Audio & Video Forums > AV Forums > General Audio > Pioneer Elite vsx56txi,Marantz sr8500,or Yamaha rxv2500?
View Full Version : Pioneer Elite vsx56txi,Marantz sr8500,or Yamaha rxv2500?
Hi! i am looking to upgrade from my yamaha rxv-995 5.1 receiver to 7.1. i've narrowed it down to the pioneer elite vsx56txi, marantz sr8500, and the yamaha rxv2500.i never had any problems with the 995, although i think it might have leaned a pinch to the "bright" side.i'm looking for a warm,neutral sound to go with my b&w 600 series speakers;TRUE high current power,a well-made chassis , and reliability with respectable customer service.anyone out there that has any of these, or maybe a previous model, or any previous experience to help me with my decision what do you think??? thanks!!!!.
You've got a real, genuine no-brainer on your hands there. Get the Yamaha ... it will cost you HUNDREDS of dollars less, will give you comparable sound quality, and all of the features (and then some), and the best reliability and customer support in the industry.
P.S. And it's definitely not "bright" either.
If you want the "warm" sound w/B&W definatley go with the Marantz.
I certainly wouldn't consider any of these receivers "warm" sounding.
I'll echo Woodman's sentiments - he advised me to go with the RX-V1400, very similar to the 2500 and I can't thank him enough. I previously owned the RX-V795a, a step down from the 995. The 1400 has more power, but more importantly, Yamaha completely redesigned the pre-amp section and entire "front-end" of their receivers since the 795/995 era...that bright sound is gone. These receivers are definitely neutral now. Go listen for yourself, any brightness you here is the speaker, not the receiver.
Features galore and unmatched reliability. (YPAO is really handy).
I think the Marantz would be my second choice, they're all pretty capable receivers though.
Don't buy the "high current" power stuff...that's mostly marketing BS that doesn't really mean a whole lot. Any of these will adequately power your speakers. Good luck.
Any of these receivers will do good service in your system. The Pioneer has more power than the Yamaha, but you are also paying for the their propritary digital link. Unless you have a Pioneer SACD/DVD-Audio player this feature is wasted.
The Yamaha had good power for STEREO, but simply awful power specs when driving 5 or 7 speakers. These specs are reprinted from the Hometheatermag.com website.
This graph shows that the RX-V2400's left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 102.9 watts and 1% distortion at 130.5 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 158.4 watts and 1% distortion at 195.3 watts. With five channels driving 8-ohm loads, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 43.5 watts and 1% distortion at 44.1 watts. With seven channels driving 8-ohm loads, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 32.3 watts and 1% distortion at 36.9 watts.
HT Labs Measures: Pioneer Elite VSX-55TXi This graph shows that the VSX-55TXi's left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1% distortion at 110.2 watts and 1% distortion at 129.3 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1% distortion at 192.6 watts and 1% distortion at 220.8 watts.
Geoffcin is right about the Pioneer having a bit more power, though I would argue the real world impact this power has and it's weight in the decision process...at a $700 difference in price I think a better comparison would be the 52txi, wouldn't it? I think the 52txi still has more power than the 2400 and is about the same price as the 2500.
If you're really worried about power requirements at this level, you probably need external amplification anyway. I think Geoffcin would agree for the $700 difference in price between the two you'd be much further ahead to rely on external power amplification for 2 or 4 channels if this level of power is ever going to be required. This would allow you to cheapen up a bit on the size of receiver and just buy one the basis of it serving as a pre/pro.
I was at a demonstration at a hif-fi club meet in Dayton last year where they cranked out 8 watts into 5 channels in a 16 X 20 room on some Best Buy JBL's through a modest Denon receiver and acheived something well over 105 dB's sustained during a DTS test disc...Any of these receivers will go pretty damn loud without clipping or distorting at all and still allow 6-9 dB of headroom.
I don't see the point in spending a lot of money on features your not going to use. The use of one cable for a digital link is great, but another $500 for that feature is a lot to ask. If you have the Pioneer Elite SACD/DVD player then I would consider it, otherwise save your money and get the TX.
My main beef with Yamaha is that they are not being truthful about the power specs. This is not a 120 watt receiver by any stretch. The yammie 2400 if it was an HK, would be rated as a 50 watt receiver. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a 50 watt receiver IF you know that's what your buying.
I know what you're getting at Geoffcin, but Yamaha, and even Sony ARE being truthful...there's nothing factually incorrect about the way they measure and print specs (within tolerances all manufacturers see). Crooked and deceptive maybe, but technically true. But there's a big difference between a Yamaha 120 watt receiver and a Sony 120 watt receiver, and a 120 watt Sony receiver and a 400 watt Boombox...I put the onus on the consumer. You can't blame Yamaha, Denon,etc for using similar methods to Kenwood, Pioneer, and Sony receivers sold in the same stores to show a somewhat comparable spec, that's what a lot of consumers care about, unfortunately. It's just as much a service to them as a disservice.
Hell, I've got a 60 watt Adcom amp that's way more powerful than my 60 watt H/K stereo receiver...is H/K lying too? Does it really matter? They all do it to some point, every industry does, and until this industry agrees on realistic ISO, FCC, or IIRC rules or whatever system, it's a necessary evil.
Way too much focus is put on watts and "high current" so it's probably to be expected.
For home theater - get the receiver with the features you need, the price that fits the bill - the looks you like the most and maybe most importantly one that has the best remote control. In Canada anyway Marantz comes with the longest warranty out oif the brands you list and have done a bit better in the blind listening panel reviews conducted by Hi-fi-Choice magazine. The top of the line Yamaha faired worst for sound quality - but again they test for two channel music so for home theater it is probably much less important for most things. And if the new ones are re-designed then of course my info is well out of date.
Still I've had several receivers - flip a coin - currently I have a Marantz - not because i think it's any better than Yamaha or Pioneer Elite but because it had the best warranty and pre-outs and had the biggest power supply in its class. It also doesn;t sound fatiguing - boring and lifeless for music but not fatiguing.
Hey Dude....I considered the same three receivers as you before finally purchasing a Rotel 1055...great customer care and a full five-year parts and labor warranty...its 2-channel and HT performance rivals that of separate components...the 1055 has been replaced in the Rotel line and its original list was $1299 but it can still be found and bought new for under $1000...there was a mid-production upgrade of the 1055 which addressed issues like bass management, defaulting yadda yadda...hold down the "mute" function on the remote control and the receiver display will indicate the original "!" or the updated "2"...if you find an older version then Rotel will do a free upgrade for you...if you're looking for lots of bells and whistles than you might not be interested in the Rotel line...all I can add is that after one week of play I wonder why I even considered anything else but Rotel...it might be worth a look and listen...happy hunting!
to all that have replied to my original thread (pioneer elite 56txi,marantz8500, or yamaha2500)a huge THANK YOU. i forgot to include the denon 3805. i'm starting to doubt yamaha's power specs. it claims the 2500, at 20hz to 20khz, as 130 watts x 7. it claims 910 total watts. yet,on the back panel of the 2500, it says 500 total watts.(the back of my yamaha 995 also says 500 total watts, and that receiver is 100 watts x 5. am i missing something here? any opinions on denon's 3805 or any info on denon ? a home theater store in my area recently stopped selling denon. they said the receivers were exellent in the performance dept., but their customer service was horrible. simple repairs were taking sometimes 3 months to complete.(this is the claim of the store owner).if anyone has any info, it would be greatly appreciated!!!!!
Appreciate this, dude. I've spent a lifetime actually working on the insides of these critters, and today I wouldn't hesitate for a second buying any Yamaha product. The company is just a standout IMO in the industry. In terms of reliability, they have no equal, and their audio engineering is as good as (and in most cases, better than) any of their competitors. The all-important area of customer support is also just about the best there is.
Both Denon and Marantz represent the opposite side of the coin. They are now owned by a group of investment bankers, with no history in the electronics business at all. What do you suppose their main focus is on? You, the consumer ... or their bottom-line profits for the current fiscal year? And what do you suppose that translates to in terms of customer support, not to mention "build quality" and all of the other little intangibles that separate the "men from the boys" in any industry? The dealer that told you horror stories about them is no doubt quite correct. This was my main concern when both companies were sold almost 2 years ago, and I do believe that my fears were well founded. I believe that someone else also mentioned to you in this thread that Marantz' receivers were prone to be troublesome - and amazingly, in the very next breath, he's recommending that you "take a chance" on one! Supposedly, because they sound "better" than the others you're considering (which is an unadulterated crock, IMO). Sheeesh!
Your question about Yamaha's power specs is not something to be concerned with - especially due to the act that you're reading a power consumption spec on the back label of the unit(s) ... and not an audio power output spec. The fact that the older 995 and the new 2500 both quote 500 watts (of maximum power consumption) only means that the 2500 has a more efficient power supply circuit as well as a more efficient audio power output circuit than the 995 did, thus enabling it to produce more audio output power while consuming exactly the same amount of raw electrical power to get this unlikely-seeming scenario accomplished, that's all. As I advised you earlier in this thread ... this is a genuine "no-brainer" pure and simple.
As the dealer told you, Denon is certainly no slouch when it comes to performance ... but (and this is a very large "but" IMO), they can and do fall way short in some of the other equally important aspects of a product's true worth (and therefore value). There are many companies whose products perform very well - yet I would never consider buying any of them myself. Sony, RCA, Zenith, Pioneer, Denon, Marantz, Panasonic, Philips ... all of these fall into that category for me.
P.S. Go to the audioholics.com website and read the review that they gave the Yamaha RX-V2500. That should give you the final shove in what I sincerely believe to be your best direction.
Dude: You are way too focused on the power spec thing...ask anyone here, the real world difference between the power in any of these receivers is not very much at all...some would argue inaudible at the volumes these can attain.
Does the RX-V995 play loud enough for you? If so, any of these receivers, including the 2500, will out perform it. Dude, I hope you are aware that if your RX-V995 puts out 100 watts, then it would take a receiver with 200 watts of output to add a barely audible 3 dB increase in sound? And 400 watts to add 3 dB to that. 3dB isn't a whole lot. Of the models you listed, the power specs really aren't all that different, and shouldn't impact your decision much, if at all. I'm not trying to shill for Yamaha here, just create a bit of awareness about the real world performance abilities of these receivers to help you decide which one you like...They're all good, I'd just hate to think the negligible power differences between these is your determining factor.
thanks for taking the time out of your day to reply and further help me out with my decision. i want to explain that i am well aware of power specs and what's involved as far as raising the db output. when i had klipsch speakers, i wasn't as concerned with watts because they needed hardly any to perform well(and loud). now i own b&w speakers , and their db sensitivity isn't as high. i figured i would get higher current without having to turn the volume past ,say, the "12 o'clock position". the more juice you give the b&w's, the better they sound. i want something that can do that without running out of gas. i would also gain in the dynamic headroom dept., or so i assume.(i know,i know.never assume!!) anyway, that's why i seem so bent on power.as long as i know the receiver can give what i want , the actual number value doesn't matter. however, the number values that are listed are all i have to work with. i figured someone on this site would know which receivers are pushing real power vs. those whose specs are bulls**t. i used to have a technics receiver rated at 100 watts per x5 and after 10 minutes you could fry an egg on top of the thing. anyway, please let me know if i'm making even a hint of any sense. THANKS AGAIN!!!!.p.s. to woodman: do you also hold PIONEER ELITE receivers in the same regard all the other receivers out there, or are they a little bit better?
p.s.s.to Woodman again: please go to audioholics.com and read the thread from jman103099 (yamaha 5750 volume/loudness) issue. he and some friends i know seem to have to turn the volume on the latest yamaha receivers way up(at LEAST 75% or better the accheive a normal volume level.THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I"M TRYING TO AVOID. the db range goes from -76db to +6db. is it normal to have the volume set at -10db for normal sound level?
... that's why i seem so bent on power.as long as i know the receiver can give what i want , the actual number value doesn't matter. however, the number values that are listed are all i have to work with. i figured someone on this site would know which receivers are pushing real power vs. those whose specs are bulls**t.
Dude, all "specs" are both real and bullsh!t That's the way the "game" is played by everybody (just about) in today's CE industry. It's not a question of honesty - it's simply that what one mfg. does, the competition will invariably follow. Audio output power "specs" in particular, have always been somewhat of a "shell game". Very much like the "horsepower race" with automobiles. If there's a way (and there most certainly is) that a mfg. can "fudge" the numbers to make his product look "better" than it actually is, he will most likely do so. Then, all of his competitors follow suit, and around and around it goes!
p.s. to woodman: do you also hold PIONEER ELITE receivers in the same regard all the other receivers out there, or are they a little bit better?
Pioneer Elite are probably "a little bit better" in some regards, but ... in recent years their customer support has been in decline. For this reason, I list them as a mfg. that I wouldn't be likely to buy from.
The answer to this seeming "problem" lies in the fact that we're dealing with an entirely different type of volume control here. It's digital rather than the conventional analog volume controls of the past ... the two are hardly even remotely similar in concept, design, and execution. In the past, we became accustomed to a volume control that seemed to give an indication of an amplifier's "power". To turn it up to around the 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock position - and the sound was plenty loud, was an indication that the amp had plenty of "power". Turning it up to 12 o'clock made the sound almost painfully too loud ... wow, this amp is really powerful, isn't it? Well no, not exactly. It's like an illusion as performed by a magician - you see it and hear it, so it must be "real" - but it is in fact an illusion.
Now, we move into the 21st century, and the tried and trusty volume control is replaced by a digital volume control which behaves in a completely different manner altogether. Plus, it gives us a "readout" in db instead of a "clock" position. The two are so vastly different, that it leaves us with the feeling that the new type of amplifier is somehow just not as powerful as the older ones were. Not true, buckaroo!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me say it once again: this is truly a "no brainer" decision ... get the Yamaha - enjoy it - never look back. That's the very best advice that I think you can get - here or anywhere else.