big c Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 How does the entry level amps in the $1000 to $2000 price range (Rotel,B&K,ANTHEM,ADCOM ,OUTLAW ) compare to the top of the line avr from Denon, Yamaha & Pioneer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonrpayne Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Look at an amp. Look at a Dennon receiver. Look at the amp again. You may wonder "Gee, there's a lot of big serious parts inside that there amp. How do they fit all that in this receiver?" They don't. Just my opinion of course: http://www.damononline.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=14&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Stand alone 200 watt amps typically have much better power output with difficult loads than flagship receivers. The strength of the flagship receivers is in the pre-amp/processor section. In the processor area, the flagships can compete with the very best separates IMO. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I recently took the top cover off one of the lower cost Denon receivers They were using cardboard to divide the various sections from each other. It looked cheaply finished but I don't know whether cheap wiring etc effects actual sound quality that much at this price range. On the other hand I've inspected the interior of the Anthem range - nicely put together and bodes well for long term reliability. Rotel products seem to occupy the middle ground - reasonable build quality and good ss sound, if that's what you like. I have an aversion to combined surround receiver 1 box combinations as a rule - I can't see how you can acheive true musicality with so much electronics jammed into one box. There's got to be some adverse effect on sound with so many electronic interactions taking place in one box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 The flagship receivers are dead quiet. There is a reason for this fact. The power supply is in a separate compartment. There is copper shielding used. Microprocessors are shielded. Run of the mill receivers are much noisier. They also do not make rated power. The fellow that started the thread was inquiring about the Denon 5803. It is built like a tank. The problem with the 5803 is that it is very obsolete IMO and is a bit light on power. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Yes, I'm not familiar with that model Denon. I just read however some reviews on the Onkyo/Integra DS989 Receiver on Ecoustics.com which I think is near top of range for Onkyo in the U.S. 200 watts per channel (!) into 6 ohms and is fan cooled. Maybe the top range models are becoming more competitive with the seperates vis a vis home theatre options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Flagship receiver are competitive to separates in the pre-amp/processor section. The amp sections are still a bit weak with low impedance loads. There is a sweet spot in the receiver market; it is usually just below the flagships. Flagships tend to run about $3000. The next model down is much more reasonably priced and keeps many of the better features. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I am shocked at the light weight chintzy construction of modern $500 receivers compared to vintage $50 solid-state receiver amplifiers - I am thrilled at the massive build quality of ASLs new $1,000 integrated tube amplifiers, with remote controls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurch Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 ---------------- On 6/25/2004 9:10:30 AM Colin wrote: I am shocked at the light weight chintzy construction of modern $500 receivers compared to vintage $50 solid-state receiver amplifiers - ---------------- Why is this surprising???? It's simple economics. If you want to continue to hit a price point, you have to change something. Every year, workers want more pay, parts cost more, etc. And, all of these companies still make $300 receivers, which was also the entry-level price point for the last few decades. How do they do that, while adding 4-5 more channels of amplification, Dolby/DTS, more inputs/outputs, etc? Well, the cost to produce them has to be pretty much the same as it was (to meet the price point at retail), they have to have a lot more capability and everything costs more. Something's gotta give. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 Panasonic has greatly improved the $300 receiver by going digital for the amp section. They had to cut many corners at such a low price point, but the result is widely acclaimed as being excellent for the money. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts