|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.253.93.189
I was reading a review on another forum and some receivers were being discussed. I mean $2k+ worth of receiver. But I HAVE actually heard a few of these and in all honesty a Yamaha CR-1020, Sherwood Sxooo, Many Marantz's, etc... could give these a run for the money.So when rating receivers is it 1-Price aside
2-Price factored in
3-What ever is hot this year?
Follow Ups:
No.
Not in my world.
BUT, in my would I don't get to try every receiver ever made, being made or about to be made. But I have tried many, many, many.Poop is poop.
If the unit costs big $$ but sounds like poop, it's expensive poop.
If the unit is cheap and sound like poop, it's cheap poop.If the unit sounds good, its good. Period.
In my world I have found that money does not equate to "the best".
Of course you understand that "the best" means to MY ears, not someone else.
I have found this to be true with speakers, amps, integraded amps etc etc.MMYV.
My philosophy is, if you can't find a killer receiver for less than $200 that makes your speakers sound fantastic, you're not looking hard enough. It might take several different attempts, but you can always sell the ones that don't work out on Ebay. Garage sale season is underway, so get out there and start trolling!
"Best" is only in some context. If it doesn't work in your system, it's not a "best". So each system (and that includes YOUR tastes) ought to have it's own list of bests.Sure, price matters; but "fit" matters more.
I think this whole idea of ranking components on some hierarchy is misleading at best, and disastrous at its worst.
So, for the majority of buyers it's probably #3, What ever is hot this year.
The smart money is on "whatever works best in my system"; which is probably why you have heard much less expensive receivers sound as good or better.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Yes and no. Best recievers can depend on many factors. Performance alone regardless of price is relevant. You are suggesting a price/performance criteria and it also is relevant but actually would be harder to define unless you restrict it to new receivers as it would be difficult with used and especilly vintage due to the range of pricing from dumpster finds (free) to some insane pricing from the auction site.Performance as a criteria is also really not realistic in that there is no overall definition of performance. Is it sound quality (subjective), measured specs (objective but will vary based on tested unit), controls, flexibility, specific things like ability to modify phono loading, power output, etc. Also, all but impossible as it would require measuring the standard in a controlled environment. It would also mean testing every known unit and maybe some unknown as well (but that would reclass it to known). The TIC did this but rather than having a statement that 1 was the best only found that as compared to others 1 was preferred based upon the criteria set for the TIC test.
Also, there may be other slices. Many are into the power output wars thing and others into lower power, and others somewhere in between. Hence, you may have to have categories and develop a best in each, ie. the 1 to 15 watt, to 30, to 60, to 100 or 125, and those over for instance.
By the time you get done slicing and dicing, what difference does it make? Is it not about whatever wh have on out shelf and how good we can get it to sound.
Airtime
I agree with what your saying 100% but being you posted in the vintage asylum,are your referring to vintage receivers that are being retested lately,or the newer 5 channel surround stuff which me nothing but pure unadulterated SHI-!!
I would take a sansui 1000 or a mac 1500 or a fisher 500c or sherwod s80001V any day of the week. These are tube units I mentioned but there are a lot of SS units of yesteryear that are just fabulous IMHO.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: