Which receiver for $3000?

Discussion in 'AV Receivers' started by JorgeG, Aug 13, 2004.

  1. JorgeG

    JorgeG Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have 2 Martin Logan Ascents for my fronts and the center Martin Logan Cinema. For my surrounds, I have in ceiling AIMone speakers. I trying to decide between getting the Sunfire Ultimate receiver (used) vs B&K AVR 507 (new) for $3000. Which do you all think would be the better choice?
    Thanks for your opinions.

    JorgeG
     
  2. Drew_W

    Drew_W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why are you limiting yourself to a receiver?

    For that budget, separates seem like a very achievable goal, and will do you much better.
     
  3. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forget about the receiver. Go for separates. You could get some very fine gear if you go used too.
     
  4. JorgeG

    JorgeG Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, for that budget, which seperates would you recommend which would yield at least the same amount of power as either one of those receivers. Thanks again.

    JorgeG
     
  5. Andy_Steb

    Andy_Steb Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would look at Rotel, maybe a rsp 1068 pre/pro and a rmb 1075 amp. $2700 retail, 120 watts 5.1 surround. If you want 7.1 you'll have play with awhile (used equip. dealer discounts)

    You could get an outlaw setup for under $3000 but I can't confirm that it would be better than the Sunfire or B&K.
     
  6. Kevin C Brown

    Kevin C Brown Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2000
    Messages:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    You could look for a used B&K Ref 50, and then any 7 channel power amp to go with it. (Outlaw makes a good 7 channel amp, the 770.) The Rotel 1068 is a good choice too.
     
  7. Chip E

    Chip E Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,165
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's absolutely nothing wrong going with the B&K 507. It is basically seperates all in one box. I had it's predecessor, the 307. I use a Ref50 with a B&K amp combo, a Ref200.2 & Ref200.5 for a 7.1 rig. The 507 has 7 non current limiting amplifiers built in unlike any other receiver i'm aware of. I wouldn't pay 3 grand for it though. Deals for around 2 grand can be had on it. A used Ref50 would cost you around $1500.00, then you could buy a used 7 channel amp for $1000.00 to $1500.00.. Lot's of choices out there.
     
  8. Drew_W

    Drew_W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is additional flexibility gained by having it in two different boxes. And you don't have to stick with one brand for both. And you can mix and match amplifiers as well. If you're going 7.1, get a good SSP, 2-channel amp for the fronts, and 5-channel amp for the rest of it.

    The choices are absolutely endless. Your wallet is probably your only leash. [​IMG]
     
  9. JorgeG

    JorgeG Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for all of the suggestions. So do think the Rotel processor RSP-1068 and Rotel RMB 1075 5channel amp be a better way to power the Martin Logans? Now the Rotel amp I believe is 125W/channel where the B&K AVR 507 is 150W/channel. Does that change anybody's mind?

    Thanks,

    Jorge
     
  10. Drew_W

    Drew_W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    Forget wattage. I'm going to wave my magic wand and remove that word from your vocabulary. Why? You need to double wattage to make only a 3dB difference in sound. The 25W difference in sound...will make no appreciable difference whatsoever.

    Sonics aside, the measure of a good amp is its headroom...it's powersupply, current capability, and ability to deal with loud peaks without compression or distortion.

    The feature sheet of an amp is not going to provide you with an awful lot of insight. You need to go auditioning!
     
  11. Jake S

    Jake S Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    straight amps are non-current-limiting which is why they have more hearroom and can output more current than all receivers (except one that I know of, B&k)which are current limiting (shorting protection, rather than fuses)...Your Martin-Logans will appreciate the differance.
     
  12. Andrew Pratt

    Andrew Pratt Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1998
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing to keep in mind is that with seperates you'll have two power supplies which given your speakers will be important as they're very demanding given their low impedance (dip as low as 2 ohms I think). The 1075 amp recomended above puts out an honest 200 watts into 4 ohms and won't break a sweat doing that all day. Keeping the amp and processor in two box's will also lower the noise floor a bit..perhapse not that much but it will be lower and it makes it easy to upgrade in the future by simply swapping out the procesor.
     
  13. JorgeG

    JorgeG Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see that the Rotel 1075 puts out 200Wx5 @ 4ohms DIN Power output (1 KHz, 1%). What does that exactly mean? Also, being that 95% of the time I'll be using my setup for HT, does that make a difference in the above choices? Thanks again.

    Jorge
     
  14. FeisalK

    FeisalK Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. JorgeG

    JorgeG Extra

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    "There are 10 kinds of people - those who understand b1inary, and those who dont."


    What was the purpose of that comment? I'm asking a question because I don't know the answer which is what I thought was the purpose of this forum.

    Jorge
     
  16. FeisalK

    FeisalK Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    that was my sig, Jorge (10 in binary = 2)

    did you look at the fetching Aragorn multichannel amp?
     
  17. Charlie C

    Charlie C Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Forget wattage. I'm going to wave my magic wand and remove that word from your vocabulary. Why? You need to double wattage to make only a 3dB difference in sound. The 25W difference in sound...will make no appreciable difference whatsoever.'

    HEADROOM, especially with martin logans!!!
    because of the clarity these speakers exude, cranking the system is prefered. yes, you dont need wattage, but you should prefer more wattage. they can take it, and with such expensive speakers, I wouldnt want my amp to start clipping at all and possibly ruin the electrostats. plus the bass units need a bit of power to really get them singing.
     
  18. Drew_W

    Drew_W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    The extra 25W gives you 0.8dB more "cranking headroom".



    Well we can get a wimpy receiver that has more wattage than a solid stereo amp and then see who clips first. I put my money on Mr. Wimpy Receiver. Even if it wasn't so wimpy and we put a Sony 130wpc receiver against a Bryston 3B(-ST/SST, 2x125W) I have a fair idea of who would win.

    Headroom is not achieved by having more wattage. It is acheived by having GOBS of current on tap to deal with transient peaks. How do you have it on tap? Well, you have a massive power supply (or multiple ones), huge capacitors...and ESPECIALLY when your speakers impedence dips to 2ohms and below, you want a rock solid amp...not one that can dish out huge amounts of wattage into 8 ohms (like the MLs are rated) and then wimps out as the impedence drops.
     
  19. Charlie C

    Charlie C Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    so you are saying wattage and headroom are completely unrelated....

    I guess you are one of those that do not understand binary [​IMG]

    but you are comparing a receiver to a power amp which is like apples and oranges in the first place. yes, power transformers that are big are good. fine, but what does that translate to, when the impedence drops, it requires more wattage...


    ---------------------------------------------------
    PS they are rated at 4 ohms

    Frequency Response: 35–22,000 Hz ±3 dB
    Dispersion
    Horizontal: 30 degrees
    Vertical: 4' (122cm) line source
    Sensitivity: 90 dB/2.83 volts/meter
    Impedance: 4 ohms, 1.2 ohms at 20kHz
    Crossover Frequency: 280 Hz
    Components: Custom-wound audio transformers, polypropylene capacitors, air core coils
    Woofer type: 10" (25.4cm) high excursion, high rigidity aluminum cone with extended throw driver assembly, non-resonance asymmetrical chamber format.
    Bass Control Switch: -3 dB below 200Hz
    Power handling: 200 watts per channel
     
  20. Drew_W

    Drew_W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the scale we're looking at here, that's exactly what I'm saying. Does 0.8dB equal a substantial increase in "headroom" ?
     

Share This Page