Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
Newbie Subwoofer questions | General | |||
So what's the skinny on digital amps? | Car Audio | |||
Budget quality system | Car Audio |