[roymail]

A receiver is an integrated amp+tuner... right?

Most receivers get no love when it comes to 2 channel music amps.

Why are integrated amps much more respected as music amps than most receivers?

I ask this question since there are frequently incredible "cheap and cheerful" deals available on quality receivers.

For those seeking to go integrated on a budget, why not consider some of the better receivers still available?

I recently saw a Luxman R-114 in very good condition on the Trading Post for pennies over $100.  That's an example of a good quality 2 channel receiver for a steal of a price.

What say you...? 

[ngomez745]

Just picked out a 2 channel receiver for my father-in-law.
This is what he wanted.
Connection to his TV.
FM tuner.
CD connection.
Phono connection.
Can listen to four speakers at the same time. (Patio speakers)
Expects it to last 20 years!
Price range around 300 dollars.
This is what I got him.
http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/hifi-components/stereo-receivers/r-s500/

[Chris Adams]

Yes, a receiver is an integrated amp and a tuner.
I sold that very Luxman for a number of years; an excellent receiver. Problem is it's about 20 years old and the electrolytic caps may be dried out and not within spec. I wouldn't count it out, especially if you can hear it before buying and it's in really good cosmetic condition. For peace of mind a new unit may be the way to go, only you can know.
If you don't need a tuner go for an integrated. Same applies to old and new.

[JLM]

Yes a receiver is a tuner/pre-amp/power amp.

With the advent of streaming audio, there's less reason to pay for the tuner.

And with all the HT buzz, manufacturers have been doing 5.1/6.1/7.1 not stereo.

Keep in mind that many manufacturers go up a notch in quality moving from receiver to integrated amps and another notch moving up to separate pre/power amps.

Over on the equipment review (amplifier) section, there's a big thread on using good speakers with cheap receivers.

Personally I like Harmon Kardon receivers.  Beefy power supplies, good tuners, better sound than even the next step up stuff (from those mid-fi places that don't offer receivers).  And they still sell stereo receivers! 

[roymail]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the replies.

Chris, I bought about my R-114 new, and it's nearly mint.  It's in my modest system which is used every day.  It still sounds very strong for 50wpc.  It has pre outputs and amp inputs.  I've used both of them separately over the years, and never had a problem.

Did you also sell Nakamichi Stasis receivers, too?  I came very close to buying one of those.  I wish they still made receivers of this quality. 

[Doublej]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the replies.

Chris, I bought about my R-114 new, and it's nearly mint.  It's in my modest system which is used every day.  It still sounds very strong for 50wpc.  It has pre outputs and amp inputs.  I've used both of them separately over the years, and never had a problem.

Did you also sell Nakamichi Stasis receivers, too?  I came very close to buying one of those.  I wish they still made receivers of this quality. 

I think they do but you are not going to like the price on this one:

http://www.magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

These Outlaw Audio Receiver has gotten good reviews and is much less expensive.

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/rr2150.html

[Rclark]

When I first started looking at putting together a stereo The RR2150 was my first choice, but I ended up looking more for dedicated SQ than jack-of-all.

[roymail]

I think they do but you are not going to like the price on this one:
http://www.magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

Wow, that Magnum Dynalab 209 is an awesome receiver.  I think McIntosh would be real proud to see those blue meters.  But, yowsa... a bit pricey! 

I bet the Outlaw is a nice receiver for the money.  Most of their stuff usually performs above it's price point.

[JLM]

NAD is good stuff too (sound a bit "warm" which is good for cheaper stuff they're used with, but the build quality is only average).  They're designed to punch way harder than their wattage ratings.

[Chris Adams]

Chris, I bought about my R-114 new, and it's nearly mint.  It's in my modest system which is used every day.  It still sounds very strong for 50wpc.  It has pre outputs and amp inputs.  I've used both of them separately over the years, and never had a problem.

Did you also sell Nakamichi Stasis receivers, too?  I came very close to buying one of those.  I wish they still made receivers of this quality. 

I did not sell Nak receivers but was considering one recently. I spoke at length with a long time Nak service tech and he raved about them. Also said there is an issue with the amount of heat they produce and that the main circuit board near the heat sink needed to be re-soldered for dependability. This will vary from unit to unit depending on how it was used; high volume/low volume, 4ohms/8ohms, tight confines on shelf/nice airy open space, etc. Once that was done it was good to go. I imagine it's not necessary in all cases.

[Poultrygeist]

It's not easy to find a single ended tube receiver and I was fortunate to stumble upon this early EL-84 Rotel/Martel. At 10 wpc it's a good match for HE full range drivers.

[roymail]

It's not easy to find a single ended tube receiver and I was fortunate to stumble upon this early EL-84 Rotel/Martel. At 10wpc it's a good match for HE full range drivers.

Wow, I never heard of that one, and it appears to be in nice condition, too.  Thanks for posting.

[Poultrygeist]

In addition to sounding good the old tube receivers had excellent tuners. Many of the Fisher 400/500 receivers still command a high price on ebay and A'gon. The HH Scotts are excellent as are the HK's and Sherwood tube receivers.

I paid $75 for the Rotel/Martel and spent another $100 on orange drop caps.

[JLM]

Adding the tuner could also add more electrical interferences.

Mapleshade offers reconditioned Fisher integrates/receivers:

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/index.php

[Letitroll98]

Check out the "$200 receiver beats $11,000 separates" thread on the amplifier reviews circle.  On my phone now so no link.  Might change your opinions on receivers.

[Poultrygeist]

The VSX-D912 is no longer available unless you find one on ebay and it may not be US voltage. I'd be surprised if it beats the digital Panny receivers.

[JLM]

The points of that thread essentially is that speakers make more of a difference to the overall sound than amplification and that's how your system budget should be reflected, to which I agree 100%. 

But can the build quality of a $200 receiver be expected to hold up to a $2000  integrated?  Obviously not.  And in this case the speakers used were very efficient, thereby not requiring beefy (expensive) power supplies. 

The thread comes from a speaker manufacturer, so you should expect an extreme example like this.

[Noseyears]

The VSX-D912 is no longer available unless you find one on ebay and it may not be US voltage.

There's one listed on Ebay.au for few bucks...a bargain i say.

[Letitroll98]

The points of that thread essentially is that speakers make more of a difference to the overall sound than amplification and that's how your system budget should be reflected, to which I agree 100%. 

But can the build quality of a $200 receiver be expected to hold up to a $2000  integrated?  Obviously not.  And in this case the speakers used were very efficient, thereby not requiring beefy (expensive) power supplies. 

The thread comes from a speaker manufacturer, so you should expect an extreme example like this.

I both agree and disagree with your post.  As usual, good to start the meal with the meat and a good fight, so disagreements first.  The thread was not about speakers, only that speaker interaction played a larger part there than in other amp threads.  It had nothing to do with budgets, as the receiver displaced $11k worth of separates because of sound quality only.  And James (the OP) is not a speaker manufacturer, he imports guitars.  His friend Duke manufactures speakers, I don't believe Duke posted in the thread.  You might be referring to Dr. Earl Geddes, but he didn't start the thread (see below).  I apologize for the nitpicking, but it sets up my point that follows.

Now the desert, agreements.  At the end of the day, both James and I decided, by different paths, that the power supply was too limiting in this design and we now use the receiver (slightly modified) as one of the best sounding preamps money can buy.  And James blew one up, so your statement about build quality and power supply is correct.  But with efficient speakers of 8 ohm nominal rating (e.g. the impedance can dip, but only with benign phase angles) it can sound like pure magic.  So finally the point here, it's not a stretch to then extrapolate there may be, or can be designed, an integrated that completely trashes much more expensive separates, we only need a better power supply and upgrade the build.  Proof of concept is the point here.

The VSX-D912 is no longer available unless you find one on ebay and it may not be US voltage. I'd be surprised if it beats the digital Panny receivers.

Another aside to the thread here presently, sorry for the off track, but note the VSX D912 is plentiful on eBay for $100 a pop, buy a couple in case the PS craps out.  And secondly, the whole thing came out of Dr. Earl Geddes using one at a big audio show with his Gedlee speakers.  He tested numerous separates and receivers, I believe, can't swear, a Panny was in the mix.  None could match the ultra low switching distortion of the Pioneer, which Geddes says is the only audible distortion in modern amps (e.g. below 1% HD, 3% IMD).  Take it for what you value it at, I'm just reporting here.