[Ears]

Yeah, Ears...do you have a digital camera?  A few pics would be cool.

I bought one for my wife a while back ,but don't know much about  posting pics, not to mention, we don't have high speed intenet.

For pics of the back of the 7100, check www.j&rmusicworld.com

[cjr888]

Also intrigued by the 8100 http://www.kenwoodusa.com/product/product.jsp?productTypeId=174&sortBy=price&productId=2608 which though much more costly incorporates an ethernet connection for streaming.

Also still seeking out more details on the 'Active EQ' feature on these little units and what it actually can do...  Kenwood has all the manuals online, so will have to check it out later.

[hometheaterdoc]

I would have to concur with many of Ears's assessments of the Kenwood.  I installed one for a customer recently who was very impressed with the sound quality with little burn in time.  I repeatedly advised him not to make too many critical assessments until it had been run in for quite some time.  But the darn thing sounded much better after 24 hours of run in than the pannys did...

I have more here in stock and I haven't yet had a chance to burn one in and really compare to the pannys (I've been too busy playing with projectors... mmmmm  Optoma H77 is my new favorite in the sanely priced market segment.... watched Shrek2 on DVD last night... WOW!!).

  In some ways, the Kenwood is not as convenient to use as the pannys and doesn't offer the features of the panny (but does offer others that the panny doesn't have).  However it does sound better in totally stock form than the stock panny equivalent.... why it sounds better I don't know.... how it would sound modded compared to a modded panny, I don't know... probably won't bother to find out either...

It is a viable alternative to the panny for someone looking for a budget receiver.  I've been unable to discern a loss in quality when using it's component video switching either, which I could tell with the panny....

As with anything, it's about tradeoffs...

[cjr888]

In some ways, the Kenwood is not as convenient to use as the pannys and doesn't offer the features of the panny (but does offer others that the panny doesn't have).

Could you comment on how you feel the Kenwood is less-convenient?  From the marketing writeups, I would have thought it was the other way around....

[Ears]

In some ways, the Kenwood is not as convenient to use as the pannys and doesn't offer the features of the panny (but does offer others that the panny doesn't have).

Could you comment on how you feel the Kenwood is less-convenient?  From the marketing writeups, I would have thought it was the other way around....

The 7100 has no binding posts, not even for the main channels.
The 7100 has no onscreen display.
The 7100 has no hi rez multi inputs.

The 7100 does have game mode function were you plug your a/v connections to the hidden front connections.
Supposedly, the receiver switches automatically to optimum sound feild for gaming, but I have not tried this feature yet.
The 7100 does have active eq, but I gennerally prefer treble and bass controls if I absolutely must have tone controls.

I am sure there are more differences than these, and the only analog ins that sound even decent so far are on the JVC RX-10, which sounds much better than the Pany 25/45 whith any analog source imo.

The remotes and set ups, I would rank..
1 Panny's
2 JVC
3 Kenwood

[Rob Babcock]

Geez, no 5.1 channel inputs?  No binding posts at all?  Sounds like a couple of deal breakers for me.     Maybe the JVC after all...

[Ears]

Tried the 2 channel dvd analog ins whith sa-cd and damm if it doesn't sound better than the Pany 45, even though there are zero hours on the analog section.