[brj]

Hello everyone!

With my new speakers soon to arrive, I'm looking to select a receiver in order to initially get me up and running.  2 channel music is my primary priority, but the system will be in my living room and thus need to serve HT duty both now and after I shift to separates for 2 channel playback.  I intend to use a computer as my audio source and an average DVD player for video.

My initial plan was to get the latest Panasonic receiver and have it modded.  I might still pursue this option, but it suffers one important drawback.... the pure digital path approach does not provide pre-amp outputs, thus preventing me from testing amps.  With that in mind, I want to identify an alternate contender with the following qualities:

1) Pre-amp outputs
2) USB input greatly preferred (Ethernet or Firewire would also work)
3) Bi-amp ability greatly preferred (thus requiring 7 channels)
4) Usable subwoofer crossover points (40 Hz preferred)
5) HDMI input/output greatly preferred

Other niceties would include real binding posts, upgradable firmware, good remote, dual subwoofer outputs, etc..  Bass management or room correction would be fun to play with, but I haven't heard that these are typically impressive on most receivers.  Again standard (Redbook format) music is my primary focus.

My speakers are 85 dB/2.83v/1M and nominally 8 Ohms.  I tend not to crank up the volume as high as many, but with those speaker specs, some power will be required.  This is the primary reason I'm looking at 7.1/7.2 channel receivers that can bi-amp.

New and used units are both acceptable, and I am comfortable having the product modded to attain an "audiophile" level of performance.  This includes having an S/PDIF input modded to a USB input, adding good binding posts, beefing up the power supply, etc..

As for price, I'd like to keep it under $1500.  This price is roughly the upper limit I've seen for a Panasonic SA-XR70 with full mods.  Lower is definitely better, as the more I spend now, the longer it takes me to get a better system of separates.  I'm happy to give up bells and whistles in order to get better sound quality at a lower price.

So... any recommendations?

Many thanks for any thoughts and comments!

[Loftprojection]

I've shopped for receivers about 8-12 months ago.  I even bought one of the Panasonic but returned it after 2 weeks.  I tested Pioneer, Denon, Integra, HarmanKardon, NAD, Cambridge and Arcam.

Under $1500 you can easily beat the Panny for two channel music quality.  Very cheap is the Cambridge 540R but even better is the Arcam AVR250 or 300 but the 300 might be a bit more then $1500.  If you are ok with used, check audiogon, there are always some Arcam AVR200 that popup for $700-900.  Most people will agree that for a not too expensive 2 channel sound quality, Arcam really stands out of the lot.  

Now, you list a lot of "functions" you want to have.  I don't really know if either of the Arcams or the Cambridge have all those functions.  Myself I don't look at that, movies, features and functions are really low priority, when I shopped for a receiver, 2 channel sound quality was the only priority.  I know Integra makes receivers that were not so bad sounding when I listened to them and they did have more of the bells and whistles, you might want to look at those also.

Have fun shopping.

[brj]

Hi Loftprojection - thanks for the reply!

I tested Pioneer, Denon, Integra, HarmanKardon, NAD, Cambridge and Arcam.

I've been trying to do some reading, but there are so many options in this area that I'm having a hard time even limiting the field.  I've looked at some of the brands you mentioned, plus Sherwood-Newcastle and Onkyo.  (Boy do I wish I could believe manufacturer's specs and that some 2 channel review sites would cover HT receivers!)

So what did you end up purchasing after returning the Panny?

Under $1500 you can easily beat the Panny for two channel music quality.

Certainly, but I suspect that it will be much more difficult to surpass the modded Panny.

Very cheap is the Cambridge 540R but even better is the Arcam AVR250 or 300 but the 300 might be a bit more then $1500. If you are ok with used, check audiogon, there are always some Arcam AVR200 that popup for $700-900. Most people will agree that for a not too expensive 2 channel sound quality, Arcam really stands out of the lot.

I've read a lot of good things about Arcam, so they are one that I've been researching rather extensively.  It sounds like the AVR300 was a significant improvement over the 200, so that was the one I was shooting for, but even used it seems a bit pricy.  It also falls down in some of the features I mentioned above.

(As an aside, it seems like the AVR300 has been out for a while now.  I'm surprised that it hasn't been updated recently.)

Now, you list a lot of "functions" you want to have. I don't really know if either of the Arcams or the Cambridge have all those functions. Myself I don't look at that, movies, features and functions are really low priority, when I shopped for a receiver, 2 channel sound quality was the only priority. I know Integra makes receivers that were not so bad sounding when I listened to them and they did have more of the bells and whistles, you might want to look at those also.

Well, the specifically listed features that I mentioned aren't really of the "bells and whistles" category, but those that I've identified as likely to improve 2 channel playback in my system.  (Enabling computer as source, providing sufficient power for my 85 dB speakers, easy sub integration for 2 channel, etc.)  I'm definitely willing to give up many of the HT related bell and whistles.

Have fun shopping.

  Thanks, but I'll have fun once my system is up and running!

Thanks again for the comments!

[brj]

Hi Loftprojection - thanks for the reply!

I tested Pioneer, Denon, Integra, HarmanKardon, NAD, Cambridge and Arcam.

I've been trying to do some reading, but there are so many options in this area that I'm having a hard time even limiting the field.  I've looked at some of the brands you mentioned, plus Sherwood-Newcastle and Onkyo.  (Boy do I wish I could believe manufacturer's specs and that some 2 channel review sites would cover HT receivers!)

So what did you end up purchasing after returning the Panny?

Under $1500 you can easily beat the Panny for two channel music quality.

Certainly, but I suspect that it will be much more difficult to surpass the modded Panny.

Very cheap is the Cambridge 540R but even better is the Arcam AVR250 or 300 but the 300 might be a bit more then $1500. If you are ok with used, check audiogon, there are always some Arcam AVR200 that popup for $700-900. Most people will agree that for a not too expensive 2 channel sound quality, Arcam really stands out of the lot.

I've read a lot of good things about Arcam, so they are one that I've been researching rather extensively.  It sounds like the AVR300 was a significant improvement over the 200, so that was the one I was shooting for, but even used it seems a bit pricy.  It also falls down in some of the features I mentioned above.

(As an aside, it seems like the AVR300 has been out for a while now.  I'm surprised that it hasn't been updated recently.)

Now, you list a lot of "functions" you want to have. I don't really know if either of the Arcams or the Cambridge have all those functions. Myself I don't look at that, movies, features and functions are really low priority, when I shopped for a receiver, 2 channel sound quality was the only priority. I know Integra makes receivers that were not so bad sounding when I listened to them and they did have more of the bells and whistles, you might want to look at those also.

Well, the specifically listed features that I mentioned aren't really of the "bells and whistles" category, but those that I've identified as likely to improve 2 channel playback in my system.  (Enabling computer as source, providing sufficient power for my 85 dB speakers, easy sub integration for 2 channel, etc.)  I'm definitely willing to give up many of the HT related bell and whistles.

Have fun shopping.

  Thanks, but I'll have fun once my system is up and running!

Thanks again for the comments!

[bhobba]

My initial plan was to get the latest Panasonic receiver and have it modded.

The Pansonic XR55 looks pretty good.  Check out
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=602135

Well, I and a five (4M, 1F) friends of various audio/music backgrounds (one has a system anchored by B&W N805s, one has a DM from Yale, one was a player in a major symphony orchestra, and so on) did a single-blind listening test between the XR55 and my previous setup (Marantz AV600 pre-proc, Adcom GFA-535II, and Adcom GFA-2535) when the XR55 was basically new. (I had watched "The Daily Show" twice though it and that's about it.) Obviously, the test was not multichannel, because the Marantz does not do Dolby Digital or DPL2. Levels were matched at 1kHz with a scope and the matching was confirmed at 100Hz and 16kHz. Speakers were 12" Tannoy duals, which are both extremely resolving and moderately efficient (~94dB/w/m). Source material used was orchestral (Vladimir Ashkenazy conducting Shostakovich), jazz (Bela Fleck and the Flecktones), female vocalist (Natalie Merchant live). All were fed from a Powerbook to an Apple Airport Express and encoded in Apple Lossless. Though it doesn't matter, all of the panelists had seen BFF and Natalie Merchant live before; I was the only one who had heard Ashkenazy conduct live, though not this particular piece.) Cables were switched manually, or pretended to be switched using a calculated time delay, which is the flaw in the test. The listening and equipment were in different rooms (~25' of speaker wire) so that the listeners could not see what was going on. Each musical excerpt was played 7 times over 1/2 hour. After the data were crunched in SAS, it was clear that there was no statistically significant sonic difference between the Marantz/Adcom separates and the Panny. As a control, the next day the same panelists ran a second single-blind test, this time using two pairs of identical speakers (KEF Q-Compacts) rather than swapping leads on one set. As the geometry of the Q-Compact precludes vertical stacking, one pair was set next to the other horizontally on the same stand, with a horizontal center-to-center spacing of about 7", to either side of what was consider the ideal placement azis. At random intervals, the leads were swapped, so that one set of speakers was connected to the other electronics. (Or simply connected to the same ones after a delay to simulate swapping.) Two statistical analyses were run, using SAS. Controlling for change of speaker pair (which was statistically significant, as one would expect) the difference in the components was not significant.  The conclusions are obvious: no difference. However, the Panny is much smaller and uses far less energy for the same result, so on balance I think it's a win for the little guy. If size or energy efficiency aren't concerns, then the Panny would've lost because I already had the other gear and the Panny was (small) additional expenditure.  Previously, this system or components within it had been found sonically identical to several other chains, generally featuring more expensive gear (the Adcoms vs. Classe amps, the Marantz pre vs. a Meridian 501, that sort of thing) but there's no valid reason to think that what what works "up" won't work "down", too. Any receiver of competent design should sound the same as the Panny, or for that matter a multi-kilobuck Meridian/Classe separates system, on appropriate speakers.

Some reviewes will have you beleive the difference between amps is night and day - however blind listening tests tend to dispute that.  BTW I bleive there are differences between amps - they are just not of the night and day variety.  Start out with the Panny then try amps until you get exactly what you wnat - consdering its price you will not be much out of pocket and know you have not spend your money on a dud.

Thanks
Bill

[jermmd]

I would check out the new Outlaw receivers. The 2-channel receiver reviewed in this months Audiophile sounds great and even includes a USB input for computer connections. If multichannel and DSP is a must, Outlaw also has a 7 channel receiver (the 1070). I haven't heard the new stuff but I owned the old 1050 receiver as well as the 950 processor and I thought they were great. Outlaw has a reputation for value and quality. Plus, it's more exotic than the standard brands, FWIW.

[ajzepp]

I agree with Joe....I owned a 1050 and thought it was a clear step up from the Denon I replaced with it. I'm running the 950 pre/pro with some of the Outlaw monoblock amps right now.....have been for a few years. I'm planning to upgrade the amps, but not the pre/pro.

[zybar]

I agree with Joe....I owned a 1050 and thought it was a clear step up from the Denon I replaced with it. I'm running the 950 pre/pro with some of the Outlaw monoblock amps right now.....have been for a few years. I'm planning to upgrade the amps, but not the pre/pro.

Interesting...

I had the 950 and replaced it with a Denon 3805 and thought it provided better detail and separation for movies and tv.

In either case. I wasn't impressed when using it for 2 channel.  In fact, I have yet to hear a receiver or pre/pro up to $10k in price that I would want as a part of my 2 channel system.

George

[ajzepp]

George:

I am very surprised that you found the Denon better than the 950. The 950 has been favorably reviewed and held it's ground against competition from Anthem and Lexicon, both of which were much more expensive.

As for 2-channel, I should have clarified. I'm not disappointed with its performance in this regard, but now that I've settled on my speaker upgrade, I'm going to put together a nice, clean 2-channel path that will run separate from the 950. I'm building it backwards....speakers, then amp, then an outboard DAC, and lastly a preamp with HT bypass. I'll only use the 950 for HT when I'm done.

[zybar]

George:

I am very surprised that you found the Denon better than the 950. The 950 has been favorably reviewed and held it's ground against competition from Anthem and Lexicon, both of which were much more expensive.

As for 2-channel, I should have clarified. I'm not disappointed with its performance in this regard, but now that I've settled on my speaker upgrade, I'm going to put together a nice, clean 2-channel path that will run separate from the 950. I'm building it backwards....speakers, then amp ...

Which Denon did you have?

Did you directly compare?  

I had both in the system for weeks (I owned both) and sold the loser of my movie shootout.

In the end I think they are both good and either would be a good choice.

George

[ajzepp]

No, as far as head to head comparison, you're in a better position to directly compare. I replaced a Denon 18-- (was five years ago....can't remember model number) with my 1050. In this case, I felt the amp section of the Outlaw was clearly superior to that of the Denon. I put the Denon up on Ebay. About a year later I added a Parasound HCA-855 outboard amp to the 1050, which was also movement in the right direction. Then came the 950, first with the Parasound, then with the monoblocks. I remember the first film I watched was Bourne Identity and I felt the surround processing was just amazing. I haven't heard the Denon you're referring to, I'm just suprised to hear you say you felt it was better. Supposedly Outlaws new processor is significantly improved and garnering some impressive reviews.

[brj]

In either case. I wasn't impressed when using it for 2 channel. In fact, I have yet to hear a receiver or pre/pro up to $10k in price that I would want as a part of my 2 channel system.

George, I understand your position - especially in light of your current, very impressive 2 channel system - but I have to start somewhere!  I have officially given up on the idea that I can buy the "perfect" system up front.  I'm now resigned to a certain level of system iteration.

bhobba, I haven't ruled out the Panny, especially in modded form, but the more I consider my options, the more I'm convinced that I need the receiver to have pre-amp outputs.  Eventually, the receiver will be cut out of the system for 2 channel reproduction by a pre-amp with an HT bypass mode.  The addition of a pre-amp, however, will be many $$ and even more months/years downstream.  It will also be preceded by room treatements and the addition of outboard (main speaker) amps and an outboard DAC.

For those recommending Outlaw, thanks for the suggestion.  I'll give them a close look, although my understanding was that Sherwood-Newcastle OEMed some of the Outlaw gear.  This was one reason I was looking at the S-N R-965.  I admit, however, that the more reasonable cost of Outlaw's pre-pro provides another option as well.

As for Denon, I've done some reading about them, but need to find some more useful reviews that discuss 2 channel performance.

Thanks to everyone for the comments so far!  I look forward to any other suggestions!

[Loftprojection]

So what did you end up purchasing after returning the Panny?

Nothing!!!  After all this testing I realized that no HT receiver was going to meet my expectations for 2 channel music quality.  So I kept my old Arcam AV50 receiver which still has very good sound quality and bought a Audio Aero Prima stereo integrated amp.  For music I feed the stereo integrated directly from my CDP and for movies I feed the preamp out of my receiver into it.

It sounds like the AVR300 was a significant improvement over the 200

Yes for movies, no for 2 channel music.  I tested both and for music it's basically a wash unless you need mega power.  By the way, I also use 85db speakers and my headphone 6w tupe amp is able to drive them to a reasonnable level so I'm always surprised when people are looking for so many watts in their amps...

(As an aside, it seems like the AVR300 has been out for a while now. I'm surprised that it hasn't been updated recently.)

Arcam is the kind of company that pushes more on sound quality then HT features so they don't need to update frequently, their followers don't really care.

(Enabling computer as source, providing sufficient power for my 85 dB speakers, easy sub integration for 2 channel, etc.)

Think about a DAC, don't rely on a HT receiver to give you great two channels music.  85db speakers is nothing special unless you live in a church and want to throw parties.  I don't know what speakers you have but for most music with decent speakers a sub is not necessary unless you like rocking the walls!

All this is probably not helping you a lot but it is my opinion.  At least it gives you another perspective.  

I wont say have fun shopping this time, let's say have fun with the future system.  

[bhobba]

bhobba, I haven't ruled out the Panny, especially in modded form, but the more I consider my options, the more I'm convinced that I need the receiver to have pre-amp outputs.

Yes indeed that is a big problem with the Panny - no pre outs to easilly use other amps.  However it is cheap (at least in the USA - not quite as cheap here in Oz) so ditching it in favour of the you beauty amp you found would not be expensive.  But then again going for something like a Dennon with pre outs from the start would not require you to even do that.

Thanks
Bill

[John Casler]

George, I understand your position - especially in light of your current, very impressive 2 channel system - but I have to start somewhere!  I have officially given up on the idea that I can buy the "perfect" system up front.  I'm now resigned to a certain level of system iteration.

bhobba, I haven't ruled out the Panny, especially in modded form, but the more I consider my options, the more I'm convinced that I need the receiver to have pre-amp outputs.  Eventually, the receiver will be cut out of the s ...

Hi Brian,

Couple thoughts:

You could easily start with the Sherwood NewCastle R-865 (which is exactly the same "processing and preamp" wise as the P-965, except you get the 7 amps onboard. (retail $1500)

The two channel performance of the R-865 is probably as good as you'll find in the Receivers of that price bracket.

This would give you a nice upgrade path of adding a good stereo amp, and 2 channel preamp with the lowest cost.

I wouldn't worry about HDMI switching, and buy a much better "outboard unit, when and if you need it, rather than send it through a mid-priced receiver.

I doubt the Panny Preamp is as good, but I haven't compared.  The Sherwood NC and the Harman Kardon are generally considered "reasonably good" in the AV reciever pre-amp realm.

Then when you upgrade/add a higher quality 2 channel preamp and amp, you still have  5 channels of amplification in the Sherwood at your disposal.

The R-865 does have many of your wish list, including some "equalization" features, and bass management down to 40Hz.

As a dealer of Denon, Harman Kardon, Pioneer, Sherwood NewCastle, Panasonic, JVC, Kenwood, and several others, it is the one I have in my system.

But one "caveat".  Do not go below the R-865.  They are just not in the same league.  It is a "steep cliff" drop off, (performance wise) under that model.

[brj]

Thanks for the additional comments, guys!

John, the Sherwood-Newcastle R-965 was the model I was looking at.  It costs a bit more than the R-865, but gains a USB input and a small increase in power.  I assume the power increase is probably due to a somewhat beefier power supply rather than different amp modules.  I wish I could confirm, however, that the USB input (for any of these units) went straight to the DAC via an I2S connection.

The only thing that the R-965 lacks is HDMI abilities, which concerns me only as it pertains to future-proofing my HT capabilities.  There is talk that 1080p televisions may downgrade their display resolution for any connection other than HDMI.  (The wonders of the RIAA and MPAA and their blind drive to implement DRM at every possible turn, now matter how much it annoys and hurts the vast majority of their customers that are entirely willing to pay for their entertainment products...)

The other two receivers that look interesting are the Denon AVR-4306 and the Pioneer Elite VSX-74TXVi.

The Pioneer has the most complete feature set, but it uses an amp technology that I haven't been able to read much about.  Of course, with the lowest price of the bunch, it would allow me to avoid the issue by moving to outboard amps sooner.  I still need to read up on the DACs used by all three units and see what the reviews say.  The hard part is getting a read on the pre-amp sections of each unit.

Then again, the HT world seems to be in a greater than usual mess right now (1080p support issues, HDMI 1.1 vs. 1.2/1.3 specs, still evolving computer audio interfaces, Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD, etc.).  If I had the funds handy to accomplish it, I'd almost rather just pursue my pure 2 channel setup and live with a cheap DVD player providing "HT" capabilities into 2 speakers for a year!

Thanks again to everyone for the input!

[wje]

Be careful with this one.  I have the Panny xr55 receiver.  It is a very detailed receiver.  On some days, I might even consider it one of the more musical receivers that I've owned.  However, do keep in mind, that with the detail that the Panny provides, you have to pair it with the right speakers for a proper sound.  If you use speakers that are too bright, the Panny will not match well at all.

I've owned many, many home theater receivers.  I wouldn't use many of them for longer term 2-channel listening as they tend not to do as well in that area.

If it were me, I'd:

1) Get an adequate integrated amp that you'll be happy with for the next few years.
2) Pick out a pair of speakers that will please you when it comes to music.
3) Purchase your DVD player and use your 2-channel system for the sound duties.
4) Add on a subwoofer, if more bass is desired during movies.

After you've had 1-4 running for a while and are reasonably happy, you could:

5) Look at HT receivers for possible purchase
6) Look at and listen to some potential speaker packages.
7) Proceed with the expansion.

My advice comes from that basis that I watch 1-2 movies per week.  However, music listening falls somewhere between 10 - 15 hours during that same week.  With the majority of the use being music, I'd invest my $$ in that area first.

Enjoy !

[John Casler]

Thanks for the additional comments, guys!

John, the Sherwood-Newcastle R-965 was the model I was looking at.  It costs a bit more than the R-865, but gains a USB input and a small increase in power.  I assume the power increase is probably due to a somewhat beefier power supply rather than different amp modules.  I wish I could confirm, however, that the USB input (for any of these units) went straight to the DAC via an I2S connection.

The only thin ...

Just add this, or similar HDMI switcher, to the Receive of your choice.  Switching Video "inside" an AVR has never seemed like a good idea to me.

Notice how many DVD players and AVR's "shut down" video circuitry for 2 channel (The R-965 is an example)

[brj]

John and wje, thanks for the thoughts!

Be careful with this one.  I have the Panny xr55 receiver.  It is a very detailed receiver.  On some days, I might even consider it one of the more musical receivers that I've owned.  However, do keep in mind, that with the detail that the Panny provides, you have to pair it with the right speakers for a proper sound.  If you use speakers that are too bright, the Panny will not match well at all.

From everything I've read, much of that brightness or "edge" is tamed when the unit is modded.

And, again, I'm really looking for alternatives to the Panny at this point in order to identify an HT receiver that has pre-outs.  It is only meant to be an interim 2 channel solution.  With a pre-out capable receiver, I can investigate both amps and DACs at leisure.  A pre-amp with HT bypass is then next on the list.  That said, I still want the receiver to have some minimum level of quality because it will continue to serve long term HT duty.

The speakers are already ordered, the 2 channel source will be a computer, and DVD duties will be handled by an older unit already owned.

Just add this, or similar HDMI switcher, to the Receive of your choice. Switching Video "inside" an AVR has never seemed like a good idea to me.

I've actually started to consider HDMI switchers (Gefen, S-N, etc.) as an option.  I don't really need it immediately, and since the HDMI spec is changing anyway, this is sounding like a better idea the more I consider it.  There is a little extra programming involved in the remote, and I'm not sure how HDMI based OSD from the receiver would work, but these are both relatively minor issues.  The only possibly significant issue is where video scaling gets done - if the receiver is handling that duty, then I'd prefer that it have the benefit of HDMI input and output.  Most likely, however, the TV could handle this duty.

Thanks!

[Loftprojection]

Hey brj, if you decide that you want to give up some of the newer HT functions and buy an video switcher in the future then one thing you could look at is buying a used high end receiver or even seperate pre-pro and amp.  On Audiogon and avsforum there are always great deals on older HT equipment.  Stuff that was selling $3-5000 (B&K, Sunfire, Proceed,...) a few years ago is sometimes sold for less then $1000.  The older Outlaw prepro can be had for peanuts, etc...  I am still using an Arcam AV50 receiver for HT duties.  That thing doesn't even have a DD-DTS decoder built-in however the sound is really good, it has pre-out to feed an amp and it has a 5.1 analog input.  So whenever technology changes, I just buy the newest DVD player with decoder inside and I feed my old receiver with the 5.1 analog.  I've compared the sound of my Arcam versus several new receivers, none sounded as good except the new Arcam AVR300...

Just another suggestion.