Current High End Receiver

[TBrennan]

Duke--I got the Peavey REAL cheap and thought I'd give it a whirl. That was a long time ago, for all I know modern Peavey amps may be excellent.

My best friend uses a Peavey guitar and amp when he plays out; the stuff works well and sounds good. And he doesn't have to worry about his Peavey being stolen; he'll no longer take his Gibsons and Gretsches out.

[Marvel]

Peavey Classic 30. Great little tube guitar amp. Has a bunch of SS in

it as well, which can be modded to sound even better. They make stuff

that working class stiffs can use, who aren't afraid of having the name

Peavey on it.

But that isn't the same as a power amp for your stereo. Still, they have improved along with everyone else.

Bruce

[sfogg]

Bill,

"Cheap DACs have a dynamic range in the 80 db range while good DACs go over 110 db which is hard to clip."

DACs clipping is strictly a function of the source fed to them, not of

the DAC itself. If the digital signal is clipped it is going to stay

clipped no matter if it is on a 80dB SNR dac or a 110dB SNR dac. The

SNR defines the resolution of the DAC... IOWs were its noise floor is.

What is happening at lower levels, not the higher levels.

Shawn

[Zen Traveler]

Welcome to the forum H.C. []

I came back to the Klipsch fold through the Home Theater route after my fond memories of past music in stereo (I believe they call it "2-channel" now) with Klipsch speakers. I like Denon receivers with my speakers for multichannel music and movies. Any "brightness" critics claim with Klipsch, the Denon's compliment very nicely, IMHO.

I agree with the others about choosing toward the flagship models for quality. I have the AVR 4802R and have been tremendously satisfied for over 2 years. I also have the AVR- 3805 and 3803 in HT's not listed below. With the Denon's I own I don't feel the need to upgrade. The newer models have some luxuries that can be useful (especially in the video switching realm) but at those price points I would search for discontinued models for audio cost=enjoyment factor. Good luck and post back with your results.

[lovemyhorns]

I haven't posted here in a while, but I just wanted to add that the flagship (high-end) models (these are HT, I don;t think high-end receivers are made anymore from the mass marketers) run $2-3000 and for that amount of $$$, there are definitely better choices.

I used to have the McIntosh 2200 powering my Khorns but I needed money so I had to sell it. I bought some Onkyo HT receiver, it still sits in the closet, pure junk. I replaced it with the inexpensive Wave 8's.

If I were to go back to SS, it would only be McIntosh. JMO.

[MrMcGoo]

The original poster did not specify whether or not he has any multi-channel aspirations. If multi-channel is in his future, he needs a new receiver.

A 1980 McIntosh will have poor quality DACs by current standards. The capacitors are 25 years old. At the very lest, the old McIntosh needs to be gone through by a qualified tech. If he has a very high quality CD player, the DACs might not matter. If he wants to use the receiver's DACs, he needs a newer model.

Bill

[Audio Flynn]

A 1980 McIntosh will have poor quality DACs by current standards. The capacitors are 25 years old. At the very lest, the old McIntosh needs to be gone through by a qualified tech.

=========

Get you amp to a qualified tech for a good evaluation.

A chip amp is a fair back up amp and a few Tri Path implmentations can be les fatigueing; but not for serious 2 channel instrument realism and soundstage.

To get better than where you are with MAC I would look at BAT, B&K, Arcam or Creek integrateds. All digital tuners in any receiver 2 channel or HT will add distortion due to ICs.

For a little fun; try an old Fisher or Scott tube integrated from the early 60s. Not high wattage but a high degree of realism when properly updated by a qualified technician.

[Schurkey]

The original poster did not specify whether or

not he has any multi-channel aspirations. If multi-channel is in his

future, he needs a new receiver.

A 1980 McIntosh will have poor

quality DACs by current standards. The capacitors are 25 years old. At

the very lest, the old McIntosh needs to be gone through by a qualified

tech. If he has a very high quality CD player, the DACs might not

matter. If he wants to use the receiver's DACs, he needs a newer model.

Bill

Once again, I want to state up-front that I'm not familiar with current

receivers, but I'd like to add that part of the reason is that I gave

up on receivers as "high end" fifteen years ago. Mass market,

yes. Quality sound at a given price point "first priority", no.

My memory of a 1980 Mac --or ANY other 1980 receiver-- is that there

was no such thing as built-in DACs. A receiver was a tuner,

preamp, and stereo power amp, with as many "buttons/knobs/switches" as

the manufacturer chose to include. Those buttons might have

included a 5-band equalizer (JVC JR-S series) or a "sonic hologram"

generator, but NEVER a DAC. That was MANY years later. (right???)

The original poster, who has been conspicuous by his absence, has said

nothing about multi-channel--I gather he's moving the stereo from one

room to another, and is just looking for a two-channel receiver that's

more worthy than the Trusty Old McIntosh. So, yeah, that isn't

confirmed but I think it's a reasonable interpretation of his

post. I sure wouldn't recommend he buy a Home Theater receiver

which is going to have three-to-five amp channels that he's going to

pay for but not use. And to my knowledge there is no such thing

as a high-end two channel receiver anymore.

High-end Home Theater (multi-channel) receivers MIGHT be another

story. I haven't spent one minute listening to them, so I have

"almost" zero qualification to talk about 'em. What little I do

know is this: I pick up a 200 wpc X 2 ("400 watts" total) Aragon

4004

or 8008BB amp, and it's 60+ pounds, because it has two GIANT

transformers and more storage capacitance than you can shake a stick

at. It will throw 15+ amps into a speaker continuously, and it'll

drive "something like" 700 watts short-term into a 2 ohm load without

frying--IF (big IF) the wall socket can supply the juice without

voltage drop. Yes, this is all just power output, and they're not

the best amps ever made, but they did get very good reviews from the

audio press for sound quality, build quality, and projected

reliability. By comparison, I pick up a mass-market 100 or 150 X

5 or X 7 home-theater receiver and it's thirty pounds or less, has a

transformer the same physical size as what's in an old-school 120

watt/channel (240 total) Japanese receiver from '78 and despite the

claim of "500" or "700" or "900" watts printed on the box, its shit is

weak 'cause it's rated for ZERO watts into a 4-ohm load. The amp

section is all voltage (cheap) and practically no current (expensive).

There's no mention of output transistor operation, there's no way a

tiny power supply can have the transistors in class A, probably not

even in AB. Everything about the HT receivers I see around town

screams COST CUTTING, including the way the specs for distortion are

worded. Now there has been talk of top-of-the-line Denon, Sony

ES, Integra (didn't know they made a receiver) and on and on. I

expect they are better built than the HT junk I see around here, but

even if he can bridge the amps, he's still buying more channels than he

can use. (Or he's getting an introduction into multi-channel,

which might not be all bad, but it's not part of his stated purpose.)

He says his old McIntosh works fine. Certainly the parts are old,

and I don't doubt that age has caused it to drift from it's original

specs, and it's original sound. Even so, I'm thinking that it's

almost certainly better sounding and certainly better-built than any 2-channel receiver currently

made, and with a "tune up" as suggested previously, I bet it's a match

for (or better than) any HT receiver (used for 2-channel) at any price point.

But if it were me (and I recognize that it isn't) and I just had to

have something new, I'd be looking for seperates or an integrated

amp, with the intention of using the Mc as a tuner only.

(It's a Clear Channel world, and radio SUCKS around here--so, really, I

have no use for a tuner at all--but apparently he does.)

[Audio Flynn]

By comparison, I pick up a mass-market 100 or 150 X 5 or X 7 home-theater receiver and it's thirty pounds or less, has a transformer the same physical size as what's in an old-school 120 watt/channel (240 total) Japanese receiver from '78 and despite the claim of "500" or "700" or "900" watts printed on the box, its *** is weak 'cause it's rated for ZERO watts into a 4-ohm load.

++++++++++++++

I had the poor judgement to buy an HT receiver years ago. YUCK.. lifeless dynamics

My 5 x 125 Sherwood Newcastle HT power amp weighs 72 pounds; no sustiute for transformer mass and good design impementation.

[edwinr]

What little I do know is this: I pick up a 200 wpc X 2 ("400 watts" total) Aragon 4004 or 8008BB amp, and it's 60+ pounds, because it has two GIANT transformers and more storage capacitance than you can shake a stick at. It will throw 15+ amps into a speaker continuously, and it'll drive "something like" 700 watts short-term into a 2 ohm load without frying

You make a good point. Multi channel all-in-one receivers are a compromise. As you spend more money, they are less of a compromise. But when you take the time to buy separates, so if I summarise the positives we have several benefits;

* Components are more easily upgraded.

* Why pay for a 7.1 channel receiver when you only need 5.1 channels?

* You can mix and match as you please.

* Separate components are generally better built with superior quality.

* You can mix old and new to maximise your dollars.

[TBrennan]

One can use the extra channels of amplification for bi-amping, put the crossover ahead of the receiver.

[Rivendell61]

When you guys are using the term 'chip' amp -- I assume it is not meaning Gain Clone? Which seems to be the usual meaning. Is chip amp being used here to describe any non-descrete Class D?

Mark

[Marvel]

Mark,

I think your suspicians of "chip amp" fit the bill pretty well. Not

just the Tripath amp but ones using the TI chipset as well. Gainclones

use a chip, but are still analog (aren't they?). The Leach amp is all

analog, but is a DIY project.

Bruce

[Rivendell61]

Bruce,

I think it is just the unusal matching of 'chip amp' to Class D (like Tripath) that had me. Elsewhere (like DIY forum) it is used to designate the Gain Clone type amp--and distinguish them from Class D.

And yes--they are all analog. Only one Class D tried a semi-digital implementation (TacT) and it seems not to have been a total success.

The comments about them being less than adequate in recievers are, I suspect, power supply related since even the old Class D stuff is now in a big chunk of high-end amps.

Mark

[CONVERGENCE]

Hi. They are discontinued. With the advent of satellite radio there might be a come back.

I found a Denon with unbalanced inputs. Price 1000$.

[126mhz]

"Hi End," well many times in todays world of Audiophile "Products de Jour" "Hi End" means blowing mucho coin.

I have listened to the MD 208 and it's no slouch,...Does cost a pretty penny thoughAudio Receiver (MD 208) - Magnum Dynalab Ltd.

Regards,