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

"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.

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?

"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.

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" 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?

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.

"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.

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?

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

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?!