High end AV receivers, worst investment in audio?

I meant having multiple systems in the same room. In addition to my main system I also have a modest 5.1 setup using an HT receiver in my bedroom.

 

Oh, sorry. Yes, I don't get the multiple-systems-in-a-room thing either.

 

This discussion reminds me why I am not tempted by German luxury sedans, new or used. Nice to drive. Nice to look at. Value ravaged by depreciation each and every day.

 

Yeah, but if you can truly afford it (as opposed to simply able to cover the payments) would it matter all that much?

I know it doesn't to my wealthy Aunt that goes through cars like Mercedes AMGs and Bentleys.

 

Not a problem if you buy them after the depreciation has reached rock-bottom and fix them up. This was my thing over a decade ago: http://www.armchair.mb.ca/~dave/525i/

When I got tired of BMWs, I got a Toyota Landcruiser and a Honda motorcycle, which are every bit as much fun as the BMWs but in a different way.

 

What is not to get? I prefer vintage two channel receivers and speakers for music and do most of my music listening in the front room, so the 2220B/6100TT with Imperial 6 speakers do music duty. We have our AVR in the same front room so have smaller front mains with a bigger center and the back speakers are small as well. It is a small room so large HT speakers dont make much sense. It is simple and works perfectly.

 

Especially with a small room, I would prefer Joe's approach leveraging the best gear for both functions in one system. Having lots of unused speakers also creates undesirable passive output as well.

To each his own.

 

Mine was not a social comment. It was a personal choice which happily is not dictated by monetary constraint. In fact. the world is better off with diversity which by definition includes appreciation for the wealthy and their spending habits.

Looping this back on topic, do I think buyers of ultra-highend AVR receivers are foolish for taking the massive depreciation? Nope. The many interesting and awesome TOTL AVR units would not exist if not for these consumers.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have owned three Beemers over the years so I am not shooting from the hip. They are very cool cars, except for the depreciation and the running costs.

 

I don't care what people buy either, so the social comment spin is nothingness.

But, if depreciation is a foremost concern then the point is you're probably barking up the wrong tree no matter what the item happens to be.

 

Re-stated in simpler terms, I am making a choice as a consumer but I appreciate what others choose.

 

Simpler terms?

 

XMC-1 ?

 

Not nearly as fancy - the UMC200 for which I paid a bit over $400 including a discount having upgraded from a UMC-1.

The 200 offered better EQ handling and vastly faster HDMI switching!

 

I've owned more ubers but these are the only ones I could find the pictures of, I paid under $300 for all of them with the exception of the Pioneer elite sc 09 which set me back $500 ($7k retail) and interestingly enough was the worst sounding for 2ch. All have been well worth the price per performance for second hand purchase and 2 of them went head to head with my Krell 300i I had at the time with one sounding better to my ears (The B&K 507s2). The Yamaha RXZ 1 (paid $70, retail $2800) has outstanding amps and does excellent for 2ch listening and does its job perfectly as my home theater rig. I use my oppo udp 203 to run the show with the yamaha providing the power only no processing. 2ch listening is done with my Aragon 4004 MKII. The point is to get a second hand Totl Uber for a low price is definitely worth it imo over getting the latest and greatest receiver today, for one, the ubers were made like tanks to last and second they generally have excellent amps that put out real stated watts unlike alot of the misleading receivers today. If you don't mind setting up rcas from your blue ray to the multichannel Inputs on the receiver (which in my opinion sounds much better than hdmi) then it is worth the hassle to set up this way because it's much cheaper to change out a blue ray player than to keep buying new receivers or even more expensive Seperate home theater pre pros.

Audiofreak71

 

I'm with you on RCAs to the amp. I have a pre-HDMI NAD HTR that's around 20 years young. Oppo player to the NAD with RCAs. Not only great DVD and Blu-ray, but 5.1 SACD.

I don't run any video through the HTR though.

 

I'm one of those people who is *planning* on spending money on a newer AV processor. I ended up with some really nice ceiling speakers for essentially free, then was able to buy 12 stereo amplifiers out of a movie theater for $330 (six Crown Com-Tech 800, six Ashly FTX-2001 Series II, each low distortion and 250wpc), and some good rear and side channels for also not much money so I decided I want to do a full Atmos setup. I tending toward the newer Denon X line because the audio quality is supposed to be very good. I can't remember which unit or which magazine the review was from, but they used the Denon receiver in a system with $20k speakers and said, while they thought the amplifier and pre-amp designed for the speakers sounded better, the Denon gave it a run for its money. Seems it's possible to have AVRs that are good for both home theater and music. I figure I'd keep it for quite a while, if I upgrade, it would get moved to another system, but I really don't anticipate any big new codecs/technologies here in the near future which would be as "cool" as 3D sound.

 

I agree they are terrible investments but only if you suffer from upgradeitis. As long as you're not hung up on having the latest and greatest then they CAN be very sonically pleasing and long lasting. That said I only have one but I do like it a lot. A sherwood newcastle R965.

 

Sounds like quite the unit. I have one of the much cheaper modern Sherwood receivers (I think it retailed for under $100) and I've been nothing but impressed. Doesn't have many features but 100wpc and sounds quite nice considering.