Good cheap HT Receiver

Carlman · « **on:** 5 Jan 2006, 09:24 pm »

I've been slowly improving my HT system over the years. I had a set of RAD Micro's and have replaced that with a set of Usher 520's. I plan to get the matching sub for the Usher's. So, I'm thinking of getting something better than the Panasonic XR-25 I'm currently using.

(The Micro/Panny xr-25 system is going to move to my bedroom, replacing an Aiwa minisystem.)

So, I'm looking at new receivers for the Usher system. The Panasonic XR55 gets good reviews but I'm wondering if it's a real improvement over the 25. Has anyone compared these?

The XR-25 is OK but nothing special to me... and worth about what I paid, $200 or so.

I'll be powering a 5.1 system and it needs to be somewhat compact. A really tall receiver won't work for me because of where it has to go. (under a 46" tabletop RPTV that has a little shelf underneath)

Options are appreciated. If you've got something to sell, PM is OK but please don't post it as a reply... (pet peeve of mine)

I'm mainly interested to know if the XR-55 trumps the XR-25 in sound quality when using it for HT.

Thanks,
Carl

Eric5676 · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 Jan 2006, 09:53 pm »

I've seen some killer deals going around, at places like One Call, and Vanns, for things like the Harman Kardon 335 and thereabouts. I think there might even be a receiver below 335. HK's are excellent.

I'm not really sure what your budget is here. The Panny's are excellent budget receivers.

Not sure if there's anything here that meets your budget, but I have to pimp www.outlawaudio.com

byteme · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 Jan 2006, 10:36 pm »

As Q-bandit said, the HK's are great recievers. They compare underpowered to other receivers but their watts are real, not puffed.

Another good option would be Marantz. I deal with both of these brands and people have been very happy with them. Onecall is a good source for HK, as mentioned, if you get the model on it's way out you can find great deals. For good Marantz deals I'd look here - http://www.accessories4less.com/cgi-bin/category/AVReceiver - you can get great deals on Marantz Refurbs. Some of the newer ones even switch HDMI - if that's a necessity down the road.

eric the red · « **Reply #3 on:** 5 Jan 2006, 10:42 pm »

Here's another option
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=24100

bhobba · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 Jan 2006, 11:28 pm »

Check out
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=600778&page=1&pp=30

And
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.)'

'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.'

Now I do not ascribe to the all amplifiers sound the same school (highly competent and reputable engineers like Hugh Dean and Leo Simpson can pick differences) but what the above does show is that differences between amps, if any, are rather hard to pick - certainly not the night and day differences some would have you think. Basically you need to have a lot of experience with the system. IMHO it is sort of like high bit rate MP3's - many tests have shown they are indistinguishable from CD's even on the best equipment. But one can be trained in what to look for and once you do that then they are readily distinguishable in certain recordings. To such people the differences can seem like night and day.

Thanks
Bill

Carlman · « **Reply #5 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 01:20 am »

Bill, thanks for your review notes.

I can definitely hear the difference in amplifiers in my sound room... and a lot of other differences... I guess I've trained my ear a little too well, though... Once I hear something I don't like, I can no longer live with it.... As is the case with the main HT rig.... Which is NOT in my sound room... It's in the family room which has high WAF limits.

In that room, the XR-25 just doesn't sound 'full' or 'rich' like I'd like. That may have something to do with placement, room interaction and the like, though. So, I'm going to mess around in my den with placement and such this weekend and make sure the specific deficiencies aren't me, my room, or placement.

ETR, that Outlaw looks yuge.

I'd have no room for a DVD player if I used that. Thanks for the link, though...

The main reason I have the XR-25 is because it's so small... The 55 is pushing it a bit... and may not work well but I think it'll work. I'll have to take a photo sometime...

The Marantz receivers are surprisingly good sounding to me. They lean to a little warmer sound but don't give up details. I helped install a very complicated one for my bro-in-law and I think it's almost a foot tall

... So, that's out. I actually like the little Marantz monoblocks. I heard them sounding very nice at a dealer's place one time...

If I could do a small pre/pro and some small amps put elsewhere, that'd be great... but I can't add a zero to my $200-500 budget anytime soon.

Thanks for the great suggestions and replies.

-C

jqp · « **Reply #6 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 02:10 am »

I have the outlaw 950. Love it for all the inputs, options and sound quality that seems very good to me for HT.

It is as big as a hefty receiver - my DVR is sitting on a milk crate until I rearrange.

Oh yeah its not cheap but I'll bet you could get a deal on it as its an older model.

Carlman · « **Reply #7 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 03:21 pm »

I got to thinking a bit more about this... and maybe, just maybe I can find a good surround sound pre/pro and connect 3 Marantz MA500's to the L,R, and Center speakers. (I already have a 2-channel I could use for rears)

3 used MA500's would be $500 or less shipped. I found a B&K AVR10 for $450 on Agon... so, for about 1,k, I'd have a pretty snazzy setup. The B&K appears to only be about 4" tall, half the height of an Outlaw or Marantz receiver.

Maybe I'm just dreaming... I think I'll get out the ol' tape measure this weekend.

-C

zybar · « **Reply #8 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 03:24 pm »

Carl,

What about getting a Panny X45 (or subsequent model) and having Wayne at Bolder modifiy it?

This solves your space issue and I have heard the modified unit and it is darn good for the money!

George

Eric5676 · « **Reply #9 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 04:13 pm »

FWIW, the new Outlaw hardware is getting rave reviews all over the place and being considered a king as far as performance/value for your dollar.

Lots of nice options in this thread already!

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #10 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 04:49 pm »

Carl!

Be the official Audio Circle guinea pig for the new JVC RX-D702 top-of-the-line receiver.....with the newest Generation III hybrid digital topology.

Those of us with the much lower powered bottom-of-the-line RX-F10 with the lowly Generation II system have found it drives near anything well. And superbly well for it's modest cost.

And, hubba-hubba, talk about freeing up rack and wallet space for ya'.....it's only $600.00 at Vanns.

http://www.vanns.com/shop/servlet/item/features/538799400

Carlman · « **Reply #11 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 07:05 pm »

That JVC looks pretty nice... definitely the right size. I'm going to have to measure tonight, though... My dealer showed me this:
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-DkQaINEj89R/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=10420&I=033AV3806B

Ears · « **Reply #12 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 07:25 pm »

S&V measurments were 2 channel 104@ 8ohms173 @4ohms

5 channels 73@ 8ohms
83@ 40hms
For reference the xr 70 had 77 x6 @8ohms.

The 5 channel peformance seems very weak...considering its listed specs.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #13 on:** 6 Jan 2006, 07:57 pm »

Ears, the Panny's are limited in far many more ways than mere wattage specs...the JVC's, less so.

I suspect all receivers save a few (Magnum Dynalab, Outlaw) might be a tad on the generous side of stated wattage specs. There's just so much you can cram in those cases.

You can buy two JVC's for the cost of one Denon...then you'd have all the power you need

Kidding, of course...one should be sufficient

Be our guinea pig, Carl!....I would have if I hadn't developed a desirous penchant for vinyl of late (ie, need phono now, and would prefer NOT to buy an outboard device).

Ears · « **Reply #14 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 12:48 am »

Quote from: TheChairGuy

Ears, the Panny's are limited in far many more ways than mere wattage specs...the JVC's, less so.

I suspect all receivers save a few (Magnum Dynalab, Outlaw) might be a tad on the generous side of stated wattage specs. There's just so much you can cram in those cases.

You can buy two JVC's for the cost of one Denon...then you'd have all the power you need

Kidding, of course...one should be sufficient

Be our guinea pig, Carl!....I would have if I hadn't developed a desirous ...

Not mine...I use two pro modified in a passive bi amped set up for H/T.

The rx-10 was no match for any of these Panys...for H/T with both stock....neither was the Kenwood 7100 or H/K dpr 2005....as I tried them all.

The Pany is rated at 100@6ohms....making it exactly what it says it is power wise....were the JVC 702 has less than half its advertised output into 5 channels