Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
Mark Thenewb

What receiver do I get?

Recommended Posts

On 4/18/2020 at 3:43 PM, The History Kid said:

I advise the OP to look elsewhere than the Yamaha RX-V line.  If you're set on Yamaha, you should look bare minimum at the RX-A Aventage lines.  The RX-V's have replaced most of the HTR line as the entry level Yamaha receivers and do not meet the same quality as the older RX-V models.  Make sure you look around for options on the RX-A's, they can be had for a decent price.

I took your advice and changed by amp to the Denon 4500H, I will be getting an OSD 5 Channel amp as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark Thenewb said:

I took your advice and changed by amp to the Denon 4500H, I will be getting an OSD 5 Channel amp as well. 

Good choice.  I am using a 4200 for my configuration - though I am using all outboard amplifiers right now.  It sounds like that's what you're working towards as well.  That 4500 has great expansions that should serve you well into the future.  It will put circles around any of those RX-V AVR's that's for sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The History Kid said:

Good choice.  I am using a 4200 for my configuration - though I am using all outboard amplifiers right now.  It sounds like that's what you're working towards as well.  That 4500 has great expansions that should serve you well into the future.  It will put circles around any of those RX-V AVR's that's for sure.

Do you know if adding an AMP will add more power to the receiver, or will it simply divide the task of providing power to the speakers. So if I had a 105 WPC receiver and added a 120 WPC AMP, would that mean each channel now has up to 225 WTP? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power isn't additive like that.  The most available to any speaker is only that from the amp it's connected to.  You can't boost power by running one amp through another and you can't hook more that one amp to a speaker at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark Thenewb said:

Do you know if adding an AMP will add more power to the receiver, or will it simply divide the task of providing power to the speakers. So if I had a 105 WPC receiver and added a 120 WPC AMP, would that mean each channel now has up to 225 WTP? 

Adding an amp can in a roundabout way add power to the AVR.  Consider the following two examples:

 

Example 1:

AVR Power, 590 W Total Power

AVR Powers the front 3 channels

Amp powers the rear 4.

You're probably going to get somewhere between 55 and 100 WPC for the front 3 channels and whatever the amp power rating is for the rear 4.

 

Example 2:

Same AVR Power

AVR powers all 7 channels.

You're probably going to see something around 25 to 55 WPC for all 7 channels.

 

An outboard amp will guarantee you clean power, as long as it's a decent one.  It can take some of the excess load off the AVR too.  The more power you're deriving from the AVR, the less and less power it has to use. I'd say on average most AVR's with all channels driven run between 30 and 70 WPC and do not exceed that.  Adding an amp doesn't increase the overall power of the amp, but it can free up available power for the channels it is running, not to exceed it's own capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Denon unit looks to be a significant step up from your original choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ought to find a couple reviews out there on the NAD gear before you place your order.  Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The History Kid said:

Adding an amp can in a roundabout way add power to the AVR.  Consider the following two examples:

 

Example 1:

AVR Power, 590 W Total Power

AVR Powers the front 3 channels

Amp powers the rear 4.

You're probably going to get somewhere between 55 and 100 WPC for the front 3 channels and whatever the amp power rating is for the rear 4.

 

Example 2:

Same AVR Power

AVR powers all 7 channels.

You're probably going to see something around 25 to 55 WPC for all 7 channels.

 

An outboard amp will guarantee you clean power, as long as it's a decent one.  It can take some of the excess load off the AVR too.  The more power you're deriving from the AVR, the less and less power it has to use. I'd say on average most AVR's with all channels driven run between 30 and 70 WPC and do not exceed that.  Adding an amp doesn't increase the overall power of the amp, but it can free up available power for the channels it is running, not to exceed it's own capacity.

What if I'm running 5 channels, but 105 watts per channel on the receiver and 120 watts from the amplifier, in that case is there really an advantage in running an amplifier? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, glens said:

That Denon unit looks to be a significant step up from your original choice.

I think I had a typo, I meant the 3500H. I couldn't find anything relevant to my setup from NAD, this amp is the one I was going for, OSD Audio XA5180 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B074415515/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_3?smid=A2QGVVI9PYOV9V&psc=1 I think both of them together should be more than enough for my 5 channel setup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if I'm running 5 channels, but 105 watts per channel on the receiver and 120 watts from the amplifier, in that case is there really an advantage in running an amplifier? 
You won't get 105 WPC x5 out of that AVR. Power ratings on AVRs are excessively overstated and have numerous caveats.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3500 is a good AVR. I run a Onkyo TX RZ740 with the OSD amplifier that you are considering and I really enjoy my setup. It's used for HT only powering my front three LCR speakers (KL-7800-THX IN-WALL) and front height (PRO-4800-W) in a 7.2.4 atmos configuration. In my opinion the OSD amplifier is a underrated gem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The History Kid said:

You won't get 105 WPC x5 out of that AVR. Power ratings on AVRs are excessively overstated and have numerous caveats.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Yeah, I noticed that their wattage ratings seem almost like a scam, only to attract attention, while they hide the true power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mark Thenewb said:

Yeah, I noticed that their wattage ratings seem almost like a scam, only to attract attention, while they hide the true power. 

That's somewhat true, especially since the FTC many years ago declined to enforce any kind of specifications. So AVRs specify power into 2 channels driven, 8 ohms only.* From years of reading tests, they ALL droop their per-channel power as more and more channels are driven. Basically the power supplies are just not super strong. Continuing what someone pointed out earlier, from 100 watts to 150 is just like1 step of the volume control more, because our hearing is logarithmic. I consider all AVRs to have essentially the same power, and if you want more REAL power then you need something rated at least 300 watts continuous into FOUR ohms.*

 

Adding an external amp (a POWER amp, not that tube thing you linked) for say the front L/R means the AVRs power supply is not as strained and can deliver closer to rated power in the remaining channels since it won't droop as much. This is also true of adding a subwoofer, now the AVR is not strained by the low bass frequencies, which are the hardest for amplifiers. This is often NOT true for 2-channel equipment, which stupidly usually have no highpass filtering, even when they have a “subwoofer” output!

 

Here are "Head_Unit’s Rules Of Protection":
1) If when things start to sound distorted or odd you TURN IT DOWN, you are unlikely to ever break anything.
2) If you constantly "turn it up to 11" you will break something.
NOTE: size and power ratings of speakers and amp do not affect rules 1 and 2; there is NO need for "matching." Speaker specifications are 92% meaningless (and I say that as a loudspeaker engineer). Specs for amps are not thorough since they are measured into resistors for pragmatic reasons and speakers are not resistors at all.

*Amps' 4 ohm or even 2 ohm rating is the most meaningful even if your speakers are 8 ohms. Should be 20-20k Hz, distortion under 1% or it's baloney.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a longer list of features means less if the amp sections ain't as good as something else with maybe a shorter list of features (and perhaps the features are better-implemented too).  No matter how many or how few of the features ever / actually get used, the amps put the final say on everything.  I've already said twice where I'd be looking, and I don't think it'll be on the shelf at Best Buy, but that's a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is it seems like you're saying you're going to spend $ (at least 500?) for a full-blown receiver, and $ (as much again, or more?) on a 5-channel amp that claims so much power but doesn't provide even as much specification as Yamaha did for the one you first mentioned, which was itself suspect in that regard.  I'd looked up your typo'd model receiver, and they listed their better specs better than did Yamaha.  I read two reviews from one site, though I don't recall if I checked (meant to) whether it was the same reviewer specifically, one of that "typo"'d model and one of the NAD 777.

 

I read the Denon review first and got a very favorable impression.  Then I read the NAD review and the guy really gushed over the amplifiers.  I use duckduckgo.com as a search engine, and both reviews were on their first pages.  When I get back inside after my tobacco treat I'll look them up and post the links.

 

I'm of the opinion that NAD is the poor (or at least frugal) man's high-end gear.  The only nit I can pick after 40 years is the volume controls could've held a better balance through their ranges.  But it's all digitally controlled now so that's a moot point, which leaves, oh, nothing.

 

I "had to" recently replace my 1980 NAD 40 WPC integrated amp.  I picked up a C338 full-warranty factory "refurbished" from Crutchfield for less than the C328 goes for.  I soon after got Forte IIIs.  The amp case has no ventilation and after a good long shower while running balls-out on the stereo, the case is hardly warmer than room temp.  Their class D implementations are phenomenal, and I have the lesser of the two "hybrid digital" amplifier schemes they use.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Head_Unit said:

That's somewhat true, especially since the FTC many years ago declined to enforce any kind of specifications. So AVRs specify power into 2 channels driven, 8 ohms only.* From years of reading tests, they ALL droop their per-channel power as more and more channels are driven. Basically the power supplies are just not super strong. Continuing what someone pointed out earlier, from 100 watts to 150 is just like1 step of the volume control more, because our hearing is logarithmic. I consider all AVRs to have essentially the same power, and if you want more REAL power then you need something rated at least 300 watts continuous into FOUR ohms.*

 

Adding an external amp (a POWER amp, not that tube thing you linked) for say the front L/R means the AVRs power supply is not as strained and can deliver closer to rated power in the remaining channels since it won't droop as much. This is also true of adding a subwoofer, now the AVR is not strained by the low bass frequencies, which are the hardest for amplifiers. This is often NOT true for 2-channel equipment, which stupidly usually have no highpass filtering, even when they have a “subwoofer” output!

 

Here are "Head_Unit’s Rules Of Protection":
1) If when things start to sound distorted or odd you TURN IT DOWN, you are unlikely to ever break anything.
2) If you constantly "turn it up to 11" you will break something.
NOTE: size and power ratings of speakers and amp do not affect rules 1 and 2; there is NO need for "matching." Speaker specifications are 92% meaningless (and I say that as a loudspeaker engineer). Specs for amps are not thorough since they are measured into resistors for pragmatic reasons and speakers are not resistors at all.

*Amps' 4 ohm or even 2 ohm rating is the most meaningful even if your speakers are 8 ohms. Should be 20-20k Hz, distortion under 1% or it's baloney.

So in reality, is it even possible deliver 150 watts RMS to a speaker that can play at 150 watts continuously? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, glens said:

What I don't understand is it seems like you're saying you're going to spend $ (at least 500?) for a full-blown receiver, and $ (as much again, or more?) on a 5-channel amp that claims so much power but doesn't provide even as much specification as Yamaha did for the one you first mentioned, which was itself suspect in that regard.  I'd looked up your typo'd model receiver, and they listed their better specs better than did Yamaha.  I read two reviews from one site, though I don't recall if I checked (meant to) whether it was the same reviewer specifically, one of that "typo"'d model and one of the NAD 777.

 

I read the Denon review first and got a very favorable impression.  Then I read the NAD review and the guy really gushed over the amplifiers.  I use duckduckgo.com as a search engine, and both reviews were on their first pages.  When I get back inside after my tobacco treat I'll look them up and post the links.

 

I'm of the opinion that NAD is the poor (or at least frugal) man's high-end gear.  The only nit I can pick after 40 years is the volume controls could've held a better balance through their ranges.  But it's all digitally controlled now so that's a moot point, which leaves, oh, nothing.

 

I "had to" recently replace my 1980 NAD 40 WPC integrated amp.  I picked up a C338 full-warranty factory "refurbished" from Crutchfield for less than the C328 goes for.  I soon after got Forte IIIs.  The amp case has no ventilation and after a good long shower while running balls-out on the stereo, the case is hardly warmer than room temp.  Their class D implementations are phenomenal, and I have the lesser of the two "hybrid digital" amplifier schemes they use.

Yeah, I don't know what to believe from these websites anymore, one website claimed that the OSD amp weighed 55 pounds. And then rates each channel 150 watts at 8 ohm and 200 at 4 ohm. I knew its specs are too good to be true. I'll look more into NAD, thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in reality, is it even possible deliver 150 watts RMS to a speaker that can play at 150 watts continuously? 
Of course it is. But do you really need it in most circumstances? Doubtful. The need is usually a short burst of low frequency effects, not continuous. At least with Klipsch speakers that's the truth. It varies on the speaker. That's why you want to look at the sensitivity of the speaker in all of this too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Thenewb said:

So in reality, is it even possible deliver 150 watts RMS to a speaker that can play at 150 watts continuously? 

Hmm, maybe I need to rephrase my "Rules"... 

The point is that speaker power ratings are worthless nonsense, and amp ratings only somewhat better. So forget about trying to match the two, "matching" means NOTHING. 

--> the answer to your question is "sometimes, depending"

Speakers blowing up has nothing to do with any power ratings, it has to do with user behavior. 

Having said that, for those who DO crank it up, it's nicer to have excess power, since some amps-especially cheaper ones-can engage in ugly behavior when clipped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://hometheaterreview.com/denon-avr-x4500h-92-channel-av-receiver-reviewed/ (contains the interesting sentence "I had the opportunity to test out the AVR-X4500H's "Restorer" function, which aims to ameliorate some of the deleterious effects of lossy compression.")

 

https://hometheaterreview.com/nad-t-777-v3-seven-channel-av-receiver-reviewed/, this one earlier, both reiviews by the same person.

 

To be more fair in $ comparison: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/surround-sound-speaker-systems-reviews/nad-t-758-v3-av-surround-sound-receiver-review/

 

I certainly understand the allure of more features and lower price.  Sometimes, though, more long-term satisfaction can be had with the less attractive for whatever reason choice.  As well, half again more $ now can save the $ now plus the $ a bit down the road when the initial money saved becomes less easy to live with over the long haul.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...