x (that only cost about 100 more). If I didnt decide to keep up with this hobby I probably would have never known that I got a piece of crap!

 

[Max F]

My Panasonic SAHE75 ($180) has more than enough power to run my MA bronze B4s in a moderate sized room.

Also, the digital panys are pretty sweet from what i hear. But thats cool if you got the money to spend, more power to you.

BTW, a lot of us don't (or refuse) to spend alot of money on equipment that will make little difference in sound quality. My view is spend as much as you can afford on speakers cause thats where you get the most return - receivers not so much. Kenneth it wouldn't surprise me if you have connects that are worth more than my receiver.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Want bang-for-the-buck? Look at used equipment. How much are you really going to use those fancy schmancy matrix modes anyway? How much value do they really offer?

OTOH I can tell you my very old Pioneer 606 has very little troubles at pretty loud volumes in my large room. Of course, it MSRPed at $599 when it came out in '97. Still sounds very clean for raw DD 5.1 and stereo use. (it helps a great deal that my IB sub is a friggin' monster)

 

[Robert Cowan]

how much can you really expect for $200? im surprised they play any sound at all. hell, my universal remote control for my processor retails for $399 by itself! for $200-$300, its amazing it actually works in the first place.

 

[DorianBryant]

I expect alot for $2-300. I would never pay $400 for a remote though

I can afford to but one of the aspects I enjoy about this hobby is finding "deals", buying used, trades, etc. This allows me to try different things without upsetting the better half, too much anyway.

For $200 you can purchase the Panny XR50, refurbs from HK, Denon, and Onkyo that perform very well. The receivers I feel are lacking is the Pioneer 514, Onkyo 302, Yammy 5730, Kenwood 806, Sony 597, etc.

When you approach $300 then you close in on the Onkyo 602, HK 235, Kenwood 8070, Denon 1705, and getting close to the 1014. I don't consider these "budget". I consider them "bargains."

 

[Max F]

Maybe i'm strange, but it really bothers me if i've feel in the least bit like i paid too much for something. It's funny cause i see lots of guys here spend alot of money on equipment and then they post pictures of it and their place has ugly, cheap furniture and decorations. I guess WAF wins out at my place, but i think i've got a pretty good setup overall. Is it better than say Kenneth's - not likely, but for the >1,000 that he spent over my stuff probably doesn't sound THAT much better (unless he has uber speakers, i mainly talking about the other equipment). But of course its all in the perspective.

:star:Most people do not feel the need to spend thousands of dollars on audio equipment.:star:

I just don't see the point in telling them that their stuff is crap cause its only $200. I'm a firm believer in digital technology and how you can get better stuff for cheap. For instance, my computer was half the price of my old computer when i bought it, but its probably 5X faster. Hell, DACs are nothing compared to what my computer video card has to do when i play games online.

So give those digital panny receivers a shot and see if they too are crap.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I hope this thread isn't turning into a "mine is better than yours because....." type thread. My main amp is a 179 buck Sherwood that does a fantastic job in my HT setup. Having lived in condos since I got married, my little 500 watt amp is just fine for a small space thank you. Let's not get caught up in "eliteism." Could I afford a 1K Denon, Hitachi, etc.? Yes, but what the hell for? Whatever works for you, works, regardless of the price you paid for it. It really annoys me when people "grouse" about their wonderful (expensive) systems and then look down their nose at those that paid less for theirs.:frowning:



According to this statement, you don't really have a point. I get so sick and tired of these "your stuff is crap if you didn't pay over $xxxx.xxx bucks for it. Sheesh, post a thread that has relevance.

 

[Max F]

Yeah, i missed that quote. Kindof makes this thread seem kindof pointless. Funny, how folks across the big pond seem to get by with just 25 good watts per channel. Not macho enough for us Americans though. We do have the best marketing in the world though and plenty of folks to spend big bucks.

 

[Steve Berger]

I think what Kenneth was getting at was that 3-5 years ago a $300 Sony was "OK" but now a $300 Sony is junk. Since I have serviced these thing for quite a while, and I have listened to both new and old, I think he is exactly right. Marketing is targeting the uninformed buyer relentlessly with products that the engineers would have refused to build a few years ago. I just had a customer who bought a "Home Theater System" (1 1/2 years old) that had no Digital decoder or any video switching ability. It came with 5 tiny speakers and a passive subwoofer.

I have a 5 year old $300 (end of model year) Sony that drives my system quite nicely (5.1 and DTS) 15" mains, 12" center and surrounds, 15" sub, in a huge family room (I had to shock mount all my picture frames and cabinet doors). The newer amps in that price range couldn't drive my surrounds as mains. Some companies are allowing salesmen to design the products. What's more amazing is that people are buying them.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Well, while his intentions may have been noble (???) it still sounds like an "elitest" thread to me. Especially since (here we go again), he makes Denon sound like the end all and be all to sound systems...period. I don't consider my self "uninformed" and still bought the Sherwood because of the features for the price point. I got into HT back when we had to use a splitter to listen to mono VCRs through our stereo systems. "Uninformed" I am NOT. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Quit judging and to each his own. Sorry if I offended anyone who worships at the Denon altar. BTW - There are some of us out there who don't care for video switchin. I want my video signals going directly to the TV. IMHO, video switching is for the.....oh, never mind.:frowning:

 

[Kevin Alexander]

The fastest growing religion in the US.