Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
Drachasor wrote:Yamaha RX-V379BL would work and is good for the price I am told. I am not expert though. Not sure if there is a better option.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Do you want Bluetooth and network streaming capabilities like those of the Onkyo TX-8140? The Yamaha R-S202 is a less expensive option that lacks its own network connection and optical inputs, but it would still play over bluetooth from your phone.
FireGryphon wrote:Thanks for all the responses so far!
The Yamaha S202 looks like a good bare bones receiver. It's tough to determine whether other, slightly more expensive receivers have better sound quality or if they just improve connectivity and other features. Can anyone weigh in on that?
Captain Ned wrote:Stereo, music only. Got it.
NAD D 3020. The original NAD 3020 put more people on the audiophile path than most any other box in history. The new one is compact, has a gutsy amplifier section, digital and analog inputs, a subwoofer line-level output, and the audiophile press has simply plotzed about it since it came out. Oh, and it's fairly priced, as well.
Don't worry about the rated power seeming low. The one unifying characteristic of NAD through its entire history is that the amps have the power reserves to punch far above their output ratings. I'm currently running a NAD 272 power amp which, while of lower rating, laughs off transients that sent the old Carver Cube into clipping.
FireGryphon wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about the recommendation to buy a p-0ower cord infused with dragon's teeth and unicorn hooves, but I take it as a sign that the D 3020 appeals to higher order tastes.
Delta9 wrote:I don't know if I have ever heard Yamaha and audiophile in the same sentence. I was raised in a household where the vacuum tube was king, making me a bit of a snob. The only solid state device in the house was a mid to late 70's Crown amp and preamp that were passed down when I moved out of the house (bc the old man knew what type of volume it was capable of). It was rated at a real 250 watts per channel and I never found a pair of speakers that could handle it. The amp also weighed a solid 40lbs. It was retired for a few years before the preamp was rebuilt. Now I have a Hafler 500 and a NAD preamp feeding a pair of 1981 15" Realistic Mach Ones. They are alright, but the Hafler is such a beast that I dare not attach it to any speaker with paper surrounds. That and I put fuses inline with the speaker to prevent an inrush related cooking of the Rat Shacks finest. Honestly, I don't bother with multi-channel stuff. A good set of stereo speakers and amp provides all I need. When I go to my parents I make it a point to take a 1/2 hour to listen to the early 60's Macintosh attached to a pair of 15" Altecs also of 1960s vintage. The speakers used to have these orange plugs in them for the high end, but they were removed and an external tweeter added. If you close your eyes you can hear where the musicians are standing on a well mixed track. It blew my mind the first time I played Darkside of the Moon when I came home from college.
Delta9 wrote:I never said the Hafler sounded exceptional, or the Crown for that matter. I doubt he wants to hear about 50-60 year old tube amplifiers and the virtues of 20w a channel to a pair of 50 year old paper cone speakers, or the virtues of running a mono setup for 40+ year old music that was mastered that way. Here I'll give the guy who started the thread a useless answer, get a pair of Dynaco MK2 mono blocks, a Macintosh preamp and a pair of Altec Valencia 846B speakers. Is that up to par for you?
Waco wrote:Delta9 wrote:I never said the Hafler sounded exceptional, or the Crown for that matter. I doubt he wants to hear about 50-60 year old tube amplifiers and the virtues of 20w a channel to a pair of 50 year old paper cone speakers, or the virtues of running a mono setup for 40+ year old music that was mastered that way. Here I'll give the guy who started the thread a useless answer, get a pair of Dynaco MK2 mono blocks, a Macintosh preamp and a pair of Altec Valencia 846B speakers. Is that up to par for you?
Not sure I get the snark, but okay. I just found your comment interesting. Sorry if I offended you.
Captain Ned wrote:Stereo, music only. Got it.
NAD D 3020. The original NAD 3020 put more people on the audiophile path than most any other box in history. The new one is compact, has a gutsy amplifier section, digital and analog inputs, a subwoofer line-level output, and the audiophile press has simply plotzed about it since it came out. Oh, and it's fairly priced, as well.
HERETIC wrote:Thro stuffs up(reverses) the old golden rule-"Spend double on your speakers what you do on your AMP"
Chrispy_ wrote:I highly doubt they're the very best amps in the world, but I've owned and used multiple Yamaha instruments, recorded in a studio equipped with Yamaha mixing decks and nearfield monitors, and played stuff back through my own Yamaha amp before; I trust them to do audio properly and I trust the Japanese to do electronics properly.
Even if there are better specialist amps out there, Yamaha's history, experience and economies of scale mean that I'd not hesitate for one second to recommend a cheap Yamaha over other cheap amps.
I've moved on from amps though: Studio monitors and Room-calibrated DACs for me now, all the way....
HERETIC wrote:There was a time when Yamaha translated to "very good quality"
Captain Ned wrote:HERETIC wrote:Thro stuffs up(reverses) the old golden rule-"Spend double on your speakers what you do on your AMP"
A rule which should have died 30 years ago. Good speakers will only reveal the shortcomings of a crappy amp. The only way your version makes sense is if all you care about is sheer SPL and don't mind THD.