I started researching receivers last year. The only place I could actually audition any of them was at the Magnolia room (Best Buy) and they tend to push you towards the Pioneer D Class Amps. Not that anything is wrong with them I actually like the Pioneer SC-91 that just came out.
I wanted to get the boards consensus though before going that route. I think the AV receiver is my next purchase.
Again, I am running a 5.1 system with B&W CM1's all around, Sony XBR-55HX950 TV, JBL-150 (pending upgrade) and my 15 year old Yamaha AV.
Are there other recommendations outside the Pioneer D Class series? I'm sorta an Apple guy so iPhone, iTunes, Apple TV integration is always a plus.
ARCAM or CAMBRIDGE for superior audio .... Google the reviews.
All AVRs have their warts, limitations, and compromises when compared to quality build separates but especially stay clear from ONKYO AVRs....there are a buzzillon posts on AGON and Canuckaudiomart about their legendary catastrophic continuing main board and HDMI failures and no help and no recourse for a failed unit that is now a crap boat anchor.
ARCAM has a 5 year warranty and CAMBRIDGE has a three year warranty .... with an AVR you are going to need it.
Virtually all the others only have a one year warranty ....for good reasons ..... caveat emptor ..... full stop.
If sound quality is high on your priority list, then be sure to audition a Cambridge. I own a 751R and it is an outstanding performer. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles as most of the others, but I do not miss them one bit.
I liked the Anthem a lot better than either the Arcam or Cambridge and I like the fact that Anthem is part of Paradigm and I could avail myself of its service network were I ever to encounter an issue.
I ended up with Arcam AVR400. Using with Monitor Audio speakers, but demo 'd it with B&W M1 and PM1 mini monitors and it just killed comparably priced NAD or Marantz IMHO. Sounded absolutely terrific with the revealing PM1's. I have longer term experience with Onkyo and Pioneer, with no reliability problems to report with either. Would steer towards more audiophile solutions listed above (Anthem, Arcam, Cambridge, NAD) if that is your priority. Big Japanese brands have lots of bells and whistles if that is more important.
Thanks for the reccos. I guess Pioneer isn't really a favorite in here? Anyone want to chime in on their ELITE D3 Class AMP Receivers?
I will look into Anthem, Arcam, Cambridge.
Denon and Marantz I've researched already and I am not opposed to going this route.
Anyone here use a YAMAHA? It's what I am replacing but will stay if someone convinces me to!
Appreciate you all taking the time to talk this out with me and helping with the research. HomeTheater is probably the 3rd most expensive things a guy buys after house and car? So careful research is essential.
Just wondering: Is anybody making a class D HT receiver or multi-channel amp? Oh, and remember, I think 7.1 receivers are obsolete due to "Atmos" processing (what is it now? 10.1? 12.1?). Finally, you might want to wait for a platform with the new Meridian "MQA" processing for digital music. I'm just sayin'....
I had the pioneer elite (non class d amps) but wouldn't get a new pioneer with d class amps (they suck) so I wetn with NAD and it blew my Poneer Elite AWAY. Thee ar some good class d amps out there but not in any consumer grade surround soun d receiver.
The Pioneer VSX -D 912 is an older model AV receiver no longer available new but if you can find one used (around $100.00- $200.00 used) you won't be disappointed, it's a great sounding two channel receiver that rivals more $ separates. It's only a six channel receiver with no HDMI inputs but if you can get past that it's a superb sounding receiver providing your speakers don't have crazy impedence swings
Hi Knownothing… I'm, a bit of a newbie audiophile so you might want to talk to me like a child. What do you mean more power? Coming from the AV Receiver? Like a more powerful AV? Doesn't the Marantz SR5010 shoot out 100 Watts per channel?
the power ratings on most mass market avrs are notoriously overstated, often deceptively so--an avr touted at 100w/ch may actually achieve that with only two channels running and/or with very high distortion. e.g. i had a yamaha 5.1 avr which claimed 90w/ch but in fact tested at 35w with 5 channels running. from my experience, only nad and hk actually rate their receivers' power output reliably. power ratings aside, you also have to look at the receiver's ability to drive challenging loads--i.e. speakers such as your b&ws which have much lower than average sensitivity, or speakers which have lower impedance benefit from an amp/receiver designed to deliver high current.
IMHO, yes, and will power them as well as any other receiver at that price point.
The power for the majority of a/v receivers are rated with only 2 channels being used, so when using 5 or 7, the ouput per channel will be less. The problem is that some drop in power much more than others. The SR5010 is replacing the SR5009, and both likely have the same amplifier section with some other features being updated. Here are measurements for the SR5009,
Sorry, I'll pass on the HK. It is true that NAD does have a more reliable rating, and their receiver at this price point is rated at 60w/ch with all 7 channels.
Now, are there any better a/v receivers, absolutely, but at a much greater expense. Again IMHO, the SR5010 looks like an excellent choice for it's price point. The SR5009 got a great review, and it appears the SR5010 is just a more updated version of that receiver.
Other posts have answered your questions pretty thoroughly. I would add just a few comments. The Marantz web site claims the SR5010 can handle low impedance loads, so if the CM1s dip much below 8ohms, that may not be a problem. At under 23 lbs and delivering over 70 watts x 5 into 8 ohms and capability to handle low impedances tells me this is likely a switching amp rather than more classic AB type. Switching amps are getting much better sounding, and I have heard the CM1s sound very good with 500W per channel Rotel switching amp. That is in part why I like more power for these very inefficient speakers. Ultimately it depends on the size of your listening space and the volumes you prefer, but I can envision circumstances for rock or classical music performances, or a large dynamic shift during a Blu-Ray where more amplifier headroom would be appreciated. Just saying...
The onkyo and pioneer are rinky dink. The power ratings on the consumer stuff is nonsense. Everyone is 100 watts a channel - probably peak to peak (not rms) when only one channel is running. Load up all 5 channels and its like 30 watts in the front and half of that in the back. You get what you pay for.
Thanks Cerrot! I knew that of the Onkyo's and I've read all the return merchandize and angry consumers on Amazon regarding their receivers. And this forum has swayed me away from Pioneer… when i heard they were combining companies that really scared me away.
My father has had an Anthem 510 for about 6 months and it has been great.....sounds awesome, blows away his B&K ref 20/ 5000II combo that he bought in 98.... Great feature set, much easier for him to use.....ARC is easy to set up, sounds great with his Sonus Fabers
Okyo has not fixed their issues - using stronger plastic doesnt cut it. WE dont want bang for the buck - we want to pay for the quality we get. Pioneer Elite much better than Pioneer but their HT receievrs are class D, which don't do it for me. (Class D amps can sound good but you really need to throw money at them aka JRDG).
A year and a half ago I compared an Anthem 510 MXR and a Arcam AVR380 in my home. The Anthem had much better features but the Arcam sounded much nicer when used for stereo. I ended up buying the Arcam because I was so impressed with the sound quality. However now I am looking to go with a separate stereo preamp to get even better stereo. (In hindsight I should have gone with the Anthem.) The Arcam has not had any major issues but is does get confused syncing to sound sources every once in a while. (To correct I restart the receiver.) I remember that the Anthem had more sophisticated room correction and could program inputs to any video and audio source. I also auditioned the Emotiva UMC-1 prepro and like its sound quality almost as much as the Arcam.