Quality Stereo Receiver -- Who makes ??

[James]

I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
interest in multi-channel equipment.

I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
purchase.

Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am looking
in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.

Thanks for any advice !!

--james--

[[email protected]]

Yamaha-Denon-Rotel-Harmon kardon-Marantz

[Mark D. Zacharias]

wrote:
> Yamaha-Denon-Rotel-Harmon kardon-Marantz

Don't know Rotel, but HK current stuff in the low-mid ranges is pretty
junky.
The Marantz 4120 and 4130 are also pretty junky.

The Denon DRA-685 is still widely available, and is probably the best value
of the bunch. 100 w/ch, better build quality than HK, Onkyo, or Marantz.
Good sound quality, good tuner section. Can be found for 250.00 US or less
if you look around. Has multi-room capability and 2 remotes.

Yamaha is good quality, but I'm not aware of a comparable model in this
range - maybe I haven't looked hard enough.


Mark Z.

[[email protected]]

Marantz SR4320, Harmon Kardon HK-3480 Yam RX-777.
Rotel RX1052 URL<http://www.rotel.com/products/specs/rx1052.htm>
Bg

[Brad Clarke]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:30:06 -0400, "James" >
wrote:

>>
>>
>>I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
>>interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>
>>I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
>>receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
>>purchase.
>>
>>Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am looking
>>in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.
Take a look at the Yamaha RX-777 or RX-596 models (should be the same
model numbers in the US).

http://www.yamaha.ca/av/stereocomp/RX777.jsp

http://www.yamaha.ca/av/stereocomp/RX596.jsp

"Brad Clarke" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:30:06 -0400, "James" >
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
>>>interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>>
>>>I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
>>>receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
>>>purchase.
>>>
>>>Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
>>>looking
>>>in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.
> Take a look at the Yamaha RX-777 or RX-596 models (should be the same
> model numbers in the US).
>
> http://www.yamaha.ca/av/stereocomp/RX777.jsp
>
> http://www.yamaha.ca/av/stereocomp/RX596.jsp

I found it interesting that Yamaha says nothing about what these receivers
do, but whatever it is, it does it wonderfully!

Norm Strong

[JANA]

If you want quality, look at Conrad Johnson, Macintosh, Crown Audio, QSC, or
the professional lines of Sony, and Technics, or Bryston. Names like NAD,
Sherwood, Rotel, Denon, and etc, are all mass produced made in China crap.

--

JANA
_____

"James" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
> interest in multi-channel equipment.
>
> I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
> receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
> purchase.
>
> Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
looking
> in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.
>
> Thanks for any advice !!
>
> --james--
>
>

[James]

Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I thought
these were considered pretty good receivers.....

I will have to look at the other names mentioned.

I appreciate all of the nice responses thus far.

--James--

[harrogate2]

"James" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
thought
> these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>
> I will have to look at the other names mentioned.
>
> I appreciate all of the nice responses thus far.
>
> --James--
>
>

As a point of interest, NAD is British designed and Far Eastern built.
Much of the better Rotel kit is also British tweaked.


--
Woody

harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com

[Mark D. Zacharias]

JANA wrote:
> If you want quality, look at Conrad Johnson, Macintosh, Crown Audio,
> QSC, or the professional lines of Sony, and Technics, or Bryston.
> Names like NAD, Sherwood, Rotel, Denon, and etc, are all mass
> produced made in China crap.
>
>
> "James" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have
>> no interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>
>> I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only
>> 2-channel receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do
>> not want in this purchase.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
>> looking in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per
>> channel.
>>
>> Thanks for any advice !!
>>
>> --james--

There is "better crap" and "worse crap".

Within the OP's price range, I would say the Denon is still the best choice.
The 685 is Korea-built, but the build quality looks the same as their Jap
stuff. From a technical standpoint, the only weakness is a couple under-spec
resistors in the power supply. Once replaced, there are no common problems
with these, and the performance is on a par with some of the best.

Mark Z.

Mark Z.

[Dan]

On 4/23/2005 9:30 PM, James wrote:
> I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
> interest in multi-channel equipment.
>
> I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
> receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
> purchase.
>
> Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am looking
> in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.
>
> Thanks for any advice !!
>
> --james--
>
>

Check out Marantz.

[Dan]

On 4/25/2005 10:22 AM, Dan wrote:
> On 4/23/2005 9:30 PM, James wrote:
>
>> I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have no
>> interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>
>> I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only 2-channel
>> receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do not want in this
>> purchase.
>>
>> Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
>> looking
>> in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per channel.
>>
>> Thanks for any advice !!
>>
>> --james--
>>
>>
>
> Check out Marantz.

http://www.cambridgesoundworks.com/store/category.cgi?category=rec_stereo

[E Berlin]

If you like NAD I would consider one of their integrated amps. There are
several models. You can add a cheaper conventional am/fm tuner, maybe even
used, or a satellite radio tuner to provide radio capability.

[James]

Thank you, but I am looking for a stereo receiver. As stated in my OP, NAD
no longer makes a stereo-only receiver. It is all multichannel hype etc
etc.

Perhaps Rotel, but someone has noted that is built in China, which surprised
me.

--James--

--------------------

If you like NAD I would consider one of their integrated amps. There are
several models. You can add a cheaper conventional am/fm tuner, maybe even
used, or a satellite radio tuner to provide radio capability.

[Mark D. Zacharias]

E Berlin wrote:
> If you like NAD I would consider one of their integrated amps. There
> are several models. You can add a cheaper conventional am/fm tuner,
> maybe even used, or a satellite radio tuner to provide radio
> capability.

Anymore, integrated amps are just receivers without a tuner section. Same
circuit boards, with blanks spots where the tuner pack or board would go,
and somewhat simpler audio switch IC's.

Mark Z.

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech James > wrote:
> Thank you, but I am looking for a stereo receiver. As stated in my OP, NAD
> no longer makes a stereo-only receiver. It is all multichannel hype etc
> etc.
>
> Perhaps Rotel, but someone has noted that is built in China, which surprised
> me.

So what? China is perfectly capable of making high quality items. Just
look at the build quality, rather than the 'manufactured in' tag, and see
if it meets your standards.

Personally, I'd trust Rotel far more than most brands.

[James]

Thanks Colin !! I do plan to check out Rotel.

--James--

[Jean]

Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
> JANA wrote:
>
>>If you want quality, look at Conrad Johnson, Macintosh, Crown Audio,
>>QSC, or the professional lines of Sony, and Technics, or Bryston.
>>Names like NAD, Sherwood, Rotel, Denon, and etc, are all mass
>>produced made in China crap.
>>
>>
>>"James" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have
>>>no interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>>
>>>I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only
>>>2-channel receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do
>>>not want in this purchase.
>>>
>>>Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
>>>looking in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per
>>>channel.
>>>
>>>Thanks for any advice !!
>>>
>>>--james--
>
>
> There is "better crap" and "worse crap".
>
> Within the OP's price range, I would say the Denon is still the best choice.
> The 685 is Korea-built, but the build quality looks the same as their Jap
> stuff. From a technical standpoint, the only weakness is a couple under-spec
> resistors in the power supply. Once replaced, there are no common problems
> with these, and the performance is on a par with some of the best.
>
> Mark Z.
>
> Mark Z.
>

I don't see much available new.

I would look at used receiver of 70's, 80's if I were you.

Maybe you should start looking at some older unit (receiver).

Sometime you find near mint, (even new old stock) the likes of Kenwood,
Onkyo, Pioneer Sansui, Yamaha etc.

Don't forget that high power is usualy a trade-off. (Over 50 Watts RMS X 2).

The First Watts is the most important of them all.

Are you using a turntable ?

A big power supply is usualy a good sign.


Regards

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Jean wrote:
> Mark D. Zacharias wrote:
>> JANA wrote:
>>
>>> If you want quality, look at Conrad Johnson, Macintosh, Crown Audio,
>>> QSC, or the professional lines of Sony, and Technics, or Bryston.
>>> Names like NAD, Sherwood, Rotel, Denon, and etc, are all mass
>>> produced made in China crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> "James" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for a high-quality STEREO-ONLY receiver. I have
>>>> no interest in multi-channel equipment.
>>>>
>>>> I had decided on the NAD, but they quit making it. Their only
>>>> 2-channel receiver they now make includes a cd player, which I do
>>>> not want in this purchase.
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone tell me of a "high quality" stereo receiver ?? I am
>>>> looking in the $500-750 range, and would like 75-100 watts per
>>>> channel.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any advice !!
>>>>
>>>> --james--
>>
>>
>> There is "better crap" and "worse crap".
>>
>> Within the OP's price range, I would say the Denon is still the best
>> choice. The 685 is Korea-built, but the build quality looks the same
>> as their Jap stuff. From a technical standpoint, the only weakness
>> is a couple under-spec resistors in the power supply. Once replaced,
>> there are no common problems with these, and the performance is on a
>> par with some of the best. Mark Z.
>>
>> Mark Z.
>>
>
> I don't see much available new.
>
> I would look at used receiver of 70's, 80's if I were you.
>
> Maybe you should start looking at some older unit (receiver).
>
> Sometime you find near mint, (even new old stock) the likes of
> Kenwood, Onkyo, Pioneer Sansui, Yamaha etc.
>
> Don't forget that high power is usualy a trade-off. (Over 50 Watts
> RMS X 2).
> The First Watts is the most important of them all.
>
> Are you using a turntable ?
>
> A big power supply is usualy a good sign.
>
>
> Regards

Sound advice. The only thing I would add is that with older pieces, the
controls and switches tend to be noisy and / or cut out. They should be
cleaned even if no particular problems are noted.

Mark Z.

[Tim Martin]

"James" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
thought
> these were considered pretty good receivers.....

I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.

Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know what
country they are in - they work just as well in China as anywhere else.

The cost of the components in mass-produced products is small; and so it's
perfectly practical for a manufacturer to set up shop somewhere where taxes,
wages and profits means that products can be sold at a smaller multiple of
the component price.

Tim

[Charles Richmond]

Tim Martin wrote:
>
> "James" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
> thought
> > these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>
> I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.
>
> Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know what
> country they are in - they work just as well in China as anywhere else.
>
Yes, the machines may be the same...but what about "quality control".
Do the plants in China have inspectors that are as good as Japan???


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond It is moral cowardice to leave |
| undone what one perceives right |
| richmond at plano dot net to do. -- Confucius |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Charles Richmond wrote:
> Tim Martin wrote:
>>
>> "James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
>>> thought these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>>
>> I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.
>>
>> Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know
>> what country they are in - they work just as well in China as
>> anywhere else.
>>
> Yes, the machines may be the same...but what about "quality control".
> Do the plants in China have inspectors that are as good as Japan???
>
>
>> Charles and Francis Richmond It is moral cowardice to leave |
>> undone what one perceives right |
>> richmond at plano dot net to do. -- Confucius |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+

Mid-Fi stuff hasn't been produced in Japan for at least 15 years. I think we
need to get over it. Only flagship stuff is made there anymore.

I work on lots of mid-fi, that is Sony, Onkyo, Pioneer, Yamaha, Denon,
Marantz. Quality is mostly pretty good, you'd be hard pressed to find any
quality differences compared to Japanese manufactured stuff.
However, there is a qualifier here as regards the original posts, which is:
much of the stuff isn't Chinese as such, but made in Malaysia, Indonesia,
Taiwan and Korea.
Some Chinese stuff I've seen, such as the Marantz models made for Marantz by
a firm called Anam, aren't so great, though there's some new higher-end
stuff I haven't seen yet, such as the SR-8400, etc.
The Chinese produced Denon stuff I've seen is fine. Yamaha has kept their
quality at a high level, but they're not Chinese-built (was it Indonesia?).
I would put Onkyo at a small notch below those two as to quality on their
receivers, but I'd say stay away from their dvd players, which are
Philips-sourced (and Chinese built).
Sony has been dumbing down the engineering of their cheaper stuff the past
three or four years as more HTIB stuff is sold. The receivers aren't too
bad, but I wouldn't want to be perceived as arguing too strongly in their
favor.

Mark Z.

[Dogs Breath]

As far as value for money goes , you will go a long way to better Rotel.


"Tim Martin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "James" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
> thought
>> these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>
> I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.
>
> Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know what
> country they are in - they work just as well in China as anywhere else.
>
> The cost of the components in mass-produced products is small; and so
> it's
> perfectly practical for a manufacturer to set up shop somewhere where
> taxes,
> wages and profits means that products can be sold at a smaller multiple of
> the component price.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Dogs Breath wrote:
> As far as value for money goes , you will go a long way to better
> Rotel.
>
> "Tim Martin" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
>>> thought these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>>
>> I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.
>>
>> Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know
>> what country they are in - they work just as well in China as
>> anywhere else. The cost of the components in mass-produced products is
>> small; and
>> so it's
>> perfectly practical for a manufacturer to set up shop somewhere where
>> taxes,
>> wages and profits means that products can be sold at a smaller
>> multiple of the component price.
>>
>> Tim

Not familiar with the Rotel, but lots of people like them.

Mark Z.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:19:14 -0400, "James" >
wrote:

>Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I thought
>these were considered pretty good receivers.....

Being made in China is no indication of sound quality. I just bought a
'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player which sounds
identical to a $3,000 'high end' Meridian 588 dedicated CD player.

Rotel have consistently produced some of the best-value gear around,
top performance at very resonable prices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 01:21:56 -0700, Charles Richmond
> wrote:

>Tim Martin wrote:
>>
>> "James" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Really, you think NAD and Rotel are Chinese junk ?? Wow, I
>> thought
>> > these were considered pretty good receivers.....
>>
>> I remember the same kind of comment being made about Japanese goods.
>>
>> Mass-produced products are made by machine; the machines don't know what
>> country they are in - they work just as well in China as anywhere else.
>>
>Yes, the machines may be the same...but what about "quality control".
>Do the plants in China have inspectors that are as good as Japan???

Anyone who thinks that quality is improved by inspection, is about
forty years out of date. Quality assurance in volume manufacturing
comes from the design, from the assembly equipment, and from the
manufacturing processes. Inspection is irrelevant, all it can tell you
is whether something's gone wrong with the process.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Mr.T]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone who thinks that quality is improved by inspection, is about
> forty years out of date. Quality assurance in volume manufacturing
> comes from the design, from the assembly equipment, and from the
> manufacturing processes. Inspection is irrelevant, all it can tell you
> is whether something's gone wrong with the process.

Yes, but one thing that has changed is what happens when something does go
wrong with the process. Slap a different brand name on them seems to be the
current remedy in many cases.

MrT.

[Midlant]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> Being made in China is no indication of sound quality. I just bought a
> 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player which sounds
> identical to a $3,000 'high end' Meridian 588 dedicated CD player.


This is a UK model. I wonder what the US equivalent is?
John

[Mark D. Zacharias]

Midlant wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Being made in China is no indication of sound quality. I just bought
>> a 'Chinky cheapy' Pioneer DV-575A 'universal' player which sounds
>> identical to a $3,000 'high end' Meridian 588 dedicated CD player.
>
>
> This is a UK model. I wonder what the US equivalent is?
> John

The DV-575A is also a U.S. model.

Mark Z.