Which receivers sound most powerful?

Bob_in_OKC

Addicted Member
There are several brands of AV receivers that are commonly available with similar features and similar power ratings. But among the major names that have AV receivers for within a budget of maybe $1,500, which ones really sound powerful? My Pioneer is rated for something like 90 wpc and it doesn't have the real-world power to back that up. So how do Onkyo, Denon, Yamaha, Sony, Harman Kardon, Marantz, etc. stack up? Or if I want real power and I out of luck without separates?
 
The Elite Pioneer AV receiver are very good one.
You could also try all the one you mentioned but, try the upper tier of every brands.
Pioneer has the Elite which is good and they also make a cheap one.
The Denon is also an excellent AV receiver. I don't know how much they retail for, but the Denon has separates AV components rated at 4ohms.
 
Last receiver reviews I really looked at showed Onkyo was better than most with their claims vs. tested output. H/K normally fares very well in that regard too but at the time they weren't known to have the best reliability. Perhaps their newer ones are better in the reliability department regard.

Never saw much on Marantz as I recall, but not long ago I picked up their AV7005 pre/pro and that's a pretty nice unit that doesn't totally break the bank.
 
I have, and use, a Pioneer Elite SC-27. Rated at 140wpc. It sounds really nice, and is head and shoulders above my old Denon and Yamaha HT units. It uses Class-D amplification based on the B&O ICE amplifier technology. The original MSRP is above your range but I got mine as a demo unit for less than half of the new cost. When new models come out, you can often find these former TOTL units at Best Buy as store demos or closeouts- for a really good deal. This one was discontinued as it didn't have the latest 3D video capability, which I had no interest in anyway.

I've heard a lot of good things about Onkyo and Marantz as well.
 
Mebbe...if it was an AV/HT unit.

No, my point is that the face plate says it's an integrated amplifier, but the tuner module is an optional (internal) accessory making it every bit as much a receiver as can be.
 
Being an AV/HT unit is central to the issue. A 2-channel integrated would be of no use in place of an AV receiver.
 
AV receiver amplification ratings puzzle me. My Denon 3802 is a super unit and is supposed to have 110 Watts per channel, my Kenwwod KA 74, rated at 75 watts per sounds better than the Denon when used to amplify my surround channels. I now have separate amps for the mains, centers, and surround with the Denon running the back speakers, and in my opinion, it would be hard to replace the quality of sound produced by any “super” AV receiver with a 170 watt rating.
 
Depends on the db ratings of your speakers. Put in a pair of 85db rated Thiels then replace them w/a pair of 96db Zu's you'll suddenly have a more powerful receiver.:music:
 
When new models come out, you can often find these former TOTL units at Best Buy as store demos or closeouts- for a really good deal.

:thmbsp: Great idea to get the most bang for buck.
The top of the line HT amps of all major brands are all pretty good ime.
 
"Sounds powerful" is like saying "tastes cold" it's meaningless!

Any one of the receivers you mentioned are going to be able to produce their rated power output into the load specified. If the specs say something like: 110 W x 7, all channels driven into a 6 ohm load from 20 Hz- 20 kHz, then they'll absolutely produce that amount of power.

The only meaningful deviations from this would be if the ratings were taken with less than all channels driven, or if the power ratings were measured at 1 kHz into a 6 ohm load (or 8 ohm load) instead of the more meaningful 20 Hz- 20 kHz full-bandwidth ratings.

I can guarantee you that your Pioneer if performing to spec will absolutely deliver 90 w/ch

A vintage receiver may "sound more powerful" for a bunch of reasons

1. Different preamp sensitivity: you feed a 2V line level output into a vintage receiver, that's almost 4 times the amount of voltage your average 70s tape deck put out. As a result, the receiver is going to reach it's maximum power output that much faster. This explains the old "I turn my old receiver to 5 and it cranks...I have to turn by new one up to -1 or 0 to make it play as loud"

2. higher distortion. A distorted signal is going to sound louder than a clean signal. so that little 30W Pioneer SA-5200 with 1% THD is going to seem louder than a good clean 100W amplifier putting out similar power levels.

3. Gain structure: old receivers were pretty simple devices. the volume control started at "0" and could be rotated clockwise to "10". Under most conditions, raising that volume knob above 12 o'clock or so was going to create nothing but distortion and magic smoke. This is especially true with "hotter" modern sources like CD. Most new AV receivers on the other hand are designed so that their volume controls can be turned almost all the way up without creating a lot of noise and distortion. For instance, I run my Kenwood AV receiver at -5 dB to +3 dB almost all the time with my 87 dB efficient speakers...the volume control only goes up to +10 I think, so this seems quite high. It's not though, as the receiver has been designed to use the full range of its volume control without damage or significant distortion.

Just a few notes. Buy a good receiver with a robust power supply and the features you need. It's gonna rock.
 
I use a Marantz SR8002 and am very happy with it, particularly it's apparent power and weight; really has nice dynamics with Paradigm Monitor 7 v.2 mains which seem to like lots of clean power. These allow bi-wiring and since the Marantz is a 7.1 channel amp that can use 4 channels in a bi-amp configuration for the mains, you end up with 250wpc on the mains.

Does great with high-def audio surround formats (which can be bit-streamed over HDMI) but what really surprised me was how good it sounds with 2-channel audio from an Oppo SACD/Bluray player.

I'd buy Marantz HT again, specifically for the audio performance.
 
"Sounds powerful" is like saying "tastes cold" it's meaningless!

Any one of the receivers you mentioned are going to be able to produce their rated power output into the load specified. If the specs say something like: 110 W x 7, all channels driven into a 6 ohm load from 20 Hz- 20 kHz, then they'll absolutely produce that amount of power.

The only meaningful deviations from this would be if the ratings were taken with less than all channels driven, or if the power ratings were measured at 1 kHz into a 6 ohm load (or 8 ohm load) instead of the more meaningful 20 Hz- 20 kHz full-bandwidth ratings.

I can guarantee you that your Pioneer if performing to spec will absolutely deliver 90 w/ch

A vintage receiver may "sound more powerful" for a bunch of reasons

1. Different preamp sensitivity: you feed a 2V line level output into a vintage receiver, that's almost 4 times the amount of voltage your average 70s tape deck put out. As a result, the receiver is going to reach it's maximum power output that much faster. This explains the old "I turn my old receiver to 5 and it cranks...I have to turn by new one up to -1 or 0 to make it play as loud"

2. higher distortion. A distorted signal is going to sound louder than a clean signal. so that little 30W Pioneer SA-5200 with 1% THD is going to seem louder than a good clean 100W amplifier putting out similar power levels.

3. Gain structure: old receivers were pretty simple devices. the volume control started at "0" and could be rotated clockwise to "10". Under most conditions, raising that volume knob above 12 o'clock or so was going to create nothing but distortion and magic smoke. This is especially true with "hotter" modern sources like CD. Most new AV receivers on the other hand are designed so that their volume controls can be turned almost all the way up without creating a lot of noise and distortion. For instance, I run my Kenwood AV receiver at -5 dB to +3 dB almost all the time with my 87 dB efficient speakers...the volume control only goes up to +10 I think, so this seems quite high. It's not though, as the receiver has been designed to use the full range of its volume control without damage or significant distortion.

Just a few notes. Buy a good receiver with a robust power supply and the features you need. It's gonna rock.

I really am not interested in a discussion about vintage receivers and comparison to modern methods of measurement. I'm also not interested in a discussion of semantics or technical data. I used to have a Denon AV receiver (5.1, not vintage) rated at 85 wpc that could fill up my media room better than my Pioneer. And my 100-watt 2-channel Adcom can blow both of them away, despite the fact that a difference of 10 or 15 watts isn't usually terribly significant. I'm just looking for some thoughts on which receivers can really rock...and this Pioneer can't.
 
Last edited:
I use a Marantz SR8002 and am very happy with it, particularly it's apparent power and weight; really has nice dynamics with Paradigm Monitor 7 v.2 mains which seem to like lots of clean power. These allow bi-wiring and since the Marantz is a 7.1 channel amp that can use 4 channels in a bi-amp configuration for the mains, you end up with 250wpc on the mains.

Does great with high-def audio surround formats (which can be bit-streamed over HDMI) but what really surprised me was how good it sounds with 2-channel audio from an Oppo SACD/Bluray player.

I'd buy Marantz HT again, specifically for the audio performance.

The audio performance is something that I could certainly believe Marantz does well. It seems like with whichever brand, moving up in price gets you mostly features, with a small step in power. I'd be happy with fairly limited features, as long as I have three HDMI inputs. The most important goal is the sound. Did you audition some others before deciding on the Marantz?
 
Yes; Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony & Denon (all around the same price range) but I really didn't put much stock in the comparison - every one of them was in completely different rooms and speaker systems with different source material which I feel had way more impact on overall sound than amp performance.

The Denon was the one I liked best of the bunch but after listening to new Marantz SS at AKfest and really liking it (though the SR8002 was not used), I spent some time talking to the Marantz rep about their take on HT. Their line-up at the time was a little lighter than the competition on video features like upscaling but I was told that they feel things like video manipulation is done better at the source or monitor/projector - they concentrated on audio in their HT receivers.

I liked that approach, took a leap, bought the SR8002 and an Oppo BDP-83 (which does very well with video manipulation) and have been very happy with the results. Picture quality is fantastic (Panasonic 50" plasma)and I've been bit-streaming audio into the Marantz using it's internal DAC, switching between 3 HDMI sources (Oppo, HD cable PVR and a Boxee Box streamer); audio seems great - even in 2-channel direct mode using SACDs.

I sure would like to move up the Marantz line someday as I really like what I've heard up there but the SR8002 is a nice place to stay.
 
Last edited:
I keep forgetting that Anthem has receivers now too. May want to take a look at the MRX300, MRX500, or MRX700. I think the 500 is at the top of your price range.

I've never heard one of their receivers, but the AVM 20 processor I have (only recently retired in lieu of newer features) gave me years of flawless service, and customer support level that you will not get from the typical big name brands.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom