# Sub $600 Receiver



## Cazten (Nov 1, 2011)

I've upped my budget a little and am looking at the best options for a Sub $600 dollar receiver.

Im looking at a lot of deals from A4L, and I'm a bit torn on what the best direction to go is.

The main options on my list are the 

1. Sherwood 972 (599)
2. marantz 6005 and marantz 5007 (599)
3. Denon 3312 (599) Denon 2313 (529)
4. Onkyo 809 (599)

Which receiver would you pin as the best? Or even other options? I was very interested in the 972, but im a little leery of the quirks. I watch alot of hulu and it would probably kill WAF if the audio dropped for 4 seconds every commercial. Thus far I have no cable though. Just HTPC for media center, Netflix + Hulu.

- One thing Here is that nothing in my range gets better than audyssey multiEQ XT, and by impression the Trinnov is on par with 32XT + it has the 3d remapping which everyone seems to think is tremendous!

I just want to get the best bang 4 buck, best sound quality for the money. Be able to decode absolutely everything. Then from there its a debate of trinnov + quirks vs more stable units with MultiEQ XT.

Opinions?


----------



## hjones4841 (Jan 21, 2009)

Of the four, I have only had Denon. I have found them to be very reliable. I have four Denons in the house, including two 3312s - one if which was purchased from A4L, the other one on a gold box special from Amazon. The one from A4L looked brand new and performed perfectly.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

All of the ones listed would do you just fine and I am sure you would be pleased with any of them. I really love the sound of the R972 but the quirks can be a little annoying at times. The Onkyo809 is a solid performer and handles video much better than any of the other receivers in the list.


----------



## ALMFamily (Oct 19, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> All of the ones listed would do you just fine and I am sure you would be pleased with any of them. I really love the sound of the R972 but the quirks can be a little annoying at times. The Onkyo809 is a solid performer and handles video much better than any of the other receivers in the list.


+1 - that is a good list. If I was basing it purely on best sound, I would opt for the 972. I have it set up it my living room system which the entire family uses for TV and Wii, and no one has complained about the quirks to this point.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

I pretty much agree with the order you have chosen: 
1. Sherwood 972 (599) 
2. marantz 6005 and marantz 5007 (599)
3. Denon 3312 (599) Denon 2313 (529)
4. Onkyo 809 Yamaha RX-A810 or RX-A800 (599) or Harman-Kardon HK-3490 (<$400)

The Sherwood is my pick for this price category. All others are tied 2nd place.


----------



## steve1616 (Apr 6, 2009)

My brother has the 809 and it is a great receiver, and pushes low ohm loads very nicely. I really thought you would be able to get the 818 for close to $600 by now. That receiver would be very nice because it has xt-32.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

steve1616 said:


> My brother has the 809 and it is a great receiver, and pushes low ohm loads very nicely. I really thought you would be able to get the 818 for close to $600 by now. That receiver would be very nice because it has xt-32.


During black Friday it was around 650 at Amazon and Newegg. Hopefully that will become the standard price soon.


----------



## steve1616 (Apr 6, 2009)

If that does become the standard price, I would emphatically put that at the top of the list. It is just too much extra value. I would think that the 809 should drop to the $450 price very soon also.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

steve1616 said:


> If that does become the standard price, I would emphatically put that at the top of the list. It is just too much extra value. I would think that the 809 should drop to the $450 price very soon also.


I hear you. the 709 is 450 now and the 809 is over 500. I have been tempted to get the 709 but if I upgrade I want an avr with XT32 so its between the 818 or the avr 4311 since I have 2 subs. The 818 is nice but for one sub only. Other than that I might opt for the Sherwood Newcastle because of the Trinnov. So now I am really in a mess because I don't know what to get LOL!:scratch:


----------



## steve1616 (Apr 6, 2009)

asere said:


> I hear you. the 709 is 450 now and the 809 is over 500. I have been tempted to get the 709 but if I upgrade I want an avr with XT32 so its between the 818 or the avr 4311 since I have 2 subs. The 818 is nice but for one sub only. Other than that I might opt for the Sherwood Newcastle because of the Trinnov. So now I am really in a mess because I don't know what to get LOL!:scratch:


I actually just changed my recommendation after reading your post. I just realized that the xt-32 doesn't include SubEQ HT on the 818. That is a complete bummer.


----------



## hjones4841 (Jan 21, 2009)

asere said:


> I am really in a mess because I don't know what to get LOL!:scratch:


The Denon 4311 is a great AVR if you can swing it.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> I hear you. the 709 is 450 now and the 809 is over 500. I have been tempted to get the 709 but if I upgrade I want an avr with XT32 so its between the 818 or the avr 4311 since I have 2 subs. The 818 is nice but for one sub only. Other than that I might opt for the Sherwood Newcastle because of the Trinnov. So now I am really in a mess because I don't know what to get LOL!:scratch:


If you don't own two subs, then you don't need support for it and since you are on a budget, money would be wisely spent on better LCR main speakers than a second subwoofer. lddude:


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

I own two subs hsu and kriesel. I calibrated them then used Audyssey to calibrate them as one. I notice in doing a test that if I use only the hsu you can hear the impact more in one area of the room than the other however, if I use only the kreisel I hear it on every corner. Makes me wonder if I really need the hsu. They do sound good together but that is something I came across.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> All of the ones listed would do you just fine and I am sure you would be pleased with any of them. I really love the sound of the R972 but the quirks can be a little annoying at times. The Onkyo809 is a solid performer and handles video much better than any of the other receivers in the list.


Can you support your statement that it "handles video better than any of the other receivers in the list"?

If you are referring to upscaling, I find that to be the least useful feature. While some people may have legacy 480 products, such as games, with all new sources including HDMI, where is the need? Even the 4k upconversion is a waste. I just want pass through. If I ever get a 4k set, and I hope I do, it will have up conversion built in.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

asere said:


> I hear you. the 709 is 450 now and the 809 is over 500. I have been tempted to get the 709 but if I upgrade I want an avr with XT32 so its between the 818 or the avr 4311 since I have 2 subs. The 818 is nice but for one sub only. Other than that I might opt for the Sherwood Newcastle because of the Trinnov. So now I am really in a mess because I don't know what to get LOL!:scratch:





TheHammer said:


> Can you support your statement that it "handles video better than any of the other receivers in the list"?
> 
> If you are referring to upscaling, I find that to be the least useful feature. While some people may have legacy 480 products, such as games, with all new sources including HDMI, where is the need? Even the 4k upconversion is a waste. I just want pass through. If I ever get a 4k set, and I hope I do, it will have up conversion built in.


Most of us have massive DVD libraries, Laserdisc collections, some VHS, and lovers of classic Hollywood B&W films are often forced to watch it in standard definition 480i. So, while you may not need it; there is still plenty of usage and demand for upscaling.

While you can use the source player to handle upscaling, it's not always guaranteed that you will get the best quality or consistent results. Typical cable boxes don't handle SD pictures very well at HD levels. And not all source players upscale. Also, early adopters of 4k screens are appreciating the upsampling capabilities found in today's processors.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> Most of us have massive DVD libraries, Laserdisc collections, some VHS, and lovers of classic Hollywood B&W films are often forced to watch it in standard definition 480i. So, while you may not need it; there is still plenty of usage and demand for upscaling.
> 
> While you can use the source player to handle upscaling, it's not always guaranteed that you will get the best quality or consistent results. Typical cable boxes don't handle SD pictures very well at HD levels. And not all source players upscale. Also, early adopters of 4k screens are appreciating the upsampling capabilities found in today's processors.


My cable box puts out the 480i signal in HDMI for SD which my set deals with quite nicely.

When I play my DVDs through my BD player, they can be upscaled by the player or my TV. If you have family movies on VHS, quick convert them to DVD before the video tape breaks down. As to your Laserdisc or VHS tape collection of classic old movies, you are by far in the minority and I do not see the need for every receiver in the world to have this capability any more than every computer should have parallel, serial or SCSI inputs. There are a few old movies that were available on VHS and are not on DVD or streaming, they are few and growing smaller every day? Do some of yours fit that category? Which ones?

While I am sure the 7 people who own a 4k set love it, those TV's also upscale to 4k from other sources. I bet those VHS tapes will look great.

http://gizmodo.com/5993798/sonys-4k...y-affordablein-that-they-cost-less-than-a-car

I want 4k pass through to future proof my receiver, I do not need non-HDMI inputs for video. I will gladly donate my DVD player to charity and either get a new $40 one, or just use my BD player. The only group that has a legitimate gripe are the game console players and those manufactures need to step up. Those owners can always connect directly to the TV.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

TheHammer said:


> My cable box puts out the 480i signal in HDMI for SD which my set deals with quite nicely.
> 
> When I play my DVDs through my BD player, they can be upscaled by the player or my TV. If you have family movies on VHS, quick convert them to DVD before the video tape breaks down. As to your Laserdisc or VHS tape collection of classic old movies, you are by far in the minority and I do not see the need for every receiver in the world to have this capability any more than every computer should have parallel, serial or SCSI inputs. There are a few old movies that were available on VHS and are not on DVD or streaming, they are few and growing smaller every day? Do some of yours fit that category? Which ones?
> 
> ...


I do agree with you that most computers don't need a plethora of legacy ports because there are a number of Thunderbolt and USB port adapters and replicators out there. Hardware based hardwired legacy ports (pci-e) are not needed for light or general use, except where performance or compatibility* is a concern. I still have a few devices lying around which require an RS232 port and I suspect quite a few members of this forum rely on RS232 for control and unification of their hometheaters. 

Video formats are another story. A lot of older programming was never recorded in HD and it will always remain in SD. Just like a lot of older audio (1920s) will never sound as crisp as as a modern studio album made on the best analog and digital soundboards. SD will be around and in use for a long time to come. 

As for old classic (B&W) movies, most are sold on DVD now and few come on blu-ray. Many people don't want to repurchase their collection.

If you are buying a 4k TV chances are it's going to have some really decent upscaling built in, so worrying about future proofing is the last thing I concern myself with. And with most average sized TVs as they are now, the difference in picture between 1080p and 720p is barely noticeable. 4k on a 52" or 65" isn't going to make much of a difference. 


*I have found a lot of legacy USB port adapters don't always work 100% of the time.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

TheHammer said:


> Can you support your statement that it "handles video better than any of the other receivers in the list"?


The 809 is the only receiver that uses the HQV Vida VHD1900 (regarded in the industry to be the very best) and has full ISF calibration for each individual input. 
Upconversion can be hit and miss in many displays/bluray players and compared to the HQV chip it can be very dramatic as to how much better it is.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> The 809 is the only receiver that uses the HQV Vida VHD1900 (regarded in the industry to be the very best) and has full ISF calibration for each individual input.
> Upconversion can be hit and miss in many displays/bluray players and compared to the HQV chip it can be very dramatic as to how much better it is.


There are a number of other receivers out with the HQV Vida VHD1900. Off the top of my head, Yamaha's got a few and Onkyo makes some other models besides the 809.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Of the ones we are discussing 
Sherwood 972, marantz 6005 and marantz 5007, Denon 3312, Denon 2313
Its the only one that does, The implementation of the HQV chip in the R972 is poorly done.


----------



## TheHammer (Dec 16, 2012)

8086 said:


> Video formats are another story. A lot of older programming was never recorded in HD and it will always remain in SD. Just like a lot of older audio (1920s) will never sound as crisp as as a modern studio album made on the best analog and digital soundboards. SD will be around and in use for a long time to come.
> 
> As for old classic (B&W) movies, most are sold on DVD now and few come on blu-ray. Many people don't want to repurchase their collection.
> 
> If you are buying a 4k TV chances are it's going to have some really decent upscaling built in, so worrying about future proofing is the last thing I concern myself with. And with most average sized TVs as they are now, the difference in picture between 1080p and 720p is barely noticeable. 4k on a 52" or 65" isn't going to make much of a difference.


I am confused. If anyone has the movie in DVD, then there is no need for the receiver to upscale. Playing a DVD in a BD player will result in upscaling either by the BD player or by the TV. So why do I need a receiver to do it too?

Anything that was filmed could be converted to HD. That does not mean it will be. Casablanca in Blu Ray is a treat. 

If you are claiming that people have invested in a VHS library and want to maintain it, I doubt that this is common. 

As to future proofing, I want to have 4k pass through in the receiver, not upscaling. That would allow me to add a 4k TV and player without replacing my receiver.


----------

