• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Need new receiver, advice

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
i just got an Integra 50.4 with MultEQ XT32. I think it sounds better than my denon with the MultEQ XT. It's pretty damn amazing how it can change the sound
 
Number1 said:
Exactly, MultEQ XT will give you vastly superior sound correction for you specific environment, a no brainner really.

I own a Denon 1712 with MultEQ XT, love it.
Click to expand...

My 7002 has Audessey version 1 or some old version and I even though I tried it several times I never noticed a difference for the better but that receiver is 7 years old.
 
JimKiler said:
My 7002 has Audessey version 1 or some old version and I even though I tried it several times I never noticed a difference for the better but that receiver is 7 years old.
Click to expand...

I felt the same with the early renditions of audessey. It has gotten pretty good
 
I have found it usually doesn't really matter... For regular home use with most (but not all) home speakers, a Yamaha or Denon or Onkyo will all be fine. Sure, they won't be outputting true 100 W/ch on all 5 channels simultaneously, but that's not necessary for most people.

One brand that is noticeably less powered than the above in real-world use is Sony. Ironically, I own three Sony receivers mainly because they were the cheapest at the time, with the desired amount of inputs, and even for my main home theatre (Paradigm Reference speakers across the front), they are sufficient. At the time, if you wanted a Yamaha or Onkyo with more HDMI inputs, you'd have to go with a physically larger and more expensive model, whereas with Sony you could stick with a lower end inexpensive model that had a smaller footprint... hence the lower oomph output.

I have noticed no audio difference going to a cheap Sony receiver. However, I could see it becoming a problem even with regular home use if you have really inefficient speakers in a large room, and you like to crank it.

Note however, most of my bass is separately powered. My SVS PB13-Ultra has a built-in amp of course.
 
Last edited:
Meghan54 said:
Too bad your budget can't stretch a bit.....more.

http://shop.emotiva.com/collections/amplifiers/products/xpa5
Click to expand...

They tout how:

Don’t compare the XPA-5 with receivers. The typical "audiophile" receiver can deliver only 120 to 140 watts of "channel power." What this means is that only one or two channels can produce that 120 watts, not all channels driven, simultaneously, at rated power, all the time, like we can with our XPA-5. Our amps produce their full rated power, with all channels driven - no excuses, no compromises, and no double-talk.

Yet the specs show RMS power 40w per channel

200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)

How are they not lying?
 
Er, isn't the real poor comparison the fact that the XPA-5 is just a power amp with absolutely no audio/video circuitry to speak of? Not much use when your AVR is broken.
 
Anteaus said:
Just a side note, but if you are going to eventually use it for home theater I recommend you hold off until later this year if you can. HDMI 2.0 was recently announced and expectly do go into production this spring. You're going to want HDMI 2.0 to have full 4k support in the future. If video is never going to be an issue, then just ignore this. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Well, the great thing about HDMI is the ability to use a HDMI matrix switch which allows you do connect X number of inputs and Y number of outputs. This means a simple 4x2 matrix switch will allow you to send your audio to your receiver and your video to your TV. While obviously HDMI 2.0 matrix switches do not exist, they will soon and that will allow you to hook up one output to your 2.0 compliant TV with 4K video and the other to your older 1.x audio receiver and still get the digital audio, since there is nothing new in the 2.0 spec for audio other then greater than 7.1 audio (but most home setups will never be able to take advantage of that anyway, so unless you have plans for a 11.1 or 13.1 speaker configuration, 2.0 doesn't really give you any benefits).
 
Last edited:
The only thing I'm going to say is that you do want to spring for a receiver that has MultEQ XT32 and Sub EQ HT. Don't settle for less.
 
Last edited:
JimKiler said:
They tout how:

Don’t compare the XPA-5 with receivers. The typical "audiophile" receiver can deliver only 120 to 140 watts of "channel power." What this means is that only one or two channels can produce that 120 watts, not all channels driven, simultaneously, at rated power, all the time, like we can with our XPA-5. Our amps produce their full rated power, with all channels driven - no excuses, no compromises, and no double-talk.

Yet the specs show RMS power 40w per channel

200 watts RMS @ 8 ohm (0.1% THD)

How are they not lying?
Click to expand...

200w per channel.

My Outlaw 750 is 165wx5 @ 8ohms with THD < 0.05% and FTC 20-20KHz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top