Low price receiver question

[J Antero]

I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
the below $150 price zone?

ciao

[nselson]

You've gotta be talking about stereo receivers, right? Does 'consumer
reports' still rate these? That's where I suspect you'd find your
answers. I wouldn't; but you could take you're chances at a more
valuable(if slightly used) receiver on ebay? What speakers will you
drive?

[Joe Kesselman]

J Antero wrote:
> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> the below $150 price zone?

What they are is "used or remaindered", probably. Especially given that
you included a.home-theater.m, which suggests you want 5.1 support.

"Best" also depends on how many and what kinds of guzintas and guzoutas
your own setup needs.

I picked up a remaindered Onkyo a few years ago mostly because it had
the connectivity I needed. I don't claim it's remarkably good -- I
haven't pushed it hard -- but it's more than good enough for my needs.

[Midlant]

For that price a used Marantz or Pioneer from the early to mid 70's.
They still surpass anything made today due to their massive power
supplies..
John

"J Antero" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s)
>in the below $150 price zone?
>
> ciao
>

[Game Junky]

You can buy a $150 reciever. I didn't know they existed for anythign less
then $200. Anyway same as always still with the name brand and frankly at
either of those prices don't expect a whole lot.


"J Antero" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
>the below $150 price zone?
>
> ciao
>

[The Man From Mars]

Onkyo TX303
Circuit City for about $179








J Antero > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> the below $150 price zone?
>
> ciao
>
>

[Jenn]

In article <w9%0f.214856$084.181704@attbi_s22>,
"Game Junky" > wrote:

> You can buy a $150 reciever. I didn't know they existed for anythign less
> then $200. Anyway same as always still with the name brand and frankly at
> either of those prices don't expect a whole lot.

But just think; for $200, it will sound just as good as a Krell!

[Bret Ludwig]

New??

For $150, a Blaupunkt car radio and a homebrew 12.6V regulated supply
built out of a garage sale Schumacher battery charger. I'm completely
serious-unless you need external line inputs these are as good or
better than any similarly priced home unit.

[Arny Krueger]

"J Antero" > wrote in message
ink.net

> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the
> best receiver(s) in the below $150 price zone?


Good question. Last time I needed a cheap receiver, I picked
up a Pioneer SX205 off eBay. That was about 3 years ago and
its still working great.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com
> New??
>
> For $150, a Blaupunkt car radio and a homebrew 12.6V
> regulated supply built out of a garage sale Schumacher
> battery charger. I'm completely serious-unless you need
> external line inputs these are as good or better than any
> similarly priced home unit.

Does the car radio deliver 100 wpc rms, which is what you
can expect from a < $150 receiver?

It would take an approximate 300 watt 12 volt supply to do
that (25 amps), and those run about $100 all by themselves.

[Dogs Breath]

All your going to get for that sort of money is a throw away Chinese clone


"Game Junky" > wrote in message
news:w9%0f.214856$084.181704@attbi_s22...
> You can buy a $150 reciever. I didn't know they existed for anythign less
> then $200. Anyway same as always still with the name brand and frankly at
> either of those prices don't expect a whole lot.
>
>
> "J Antero" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
>>the below $150 price zone?
>>
>> ciao
>>
>
>

[Dan]

I recently got a discontinued Panasonic xr50 for 180 CAD
"J Antero" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> the below $150 price zone?
>
> ciao
>
>

[Ethan Winer]

JA,

> I know this is like inviting flames <

Not at all.

When I decided to replace my previous $180 Pioneer receiver I went back to
Costco to buy another. The newer model was only $150 and has 7.1 outputs,
Dolby II, and Dolby Digital and DTS decoding. It rocks. Did I mention it was
only $150 new? :->)

--Ethan

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article <w9%0f.214856$084.181704@attbi_s22>,
> "Game Junky" > wrote:
>
>> You can buy a $150 reciever. I didn't know they existed for anythign
>> less
>> then $200. Anyway same as always still with the name brand and frankly
>> at
>> either of those prices don't expect a whole lot.
>
> But just think; for $200, it will sound just as good as a Krell!

I know you're being sarcastic, but it's true nonetheless.

Norm

[Arny Krueger]

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in
message
> JA,
>
>> I know this is like inviting flames <
>
> Not at all.
>
> When I decided to replace my previous $180 Pioneer
> receiver I went back to Costco to buy another. The newer
> model was only $150 and has 7.1 outputs, Dolby II, and
> Dolby Digital and DTS decoding. It rocks. Did I mention
> it was only $150 new? :->)

The sonic effectiveness of modern low cost lightweight
receivers gives the lie to the theory that home audio gear
has to be built like a masonry commode to sound good.

[George Middius]

ToiletBorg drags audio back to his most familiar territory.

>The sonic effectiveness of modern low cost lightweight
>receivers gives the lie to the theory that home audio gear
>has to be built like a masonry commode to sound good.

But still, the more like a toilet, the better for 'borgs, right Arnii?

[[email protected]]

J Antero wrote:
> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> the below $150 price zone?

Stereo or Dolby receivers?

New and/or used?

(snip)

[J Antero]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> J Antero wrote:
>> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
>> the below $150 price zone?
>
> Stereo or Dolby receivers?

I have stereo speakers on hand, but my next question thread was going to be
about speakers - the ones I'm using now are late '70s Marantz "4G's".

> New and/or used?

Open to either. Let's say something that has a high probability of working
for a minimum of 5 years.

[Harry Lavo]

"J Antero" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> J Antero wrote:
>>> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s)
>>> in
>>> the below $150 price zone?
>>
>> Stereo or Dolby receivers?
>
> I have stereo speakers on hand, but my next question thread was going to
> be about speakers - the ones I'm using now are late '70s Marantz "4G's".
>
>> New and/or used?
>
> Open to either. Let's say something that has a high probability of working
> for a minimum of 5 years.

You do have a large bunch of used receivers of decent quality that you can
buy cheap. After 1980, FM quality should be more of an issue than amp
quality.

On the other hand, for $129 (or less when on sale) you can buy new stereo
receivers. I've bought two since the early ''90's, both Sherwoods. The
"baby" is now used by my sister..and had excellent FM and excellent sound (a
bit "papery" befitting it's $100 price tag but otherwise musically solid).
The newer (circa 2003) is still available; my brother-in-law uses it (he's
an audiophile) says it "sounds really fine". The "baby" was only 25wpc; the
newer one is 100wpc.

[[email protected]]

nselson wrote:
> You've gotta be talking about stereo receivers, right? Does 'consumer
> reports' still rate these?

Sorry, no.

They do review Dolby 5.1 receivers. The last review was in December
2004 and included Dolby receivers from $200 to $800.

Of course, a Dolby receiver could be used in stereo mode.

>That's where I suspect you'd find your
> answers. I wouldn't; but you could take you're chances at a more
> valuable(if slightly used) receiver on ebay? What speakers will you
> drive?

[[email protected]]

J Antero wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > J Antero wrote:
> >> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> >> the below $150 price zone?

Looking at the following, I see plenty of new and refurbished receivers
well within your price range:

http://www.jr.com/JRSectionView.process?Ns=pricing_amount&N=10946

I haven't heard any of them, but I assume they'd all work fine for your
needs. You could just shop by features. I might go with an Onkyo,
because that's a popular brand.

I'd be tempted to get one of the refurbished Onkyo Dolby 5.1 receivers
for $100 shown at the above. You could use that for a stereo receiver
now, then use that for a Dolby 5.1 home theater system later, if you
ever decide you want to do that.

I've bought several things from J&R over the years and never had any
problems with that dealer.

Another question: What brand of CD or DVD player do you have?

I ask because some brands have special features that make most gear
from their brands operate in convenient ways. For example, if you have
all Sony gear connected with the Sony S-Link feature, you can press
"Play" on your CD or DVD player or remote control and all the Sony gear
will automatically power up and switch to the correct settings. JVC,
Pioneer, Onkyo (I think), and other brands have similar systems. They
all work only within each brand.

> > Stereo or Dolby receivers?
>
> I have stereo speakers on hand, but my next question thread was going to be
> about speakers - the ones I'm using now are late '70s Marantz "4G's".

I'm not familiar with these, but generally speaking, newer speakers are
much, much better than older speakers from the 1970's.

Also, on many older speakers, the foam surrounds around each speaker
driver have rotted and fallen apart. If you pull off your speaker
grilles and have that problem, it'll be easy to see.

Any competent repairman can fix this, but it'll cost some money and may
not be worthwhile for older speakers.

What is your speaker budget? Generally speaking, speakers make the
biggest difference in sound quality, so it's best to put the largest
part of your budget towards speakers.

Of course, if you prefer your Marantz speakers, keep on using 'em.

> > New and/or used?
>
> Open to either. Let's say something that has a high probability of working
> for a minimum of 5 years.

Most any receiver should last that long or much longer. BTW, another
tip when buying new gear is to check with your credit-card company and
ask about extended warranties. Some credit-card companies will
automatically double the warranty on anything you buy with your credit
card.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > New??
> >
> > For $150, a Blaupunkt car radio and a homebrew 12.6V
> > regulated supply built out of a garage sale Schumacher
> > battery charger. I'm completely serious-unless you need
> > external line inputs these are as good or better than any
> > similarly priced home unit.
>
> Does the car radio deliver 100 wpc rms, which is what you
> can expect from a < $150 receiver?
>
> It would take an approximate 300 watt 12 volt supply to do
> that (25 amps), and those run about $100 all by themselves.

A garage sale Schumacher battery charger will supply about 900 watts.
They are considerably less than $100 new.

Surplus regulated 12V linear supplies by legit first tier makers are
hamfest staples, usually for less than that in these sizes as well.

But yes, new, about $100 for the CB shop model.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in
> message
>> JA,
>>
>>> I know this is like inviting flames <
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> When I decided to replace my previous $180 Pioneer
>> receiver I went back to Costco to buy another. The newer
>> model was only $150 and has 7.1 outputs, Dolby II, and
>> Dolby Digital and DTS decoding. It rocks. Did I mention
>> it was only $150 new? :->)
>
> The sonic effectiveness of modern low cost lightweight receivers gives the
> lie to the theory that home audio gear has to be built like a masonry
> commode to sound good.


Your plastic potty just isn't doing the trick, Arny.

[[email protected]]

>
> Open to either. Let's say something that has a high probability of working
> for a minimum of 5 years.


I have a few Marantz receivers, 2350's and similar, and after a light
cleaning of the pots, they work like new, and I'm pretty confident they
will be working in 20 years if properly taken care of.
The black plastic disposable stuff since 1985 - crap.
kenwood made a few receivers in the last few years, K-STAT something
or another, it was actually pretty good.
or get a used tuner (real cheap, like $20 for some good ones on ebay)
and a decent integrated amp, yamaha ca-1000 maybe, they go for about
120,
class a a/b switchable, good sound. that would be your best bet.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:

<<snip>>


>
> The sonic effectiveness of modern low cost lightweight
> receivers gives the lie to the theory that home audio gear
> has to be built like a masonry commode to sound good.


It sure helps. If weight is not a big issue, such as if it were on an
airplane or even a car, a heavy unit is less expensive and longer
lived-one can overspecify transformers, put in bigger caps, use a
heavier chassis.

[Bret Ludwig]

Jenn wrote:
> In article <w9%0f.214856$084.181704@attbi_s22>,
> "Game Junky" > wrote:
>
> > You can buy a $150 reciever. I didn't know they existed for anythign less
> > then $200. Anyway same as always still with the name brand and frankly at
> > either of those prices don't expect a whole lot.
>
> But just think; for $200, it will sound just as good as a Krell!

Although Krell IS overpriced and arrogant, a $200 receiver WILL NOT
sound as good as a Krell.

Then again it won't double as a space heater either.

[Large Farva]

The best one for $150 is the one you get when you put ANOTHER $150 with it
and get an entry level unit.


"J Antero" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
>the below $150 price zone?
>
> ciao
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Although Krell IS overpriced and arrogant, a $200
> receiver WILL NOT sound as good as a Krell.

Prove it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
>
>>
>> The sonic effectiveness of modern low cost lightweight
>> receivers gives the lie to the theory that home audio
>> gear has to be built like a masonry commode to sound
>> good.
>
>
> It sure helps.

Helps what?

> If weight is not a big issue, such as if
> it were on an airplane or even a car, a heavy unit is
> less expensive and longer lived-one can overspecify
> transformers, put in bigger caps, use a heavier chassis.

That necessarily helps sound quality how?

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

In rec.audio.opinion J Antero > wrote:
> I know this is like inviting flames, but what are the best receiver(s) in
> the below $150 price zone?

A bit of search in froogle found these 2 receivers, both 100W/channel:

Yamaha HTR-5730 5.1 Channel Receiver with 515W: $128.99
http://store.yahoo.com/tech1global-store/yaht51chrewi1.html

Pioneer VSX-D514K $148.99
http://www.digitaldiscountdepot.com/prod_PionVSXD514.html

Not sure if the above model is still current. The Pioneer VSX-515-K
is about the same price:

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?cat=463&scoring=p&q=Pioneer+vsx-515-k&btnG=Search+Froogle

Download the manuals from the manufacturer's websites and compare features,
inputs, etc.

It is likely that the next models on the line have significant advantages
(more inputs).

--
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

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<SNIP>>
>
> > If weight is not a big issue, such as if
> > it were on an airplane or even a car, a heavy unit is
> > less expensive and longer lived-one can overspecify
> > transformers, put in bigger caps, use a heavier chassis.
>
> That necessarily helps sound quality how?

Bigger xfmrs have lower flux density at a given power throughput and
heavier chassis means better shielding and mechanical stability. That's
the way to bet, anyway.

Light boxes CAN be good, but at higher expense. Consider the Narco
coffee grinder ADF beloved by BCB DX listeners-you couldn't build one
today like that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<SNIP>>
>>
>>> If weight is not a big issue, such as if
>>> it were on an airplane or even a car, a heavy unit is
>>> less expensive and longer lived-one can overspecify
>>> transformers, put in bigger caps, use a heavier chassis.
>>
>> That necessarily helps sound quality how?
>
> Bigger xfmrs have lower flux density at a given power
> throughput and heavier chassis means better shielding and
> mechanical stability. That's the way to bet, anyway.

OK, bet with your money. I'll spend my time and money on
things that have audible benefits.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<snip>>
> OK, bet with your money. I'll spend my time and money on
> things that have audible benefits.


Like arguing on Usenet?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Although Krell IS overpriced and arrogant, a $200
> > receiver WILL NOT sound as good as a Krell.
>
> Prove it.
>
Been there, done that :)

[Ethan Winer]

Bret (and anyone else who cares),

> Bigger xfmrs have lower flux density at a given power throughput and
heavier chassis means better shielding and mechanical stability. <

I have to side with Arny on this one. I've been involved in pro (and not so
pro) audio and recording for 35+ years, and I've watched with amazement as
high quality gear has become smaller, cheaper, and even higher quality. The
$180 receiver I replaced was "broken" only so far as one of its digital
inputs died. The rest of the receiver was still fine, and it still sounded
great. It lasted about 8 years, so I definitely got my money's worth. :->)
If my new one, for $150, lasts half as long I'll still have gotten my
money's worth.

I do believe in spending money where it matters (loudspeakers, room
treatment), and NOT spending where it doesn't, which these days is most
electronics. I have a mix of very cheap and very high-quality gear in my
home studio and my home theater (separate systems). Anyone who would like to
assess for themselves the quality of my "budget distribution" is most
welcome to come by for a visit.

--Ethan

[Fyrman]

I guess I kind of have to agree. I have a dedicated home theater room
that's wired, insulated, and finished to a very high standard. A 96"
Draper screen with an Infocus projector a fed by a JVC reciever and
DVD. The audio components are most definetly on the low side of middle
of the road, but any one that's watched either a DVD or the HD feed I
have would agree, the enjoyment level is amazing.

Basically, what would be a pain to upgrade down the road was done
right... everything else can be changed as money permits. A lot of what
I've bought has been used... including the second 12"PSB sub I added
last week. It's a great way to build a system if you're careful about
what you're buying and check it out thoroughly before handing over the
cash.

Hey, it's only money... right?! :)

[stealthaxe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in news:L6ednU88V8_wb9neRVn-
:

> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com

>> New??

>> For $150, a Blaupunkt car radio and a homebrew 12.6V
>> regulated supply built out of a garage sale Schumacher
>> battery charger. I'm completely serious-unless you need
>> external line inputs these are as good or better than any
>> similarly priced home unit.

> It would take an approximate 300 watt 12 volt supply to do
> that (25 amps), and those run about $100 all by themselves.

bret did say "garage sale"


--
stealthaxe