| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Yamaha CR-840 is compared to what in 2004?
Hello
This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Laura" wrote in message
... Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Teac makes a very fine sounding 100wpc stereo receiver that you can buy for between $80 and $150 depending on whether or not it is on sale, and where you buy it. It has a decent phono section plus the other normal inputs and tape facilities. Other mass-merchandising brands of stereo receiver are hard to find, and when you do they generally offer less power or cost slightly more. At specialty dealers, NAD is sold and their receivers are generally very good sounding, albeit at a higher price point. None of these receivers has particularly good AM or FM reception...so if radio is important to you I would certainly do some comparative testing under controlled conditions if you can. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laura wrote:
Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the feature set on a modern one rather amazing. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10/15/04 11:45 PM, in article , "Harry Lavo"
wrote: None of these receivers has particularly good AM or FM reception...so if radio is important to you I would certainly do some comparative testing under controlled conditions if you can. If radio is really important to you (and for a long time before my interest in hifi I was a AM/FM/Shortwave gEEk) A couple of good solutions - the tuners aren't particularly good, but with the right antenna, they aren't awful either - you can easily gin one up for yourself, but there are some cosmetically good ones you can purchase. Here are a couple of stores I used a lot - and the current antennas they offer (it is much better than the antenna that comes with the receiver): http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/mwant.html http://www.ccrane.com/fm-antennas.aspx The selection is much worse than I remember for FM stuff, but a lot are available if you google it. What I have done is get a good FM/AM radio and take the line out or headphone out and put it through the AUX input. You can get a top notch FM/AM radio for a fraction what a hifi/high end tuner would cost and it generally equals or exceeds the performance. I tried this with one of my old shortwave rigs, but the RFI was too high for effective SW reception. I experimented with a home FM transmitter and that was a bust. Another solution is to get a dedicated tuner - there are a lot to choose from, but like I said, I think those are rather expensive - and you can get a receiver with great selectivity and world class unwanted signal rejection for a song compared to a high end tuner... Just my 2 cents! :-) |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Laura wrote: Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the feature set on a modern one rather amazing. But the question is...do they make a stereo receiver that has reasonable distribution? She doesn't *need* an A/V receiver based on her inquiry. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Laura wrote: Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the feature set on a modern one rather amazing. But the question is...do they make a stereo receiver that has reasonable distribution? She doesn't *need* an A/V receiver based on her inquiry. I haven't seen one listed in the US in the last year or two. If she can do without a tuner (or buy one separately), Yamaha does still make a fine integrated amp, the AX-596, I believe. Granted, she could use an A/V receiver, but she might find that feature set to be gross overkill. Personally, I'd rather have something that did just what I need it to do, and did it without a lot of fuss. If you're just driving two speakers, A/V receivers can be more trouble than they're worth. bob |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi, Laura -- Confusing advice here, for sure. Here's some concrete advice -
if you were happy with the functionality (switching options, etc.) of your old receiver, buy an Onkyo TX-8211 (about $200 at Circuit City or www.crutchfield.com). I think this piece is analogous to your Yamaha and will give you the same sound and quality. I gave my sister one for her birthday a few years ago, and have heard it numerous times. I think it sounds good (and I am a high-end guy), and she has had no problems with it. It seems solidly built, and should have plenty of power for you (50 watts per channel). Yes, you could upgrade to a surround-sound system and buy more speakers, but in my opinion for music that isn't worth it. There is no real reason to stay with Yamaha. Just an idea. Rich "Laura" wrote in message ... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (Laura) wrote in message ... Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to vinyl. Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R. bob Thanks for all the feedback! If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can hear a performer breathing in for air. A few more questions: 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever? 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system? I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same sound output. Is this a reasonable request? Thanks again, Laura |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks for all the feedback!
If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can hear a performer breathing in for air. A few more questions: 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever? 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system? I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same sound output. Is this a reasonable request? The marketplace isn't really concentrating on high-quality/cost-no-object 2-channel receivers at the moment. Have you considered buying a vintage receiver instead? Or having yours repaired by someone who knows what he's doing? Perhaps going to audioasylum.com and clicking on "vintage audio" when you get there, and posing your question there is the best thing for you to do. There're all sorts of guys who'd be familiar with your receiver, I bet. Personally, if I wanted a 2-channel receiver, I'd either buy a new NAD or a vintage Pioneer, Luxman, etc. I just bought an old Pioneer SX727 that someone had babied over the years and it works beautifully. It cost me $60. But you have something you know you like. I think I would probably try to get that repaired. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Laura) wrote in message ...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (Laura) wrote in message ... Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to vinyl. Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R. bob Thanks for all the feedback! If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can hear a performer breathing in for air. A few more questions: 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever? 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system? I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same sound output. Is this a reasonable request? Thanks again, Laura Since you are new here, I will let you in on a little disagreement that's been running for, oh, forever. Some of us (me included) are of the opinion that well-made modern amplifiers are pretty much sonically indistinguishable, and that people who claim to hear differences among them are probably either imagining those differences or are not making apples-to-apples comparisons. Suffice it to say, this view is not universally shared in the audiophile world. Please don't ask for more detail on this; I mention it so that you will be able to put the answers I give you in context. What's the difference between a $200 receiver and a $500 one? Possibly a better tuner, more power, better parts and build quality. Will the $500 model sound better? When you're listening to the radio, possibly (although it might sound worse, which is why you need to try them out at home). More power can make an audible difference if your amp is straining to produce loud passages, but it doesn't sound like that will be a problem for you. Construction quality can make a difference in terms of the unit's longevity, but probably not its sound. To your other questions: 1. No, the acoustics come from the interaction between between the speakers and the room they are in. All the amp/receiver has to do is to deliver a clean electrical signal to the speakers. Many, many amps can do that with no trouble at all. I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever?" A multichannel receiver can deliver a signal to more than two speakers at a time, but if you've only got two speakers, that is of no use to you. 2. It is certainly not necessary to have a receiver of the same make as your speakers. Few of us do. Even those who think amps do sound different wouldn't argue that a Yamaha will sound better because you have Yamaha speakers. To your last question, 25 years is a long time and, in terms of build quality, I'm not sure they make 'em the way they used to. But electronics tend to be pretty sturdy overall, so there is every reason to believe that anything you buy from a reputable manufacturer (such as those I and others have mentioned) should give you many years of good service. bob |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laura wrote:
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (Laura) wrote in message ... My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have found its manual at: http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/...AFR/CR-840.pdf From the look of it I suppose it is a bit old, no ? It has 2 x 65 W at 8 ohms. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? You can get a receiver for about $250: Yamaha RX-496 http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...Search+Froogle http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...AVR00010RX-496 Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner: Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_59...809908.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010AX-596 Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner Price Range: $184 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_49...105861.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010TX-492 Note that you can also buy a multichannel receiver (for the same money !). All the models I know about can be configured to use only 2 speakers. Later you can add more speakers and/or a subwoofer. And even there you can use them as stereo amplifiers. For instance, the low-end Yamaha model: http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/RECEIVER/RX-V450.htm RX-V450 $249.99 http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=...Search+Froogle The RX-V750 (~$450) has more features, more inputs, more power and a better remote (important because it can be used to control several devices, and the LCD on the remote shows what is being controlled). http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/RECEIVER/RX-V750.htm One thing these receivers lack is a separate rec-out (so you can listen to one source while recording another). These days that feature costs a lot of money (at Yamaha, in the context of multichannel receivers) because you need to go to a RX-V2500 at about 1000 euros (even the RX-V1500 lacks that feature). I am not sure but I think the RX-496 also doesn't have it, but the AX-596 has it. http://yamaha-hifi.de/products.php?l...vset=&newsset= My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Technics (Panasonic) I didn't check if all these still sell 2-channel only stereos. Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to vinyl. Thanks for all the feedback! If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". The $500 model probably has more power, but since you didn't use all the power of your old 65 W receiver, that is not very important. It might also have less distorsion, but the difference is most probably inaudible (see recent (and probably also old) discussions in this group about competent amplifiers, amplifier's challenges, etc.)). 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever relating to eachother? The speakers. their placement (and the room) are the important factor. Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever? 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system? Probably not. -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich Carlson" wrote in message ...
Hi, Laura -- Confusing advice here, for sure. Here's some concrete advice - if you were happy with the functionality (switching options, etc.) of your old receiver, buy an Onkyo TX-8211 (about $200 at Circuit City or www.crutchfield.com). I think this piece is analogous to your Yamaha and will give you the same sound and quality. I gave my sister one for her birthday a few years ago, and have heard it numerous times. I think it sounds good (and I am a high-end guy), and she has had no problems with it. It seems solidly built, and should have plenty of power for you (50 watts per channel). By coincidence, I got the same receiver for my dad last year. Kinda reminded me of shopping for my first system, 25 years ago. In fact, if there are any kids out there with $500 just burning a hole in their pocket, this receiver would be a good start. $500 is about what I spent way back when; despite a quarter century of inflation, what you could buy today for the same amount would sound worlds better. bob |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
wrote: Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner: Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_59...809908.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010AX-596 Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner Price Range: $184 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_49...105861.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010TX-492 And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message ...
(Laura) wrote in message ... Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Denon and Sony are two I would say are quite well-regarded. Hello to all who have given their suggestions and advice. Since this was my first post, I must say, it didn't even hurt! Looks like I have some work ahead of me, and must admit all the information has been a tremendous help. Having not purchased a stereo in 25 years, I had no idea how much has changed and realised how little I know. Thanks-you! All the best, Laura |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote: Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner: Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_59...809908.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010AX-596 Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner Price Range: $184 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_49...105861.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010TX-492 And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*? Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote: Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner: Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_59...809908.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010AX-596 Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner Price Range: $184 http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_49...105861.html?q= http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi...SEP00010TX-492 And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*? Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU. OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. Hey Stewart! Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-) Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a 1-ohm load. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laura wrote:
This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me...My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? ... Hello to all who have given their suggestions and advice. Since this was my first post, I must say, it didn't even hurt! Looks like I have some work ahead of me, and must admit all the information has been a tremendous help. Having not purchased a stereo in 25 years, I had no idea how much has changed and realised how little I know. Hello Laura, You have already received very good advice but I can't resist commenting. My first receiver was also a Yamaha (CR-820, so you are a step above!) and it gave me many years of good service. This was a very good series. I do recall wanting Tandberg which was more expensive, but Yamaha was the better value and I think I was wise to choose it. Fast forward to the present. By all means avoid AV models, good stereo choices still exist. If you want, you can stay with Yamaha, it is still a very good choice. Other excellent options are Harman Kardon, Onkyo, and Denon. All are available at J & R (go to jr.com and search for "component stereo receiver"; one of the HK models is the best seller at JR, according to the site; hey also list Teac but I have no expereince with its receivers). One good brand not carried by JR is Marantz. Other very good brands are Rotel, NAD, and Sony ES (not regular Sony) etc., but they they tend to be way overpriced. Consider them only if you find a good deal. One very important point: I don't know if you still play LP's but if you do you'd soon discover that phono has disappeared from many receivers. I know that HK and Onkyo have it, but many don't and you'd have to check. Here are a few reviews, something to warm you up: http://hometheater.about.com/cs/topp...p2channela.htm Good luck. Let's know what you find and decide. -Anil |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D wrote: On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. Hey Stewart! Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-) Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a 1-ohm load. Get more efficient speakers! |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*? Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU. OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH! in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi! |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 21 Oct 2004 03:21:50 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice. surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*? Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU. OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH! in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi! No, Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days. I have always preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar..... Besides, the kitchen system is really my wife's, and there's only a short chain on the kitchen sink..................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 21 Oct 2004 23:41:37 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D wrote: On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they exist at all. Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-) Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a 1-ohm load. The 1 ohm might be a problem. If it was 2 ohms it would be alright: Yamaha MX-D1 Minimum RMS output power (1 kHz, 1.0 % THD, 4 to 8 &) 500 W + 500 W Dynamic power (IHF) 2/4/6/8 &......................... 1000/1000/850/700 W Did you not notice the word *continuous* in my post? 'Dynamic' power is not the issue. Note that even under these far from stressful short term conditions, this Yamaha amp is heavily current limited, as it puts out hardly any more power at 2 ohms than at 8 ohms. Compare and contrast with my trusty Krell KSA-50 mk II: Continuous output rating at 8/4/2/1 ohms - 50/100/200/400. See the difference? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 17 Oct 2004 20:47:29 GMT, (Laura) wrote:
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (Laura) wrote in message ... Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to vinyl. Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R. bob Thanks for all the feedback! If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? The difference would be mostly (but not entirely) in providing 100 watts or so of clean power at the high end, rather than 50 watts of somewhat doubtful power without much reserve for 'difficult' speakers at the low end. What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260 tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier. I negleted to state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can hear a performer breathing in for air. Well, you can do that with any reasonable system, and there are *much* better speakers out there in an absolute sense. However, if you like those Yammys, then that's fine for you. A few more questions: 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever? The sound quality comes almost entirely from the speakers and their interaction with the room. 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system? It does not matter at all what manufacturer you choose, but I'd generally avoid receivers of any kind. I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same sound output. Is this a reasonable request? Sure - I've had the same system for close to ten years, and it gives me no problems at all. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Oct 2004 03:21:50 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH! in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi! No, Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days. one of the secrets to a good stir fry is a very hot wok ... so make sure the gas burners are cranked up! I have always preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar..... if you are talking about that incident where the cops busted her and Mick with said Mars bar, Q magazine disproved it as a myth a few years back. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260 tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier. Now, now, we all know that there is no such thing as a "Rotel TU260" tuner ...  |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Oct 2004 00:58:33 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260 tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier. Now, now, we all know that there is no such thing as a "Rotel TU260" tuner ... A little known model, closely related to the Denon TU260 I have in the kitchen! DOH! :-( -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Oct 2004 00:58:08 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days. one of the secrets to a good stir fry is a very hot wok ... so make sure the gas burners are cranked up! Oh yes, we have the unfortunately named Smeg A2, with two powerful wok burners and an industrial-power extraction hood! I have always preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar..... if you are talking about that incident where the cops busted her and Mick with said Mars bar, Q magazine disproved it as a myth a few years back. Oh dear, that was an urban legend of some attraction...... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Laura wrote: Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the feature set on a modern one rather amazing. Aint that the truth. But I would stay away from yamaha, mine failed after 3 and a half years and I,ve heard of probs with others Nad, marantz, and if you have the buicks, B&K, a really qoaulity but pricy receiver. If you want a quality product STAY AWAY FROM Sony, pioneer, technics, panasonic(which make technics too) kenwood, jvc These guys have been in the habit of making some really bad mass market crap lately:-( |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Laura wrote: Hello This is my first post so please be gentle with me. My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other high end receivers. Thanks! Laura Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the feature set on a modern one rather amazing. Aint that the truth. But I would stay away from yamaha, mine failed after 3 and a half years and I,ve heard of probs with others Nad, marantz, and if you have the buicks, B&K, a really qoaulity but pricy receiver. If you want a quality product STAY AWAY FROM Sony, pioneer, technics, panasonic(which make technics too) kenwood, jvc These guys have been in the habit of making some really bad mass market crap lately:-( If you've found better long-term reliability with NAD than with some of the Japanese mass-market brands, then your experience is very different from mine. Of course, any individual consumer's track record is just about meaningless. As for what you've "heard of," I've heard of a lot of complaints about particular brands from people with no first-hand experience with them. bob |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| F.S. tons of studio/keyboard/rack gear | Pro Audio | |||
| Denon vs Yamaha receiver | Pro Audio | |||
| 2004 Cadillac 2004 Navigation DVD - Modify to watch while driving. | Car Audio | |||
| Need expert advices - buying a used Mackie 32-8-2 or used Yamaha 01V ? | Pro Audio | |||
| Yamaha 03D or a used 01V? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
