[cjr888]

I know the ICEPower amplifiers are fine with low impedance speakers (Acoustic Reality, H20, EVS, etc), and I think the TriPath units are comfortable as well, and I know nothing about the other chipsets, or the implementations used on the cheaper receiver models using digital amplification regardless of the chipset used.

So in regards to the consumer receivers only -- of the ones people are using, and based on the knowledge of their implementation, which of these receivers (if any) would be most capable of driving say an 86-88db, 4 ohm nominal speaker?

I'm curious as I am looking to purchase one of these cheaper receivers for a pair of speakers for the TV area.  I am inquiring how much they dip and for a graph, but for now 4 ohm nominal is all I know.

Listening impressions and "no problems here with receiverA + speakerB" comments are appreciated, but really chasing after the technical "this should work best" sort of scenario.

Any assistance greatly appreciated.

[cjr888]

I will also tack on an addition question that's off topic from the thread, but its my thread, so...

All TVs seem to be moving to include a DVI or HDMI connection, yet the trend doesn't seem to be happening in the cheap/medium priced receivers, and similarly with DVD players with the exception of a few low end and a few high end players (Bravo, Samsung, etc) but receivers seem to have the least support for it.

So let's say you buy a TV with DVI or HDMI, and you have a source with DVI output, a receiver without DVI input, and multiple video sources (say cable TV, a Playstation, and the DVD player with DVI)

1) If you want to use DVI, does this pretty much mean that to switch sources, you're not routing DVI through the receiver any have to switch the DVI source differently that the other sources?

2) If you had two DVI sources would you have that annoyance, but the annoyance of cable swapping to switch the two DVI sources?

3) Any reason why TV manufacturers are jumping on the trend, but the receiver and DVD market appears to care less?

Any input on these questions and especially the speaker/digital-receiver question above are greatly appreciated.

[JoshK]

To your second question.  Since DVI is digital, much like S/PDIF, much care needs to be taken in switching.  I would look to acquire a quality video switch from the likes of Zektor, Key Digital, etc for such applications and not rely on the receiver to do that, but then again those will cost more than the receiver itself.  I think the advantages of DVI can only be ceased if the disadvantages are not realized.  Just like S/PDIF in music, DVI is susceptible AFAIK to jutter (jitter but for video) and instead of 3-5 fat cables you are sending everything over one cable that is running 15 tiny cables in one.

When the issues of format and standardization resolve themselves (akin to SACD vs DVDA I think) I think this will just be a marketing tool for those who want less cable clutter in the back of their equiptment and not necessarily a better implementation unless you go hi-end.  Much like in audio.

HDMI, DVI, HDCP, blah, blah blah...will it ever end?

[lcrim]

DVI is for video only transmission.  HDMI adds digital audio to the digital video transmission.  When you say that a television has a DVI input remember that a CRT display is by its very nature analog so conversion has to be done to analog.  
Pacific cables is marketing a DVI switcher for ~$200 which is a reasonable price to connect your satellite box and DVI output (uprezzed) DVD player.

[ABEX]

For those that grew up in the B&W era all of it seems moot I think.Better is good,but I do not need to run after every new hookup capability.
I'd rather focus on good 3\ch. sound then to $ch. with the addons as a bonus.

JMO

[cjr888]

1.  Anyone with thoughts on digital receivers and the chipsets used and capabilities with low impedance speakers?  Seemed like everyone and their mother knew everything about the chipsets on the market and the technical and fidelity benefits of each..  Someone out there?

2.  Regarding DVI or HDMI or whatever comes out next week, lets stick with DVI for sake of argument.  There's the obvious benefit to video and keeping things digital, or digital for as long as possible.  My second question is really why we don't see this on the receivers and DVD players -- seems to be all over even cheaper video cards for computers, monitors, and TVs, but receivers....no.

When the primary market is targeted around convenience, I wonder why the inputs/outputs haven't appeared, or rather have appeared on some devices (TVs) but not on other associated equipment, and in the current market, if using the performance benefit of DVI pretty much dictates including a lack of convenience unless you look to the high end.

The switcher box looks like an intriguing option, but if you were playing the budget game, you're now buying a device that costs as much as your receiver....and I have to assume that you switch several inputs on your receiver....and some others on another device.  I figure if Bravo can offer a cheapo DVD player with DVI and upconverted output that including on a receiver isn't that expensive of an expensive option -- maybe doing switching 'correctly' is.....but that's where I defer to the folks that know 100x more than myself...and its not like the rest of the implementation of the receiver is aiming for ideals...

Only other reason I can come up with is partnerships and standards and companies wondering which one they should follow.  Fact of the matter is, the standard consumer has many video inputs -- having a new and better option doesn't exactly sell well if it voids the convenience factor...part of the reason (outside of price) that MP3 players sell like crazy, but items like single input, dual knob, dual mono volume controls without a remote control might be better for fidelity, but since the convenience factor drops to zero, would completely fail in the standard consumer market, to the point of people saying "Why would I buy that?" if you introduced it to the common market.

Waiting for someone to put out a decent, affordable digital receiver, with variable crossover points, and video switching for what's actually current in this day and age.  Pretty much seems like this exists, without the current video switching.  I believe Sony and Denon and some of the others offer it on their high end options....just seems odd that if say Sony is going to push and advertise the connection format on their televisions....that you'd see it follow on their other products in the same way that you have a $200 and $2000 SACD player vs. only having a $2000 SACD player.  Including the convenience....without the ideal implementation is still often better from a sales perspective than not offering it at all.

Anyways...

[AmericanaAmerican]

I'm using a JVC RX-F10 to power some small 4-ohm magnepans (mmg-w) without any problem. Note: these are small maggies in a small room.  The amp is running a little hot, cause I've been listening to it non-stop since i got it.

I might be up all night going through my favorites    

The more you play the f10 the better it sounds.  Clear and detailed. I can hear guitar picks hitting the pick guards!  Cymbals, snare drums, are unreal.   And the lows have recently gotten punchier. To sum up -- stunning.

The analog inputs are great too, maybe better than the digital rca (I have not tried the optical spdif).   The video switching was acceptable as well.

I'm very impressed. Hi-Fi at Fryes!  The boutique amp companies should be worried, very worried.