Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap recievers.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough. Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distorion artifacts and be possible to listen to.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.

Per.

  #2   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


Look for as small a Nad as possible.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Didn't check. Just discarded the Sony catalougue someone gave me,
thought I'd never need it.

Per.


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #3   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


Look for as small a Nad as possible.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Didn't check. Just discarded the Sony catalougue someone gave me,
thought I'd never need it.

Per.


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #4   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


Look for as small a Nad as possible.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Didn't check. Just discarded the Sony catalougue someone gave me,
thought I'd never need it.

Per.


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #5   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message


I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap receivers.


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.

Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distortion artifacts and be possible to listen to.


The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.





  #6   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message


I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap receivers.


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.

Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distortion artifacts and be possible to listen to.


The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.



  #7   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message


I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap receivers.


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.

Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distortion artifacts and be possible to listen to.


The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.



  #8   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?

Per.

  #9   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?

Per.

  #10   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?

Per.



  #11   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:21:00 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.


Probably a good move.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?

Per.

  #12   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:21:00 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.


Probably a good move.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?

Per.

  #13   Report Post  
Per Stromgren
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:21:00 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

Per Stromgren wrote:

I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.


Hifi is dead, look for second hand stuff.


Probably a good move.


However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these?


Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?

Per.

  #14   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?


Opamps, this is a guess, but is is about the only component they really
can adjust the price of by selection of a cheaper model. Someone may
know better, in which case I soon will have learned something ....

Per.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #15   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?


Opamps, this is a guess, but is is about the only component they really
can adjust the price of by selection of a cheaper model. Someone may
know better, in which case I soon will have learned something ....

Per.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************


  #16   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Per Stromgren wrote:

Probably the sound. Buttons cost, and they have plenty, they have to
save somewhere.


What do you mean by "sound" here? Could you guess a little more
technically?


Opamps, this is a guess, but is is about the only component they really
can adjust the price of by selection of a cheaper model. Someone may
know better, in which case I soon will have learned something ....

Per.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #17   Report Post  
jriegle
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably

hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent

well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at

this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?


I guess so. To me, Sony is junk. I had two top dollar Walkman players ($90
and $150) fail within a year of light use (mechanics in the cassette
player). My Handycam failed with no more than 30 hours of use on it. My Sony
micro cassette recorder has a problem with the motor (makes so much noise,
the voice activation stays on all of the time) and a Sony receiver popped a
channel. In each case I never abused my equipment. I have other brands that
last much longer.

I used to be a Sony junky, but now I know Sony is junk.
John

Per.



  #18   Report Post  
jriegle
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably

hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent

well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at

this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?


I guess so. To me, Sony is junk. I had two top dollar Walkman players ($90
and $150) fail within a year of light use (mechanics in the cassette
player). My Handycam failed with no more than 30 hours of use on it. My Sony
micro cassette recorder has a problem with the motor (makes so much noise,
the voice activation stays on all of the time) and a Sony receiver popped a
channel. In each case I never abused my equipment. I have other brands that
last much longer.

I used to be a Sony junky, but now I know Sony is junk.
John

Per.



  #19   Report Post  
jriegle
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably

hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent

well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at

this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?


I guess so. To me, Sony is junk. I had two top dollar Walkman players ($90
and $150) fail within a year of light use (mechanics in the cassette
player). My Handycam failed with no more than 30 hours of use on it. My Sony
micro cassette recorder has a problem with the motor (makes so much noise,
the voice activation stays on all of the time) and a Sony receiver popped a
channel. In each case I never abused my equipment. I have other brands that
last much longer.

I used to be a Sony junky, but now I know Sony is junk.
John

Per.



  #20   Report Post  
jriegle
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:02:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


IME most of the money is often taken from places that don't appreciably

hurt
sound quality. Corners are cut, but they often represent

well-thought-out
insights into what it really takes to make good sound.


If that reflects the design philosophy, I am all for it. That would
make one of these receivers a perfect match for my needs.

You can get a 5.1 receiver for close to $100.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough.


IME spending the bigger bucks on quality speakers is a wise move.


I know, but the KEF:s has to serve a little bit more. As I said, they
are not used for any critical listening, some opera DVDs being the
most demanding. A part for ZZ Top wehen vacuuming, of course!

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.


Most of my experience with cheap receivers is with Pioneer equipment. The
Sony equipment I've bought has often disappointed me on the grounds of
durability and longetivity. I have only one piece in long-term use at

this
time.


I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use. Sony do have a quality ring to its brand here. Perhaps Sony has
to work on it brand in the US?


I guess so. To me, Sony is junk. I had two top dollar Walkman players ($90
and $150) fail within a year of light use (mechanics in the cassette
player). My Handycam failed with no more than 30 hours of use on it. My Sony
micro cassette recorder has a problem with the motor (makes so much noise,
the voice activation stays on all of the time) and a Sony receiver popped a
channel. In each case I never abused my equipment. I have other brands that
last much longer.

I used to be a Sony junky, but now I know Sony is junk.
John

Per.





  #21   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects, including power output, THD, S/N,
IMD, and quality of construction! For some strange reason the NAD's often
fetch more money than the new amp, despite their use of crappy components.
And yes the NAD is working perfectly, so you might say it's lasted OK, but
looking at the PC board, I can't imagine how, or for how much longer :-)

I would certainly buy the cheap new Chinese stereo amp if I had to buy one
today for the OP's purpose.
Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.

TonyP.



  #22   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects, including power output, THD, S/N,
IMD, and quality of construction! For some strange reason the NAD's often
fetch more money than the new amp, despite their use of crappy components.
And yes the NAD is working perfectly, so you might say it's lasted OK, but
looking at the PC board, I can't imagine how, or for how much longer :-)

I would certainly buy the cheap new Chinese stereo amp if I had to buy one
today for the OP's purpose.
Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.

TonyP.



  #23   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects, including power output, THD, S/N,
IMD, and quality of construction! For some strange reason the NAD's often
fetch more money than the new amp, despite their use of crappy components.
And yes the NAD is working perfectly, so you might say it's lasted OK, but
looking at the PC board, I can't imagine how, or for how much longer :-)

I would certainly buy the cheap new Chinese stereo amp if I had to buy one
today for the OP's purpose.
Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.

TonyP.



  #24   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects, including power output, THD, S/N,
IMD, and quality of construction! For some strange reason the NAD's often
fetch more money than the new amp, despite their use of crappy components.
And yes the NAD is working perfectly, so you might say it's lasted OK, but
looking at the PC board, I can't imagine how, or for how much longer :-)

I would certainly buy the cheap new Chinese stereo amp if I had to buy one
today for the OP's purpose.
Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.

TonyP.



  #25   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use.


That's the problem, Sony *WAS* a good brand 20 years ago. No longer.

TonyP.
..




  #26   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use.


That's the problem, Sony *WAS* a good brand 20 years ago. No longer.

TonyP.
..


  #27   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use.


That's the problem, Sony *WAS* a good brand 20 years ago. No longer.

TonyP.
..


  #28   Report Post  
Tony Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I often hear Americans here say this, but to me Sony represents a very
good quality brand! All Sony equipment we own are still working after
in one case 20 years of service! Nothing beats Sony in my opinion when
it comes to small portables: Walkman WM6DC, SWF-1 muliti-band portable
radio, the first CD Walkman (D-50?), my kids *very* sturdy "My First
Sony" portable cassette recorder, etc. All of this equipment still in
use.


That's the problem, Sony *WAS* a good brand 20 years ago. No longer.

TonyP.
..


  #29   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Tony Pearce wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects ....


Interesting, thanks.

Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.


Chinese brandology appears to be a possible new field of research.

TonyP.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #30   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Tony Pearce wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects ....


Interesting, thanks.

Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.


Chinese brandology appears to be a possible new field of research.

TonyP.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************


  #31   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Tony Pearce wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects ....


Interesting, thanks.

Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.


Chinese brandology appears to be a possible new field of research.

TonyP.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #32   Report Post  
Peter Larsen
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

Tony Pearce wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...


Look for as small a Nad as possible.


Having just measured my old NAD 3020 (still used for my computer audio) and
a *very* cheap new Chinese stereo amp (approx $100 US), I was surprised the
Chinese amp beat it in nearly all aspects ....


Interesting, thanks.

Sorry I don't know the maker, they are rebadged here.


Chinese brandology appears to be a possible new field of research.

TonyP.



Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
  #33   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

No need for an A/V receiver.

Teac, Sony, Sherwood, and Kenwood still make two channel stereo receivers.
Of these three, the Teac is perhaps the most widely available and usually
"sales" at $79.95 with a claimed 100wpc. Based on my experience with Teac
receivers c1995 and beyond it should sound pretty decent. The Sherwood, if
you can find one, is likely to sound the best of the four.

Hope this helps.


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap recievers.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough. Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distorion artifacts and be possible to listen to.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.

Per.



  #34   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

No need for an A/V receiver.

Teac, Sony, Sherwood, and Kenwood still make two channel stereo receivers.
Of these three, the Teac is perhaps the most widely available and usually
"sales" at $79.95 with a claimed 100wpc. Based on my experience with Teac
receivers c1995 and beyond it should sound pretty decent. The Sherwood, if
you can find one, is likely to sound the best of the four.

Hope this helps.


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap recievers.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough. Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distorion artifacts and be possible to listen to.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.

Per.



  #35   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

No need for an A/V receiver.

Teac, Sony, Sherwood, and Kenwood still make two channel stereo receivers.
Of these three, the Teac is perhaps the most widely available and usually
"sales" at $79.95 with a claimed 100wpc. Based on my experience with Teac
receivers c1995 and beyond it should sound pretty decent. The Sherwood, if
you can find one, is likely to sound the best of the four.

Hope this helps.


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap recievers.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough. Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distorion artifacts and be possible to listen to.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.

Per.





  #36   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is wrong with budget five channel amps?

No need for an A/V receiver.

Teac, Sony, Sherwood, and Kenwood still make two channel stereo receivers.
Of these three, the Teac is perhaps the most widely available and usually
"sales" at $79.95 with a claimed 100wpc. Based on my experience with Teac
receivers c1995 and beyond it should sound pretty decent. The Sherwood, if
you can find one, is likely to sound the best of the four.

Hope this helps.


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
I need an amp for the TV sound, to replace the second-hand receiver I
use now. The requirements are very low: it is the basic two channel
amplifier I'm after.

However, all supermarkets around sells 5 channel remote controlled
receivers with surround decoders and RDS tuner for the equivalent of
200-300 US dollars. Is there anything basically wrong with these? They
wear well knows brand stickers, Sony for instance. What would be the
difference engineering-wise between these cheap receivers and the
alternative, a 2-channel Rotel or NAD? They must have saved the money
somewhere when designing these cheap recievers.

Speakers will be closed-box KEF B200+T27 (KEF Choral?), and output
power is not an issue, anything is enough. Critical listening is done
through the main system, not this one, but even the TV sound should be
free of distorion artifacts and be possible to listen to.

The Sony STR-DE695 and 495 are good examples of what I am looking at.

Per.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" Les Car Audio 3 May 28th 04 08:19 AM
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) Ian D. Bjorhovde Car Audio 0 March 6th 04 07:54 AM
Newbie Subwoofer questions OodlesoFun General 28 January 12th 04 06:51 PM
So what's the skinny on digital amps? Scott Gardner Car Audio 7 December 21st 03 08:56 PM
Budget quality system Dan Berry Car Audio 9 August 14th 03 05:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"