[gkinberg]

I will soon be in the market for a new HT receiver and I am not ready to make the jump to seperates. I intend to have the receiver do the DAC rather than the disc player and therefore want a good DAC.

I've notice that some manufatures use 192 khz even on their mid tier equipment (onkyo) as oposed to denon's 96 kHz DAC. Is this expected to make a large, small or nonexistent difference in the quality of the DAC processing. I have the same question regarding the Bits. Although, seems that only the high end receivers have the 32 bit DAC instead of the 24 bit mid level equipment. Thoughts and oppinions are appreciated.

Thanks, Garth

[Mr Peabody]

I wouldn't get caught up on the numbers/specs game.  There is much more to good sound than the mere conversion process.  I know some probably get tired of hearing this but the best way is to listen to your prospects.  Today where nearly every retailer offers a 30 day return being stuck with an unhappy purchase is less likely.  It's more how the signal is handled after the conversion and how good the analog circuits are, then the signal has to pass through the rest of the receiver.  So don't get caught up on one area, evaluate the total package.  I'm personally partial to the way Onkyo builds their output stages but either them or Denon would be a decent choice without moving up to brands like Rotel or NAD.

Are you concerned with music or HT playback, or both?  In music I am mostly disappointed in any receiver DAC.  Even some good processors.  A better option for music would be to get a decent playback source and utilize the receiver's "bypass" option which would allow the analog to bypass all the receiver's internal processing.  For HT I like to play a movie I'm familiar with and in addition to overall sound I pay close attention to what I call "steering" or movement of sound effects from speaker to speaker.  If you've never paid attention to this it does vary and the better processors can impress with good steering.

I hope this helped some. 

[gkinberg]

Thank you Mr Peabody,

I am probably around 70% HT and TV: 30% music. However, I'm rebuilding my system and expect the music portion of my listening to increase. Right now I'm leaning toward the Denon 3310, if I can find it for a reasonable price. With that being said, I was surprised to see the disparity in weight between the Denon 3310 and the Onkyo 1007 for example; around 30 lbs to 50 lbs, respectively. It makes me wonder if the Onkyo is a beter unit because of the increased weight (build quality/amplification). Both receivers have most of what I want. I'd like the Onkyo 876 but it lacks the networking capabilities that I'm looking for. Thanks again.

Garth

[ctviggen]

It used to be that weight was a suitable criterion by which one could judge amplifiers.  I'm not sure that's the case now.  It could be that Denon is using "better" digital-style amps that convert more input power to output power, which means less need for cooling, which means less weight. 

What are you going to use the networking for? 

[electricbear]

Like you have been previously advised , don't pay too much attention to numbers. What I can tell you is that the Onkyo will give you a cleaner, clearer sound. I recently went from using a higher end but slightly older Denon to a new lower end Integra (virtually identical to Onkyo) and the improvement in sound really surprised me. I was making the change for HDMI reasons but had I known about the sound improvement the change would have been made a lot sooner. The only word of caution is that the Onkyos and Integras run rather warm.
For the best in terms of music quality look at the Rotels but expect to drop $2k to do this.

[zybar]

It used to be that weight was a suitable criterion by which one could judge amplifiers.  I'm not sure that's the case now.  It could be that Denon is using "better" digital-style amps that convert more input power to output power, which means less need for cooling, which means less weight. 

What are you going to use the networking for?

Generally speaking, the weight of the AVR is still a good indicator of amp performance.

Unfortunately, all the new "front end" features/functions (new codecs, upconverting, etc...) are coming at the expense of the "back end" (amplification) in order to keep prices stable or even bring them down.

For example, the Onkyo AVR's I was looking at recently have shed almost 30 lbs (comparing the same class of AVR) over the last 2 years.  I am pretty sure the Denon AVR's are the same.

Garth,

If you look at the reviews on the Onkyo NR-1007, you will see that it's amps will indeed outperform the comparable or even slightly more expensive Denon units.  However, the Denon has consistently had better video processing than the Onkyo (its Achilles Heel).  For me, I went with the better video processing (I have a Denon 3808CI) and just added some ATI amps to drive my speakers.  The ATI (or pretty much any decent after market multi-channel amp) will easily outperform the amps on any mid to upper market AVR.

George

 

[Frank S.]

Depending on the Onkyo model you choose, some of them have exemplary video processing with even better features than the comparable Denon models. I have the Onkyo 906 and love it.

[zybar]

Depending on the Onkyo model you choose, some of them have exemplary video processing with even better features than the comparable Denon models. I have the Onkyo 906 and love it.

Yep, great receiver. 

It was about 50% more than the 3808 at the time, so it wasn't an option for me. 

George

[Big Red Machine]

George, which ATI's?

[pearsall001]

I can only attest to the sound quality of my NAD T765 AVR. I've been a big fan of NAD AVR's over the years & have never been disappointed. Their philosophy of "Music First" really shines thru for both HT & 2 channel listening. They're not the cheapest but definetely worth the extra $$$ in my book. I've actually gone the sepatates route for a preamp (CJ & Krell w/ HT bypass) & after considerable A/B comparisons the NAD won out. The pre section in the NAD AVR's is just superb. Good luck on your decision & let your ears (and wallet!!) be the final judge   

[TomS]

George, which ATI's?

Not George, but he has an ATI1506 150w x 6

[mca]

I would make sure your new receiver has the new Audyssey package of MultiEQ, Dynamic EQ and Dynamic volume. I got to listen to the Onkyo TX-NR1007 yesterday and it was very impressive!

[Woodsea]

I have been  over the Onkyo 1007 myself.  I just wish BestBuy would drop the price to compete with Newegg.  Interest free 

[Mr Peabody]

The weight in most receivers, or amps, is usually the power supply which is critical for good performance.  Other weight may be isolation and heat sync.  Onkyo's heat is from it's high current amp section.  Any amp or receiver should have ample air/ventilation around it.  Unless it's digital.  Not too many receivers on the market are actually digital.  The Panasonics a couple years ago were supposed to be excellent but they must not have been accepted because they had a short run.  I know of Pioneer Elite as well but the price was off the chart.

Why would any one be concerned with video processing in their receiver?  It's wasted money.  First of all your HDTV converts any signal to it's native resolution and most BD players upconvert.  Of course, there was a time where the upsampling of the BD players was on par with a budget DVD player when they first went to the single chip solution for both standard and HD signals but I think most have gotten past that now.  It could be handy I guess if you still watch VHS or need some punching up of standard resolution from cable/satelite.  If you use HDMI from the BD player you can't avoid the processing there, you'd have to run a separate analog video for playing DVD if you wanted to use the receiver's processing.  With all this being said, we're not going to see a receiver without processing.  It's one of those things where no one will be the first not to offer it.  And, I guess you can't blame them, who wants to have a shorter feature list in the market place.

Hard for me to believe the NAD receiver sounded better than a CJ/Krell combo.  Depending on the models it could have been an impedance mismatch.  Preamps have to have a very low output impedance to match with solid state.  I know there current preamps are good there.  Also, if going with an analog connection to CJ and a digital connection to the NAD, it could be the NAD's DAC was better than your source's internal DAC.  Also, if using CJ's bypass feature the preamp was basically taken out of the loop, it just passed the signal on to the Krell.  So something may have been amiss when you were doing your comparison.

[gkinberg]

It used to be that weight was a suitable criterion by which one could judge amplifiers.  I'm not sure that's the case now.  It could be that Denon is using "better" digital-style amps that convert more input power to output power, which means less need for cooling, which means less weight. 

What are you going to use the networking for?

The networking option will be used to stream music from my computer to the receiver.

Garth

[ctviggen]

The weight in most receivers, or amps, is usually the power supply which is critical for good performance.  Other weight may be isolation and heat sync.  Onkyo's heat is from it's high current amp section.  Any amp or receiver should have ample air/ventilation around it.  Unless it's digital.  Not too many receivers on the market are actually digital.  The Panasonics a couple years ago were supposed to be excellent but they must not have been accepted because they had a short run.  I know of Pioneer Elite as well but the price was off the chart.

Why would any one be concerned with video processing in their receiver?  It's wasted money.  First of all your HDTV converts any signal to it's native resolution and most BD players upconvert.  Of course, there was a time where the upsampling of the BD players was on par with a budget DVD player when they first went to the single chip solution for both standard and HD signals but I think most have gotten past that now.  It could be handy I guess if you still watch VHS or need some punching up of standard resolution from cable/satelite.  If you use HDMI from the BD player you can't avoid the processing there, you'd have to run a separate analog video for playing DVD if you wanted to use the receiver's processing.  With all this being said, we're not going to see a receiver without processing.  It's one of those things where no one will be the first not to offer it.  And, I guess you can't blame them, who wants to have a shorter feature list in the market place.

Yes, I thought about the power supply later.  I'm still not entirely convinced that weight is the end-all, be-all for receivers.  Regardless, I'm willing to admit that I don't know, having never taken these apart to see why the weight's there.

As for why you want video processing in your receiver, say that you want to run a single HDMI input to your overhead/HT projector (which has a single or maybe two HDMI/DVI inputs), but you have more than one HDMI/DVI or other input.  What do you do?  You can buy a scalar, but then you're talking $600+ for the cheapest, and you still don't have a receiver. 

I purchased a receiver with video scaling because it also does video switching.  I don't want to run more than a few cables to my projector, and I'll have multiple inputs. 

[ctviggen]

Garth,

If you look at the reviews on the Onkyo NR-1007, you will see that it's amps will indeed outperform the comparable or even slightly more expensive Denon units.  However, the Denon has consistently had better video processing than the Onkyo (its Achilles Heel).  For me, I went with the better video processing (I have a Denon 3808CI) and just added some ATI amps to drive my speakers.  The ATI (or pretty much any decent after market multi-channel amp) will easily outperform the amps on any mid to upper market AVR.

George

Do they make a version without the amps, but with a processor with all the bells and whistles?  I have a huge receiver I've never used, but I was going to power (once the room is finished) only the sides and rear surrounds with it.  I will use it to output the fronts and center, though, but for stereo, I have a tube preamp and an entirely independent chain. 

[srb]

Do they make a version without the amps, but with a processor with all the bells and whistles?  I have a huge receiver I've never used, but I was going to power (once the room is finished) only the sides and rear surrounds with it.  I will use it to output the fronts and center, though, but for stereo, I have a tube preamp and an entirely independent chain.

Onkyo doesn't make a separate processor, but sister brand Integra does.  The closest match to the Onkyo NR-1007 would be the Integra DHC-40.1 which has the same Faroudja DCDI processing, but is 7.2 versus the NR-1007's 9.2, and goes for $1200.
 
The next higher model is the DHC-80.1, but jumps to $2300 with HQV Reon VX processing and 9.2 channels.
 
Steve

[Mr Peabody]

Ah, I didn't consider the projector direction.  Denon's 3800 series receivers are supposed to be a cut above the rest of their line.  At least the older models.

Marantz also has the AV8003 with HD radio tuner and networking, a host of other features.  If memory serves they use the Realto video chip.