# Reccomend cheap (<$200) 2-ch rcvr



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

Please offer your help. I am trying to find a replacement of a tin-eared friend's failing receiver.

For a condo dweller who already owns a pair of:
Bose 901 (series I)
An old Realistic graphic EQ, used in place of the non-existent Bose EQ;
An old receiver, that is dying and needs to be replaced.

The user's requirements are:

1. Keep the Bose 901s. He likes them.
2. Some type of EQ needed (option: keep the graphic EQ, or else supply another);
3. Huge power NOT required: he got in trouble with just 50-75 w/channel.
4. Must have AM/FM radio.
5. Must cost less than $200 total.
6. New or used is acceptable.
7. Abominable quality is ok because I won't have to listen to it, and he would not recognize good sound quality if it bit him on the :dumbcrazy: --er-- ear.

Given these requirements, I naturally am considering another receiver. I considered something like the Behringer NU1000DSP but it would be overkill and lacks the preamp and tuner he wants. On Ebay there is a large number of receivers <$200. One horror  that has built-in EQ is:

Technical Pro RXB113 (I'm not worthy to post a URL, so you can search that your own self.) :foottap:

Or perhaps something from Pyle ("pile" of ... ?) :rofl2: These are dodgy looking units but perhaps would please the consumer. Anyone have a recommendation?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

This Onkyo 608 would be a great choice. You wont get a better receiver for that price.
Another option is this Serwood R772 receiver


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

Thanks. The Sherwood sounds promising. Both units would be way overkill (because he doesn't plan to do home theater). However, I guess no law says he can't use just two channels. the "parametric eq" per channel sounds interesting ... I will dig for details; it might just serve for the Bose EQ (which I plan to set up via REW or other RTA based things -- DEQ2496 maybe.) I checked with him last night and the ancient graphic EQ apparently is kaput too, so I will be shopping for an EQ of some type.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You may not need the EQ with either of those receivers as the built in auto EQ should correct any oddities.


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

Thanks to first guy who recommends the Sherwood. I have done some research on that and judging from the adverts and the manual, would do everything the friend needs and about a thousand other things! :justdontknow: Your recommendation seems very precise, because I searched on Ebay (about the only place I shop) and did a search in " DVD & Home Theater" for "receiver parametric" and only a few hits come up, nothing even close in price to the R-772 Newcastle. With automatic EQ it may adjust properly even to a pair of 901's. Using a DEQ2496, I was able to get the basic 901 EQ with just two parametrics if I recall correctly. I may just ship one to him and let him figure it out :help:

But I get to play the generous friend :spend: :yay: and now i wonder what I shall do with a Behringer NU1000DSP already on order :explode:


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

The more I think of the Sherwood receiver, the more I like it, for the intended use (of being the EQ + amp for a pair of Bose 901's). Having learned of the Sherwood, I am re-thinking my purchase of a Behringer NU1000DSP. While I very much like my NU3000 (which is being used to power my own 901's -- I am a confirmed "separates" guy, while my friends are the "receiver" types.), as explained earlier (or did I? My memory is not so great.) The NU1000DSP would be to power a different Bose 901 pair (with the built-in EQ).

I peek at the Sherwood manual: you can, indeed bi-amp front speakers, but they must be 6 ohms or more (I have Magnepan 1.6 QR, which are 4 ohms. "This won't work" as the British say.)

As lamented other places, apparently "Watts per channel" doesn't really mean anything, despite the FTC's testing standard from the 1970s. Does it apply only to (say) consumer amplifiers and not the "Pro" gear? If the Sherwood is half what it claims to be, there is 7 (more?) independent channels, each one 100 watts RMS into 8 ohms. This compares favorably, indeed is superior in some cases, with the Behringer EP0304 (same cost, 40 RMS/channel I think) or the smaller iNukes -- the NU1000 maybe. Can some of the channels of the Sherwood be bridged? I've seen no claims of that, but that is another interesting thing to explore: can bridging be done, at least in some cases? There are a lot of four (or more) channel units in use, I am sure, just in two-channel systems.

I'm still mulling what to do with the Nu1000DSP. Now I'm pretty sure the answer is "return it if I can" and get one of the Sherwoods for further experimentation. I may just "trade up" for another NU3000 so I will have a 2nd amp if I want to screw around more with my MiniDSP 2x4 -- which I had used as a crossover, but itself is looking kind of dated with what one could do with a Sherwood EQ. I realize that the MiniDSP's options would allow more tailoring, delay, etc. but the Sherwood having parametric EQ per channel (like the DSP Behringers) would give the MiniDSP a run for the money, I suspect, if restricted to crossover duty.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The Sherwood is a great deal, it originally sold for over $1000 and this one I linked to is brand new not refurbished so it has a full 3 year warrentee. The other great feature is that the remote is both IR and RF so you can control it from anywhere in the house.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Bose regularly recommends and sells Onkyo in their retail shops. Integra is Onkyo's premium line. 

I regularly see these sell for under $200. New, the DTM runs about $400. Ebay has one for sale now and I think the asking price is higher than it should be. But a little time, Im sure you can find it for less. Other than that, I'd check craigslist for some Vintage stuff, Pioneer, Marantz, Harman Kardon, etc. 

http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?class=Receiver&m=DTM-5.9&p=i
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=integra+DTM&_sacat=293&_odkw=integra+DTR
http://www.integrahometheater.com/model.cfm?m=DTM-5.3&class=Receiver&p=i

My other suggestion is an integrated amp. Onkyo has a nice little one. Google search shows this is close to your price range. My saved ebay search reveals, these sell for roughly $200-300.
http://onkyousa.com/model.cfm?m=A-5VL&class=Amplifier&p=s


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

The R-772 originally sold for $1000 ? I believe it. It did seem to have rather a lot of features for only $200. That said, I am nearly sold on it and will buy at least one, probably two at the price. I will at least pretend to review the Onkyo. Thanks for all the guidance.


----------



## jw00dy (Jun 16, 2011)

I'm thinking about the R-772 also for an office system. No Video, just audio hooked up from my computer via optical cable.

I haven't decided on the speakers yet, but I'm looking in the used market and have my eyes on a few different sets. Though they are probably over kill for my office. 

So if you get it, please post back as I'd love to hear your thoughts and I'll do the same if I decide to bite the bullet. The price is REALLY good. I've been looking in the used market and I can't believe how much used gear goes for let along NEW. Good stuff.


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

That SNAP 12-band parametric EQ is really going to have to perform some gymnastics to EQ Bose 901s. Good luck!


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

Well, it will be sort of like going to a a deceased friend's viewing ... "remains to be seen." :neener:

Please ecuse the pun ...

When I used my DEQ2496 with eq-ing some 901's, I was able to do most of it with just two parametric filters, something like: a big cut at around 500 Hz and a few octaves wide; a big boost at 20K and maybe two octaves. I have no idea how the SNAP works, but a 901 will just sound like a speaker that needs a lot of help on the bottom and top or cut the mids. Manually i get pretty good results with octave graphic EQs. Let's face it, anyone who is content with the sound quality of Bose 901s is probably pretty easy to please :bigsmile:


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

jw00dy said:


> I'm thinking about the R-772 also for an office system. No Video, just audio hooked up from my computer via optical cable.
> 
> I haven't decided on the speakers yet, but I'm looking in the used market and have my eyes on a few different sets. Though they are probably over kill for my office.
> 
> So if you get it, please post back as I'd love to hear your thoughts and I'll do the same if I decide to bite the bullet. The price is REALLY good. I've been looking in the used market and I can't believe how much used gear goes for let along NEW. Good stuff.


If you can do (lossless) COAX SPDIF, it's better for audio than than typical lossy optical plastic cable. That is unless you spring for very expensive and easily breakable glass fiber cables which are high bandwidth and low loss.


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

I usually use what works. Currently I have a USB->SPDIF box so no choice there. From that it goes TOSLINK to my outboard DAC. I do sometimes get static or drop-outs. I blame a loaded PC. Most of the time it's fine. I know that there are pros and cons to each connector type, or at least people who argue for or against one or the other. I am agnostic and skeptical. Perhaps there are measurable difference, but are there hearable differences? With a digital signal, as long as the bits get through all is good, and yes I know what jitter is, but haven't (knowingly) experienced any problems with it.

At present, my only "high-end" concession is a pair of $100 capacitors that I upgraded my DAC with ... they work at least as well as the cheap electroltyics they replaced :neener:

One thing in favor of optical: no ground loops!

:T


----------



## jw00dy (Jun 16, 2011)

8086 said:


> If you can do (lossless) COAX SPDIF, it's better for audio than than typical lossy optical plastic cable. That is unless you spring for very expensive and easily breakable glass fiber cables which are high bandwidth and low loss.


I'm not sure I know the difference.

This is the cable I have and plan to use. (I can't post links yet )

monoprice Item: 2764


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

jw00dy said:


> I'm not sure I know the difference.
> 
> This is the cable I have and plan to use. (I can't post links yet )
> 
> monoprice Item: 2764


I cant say for sure on that one, but at that price it's probably plastic dressed up in a fancy looking outer jacket. Glass fiber usually costs over $60 for a generic short cable.


You could liken Plastic cabling to giving sign language to a deaf person though a hazy plexiglass window; light passes but it's 100% not clear what the message is being transmitted on the other side. Step over to the next window made of glass and suddenly that deaf person can very clearly understand what you are saying (signing).

http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=7_NeT8_LEfT1sQKC1qGeCA&ved=0CJ4BEPMCMAk
http://www.google.com/products/cata...=X&ei=7_NeT8_LEfT1sQKC1qGeCA&ved=0CJkBEPMCMAg
http://search.cablestogo.com/?vno=24&N=0&Ntt=SonicWave+Toslink


----------



## jw00dy (Jun 16, 2011)

looks like "Glass" is the keyword. 

I would guess you are right it's not glass. 

I'm fine with that though as I do not have audiophile ears and have a hard time hearing stuff others say exists. I have a hard time hearing the difference between flac and normal mp3 files. Some songs I can tell a big difference, but most I can't.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## StanDingwave (Feb 25, 2012)

Bravo, jw00dy! Another person who dares question the status quo, asking for proof (or at least enough to convince yourself?) There is so much horse -uh- manure in this hobby that sometimes I feel like Hercules who was to shovel out the stables (apparently a story out of mythology). I will go with the cheap stuff, thank you very much, UNLESS I can see or have good reason to believe there is a difference. How come nobody has tryed cryo-ing plastic toslink cables? :devil:


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

StanDingwave said:


> Bravo, jw00dy! Another person who dares question the status quo, asking for proof (or at least enough to convince yourself?) There is so much horse -uh- manure in this hobby that sometimes I feel like Hercules who was to shovel out the stables (apparently a story out of mythology). I will go with the cheap stuff, thank you very much, UNLESS I can see or have good reason to believe there is a difference. How come nobody has tryed cryo-ing plastic toslink cables? :devil:


No need for bologna junk science. Glass is far more transmissive of light than hazy and lossy plastic. 




jw00dy said:


> looks like "Glass" is the keyword.
> 
> I would guess you are right it's not glass.
> 
> ...


On lower end systems, I cannot tell the difference between 192KB and 360KB. But move to a better set of speakers (and amp) like My Paradigm Studios and the difference is obvious between CD, OGG, WAV, or FLAC and any MP3. Medium Bitrate MP3s sound like listening to a live concert though a cell phone call from another state. 

Vinyl, DVD-A, and SACD are a whole separate discussion.


----------



## jw00dy (Jun 16, 2011)

I can't afford either, so I'll just keep enjoying what I have and can afford.

Maybe One day I'll have the disposable income and can afford a really nice system... I actually really hope I can get there.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

jw00dy said:


> I can't afford either, so I'll just keep enjoying what I have and can afford.
> 
> Maybe One day I'll have the disposable income and can afford a really nice system... I actually really hope I can get there.


No need for a large cash reserves. Just some knowledge (of Yesterdays High End Equipment), patience, and and successful eBay bidding on used speakers is all you need to enjoy champagne on a beer budget. If that's not your speed, the newer Paradigm Millenia One system are 95% of what my Studio 60's are and they cost about the same or less than BOSE.


----------



## jw00dy (Jun 16, 2011)

I am working the used market quite heavily. I'm also auditioning some systems to see what all the fuss is about. It's been fun and a learning experience. Patience seems to be the key and deciding what exactly I want is also hard since I've not heard a lot of speakers.

Fun as hobby though. I love it.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Have you listened to B&W 800 Diamond or Paradigm Signature S8? If not, do your self a favor and seek an audition at a dealer. Then _use that as the benchmark_ for which all other speakers should be compared to. If they are run on McIntosh, Krell, or Anthem Statement, it's all the better. (I've heard S8's on both Krell and McIntosh). 

As for subwoofers, Paradigm SUB25 is one of the kings in in terms of sheer volume and musical quality of bass. Older stuff like the signature servo or (cheaper) servo 15, are worthy of a consideration on the second hand market. I have heard one of B&W's mid priced subs and am impressed but I haven't listened to their higher end units like the DB1 which complement the 800 Diamond Series.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-amp-wilkins-db1-subwoofer


----------

