Born2RockU Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 I am thinking of getting a Yamaha RX-V3300 receiver... ...Does any one out there have one of these Yamaha's, to reassure me I am doing the right thing. I am getting rid of my Denon 3802 on EBay, if anyone is interested ! (It's the only Denon 3802 up on the EBay site, if ya wanna look) ...I was also thinking of getting a Harman . Any suggestions on a Harman model, for a complete surround-sound set-up? ( read my equipment profile) THANX ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Warren Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 ---------------- On 8/19/2004 4:26:16 AM Born2RockU wrote: I am thinking of getting a Yamaha RX-V3300 receiver... ...Does any one out there have one of these Yamaha's, to reassure me I am doing the right thing. I am getting rid of my Denon 3802 on EBay, if anyone is interested ! (It's the only Denon 3802 up on the EBay site, if ya wanna look) ...I was also thinking of getting a Harman . Any suggestions on a Harman model, for a complete surround-sound set-up? ( read my equipment profile) THANX ! ---------------- They're all made in China, likely from the same factory. HK is made on the first shift, Yammy is made on the second so for all intents and purposes brand name is a difference in words only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 If you like Harmon Kardon, Try their Signature 2.0 preamp/processor. Its a very nice smooth sounding pre. You'll need to match it to an amp. You can find them on UBID from time to time. THis was a $2500 retail unit that can be picked up at good prices. Doesn't have all the music/movie modes as many - but that's a plus. It is DD and DTS 5.1/4.0/2.0. Very nice. I bought mine new/refurbished. Refurbished meant that it was released in 2000 with Dolby digital and subsequently upgraded by HK to include the DTS modes. Very pleased. I only paid slightly over $400. Made by some of the same people on HK citation line and some from Madrigal. Still serviced by this group in Colorado, and there will be another software upgrade shortly. It IS made in the US as well, and weighs 22 pounds. Not bad for just a preamp. Build quality is excellent. Looks even better - not like their current stuff at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 They're all made in China, likely from the same factory. HK is made on the first shift, Yammy is made on the second so for all intents and purposes brand name is a difference in words only. ............................................. I will disagree, I can hear differences between the units so there must be more to the different brands than the name plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endover Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Sorry....I never was able to talk myself into trying the yammie with my Klipsch. I had heard too many things(whether true or not) about mixing the older Yammie's with Klipsch and the "highs" were undesireable. I felt secure enough (from other's comments) to jump in on the HK 7200. It's now "last years" model so it's going for cheaper however....you couldn't pry that baby from my dead hands! It sounds incredible in both music and home theater modes with my system. I think you'll get a few more options on surround and music modes but with the Yammie but for me, I end up only using 4 or 5 of them at the most anyway. That being said, my HK is warm and full(just like everyone had told me it would be) and has every bit of enough power to bust out my eardrums without distorting. It's simple to operate and comes with two remote controls (One "busy" one that hass all the setup buttons on it and the other with fewer buttons on it for daily usage(volume, source mode, on/off, bla...bla....bla....)...and oh yeah....it has its own similar version of Yamaha's YPAO. I started with it's automatic settings and then went back and fine tuned them. I paid $800 for it about 3 months ago from J&S. I think this years model is basically the same but starts to add the web features which I don't use.... ....my two cents..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marksdad Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 what i have heard from all varieties of yammy is that they are everly bright, and weak on the lower end, i used to have an yammy amp in my bedroom, and music always sounded bad, i went through 3 sets of speakers thinking it was the speakers, but once i moved my heresies to my bedroom i knew i had made a mistake, now i run nad in my bedroom, and everything is where it should be, i would rather have the smoth warmth of a hk than ANY yammy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 The Yammie also has a nice receiver section. My friends are impressed with the reception and I'm only using the cheasy little wire "antenna" that came with it. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popbumper Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 Hey: I bought the H/K AVR430 a few months back; it has a full arsenal of features, a friendly user interface, and great sound. My receiver drives Forte I's as mains, Academy center, Heresy II's as side surrounds, and KG2's as rear surrounds for full 7.1 effect. I cannot really complain about the system at all, the 65WPC rating is very adequate to drive my Heritage horns. Perhaps this is a biased review, since I have not had opportunity to compare it to Yammy stuff, but I have always enjoyed H/K stuff (was involved with it back in the 80's), and it suits me fine. H/K has a good number of models available at decent prices; the 430 is very "middle of the road", and the 630 or above may suit your needs better. Popbumper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 For all practical purposes, nowadays, Yamaha and HK are extremely similar. If we're talking about specific older products, thats something else. I had failures with two HK entry level recievers (AVR125) which both blew out in 30 days (both were store demos and deeply discounted). I complained and HK sent a brand new AVR130 (current model). I tried it out on my main audio system to see how well the discrete center channel worked but the sound quality is definitely not up to par with what I'm used to listening to (musically speaking). For HT its fine. For what its worth, I think the new HK recievers are very cool looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dantfmly Posted August 20, 2004 Share Posted August 20, 2004 Both are great units. Find a place that you can have both of them placed through exactly the same equipment (perferably as close to yours as possible,maybe they will even let you use yours if you want to drag it in) and you find out which is better then the other in your opinion, which is what really matters right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klipschaholik Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 I have the Yamaha rxv1400 7.1 HT system and have been pleased with the performance. More features than I can use. I felt that the HK newer equipt. wasn't getting good reviews on reliability. I spent about $550 on Ebay for the one I bought. I run my cornwalls and heresys through the system without a sub. I have a small Klipsch center channel which really doesn't keep up with the heritage speakers. I moved my NAD receiver to the bedroon and run another pair of heresy's through it. I recommend you do a search through google on the two receivers your interested in and compare the reviews. Good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Just a comment on the yamahas (I used to own one). Sound & Vision just tested one (RX-V750, a lower model than mentioned above), and though its rated at 100 watts/channel, it only delivers 61 watts into 5 channels without clipping. Not sure if this 60% rule applies across all of their line or just this model. I've never owned a HK receiver (just the preamp/tuner I mentioned above), but others have said they are rated conservatively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myhamish Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Hi there, These are my opinions based on experience. I've been running a Yamaha RX1300 for about a year and a half. No technical problems or repairs. Only negatives are binding posts that are too close, hard to read orange receiver display (although on screen display is great), and an overly complicated remote. Maybe with the 3300, they have this rectified by now. I bought this one because it had the multichannel pre-amp outs that I still might use some day. I'm now running a Reference 3 system with them after using two other speaker setups. For home theater, there is lots of detail, great imaging, and a seamless roomfilling quality that adds to the realism. For music, I find the 6 channel entertainment dsp setting works really well. If not that, I switch back to the two channel stereo mode (for which most music was mixed for). I hope this information helps. Good luck with your choice. Slainte. Hamish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I haven't heard the new HK's. They have great reviews. Personally I like the Yamaha's, great sound and a very good price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Blacksmith Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 ---------------- On 8/22/2004 12:10:23 PM v3pcbl wrote: Just a comment on the yamahas (I used to own one). Sound & Vision just tested one (RX-V750, a lower model than mentioned above), and though its rated at 100 watts/channel, it only delivers 61 watts into 5 channels without clipping. Not sure if this 60% rule applies across all of their line or just this model. I've never owned a HK receiver (just the preamp/tuner I mentioned above), but others have said they are rated conservatively. ---------------- I have had a few Yamaha recievers, seperates and they always were under rated for power and I currently own a RX-V750, it runs at about -15db to achieve reference levels in my HT and it sounds fine, no clipping that I can detect by ear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v3spitfire Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 My comment on the yamaha was on the particular model mentioned in the recent edition of Sound & Vision. But I also had a Yamaha that I sold. It was a 99 model rated at 85 watts per channel. I never thought it sounded like 85 watts when listening to DVDs. It was rated at 85 watts at 1K, which may have been the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 RockU-----I'm with John; one's about as good as another. I've used Yamaha, Sony and Denon SS receivers and all were good. The worst receiver I ever heard, bar none, was an HK. But it used tubes. Tell ya what, YOU listen to them and then you tell us what you think. Buying anything based on the opinions of others, even my opinion, is no way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dantfmly Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 ---------------- On 8/24/2004 11:23:44 PM TBrennan wrote: Tell ya what, YOU listen to them and then you tell us what you think. Buying anything based on the opinions of others, even my opinion, is no way to go. ---------------- I second that notion, event hough that is what i already said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.