# difference between TX-SR609 and TX-NR609



## Anacrusis (Dec 25, 2011)

I have looked on Onkyo website and didn't see any info on the TX-SR609 have they been discontinued?


----------



## sholling (Oct 6, 2010)

Anacrusis said:


> I have looked on Onkyo website and didn't see any info on the TX-SR609 have they been discontinued?


Last year's TX-SR608 was not network ready thus the "SR" prefix. This year's TX-NR609 is network ready thus the "NR" prefix. Network functionality is something that's been gradually moving down the Onkyo food chain since it first appeared in the TX-NR906.


----------



## Anacrusis (Dec 25, 2011)

*Re: Difference between TX-SR609 and TX-NR609*

Thank you that must be why when you search for TX-SR609 and the site it switches to the TX-NR609. I really appreciate this forum! Other forums take days to get an answer and they usually have nothing to do with the question. Thanks again "sholling".


----------



## monykaram (Dec 23, 2011)

I do not recommend Onkyo receivers; I read many reviews that MUSIC is so bad . 
Onkyo are only good for Movies.


----------



## monykaram (Dec 23, 2011)

Go for Pioneer 1021 or Yamaha


----------



## sholling (Oct 6, 2010)

monykaram said:


> I do not recommend Onkyo receivers; I read many reviews that MUSIC is so bad .
> Onkyo are only good for Movies.


No disrespect intended but you obviously don't know anything at all about Onkyo receivers or receivers in general work. Internet rumors are not objective testing. Let me help you get past internet rumors - with room correction and sound processing off all brands of receivers sound pretty much the same because with processing off a receiver/amplifier adds and subtracts _nothing_ from the sound. None are bright or warm or sound better for music or home theater with processing off.

That brings us to room correction and the Audyssey systems used by both Onkyo and Denon are the gold standard of room correction systems. Where they differ is the TX-NR609 uses the lowest grade (Audyssey 2EQ) of Audyssey room correction while the rest of the Onkyo line and most Denons use Audyssey MultiEQ or MultiEQ XT. Bottom line whoever told you that Onkyos sound awful with music is utterly clueless. The only real knock on Onkyos is that older versions ran warm due to their exceptional power supply and amplifiers. That changed this year with the inclusion of a cooling fan. The advantage of Onkyos is that they pack more features into each price point than their competitors. That said if the OP can afford it I would save a bit longer for the TX-NR709 which adds preouts and Audyssey MultiEQ XT.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

monykaram said:


> Go for Pioneer 1021 or Yamaha


This proves you are not well informed, the Pioneer 1021 is a very poor performer and The Onkyo 609 out preforms it in every way.




sholling said:


> No disrespect intended but you obviously don't know anything at all about Onkyo receivers or how they are supposed to work. Internet rumors are not objective testing. With room correction and sound processing off all brands of receivers sound pretty much the same because with processing off a receiver/amplifier adds and subtracts _nothing_ from the sound. None are bright or warm or sound better for music or home theater with processing off.
> 
> That brings us to room correction and the Audyssey systems used by both Onkyo and Denon are the gold standard of room correction systems. Where they differ is the TX-NR609 uses the lowest grade (Audyssey 2EQ) of Audyssey room correction while the rest of the Onkyo line and most Denons use Audyssey MultiEQ or MultiEQ XT. Bottom line whoever told you that Onkyos sound awful with music is utterly clueless. The only real knock on Onkyos is that older versions ran warm due to their exceptional power supply and amplifiers. That changed this year with the inclusion of a cooling fan. The advantage of Onkyos is that they pack more real world power and features into each price point than their competitors.


Couldn't agree more :T I owned Marantz, Yamaha and Onkyo and hands down the Onkyo trumps them all. Music and movies sound fantastic on them. I have a close friend that owns a Yamaha 2700 and he likes my Onkyo much better.


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Not to mention that speakers are FAR MORE IMPORTANT in determining sound than any amplifier (that is functioning correctly to its specs).


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

Way to police the ranks fellas. Completely satisfied with my Onkyo. It is a beast and is all I could want and need for my AVR.


----------



## monykaram (Dec 23, 2011)

sholling said:


> No disrespect intended but you obviously don't know anything at all about Onkyo receivers or receivers in general work. Internet rumors are not objective testing. Let me help you get past internet rumors - with room correction and sound processing off all brands of receivers sound pretty much the same because with processing off a receiver/amplifier adds and subtracts _nothing_ from the sound. None are bright or warm or sound better for music or home theater with processing off.
> 
> That brings us to room correction and the Audyssey systems used by both Onkyo and Denon are the gold standard of room correction systems. Where they differ is the TX-NR609 uses the lowest grade (Audyssey 2EQ) of Audyssey room correction while the rest of the Onkyo line and most Denons use Audyssey MultiEQ or MultiEQ XT. Bottom line whoever told you that Onkyos sound awful with music is utterly clueless. The only real knock on Onkyos is that older versions ran warm due to their exceptional power supply and amplifiers. That changed this year with the inclusion of a cooling fan. The advantage of Onkyos is that they pack more features into each price point than their competitors. That said if the OP can afford it I would save a bit longer for the TX-NR709 which adds preouts and Audyssey MultiEQ XT.


well man, you said that in the newer Onkyo receivers they have included a cooling fan? does tx-NR609 includes a cooling fan? and do you really recommend it for me if i am a big music fan? I will use it 80% for music and 20% for movies .please advise


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Yes, the 609 has a fan and yes it would do a great job of music.


----------



## sholling (Oct 6, 2010)

monykaram said:


> well man, you said that in the newer Onkyo receivers they have included a cooling fan? does tx-NR609 includes a cooling fan? and do you really recommend it for me if i am a big music fan? I will use it 80% for music and 20% for movies .please advise


I don't know first hand about a fan in the TX-NR609 but I wouldn't worry too much with that model. The 60x series didn't produce anywhere near as much heat as the 70x and above product lines. I know that because I own a TX-SR606, TX-SR707, TX-NR906, and a TX-NR809. The 606 never got all that hot, the 707 got pretty warm and the 906 ran very warm. As long as you give room for air to move around them they're fine without fans. Leave at least 4" open above the receiver and don't enclose it behind a door and they're all fine. My 809 has a cooling fan so heat isn't an issue. All are great for music. 

I'd also look at Denon's AVR1912 because it has a better version of Audyssey (MultiEQ) than the 609's Audyssey 2EQ.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

sholling said:


> I'd also look at Denon's AVR1912 because it has a better version of Audyssey (MultiEQ) than the 609's Audyssey 2EQ.


Very true but you dont get nearly as strong an amplification section so there are trade offs for sure.


----------



## sholling (Oct 6, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> Very true but you dont get nearly as strong an amplification section so there are trade offs for sure.


I haven't seen measurements comparing the amplifiers in the 609 and the 1912 but I suspect they aren't too far apart. The real magic starts with the 709 with a rock solid amplifier section and MultiEQ XT.  

I'm in the process of a reshuffle at home. The 809 replaced the 906 in my main room. The 906 replaced the 707 in my bedroom, and I have the 707 sitting here waiting for me to get energetic and replace the 606 in my home office. They're all good receivers. 

Oh and my Pioneers are sitting on a shelf in the shed. The 606 absolutely blew away the 912 and 1014 that I used to use.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The 609 was bench tested to actually do better than 85watts per channel all channels driven 20-20khz. Thats really good for a sub $500 receiver. Thats really good even for a sub $1000 receiver.


----------



## sholling (Oct 6, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> The 609 was bench tested to actually do better than 85watts per channel all channels driven 20-20khz. Thats really good for a sub $500 receiver. Thats really good even for a sub $1000 receiver.


Thanks for the information. That's very good indeed and the kind of power reserves that Onkyos are known for. For those just learning and don't know what we're talking about most receivers that claim 100w do so based on 2 channel driven from 20-20khz. Since few movies require full power into more than 2 channels for more than a few microseconds they can get away with fairly small power supplies and a lot of 100wpc AVRs struggle to put out even 75w when driving all 7 channels equally, some even less. 

*A few cheap receivers, usually HTPC receivers but some older stand alone receivers, are rated running only 1 channel and at 1khz which means little because it's such an easy load but it looks good when comparing spec sheets .


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

It is also worth noting that there is a split in marketing strategies among brands that can further muddy the waters.

It is true that many receivers are rated at 2 channels output for their "100 watt" ratings and are, in five or seven channel modes, putting out far less power when driven simultaneously into clipping. Those brands choose to market from the "per channel" perspective and it makes them "look bad" in some eyes when their all channels driven numbers are significant lower.

On the other hand, some brands advertise their all channels driven number and then claim it is a conservative estimate--and it is, for TWO channel performance. But all they've really done is start from ACD and let reviewers "discover" a much greater output for two channels, while the other brands, as above, do the reverse.

The upshot is Brand A (my first example) is looked at as "deceptive" while Brand B is looked at as "exceeding expectations". In reality, they are simply spinning very similar numbers in different ways.

This is not to say that some brands don't do better than others at ACD levels--clearly that can be seen in a variety of tests and reviews. But there are two things to consider. One, can the difference between, say, 60 watts and 80 watts, before clipping, at ACD be heard. Highly unlikely. Two, are all channels EVER called upon to full power simultaneously in real world scenarios. Even less likely. For those two reasons, some brands choose to employ some sort of protection system which limits MCH output to a degree that ensures the device will probably never overload but sufficiently high to provide the necessarily performance in real world situations. Other brands do not employ such protection systems (or let them go higher before kicking in).

In some situations (power-hungry speakers and truly large rooms come to mind), more power is definitely better. But in the bulk of applications, it will not likely be noticed.

I've just recently purchased an AVR--Yamaha RX-A1000--(moved my old one to the living room where it is now doing 2 channel duty with a new pair of speakers). It has such a protection system that limits MCH output more than an Onkyo (a brand I have no issues with as my old AVR is an Integra DTR 6.4, still works great but no HDMI for the home cinema called for an upgrade). I chose the Yamaha for a variety of reasons over an Onkyo (great price from my dealer, 4 year warranty--in Canada, feature set that I liked, already have an Anti-mode 8033 sub EQ) but ACD power was lower on my list of concerns because of the two points I made above. If I had a larger room or different speakers, I might well have gone with an Onkyo for its more powerful amps at the same price point, but my situation did not call for it.

My overall point, though, is that I consider both types of brands (those who market "per channel" based on 2 channels driven and those who market based on ACD) engage in, to be charitable, less than clear marketing. But I find no more impressive a brand who advertises a "conservative" power rating based on ACD and proves it is more powerful in 2 channel than a brand who does the opposite but has the same overall numbers. What I do find less than impressive are those brands who focus on the 1khz output rather than 20-20000hz output. That is far more distorting of reality.


----------

