Looking for simple 2 channel home stereo receiver

T

TGates

Active member
I have two Monitor Audio RS-8s as my main speakers and I just love them to death. They are simple, yet elegant, and have just the sound I was looking for (lots of bass even for their small size). I am running them with a simple Yamaha receiver I bought from a retail store 5 or 6 years ago. I don't feel like it is doing them justice. There is a lot of "hiss" from this receiver, and I don't really need all the extra doodads it has in terms of sound stages and surround sound capabilities. I use these speakers (and my SVS sub) for 2 channel music only, and I would like a dedicated amp or receiver for this purpose. I don't have any experience in any of the higher quality brands so I'm looking for recommendations. I'm not looking to spend over about $500 but if spending more will get me way better sound, I'm open to suggestions. I have to have a jack for the sub, and I'm bi-wiring my speakers currently with my Yamaha receiver. Those are really the only options I have to have.





http://www.monitoraudio.com/products/silver/series/rs8.htm



Those are the speakers I have.



http://www.svsound.com/products-sub-box-10nsd.cfm



and this is my sub. It's nothing fancy, but it's just fine for 2 channel music.



Monitor recommends Music Fidelity amps, but I have never heard of them before. The speakers recommend 6 ohm nominal impedance, 175 watt power handling, and a sensitivity of 91 dB, which is where my Yamaha starts to struggle. I have to crank it up a good deal to get some substantial sound.





BTW, if I ever win the lottery, I'm going straight out and buying some B&W 803Ds.
 
I'd like to get something that's 100+ watts into 6 ohms if possible, but the Denon looks to be a nice piece.
 
I say go vintage & semi-exotic. Shop for an old Luxman, Revox, or Tandberg integrated amp or separates from the 80s... Or, you could pick up a classic Marantz receiver from the 70s. Depends on your budget & what you want to do with it. If you're looking for something newer (solid state) & more reliable, Adcom separates are usually a pretty safe bet.



Late 70s/early 80s were primetime for 2-channel integrated amps & receivers- tho most are solid state. Tubes would most likely really warm up the sound (depending on source), though tubes can be finicky & will cost you more.



It can be as cheap or expensive a hobby as you want! Just have fun.
 
I echo the suggests of NAD and Rotel. Also look at Adcom. There are a lot of good options in your price range; in fact paying more gets into diminishing returns really fast.



I'm also a wannabe B&W 803D owner! If I could just spend less money on cars...oh well!
 
ZaneO said:
Rotel seperates would be nice but more expensive then you're looking to spend. For music only, *I* would be looking at Integra - http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTM-5.3&class=Receiver&p=s



Don't know if you remember or not, but I have a pretty good source for high-end equipment.
Click to expand...



Integra was one of the names I was trying to remember. If I decide to go through with this (if I can stop spending money on other toys) I will most definitely shoot you a PM regarding your source. Thanks for the reminder. :2thumbs:



130w per channel, 6 ohm... nice. What's the DTM 5.3 go for?



At the store I bought the speakers at, they were running then with an NAD receiver. At the time I wasn't considering purchasing a new receiver so I don't remember the model name. Thanks for all the suggestions.
 
merci said:
May I humbly suggest the NAD C720BEE. Continuous power output of 50W into 4ohms and up to 220W into 2ohms. ;)
Click to expand...



What does continuous power output mean? If a receiver is rated at x number of watts per channel, at x ohms, is that the maximum power output under ideal cirumstances? Is contiunous power the same as RMS?



The Integra receiver, for example, states Power Output** (6 ohm, 1 Khz,Ftc) 130 W/Ch. It also says something about dynamic power. The nominal impedance of my speakers is 6 ohms, so I'm assuming it would be best to run the receiver at 6 ohms, if there is a switch like on my Yamaha. The recommended RMS watts for my speakers are 40-175. I'd like to stay closer to the 175 since I do like to listen to my music loud and clean. How do I know if a receiver satisfies these requirements with all the numbers and technical terms? I just want the most power for the money, without going over what my speakers can handle.



Does a 50 watt continuous mean it will usually put out 50 watts of power, but it is capable of 130 watts under full load?



:o
 
I’d go with Slick61 myself, there’s an awful lot of great two channel gear floating around out there and since multi channel home theater is all the rage these days the old stereo stuff is often available cheap.



Heck, I gave away the Denon integrated amp I’d been carrying around since college. The sucker was built like a battleship but I had no place to hook it up and no room to store it so I passed it along. Had a GAS Thalia Pre-amp that was just being passed around with friends and finally passed it out of my crowd. My unused gear pile is now down to one Audionics pre-amp and one Soundcraftsman 205 Wpc amp. Oh yeah, and a Parasound mini-tuner. And a subwoofer active filter from a strange little company in Culver City whose name I forgot. One of my buddies decided to unload his Carver Cube and his Magnaplaner MG-1’s a while back because they were just collecting dust and taking up space.



There’s all kinds of fun, funky and very good sounding equipment dispersed throughout the countryside. Just a quick look at ebay came up with an APT/Holman pre-amp and amp set with bids that weren’t going anywhere. Damn, I’d bid on those myself if I had room.



Then again, you’ll probably have trouble finding classic gear with a subwoofer output. That’s one of them new-fangled features that came after “aux� changed to “CD� and “phono� disappeared. Hmmm, where the hell did I put that active filter?





PC.
 
BlackSunshine said:
Does a 50 watt continuous mean it will usually put out 50 watts of power, but it is capable of 130 watts under full load?



:o
Click to expand...



For reasons I don't understand, a British component rated for 50 watts always sounds cleaner and more effortless than anything Japanese or mass-market rated at 100 or even more watts. It's not even close. I don't know if this has something to do with measurement standards, or even if measured power output has anything to do with it.



Ideally you should be working with a dealer who will let you borrow equipment to take home and listen to. This is a lot more important than measurement specs.
 
BoxsterCharlie said:
Ideally you should be working with a dealer who will let you borrow equipment to take home and listen to. This is a lot more important than measurement specs.
Click to expand...



That's the problem for me, living in a southwest Kansas town of 35K people. When I was going to school in Lawrence, KS, I could make a 10 minute drive to Kief's audio/video and take home whatever I'd like. Now I kind of have to make a judgement call and hope that when I get a certain product in that I won't have to ship it back.
 
the other pc said:
I’d go with Slick61 myself, there’s an awful lot of great two channel gear floating around out there and since multi channel home theater is all the rage these days the old stereo stuff is often available cheap.



Heck, I gave away the Denon integrated amp I’d been carrying around since college. The sucker was built like a battleship but I had no place to hook it up and no room to store it so I passed it along. Had a GAS Thalia Pre-amp that was just being passed around with friends and finally passed it out of my crowd. My unused gear pile is now down to one Audionics pre-amp and one Soundcraftsman 205 Wpc amp. Oh yeah, and a Parasound mini-tuner. And a subwoofer active filter from a strange little company in Culver City whose name I forgot. One of my buddies decided to unload his Carver Cube and his Magnaplaner MG-1’s a while back because they were just collecting dust and taking up space.



There’s all kinds of fun, funky and very good sounding equipment dispersed throughout the countryside. Just a quick look at ebay came up with an APT/Holman pre-amp and amp set with bids that weren’t going anywhere. Damn, I’d bid on those myself if I had room.



Then again, you’ll probably have trouble finding classic gear with a subwoofer output. That’s one of them new-fangled features that came after “aux� changed to “CD� and “phono� disappeared. Hmmm, where the hell did I put that active filter?





PC.
Click to expand...



You touched on the problem with finding an older piece. Although I'm sure internally they are built like tanks and can take anything I can throw at them, they just don't have the pre-out for the sub that I just have to have. If I could just find a simple, yet classy, 2.1 channel (is there even such a thing) with a simple bass, treble, balance, and volume knob that would deliver 100+ watts at 6 ohms I would be happy. The rproblem is that, with my sub, I kind of have to have an internal EQ dedicated to the LFE for my bass, as my sub only has a gain and a phase.
 
It's not always about watts. It's about how clean the sound is to *YOU*. ;)



For some audiophiles, tube amps are the only way to go. For others, solid-states are. It really depends on your taste. One thing's for sure: your taste will change as you demo more and better equipment.



At some point, you'll hit a financial practicality wall. So get the best sounding one that fits your budget. :D
 
Originally posted by merci

It's not always about watts. It's about how clean the sound is to *YOU*.



For some audiophiles, tube amps are the only way to go. For others, solid-states are. It really depends on your taste. One thing's for sure: your taste will change as you demo more and better equipment.



At some point, you'll hit a financial practicality wall. So get the best sounding one that fits your budget.
Click to expand...

Paraphrased for non audiophile autopians:

It's not always about price. It's about how clean the look is to *YOU*.



For some autopians, carnaubas are the only way to go. For others, sealants are. It really depends on your taste. One thing's for sure: your taste will change as you demo more and better products.



At some point, you'll hit a financial practicality wall. So get the best looking result that fits your budget. :2thumbs:
 
Well until I get those $8000 B&W's, my $1500 Monitor's suit me just fine, so I think it'd be kinda silly to spend over a third of their price in a power source... especially something as simple as I'm wanting.
 
If you search around you might still be able to find a Yamaha RX-777. Save the SVS for HT.



HT/home stereo is just a hobby of mine - so I'm no expert - but you shouldn't be gaining anything from bi-wiring.
 
Griz said:
If you search around you might still be able to find a Yamaha RX-777. Save the SVS for HT.



HT/home stereo is just a hobby of mine - so I'm no expert - but you shouldn't be gaining anything from bi-wiring.
Click to expand...



I'm no expert myself, but to my ears, the SVS does just fine with music. It adds some punch to the bass drum and toms, and uncovers some of the lower frequencies tower speakers can't accentuate even in musical recordings, especially when considering orchestral arrangements with timpanis, stand up basses, etc. Factor in the occasional SACD that may or may not have a dedicated LFE channel and it's definitely worthwhile.



Having said that, even with the entry level SVS sub that I have, I'm certainly not pushing it to its limits and it would get more use with HT, but I'm not much of a movie buff myself. I am fine with my HT in a box for that.



Bi-wiring just helps separate the signals. I don't see how it can hurt anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top