# avr suggestion



## mvigo (Mar 27, 2013)

hi everyone, i want to upgrade my receiver i have a onkyo ht-520. i'm looking at the yamaha rx-v473 and best buy have it for $279.99, and my budget is $300.00. had to ask my wife what my budget lol. is it a good receiver for my setup. my setup is insignia 46l240a13 lcd, sony bdp-s480 blu-ray player, my speakers are polk audio rm6751 fronts and surrounds and polk audio rm6752 center and def tech prosub600. any suggestions need some help.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

Speaker sensitivity is 89DB/w-m and Power handling is 100w max. It should be okay if you can manage to keep the volume levels down a bit. The RX-V473 is probably one of the better choices in this price category.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

For $300 you should seriously consider looking at this Onkyo 609 from Accessories4less. Its leaps and bounds ahead of the yamaha in every way and offers more power output, a very good video processor and Audyssey auto room correction.


----------



## mvigo (Mar 27, 2013)

thanks for the reply guys, i thought about the onkyo receivers but theirs been alot of recalls on certain onkyos.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Dont worry about them, Onkyo has at least got the guts to do recalls. Many manufacturers would just ignore the problems. The 609 has not ever been recalled for issues and was bench tested to output better then 85 watts per channel (very very good for a low cost receiver)


----------



## mvigo (Mar 27, 2013)

thanks tony, i guess i will pull the trigger of course got to ask wifey lol


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

I've had two Onkyo Integra's go sour on me and my 10 year old Yamaha (flagship) RX-V1 still sings a strong song; not only that, I think it sounds better and it seems to have a more honest power rating.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

how about something used on ebay,,,,


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

fschris said:


> how about something used on ebay,,,,


You can get an RX-V1 on ebay for $250-300 and it rocks, but doesn't have the lastest in HDMI, Video processing, or room correction.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Be cautious about buying something that is pre HDMI as it is only a matter of time before BluRay wont even work unless you have HDMI. The analog sunset has already taken place meaning all new BluRay players wont have any analog video outputs at all.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Be cautious about buying something that is pre HDMI as it is only a matter of time before BluRay wont even work unless you have HDMI. The analog sunset has already taken place meaning all new BluRay players wont have any analog video outputs at all.



Its not as big of a deal as you may believe. The analog sunset will affect mostly owners of HD-CRT and owners of older projectors (mostly CRT projectors). And people like myself, will run HDMI video to the TV and analog or spdif audio output to the receiver. It will require a bit of remote code programming, macros, or remote jockeying but it does work.

I also need to add that if you do need analog from an HDMI source, there is and probably always will be a number of adapter devices from Atlona, HDfury, and some other companies I can't recall.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Compared to buying a modern receiver with HDMI, a combination of an analog receiver and HDMI conversion is costly and still limits you to the resolution of the analog inputs, whatever they are. Frankly, modern AVRs have gotten pretty good. I am an old school audio guy and love old equipment but much of it is overrated and I am quite impressed with the quality available in modestly priced AVRs today. For most users, I think they are better off with something new.

Older equipment can be a good value, but IMO, at the level of receivers, not so much.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

lcaillo said:


> *Compared to buying a modern receiver with HDMI, a combination of an analog receiver and HDMI conversion is costly and still limits you to the resolution of the analog inputs*, whatever they are. Frankly, modern AVRs have gotten pretty good. I am an old school audio guy and love old equipment but much of it is overrated and I am quite impressed with the quality available in modestly priced AVRs today. For most users, I think they are better off with something new.
> 
> Older equipment can be a good value, but IMO, at the level of receivers, not so much.



That is not entirely true. You can get 1080 from composite and you can rely on the TV's multiple HDMI inputs and the TV's optical/coax out (passthrough) or the source device's optical/coax output to your receiver. Monoprice sells some HDMI conversion devices for around $30-50 and I believe the price will keep coming down. Plus, you can get a used HDFURY off ebay for less than $50.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I endorse going with a new AVR too.
They all pretty much work great. Basic auto room correction has filtered down to all but the most entry level. 
I was emotionally attached to my old stuff, but the new stuff sounds just as good and has features built in that reduces a lot of clutter that was associated with working around connectivity issues.
While I will occasionally miss the old beast as soon as the new darling sings me a song I am glad the old relationship is over.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Component will only do 1080i and it will not do 1080p 24 or deep color
Your missing out on a fair bit bypassing HDMI


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

chashint said:


> I endorse going with a new AVR too.
> They all pretty much work great. Basic auto room correction has filtered down to all but the most entry level.
> I was emotionally attached to my old stuff, but the new stuff sounds just as good and has features built in that reduces a lot of clutter that was associated with working around connectivity issues.
> While I will occasionally miss the old beast as soon as the new darling sings me a song I am glad the old relationship is over.


The bells and whistles on a new AVR are nice but they do nothing to drive speakers. An older top end unit will do a much better job driving the speakers due to its better built, pre-amp, amp stage and/or power supply. After all a receivers main job is to amplify a signal. Room correction can come later when today's high end falls to future price you can afford. Go for a superior build quality, go used. 



tonyvdb said:


> Component will only do 1080i and it will not do 1080p 24 or deep color
> Your missing out on a fair bit bypassing HDMI


Analog is infinite vs digital's finite signal information. Are you sure analog can't handle deep color extra bit depth? As long as there is a v-DAC that can convert the signal, there's no reason why it shouldn't. 

I think you missed my point- if you want to use HDMI on a vintage sound system you can simply bypass the receiver and plug it directly to the TV's HDMI port and rely on your player to handle the video processing.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

8086 said:


> An older top end unit will do a much better job driving the speakers due to its better built, pre-amp, amp stage and/or power supply. After all a receivers main job is to amplify a signal. Room correction can come later when today's high end falls to future price you can afford. Go for a superior build quality, go used.


Todays DACs are much better than even 8 years ago and older receivers do not necessarily have "Better" pre amps and power supplies or poor build quality.





> Are you sure analog can't handle deep color extra bit depth? As long as there is a v-DAC that can convert the signal, there's no reason why it shouldn't.


Im not 100% but there are limitations put on analog (to force the use of HDMI) regardless of what it can handle.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Todays DACs are much better than even 8 years ago and older receivers do not necessarily have "Better" pre amps and power supplies or poor build quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure DACs have improved and yesterday's high end is today's mid range offering; that's gonna be a given when you are dealing with silicon. Something must give in order to meet the given price point of $600 and make a profit and it seems they don't want cut corners when it comes to the wizbang wow factor of oodles of badge labels on the fronts of receivers, each of which gets paid a royalty to the respective patent holder. So, where do they make the cuts to meet a price point plus make a profit? Reliability seems as if it may be one....


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

8086 said:


> Something must give in order to meet the given price point of $600 and make a profit and it seems they don't want cut corners when it comes to the wizbang wow factor of oodles of badge labels on the fronts of receivers, each of which gets paid a royalty to the respective patent holder. So, where do they make the cuts to meet a price point plus make a profit? Reliability seems as if it may be one....


Mass production is the main concern with quality. Because they sell so many more than they used to the price can drop. Remember that companies like Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo and so on sell massive amounts of receivers these days, far more than they did even ten years ago. I had a top of the line Yamaha receiver from 1999 and when I replaced it with the Onkyo 805 the difference in sound quality was night and day (the Onkyo was far better even without Audyssey engaged).


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Mass production is the main concern with quality. Because they sell so many more than they used to the price can drop. Remember that companies like Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo and so on sell massive amounts of receivers these days, far more than they did even ten years ago. I had a top of the line Yamaha receiver from 1999 and when I replaced it with the Onkyo 805 the difference in sound quality was night and day (the Onkyo was far better even without Audyssey engaged).


Yes, but some companies and designs seem to do better than others, the XBOX and PS3 are two good examples. The failure rate of the XBOX was in the double digits while sony managed to keep PS3 failures down around the low single digits. Reliability starts with good solid design and ends with good quality control in the manufacturing side. I'm just not sure Onkyo can do that any more and meet their desire to provide tons of bells and whistles at a low price point. 

Some Yamahas I wouldn't touch at all and would choose Onkyo over it; it all depends on the price and models we compare. (Same is true for Pioneer or Sony.)


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Ive heard that PS3s had lots of issues also but thats another discussion. The Yamaha I had was the RX V995 it was regarded to be very good. I also had a carver receiver from 1990 and it also was excellent but only 2 channel.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

tonyvdb said:


> Ive heard that PS3s had lots of issues also but thats another discussion. The Yamaha I had was the RX V995 it was regarded to be very good. I also had a carver receiver from 1990 and it also was excellent but only 2 channel.


Nothing is perfect but the failure rate of the PS3 is really low.

EDIT: I'm a tad out of date. My info was for the 1st gen PS3 (I own) which was around 3-4%. All versions combined, its around 8%. After Sony's cost cutting measures, the failure rate climbed a bit for the slim models. 
http://www.gamesradar.com/xbox-fail...ilure-rates-just-generation-comes-to-a-close/


----------



## mvigo (Mar 27, 2013)

hi guys, i'm wondering that the yamaha rx-v473 won't power up my polk audio rm6750 speakers? Best Buy still has it on sale. my budding has the same receiver and sounds great with is def tec pro cinema 600. i know my speakers are not the same has his, but i was amaze the way it sounds. is it worth buying?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

mvigo said:


> hi guys, i'm wondering that the yamaha rx-v473 won't power up my polk audio rm6750 speakers?


The rm6750s are small speakers and wont take much to drive. The Yamaha is rated to do 80watts per ch (probaly less in real world situations) but still plenty for the Polks as long as your not trying to fill a big room.


----------



## 8086 (Aug 4, 2009)

mvigo said:


> hi guys, i'm wondering that the yamaha rx-v473 won't power up my polk audio rm6750 speakers? Best Buy still has it on sale. my budding has the same receiver and sounds great with is def tec pro cinema 600. i know my speakers are not the same has his, but i was amaze the way it sounds. is it worth buying?


Take your speakers over to your buddy's house and see how they sound on the same amplification in the same environment. Do an AB test between your receiver and his. Also the better made, Adventage RX-A710 is about the same price as the RX-V473. I would go adventage.


----------



## bguzman (Jan 25, 2008)

+1 for the Adventage.


----------



## mvigo (Mar 27, 2013)

hey guys, what the difference between the Onkyo HT-RC360 and the Onkyo TX-NR609. accessories4less have them for sale 240.00 and 280.00. tonyv did recommend me the 609 for my setup but im tempted on the rc360.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The HT R630 does not have Audyssey room eq and less power output per channel. for the extra money the 609 is its a big step up.


----------



## bguzman (Jan 25, 2008)

mvigo said:


> hey guys, what the difference between the Onkyo HT-RC360 and the Onkyo TX-NR609. accessories4less have them for sale 240.00 and 280.00. tonyv did recommend me the 609 for my setup but im tempted on the rc360.


The only difference is that the 609 is THX Select2 certified, they both have Audyssey 2EQ.

See here and here.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Your correct bguzman, accessories4less does not list Audyssey on the 360. THX is very nice to have as some of the processing modes you get are nice to use.


----------

