What has been your experience with HT receivers?

R

rockin1150

Super Member
hey guys :smoke: Imma 2 channel kinda guy and I'm thinking most of you on this site are... but has anyone had any good/bad experience with newer receivers (5.1 channel etc.)? The reason I ask is I have owned quite a few HK's and Yammi's and even a JVC, and I just haven't ever been convinced to make the switch, I always find myself selling the damn things for way cheaper than I payed for them and going back to the 2 channel models, like the Pioneer SX-636 my buddy gave me, I mean you can't beat the sound quality of this receiver for just plain old 2 channel rockin' , I wonder if the industry has completely changed the types of amplifiers they use in receivers now :thumbsdn: They do sound good for movies.. but who the hell wants to watch a movie over jammin some favorite tunes? :scratch2: Well, chime in on this one if ya want.... I just wonder if anyone else has had this problem with newer gear?
 
Register to hide this ad
Agreed!

Right now Im running a JVC 6030V 5.1 receiver in my room in 2ch analog with some Athenas. While it has nice upper end, I find it somewhat harsh sometimes in the upper register, and lacking in warmth. Thats just my preference though.

I originally just bought it for movies, but its been sitting in my room for awhile now as I am slowly setting up my 2ch rack for listening (I'm very lazy :D )
 
yea, mine was the RX-8030V, same exact experience I had with my AR's. I'm thinking about an upper end Denon 2 ch receiver now, maybe it will sound as good as I would expect a stereo receiver to....
 
I keep my HT and 2 channel setups somewhat seperated. Usually I don't use the HT for music, only surround for movie use, but I have them hooked up in such a way that you could use the HT receiver for music, or to compliment the rest of the gear if you so choose to, and vice versa, pack another couple hundred watts on the front channels with big 2 channel receivers.

I have two such hybrid systems, two HT systems, and the rest are all for music.

The best HT receiver I have is a Sony STR-DE935 which at the time I got it was the one shy of the ES series. It's OK and is still quite competent as far as HT receivers go. I got it NIB at Sears for some unheard of price (think it was $175), and probably never would have gone that high up in an HT setup at that time otherwise. Though its part of a hybrid system at the present, it was more than capable of doing music on its own. Not the best sounding thing out there but not the worst.

My advice, use the HT receivers for what they are good at. Get a decent one and it might be OK for music.

Or get an outboard decoder (or DVD with built in decoder) and a Marantz 4400, now thats home theater! ;)
 
I had quite a few HT recievers and by far the HK-525 was the best and with preamp
outs I hooked up external amps to it and it was great for 2-channel also. Most people
don't realize they can do that or just don't try but it works great!

After that I sold it and got a 7.1 B&K prepro with all external amplification, even better!
 
I have a Denon avr-1806 and I have popped the hood on it once to clean the dust out of it. The old saying of they don't build em like they used to certainly applies.

The good:

It has discrete output transistors, and all 5 channels have the same outputs.

The heat sink is decent.

The circut boards seemed to be of good quality.

Wiring and shielding are well organized.


The bad:

There is no replacment for displacment (if I may steal a muscle car term), the transformer in this thing is about the same size as the one in my pioneer SX-3800 and it is rated for 60w x 2 (120w total), this thing is supposed to do 80w x 5 (400w total) it just doesn't seem possible unless transformer technology has come a long way.

The power caps are not very large compared to a vintage era amp. If you looked at something like a 200 wpc phase linear amp, there is no comparison.

Bottom line: With vintage equipment I feel like there is a huge amount of power just waiting to be unleashed, you can hear it in the subtle enthusiasm they have for dynamic passages in the music, like lightning waiting to strike.
This is what the newer HT amps lack IMHO.
 
I have a Marantz SR5300 HT receiver that I'm happy with. But I only use it for movies. In fact since we're in a smaller house right now, it's not even hooked up. With it's preamp outs I can easily hook up a vintage amp to it for that added punch if needed.
 
Last edited:
My experience with HT receivers is that each and every one..... bites the big one.

The last thing on the engineer's checklist for HT receiver design is, "How does it sound?" Unfortunately, there's a lot of stuff on the checklist above that. Important sonic factors like remote control, flashing light displays, etc. easily take precedence over ultimate sonic performance. nature of the beast.
 
I had a Pioneer Pro-Logic circa 1990 (the age of Darth Vader black plastic) that was allegedly 100 watts per channel, but never seemed all that powerful. Even worse, it suffered two serious electronic failures within a few years - it was junked after the second failure and the previous $100+ repair bill.
 
Very few (if any) HT receiver specs are based on "all channels driven simultaneously", or from 20-20,000 cycles. Power and distortion specs are neatly confined to the 1,000 cycle realm, and even then, you still see THD figures at .7 or .9%, which are easily within our ability to distinguish. Humans (real ones, not the make-believe kind) are ususally clueless to THD levels up to .5%.

Thanks Ron!
 
There are some really nice HT receivers but you have to pay for it! Most pioneer Elite
models are very very good even in stereo as are some of the arcams/marantz/HK.

If you really want good sound, a prepro with good amps is the way to go! But a good
HT reciever with quality external amplification can have very surprising performance as
well because it really is the amps that lack the most in a HT receiver!
 
As for even the new 2 channel receivers, I had a Denon "100 watt" model I bought to replace my aging Pioneer SX-880. It was promptly returned to the store.

NO Comparison..none at all..not even close.

The Pioneer is still kickin in the back up system.
 
HK AVR525 vs HK900+ Quad

I have the same HT receiver as kegger, the HK AVR-525 and would have to agree with him, the best HT receiver I have heard. It sounds great for movies, and almost great with music. A couple of things to keep in mind though, a lot depends on the recording, the speaker set up, and also realize that music NEVER sounds good through a HT receiver unless you turn off the center channel.

The reason I purchased my first vintage system is that I got tired of resetting all the speaker settings every time I went from movies to music. With the HK525 some music is better in 5.1, some in 7.1, and sometimes good old 2 channel is the best. In general I have found that most older recordings that have not been re-mastered, ie Deep Purple vs the much newer Temple of the Dog, sound much better in two channel mode.

Most new age/Enigma type music and movie soundtracks sound pretty good in 5.1 or 7.1, (with no center channel), it's up to the listener as to what sounds good to them, 4 or 6 speakers. But everyone that has listened to my system has preferred 4 or 6 speakers over 2 channel for the above type music.

I find that classic Jazz seems to always sound better with 4 speakers, and hard rock, ie AC/DC, doesn't seem to matter, sounds great with 2 or 4 speakers, as long as it's loud.

With that said, I put my HK 900+ quad (in stereo mode), with Pioneer CS700G speakers in front, Infinity RS5000 rear, up against the HK AVR-525 with Polk R50's in front and Celestion 15's rear and listened to various CD's, (sorry, can't remember what CD's). Although the HK525 sounded real good, the hands down winner for music was the HK 900+, no contest.

Now don't get me wrong, the HK525 surround sound receiver did sound very good, and due to the difference in speakers this test is far from scientific, but FWIW, those are the results of my test.
 
My stereos are all separate. The HT uses a Pioneer Elite VSX-99, a TOTL model that msrp'd for $2100. What you got for your money was an FTC-rated 130 wpc in stereo, that's continuous watts, 20-20K Hz. Power output is 100 watts x5 at 1 KHz, for the HT aspect. The new TOTL models start at about $4000 and go up. Not gonna find 'em at BB or CC.
WHen I have listened to it in stereo it reminds me of a big Yamaha vintage amp. I've got a couple big vintage Yamaha amps, too.
They're out there, but a $399 gee-whiz box ain't gonna get it.
 
Had a Denon HT....

Since I am an FM guy it was a disappointment. Dont even remember the model number. The tuner section sucked. TV sound is at the bottom of my requirement list. Turntables, RTRs and Cassettes are above TV sound. Sold her off to a kid at work. Still have the bloody thing! And it works. My buddy got one and its crapped out twice. He gave up. I paired up my SX 6000 Pioneer and a Marantz 4070 amp on the rear and thats that. Great sound and good enough for TV sound too! :music: Eric
 
What he said!

bully said:
My stereos are all separate. The HT uses a Pioneer Elite VSX-99, a TOTL model that msrp'd for $2100. What you got for your money was an FTC-rated 130 wpc in stereo, that's continuous watts, 20-20K Hz. Power output is 100 watts x5 at 1 KHz, for the HT aspect. The new TOTL models start at about $4000 and go up. Not gonna find 'em at BB or CC.
WHen I have listened to it in stereo it reminds me of a big Yamaha vintage amp. I've got a couple big vintage Yamaha amps, too.
They're out there, but a $399 gee-whiz box ain't gonna get it.
Click to expand...

Finally someone chiming in who has used a very good HT reciever with an honest oppinion about it!

As he said "a $399 gee-whiz box ain't gonna get it" If you want a HT receiver that's sounds really good
you gotta spend the cash! Otherwise a decent one "like an Hk-525" with external amplification or a nice
prepro with external amps will get you quality sound that will compare soundwise with other quality gear!
 
I'm no longer a TV watcher, I used to be but I just got too busy and any such spare time is for listening to music. My wife and duaghter like the tube, with our schedules my I rarely see my wife, she works night, I work day's. Every other weekend she's off and we watch a movie together. She is a movie buff and watches plenty on her own.

I wanted a pair of Ohm 300's and had the money, she couldn't see me spending that much on stereo speakers and wanted home theatre. We split the difference. The system that I eventually put together had the 300's and matching SCT full range surrounds.

At the heart, a Luxman RV371. It was fun for movie night but I found that when my wife watched on her own, she didn't bother with the surround mode. Yes, she admitted those surround speakers sounded great, but she didn't like messing with them and it sounded better than a movie theatre without them.

I found that the reciever would clip from time to time trying to drive those speakers.

Add to it, our dog would tip over the top heavy SCT's and dented the metal cans on top.

Whem we moved to our current house, the SCT's were placed around a corner upstairs and five years later haven't been hooked up, the RV371 has been replaced by a beefy McIntosh amp and it's now upstairs diving an easier load.

.....and I'm broke.
 
Last edited:
The Marantz SR4600 certainly WILL "get it"... and it's only $429.00.

I personally have one of these little beasties... running 5 4-ohm speakers (modified EPI M150s and 70Vs. It's more dynamic sounding than many 2-channel amps I've had (even makes some of the NAD stuff sound a bit "dull" and "lifeless" in direct comparo!), and it's absolutely un-flappable as far as handling bottom end and loud transients.

And then there's the bigger brother, the SR5600. Got one of those in the store demo setup, running the (rather large) Boston BT (Big Theatre) double-8" 3-way left and rights, single-8-3-way center and Boston VR series surrounds. It'll literally play louder and cleaner than any HT setup we'd had in the store before, PERIOD. For $650.00, it's SERIOUS bang-for-the-buck...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom