Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Yamaha CR-840 is compared to what in 2004?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
October 16, 2004 3:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hello
This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
high end receivers.
Thanks!
Laura
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 7:45:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Laura" <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com...
> Hello
> This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> high end receivers.
> Thanks!
> Laura

Teac makes a very fine sounding 100wpc stereo receiver that you can buy for
between $80 and $150 depending on whether or not it is on sale, and where
you buy it. It has a decent phono section plus the other normal inputs and
tape facilities.

Other mass-merchandising brands of stereo receiver are hard to find, and
when you do they generally offer less power or cost slightly more.

At specialty dealers, NAD is sold and their receivers are generally very
good sounding, albeit at a higher price point.

None of these receivers has particularly good AM or FM reception...so if
radio is important to you I would certainly do some comparative testing
under controlled conditions if you can.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 7:06:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Laura <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote:
> Hello
> This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> high end receivers.
> Thanks!
> Laura

Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the
feature set on a modern one rather amazing.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 7:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
> Hello
> This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> high end receivers.
> Thanks!
> Laura

Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
$200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
(the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
vinyl.

Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers
for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection
at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R.

bob
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 7:11:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/15/04 11:45 PM, in article ckq5g601c76@news4.newsguy.com, "Harry Lavo"
<harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> None of these receivers has particularly good AM or FM reception...so if
> radio is important to you I would certainly do some comparative testing
> under controlled conditions if you can.


If radio is really important to you (and for a long time before my interest
in hifi I was a AM/FM/Shortwave gEEk)

A couple of good solutions - the tuners aren't particularly good, but with
the right antenna, they aren't awful either - you can easily gin one up for
yourself, but there are some cosmetically good ones you can purchase.

Here are a couple of stores I used a lot - and the current antennas they
offer (it is much better than the antenna that comes with the receiver):

http://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/mwant.html
http://www.ccrane.com/fm-antennas.aspx

The selection is much worse than I remember for FM stuff, but a lot are
available if you google it.

What I have done is get a good FM/AM radio and take the line out or
headphone out and put it through the AUX input. You can get a top notch
FM/AM radio for a fraction what a hifi/high end tuner would cost and it
generally equals or exceeds the performance. I tried this with one of my old
shortwave rigs, but the RFI was too high for effective SW reception. I
experimented with a home FM transmitter and that was a bust.

Another solution is to get a dedicated tuner - there are a lot to choose
from, but like I said, I think those are rather expensive - and you can get
a receiver with great selectivity and world class unwanted signal rejection
for a song compared to a high end tuner...

Just my 2 cents! :-)
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 8:35:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ckrde802mtl@news4.newsguy.com...
> Laura <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote:
> > Hello
> > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> > high end receivers.
> > Thanks!
> > Laura
>
> Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the
> feature set on a modern one rather amazing.
>

But the question is...do they make a stereo receiver that has reasonable
distribution? She doesn't *need* an A/V receiver based on her inquiry.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 6:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<ckriju01t51@news3.newsguy.com>...
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:ckrde802mtl@news4.newsguy.com...
> > Laura <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Hello
> > > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> > > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> > > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> > > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> > > high end receivers.
> > > Thanks!
> > > Laura
> >
> > Yamaha still makes fine receivers -- and you might find the
> > feature set on a modern one rather amazing.
> >
>
> But the question is...do they make a stereo receiver that has reasonable
> distribution? She doesn't *need* an A/V receiver based on her inquiry.

I haven't seen one listed in the US in the last year or two. If she
can do without a tuner (or buy one separately), Yamaha does still make
a fine integrated amp, the AX-596, I believe.

Granted, she could use an A/V receiver, but she might find that
feature set to be gross overkill. Personally, I'd rather have
something that did just what I need it to do, and did it without a lot
of fuss. If you're just driving two speakers, A/V receivers can be
more trouble than they're worth.

bob
October 18, 2004 12:47:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<ckrdlt02n8b@news4.newsguy.com>...
> littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > Hello
> > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> > high end receivers.
> > Thanks!
> > Laura
>
> Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
> $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
> (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
> not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
> vinyl.
>
> Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers
> for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection
> at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R.
>
> bob
Thanks for all the feedback!
If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to
state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when
listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can
hear a performer breathing in for air.
A few more questions:
1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a
multichannel reciever?
2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?
I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that
selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to
purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same
sound output. Is this a reasonable request?
Thanks again,
Laura
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 5:49:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi, Laura -- Confusing advice here, for sure. Here's some concrete advice -
if you were happy with the functionality (switching options, etc.) of your
old receiver, buy an Onkyo TX-8211 (about $200 at Circuit City or
www.crutchfield.com). I think this piece is analogous to your Yamaha and
will give you the same sound and quality. I gave my sister one for her
birthday a few years ago, and have heard it numerous times. I think it
sounds good (and I am a high-end guy), and she has had no problems with it.
It seems solidly built, and should have plenty of power for you (50 watts
per channel). Yes, you could upgrade to a surround-sound system and buy
more speakers, but in my opinion for music that isn't worth it. There is no
real reason to stay with Yamaha. Just an idea.
Rich

"Laura" <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ckulp1014np@news2.newsguy.com...
> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in message
> news:<ckrdlt02n8b@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message
>> news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> > Hello
>> > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
>> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
>> > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
>> > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
>> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
>> > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
>> > high end receivers.
>> > Thanks!
>> > Laura
>>
>> Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
>> $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
>> (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
>> not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
>> vinyl.
>>
>> Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers
>> for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection
>> at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R.
>>
>> bob
> Thanks for all the feedback!
> If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
> makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to
> state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
> and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when
> listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can
> hear a performer breathing in for air.
> A few more questions:
> 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
> relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a
> multichannel reciever?
> 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
> any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?
> I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that
> selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to
> purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same
> sound output. Is this a reasonable request?
> Thanks again,
> Laura
October 18, 2004 5:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>Thanks for all the feedback!
> If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
>makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to
>state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
>and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when
>listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can
>hear a performer breathing in for air.
> A few more questions:
>1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
>relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a
>multichannel reciever?
>2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
>any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?
> I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that
>selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to
>purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same
>sound output. Is this a reasonable request?

The marketplace isn't really concentrating on high-quality/cost-no-object
2-channel receivers at the moment.

Have you considered buying a vintage receiver instead? Or having yours repaired
by someone who knows what he's doing?

Perhaps going to audioasylum.com and clicking on "vintage audio" when you get
there, and posing your question there is the best thing for you to do. There're
all sorts of guys who'd be familiar with your receiver, I bet.

Personally, if I wanted a 2-channel receiver, I'd either buy a new NAD or a
vintage Pioneer, Luxman, etc. I just bought an old Pioneer SX727 that someone
had babied over the years and it works beautifully. It cost me $60.

But you have something you know you like. I think I would probably try to get
that repaired.
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 5:51:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
> Hello
> This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> high end receivers.
> Thanks!
> Laura

Denon and Sony are two I would say are quite well-regarded.
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:45:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckulp1014np@news2.newsguy.com>...
> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<ckrdlt02n8b@news4.newsguy.com>...
> > littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > > Hello
> > > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> > > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> > > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> > > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> > > high end receivers.
> > > Thanks!
> > > Laura
> >
> > Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
> > $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
> > (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
> > not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
> > vinyl.
> >
> > Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers
> > for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection
> > at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R.
> >
> > bob
> Thanks for all the feedback!
> If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
> makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to
> state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
> and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when
> listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can
> hear a performer breathing in for air.
> A few more questions:
> 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
> relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a
> multichannel reciever?
> 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
> any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?
> I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that
> selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to
> purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same
> sound output. Is this a reasonable request?
> Thanks again,
> Laura

Since you are new here, I will let you in on a little disagreement
that's been running for, oh, forever. Some of us (me included) are of
the opinion that well-made modern amplifiers are pretty much sonically
indistinguishable, and that people who claim to hear differences among
them are probably either imagining those differences or are not making
apples-to-apples comparisons. Suffice it to say, this view is not
universally shared in the audiophile world. Please don't ask for more
detail on this; I mention it so that you will be able to put the
answers I give you in context.

What's the difference between a $200 receiver and a $500 one? Possibly
a better tuner, more power, better parts and build quality. Will the
$500 model sound better? When you're listening to the radio, possibly
(although it might sound worse, which is why you need to try them out
at home). More power can make an audible difference if your amp is
straining to produce loud passages, but it doesn't sound like that
will be a problem for you. Construction quality can make a difference
in terms of the unit's longevity, but probably not its sound.

To your other questions:

1. No, the acoustics come from the interaction between between the
speakers and the room they are in. All the amp/receiver has to do is
to deliver a clean electrical signal to the speakers. Many, many amps
can do that with no trouble at all. I'm not quite sure what you mean
by, "does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever?" A
multichannel receiver can deliver a signal to more than two speakers
at a time, but if you've only got two speakers, that is of no use to
you.

2. It is certainly not necessary to have a receiver of the same make
as your speakers. Few of us do. Even those who think amps do sound
different wouldn't argue that a Yamaha will sound better because you
have Yamaha speakers.

To your last question, 25 years is a long time and, in terms of build
quality, I'm not sure they make 'em the way they used to. But
electronics tend to be pretty sturdy overall, so there is every reason
to believe that anything you buy from a reputable manufacturer (such
as those I and others have mentioned) should give you many years of
good service.

bob
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:54:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Laura <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<ckrdlt02n8b@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...

>> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly
>> > fading on me.

I have found its manual at:
http://www2.yamaha.co.jp/manual/pdf/av/english/AFR/CR-8...

>From the look of it I suppose it is a bit old, no ?

It has 2 x 65 W at 8 ohms.

>> > My question is what stereo receiver in
>> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality?

You can get a receiver for about $250:

Yamaha RX-496
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=RX-496&btnG=Search+...
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gA...

Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner:

Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394
http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_596_amplifier/4014-78...
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...

Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner
Price Range: $184
http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_492_radio_tuner/4014-...
http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...

Note that you can also buy a multichannel receiver (for the same money !).
All the models I know about can be configured to use only 2 speakers.
Later you can add more speakers and/or a subwoofer. And even there
you can use them as stereo amplifiers.

For instance, the low-end Yamaha model:

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/RECEIVER/RX-V450.htm
RX-V450 $249.99
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=RX-V450&btnG=Search...

The RX-V750 (~$450) has more features, more inputs, more power and
a better remote (important because it can be used to control several
devices, and the LCD on the remote shows what is being controlled).

http://www.yamaha.com/yec/products/RECEIVER/RX-V750.htm

One thing these receivers lack is a separate rec-out (so you can
listen to one source while recording another). These days that
feature costs a lot of money (at Yamaha, in the context of multichannel
receivers) because you need to go to a RX-V2500 at about 1000 euros
(even the RX-V1500 lacks that feature). I am not sure but I think
the RX-496 also doesn't have it, but the AX-596 has it.

http://yamaha-hifi.de/products.php?lang=e&idcat1=1&idca...

>> > My entire stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other
>> > suggestions on other high end receivers.

Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Technics (Panasonic)
I didn't check if all these still sell 2-channel only stereos.

>> Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
>> $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
>> (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
>> not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
>> vinyl.


> Thanks for all the feedback!
> If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
> makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo? I negleted to
> state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
> and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2".

The $500 model probably has more power, but since you didn't use
all the power of your old 65 W receiver, that is not very important.
It might also have less distorsion, but the difference is most probably
inaudible (see recent (and probably also old) discussions in this group
about competent amplifiers, amplifier's challenges, etc.)).

> 1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
> relating to eachother?

The speakers. their placement (and the room) are the important factor.

> Or does the sound quality come from a multichannel reciever?

> 2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
> any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?

Probably not.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 7:39:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Rich Carlson" <cvy@psu.edu> wrote in message news:<ckv7f9020e7@news2.newsguy.com>...
> Hi, Laura -- Confusing advice here, for sure. Here's some concrete advice -
> if you were happy with the functionality (switching options, etc.) of your
> old receiver, buy an Onkyo TX-8211 (about $200 at Circuit City or
> www.crutchfield.com). I think this piece is analogous to your Yamaha and
> will give you the same sound and quality. I gave my sister one for her
> birthday a few years ago, and have heard it numerous times. I think it
> sounds good (and I am a high-end guy), and she has had no problems with it.
> It seems solidly built, and should have plenty of power for you (50 watts
> per channel).

By coincidence, I got the same receiver for my dad last year. Kinda
reminded me of shopping for my first system, 25 years ago. In fact, if
there are any kids out there with $500 just burning a hole in their
pocket, this receiver would be a good start. $500 is about what I
spent way back when; despite a quarter century of inflation, what you
could buy today for the same amount would sound worlds better.

bob
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 3:33:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
<rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

>Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner:
>
>Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394
>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_596_amplifier/4014-78...
>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...
>
>Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner
>Price Range: $184
>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_492_radio_tuner/4014-...
>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...

And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
October 20, 2004 3:38:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com (Uranium Committee) wrote in message news:<ckv7i9020jk@news2.newsguy.com>...
> littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
> > Hello
> > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
> > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
> > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
> > high end receivers.
> > Thanks!
> > Laura
>
> Denon and Sony are two I would say are quite well-regarded.

Hello to all who have given their suggestions and advice.
Since this was my first post, I must say, it didn't even hurt!
Looks like I have some work ahead of me, and must admit all the
information has been a tremendous help. Having not purchased a
stereo in 25 years, I had no idea how much has changed and realised
how little I know.
Thanks-you!
All the best,
Laura
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 7:26:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article cl487k0dfb@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
> exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
> gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.

Hey Stewart!

Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-)
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 7:28:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
>
>
>>Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner:
>>
>>Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394
>>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_596_amplifier/4014-78...
>>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...
>>
>>Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner
>>Price Range: $184
>>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_492_radio_tuner/4014-...
>>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...
>
>
> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
> exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
> gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.

surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*?
Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU.
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:31:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 18 Oct 2004 23:54:18 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
>> <rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Or an amplifier plus a separate tuner:
>>>
>>>Yamaha AX-596 - amplifier Price Range: $394
>>>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_AX_596_amplifier/4014-78...
>>>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...
>>>
>>>Yamaha TX-492 - radio tuner
>>>Price Range: $184
>>>http://shopper.cnet.com/Yamaha_TX_492_radio_tuner/4014-...
>>>http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gS...
>>
>>
>> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>> exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
>> gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
>
>surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*?
>Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU.

OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 3:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article cl487k0dfb@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>> exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
>> gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
>
>Hey Stewart!
>
>Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-)

Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a
1-ohm load.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
October 21, 2004 3:40:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Laura <littlelambie33@aol.com> wrote:

> > > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
> > > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
> > > me...My question is what stereo receiver in todays market would give me
> > > the same sound and quality?
> ...
> Hello to all who have given their suggestions and advice.
> Since this was my first post, I must say, it didn't even hurt!
> Looks like I have some work ahead of me, and must admit all the
> information has been a tremendous help. Having not purchased a
> stereo in 25 years, I had no idea how much has changed and realised
> how little I know.

Hello Laura,

You have already received very good advice but I can't resist
commenting. My first receiver was also a Yamaha (CR-820, so you are a
step above!) and it gave me many years of good service. This was a very
good series. I do recall wanting Tandberg which was more expensive, but
Yamaha was the better value and I think I was wise to choose it.

Fast forward to the present. By all means avoid AV models, good stereo
choices still exist. If you want, you can stay with Yamaha, it is still
a very good choice. Other excellent options are Harman Kardon, Onkyo,
and Denon.

All are available at J & R (go to jr.com and search for "component
stereo receiver"; one of the HK models is the best seller at JR,
according to the site; hey also list Teac but I have no expereince with
its receivers).

One good brand not carried by JR is Marantz.

Other very good brands are Rotel, NAD, and Sony ES (not regular Sony)
etc., but they they tend to be way overpriced. Consider them only if
you find a good deal.

One very important point: I don't know if you still play LP's but if
you do you'd soon discover that phono has disappeared from many
receivers. I know that HK and Onkyo have it, but many don't and you'd
have to check.

Here are a few reviews, something to warm you up:
http://hometheater.about.com/cs/toppicks/tp/aatp2channe...

Good luck. Let's know what you find and decide.

-Anil
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 7:20:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article cl487k0dfb@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>>>against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>>>between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>>>exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
>>>gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
>>
>>Hey Stewart!
>>
>>Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-)
>
>
> Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a
> 1-ohm load.

Get more efficient speakers!
Anonymous
October 21, 2004 7:21:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>

>>>
>>>And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>>>against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>>>between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>>>exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
>>>gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
>>
>>surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*?
>>Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU.
>
>
> OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH!

in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all
that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi!
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 3:39:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 21 Oct 2004 03:21:50 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 20 Oct 2004 03:28:42 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>>And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>>>>against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>>>>between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>>>>exist at all. The tuner is also good, if you really must have matching
>>>>gear, otherwise the Rotel TU260 remains the budget tuner of choice.
>>>
>>>surely you mean the *Denon TU260* and not the *Rotel TU260*?
>>>Rotel tuners would have the prefix RT and not TU.
>>
>>
>> OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH!
>
>in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all
>that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi!

No, Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer
more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days. I have always
preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar.....

Besides, the kitchen system is really my wife's, and there's only a
short chain on the kitchen sink.....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 3:41:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article cl487k0dfb@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>>> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>>> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>>> exist at all.

>>Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-)

> Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a
> 1-ohm load.

The 1 ohm might be a problem. If it was 2 ohms it would be alright:

Yamaha MX-D1

Minimum RMS output power (1 kHz, 1.0 % THD, 4 to 8 &) 500 W + 500 W
Dynamic power (IHF) 2/4/6/8 &......................... 1000/1000/850/700 W

Frequency response 1 Hz to 100 kHz.................... ± 3.0 dB
10 Hz to 20 kHz....................................... ± 0.5 dB
Total harmonic distortion (1 kHz, 10 W/8 &, LPF: 20 kHz)
UNBALANCE .................................... less than 0.002 %
BALANCE ...................................... less than 0.002 %
Signal to noise ratio (IHF-A Network, LPF: 20 kHz)
UNBALANCE ................................... more than 120 dB
BALANCE ..................................... more than 120 dB

http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/products/hf/...
http://www.yamaha.co.jp/english/product/av/pdfs/moreinf...

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Anonymous
October 22, 2004 10:16:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 21 Oct 2004 23:41:37 GMT, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
<rps@rena.mat.uc.pt> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2004 03:26:45 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>On 10/19/04 7:33 PM, in article cl487k0dfb@news1.newsguy.com, "Stewart
>>>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And it should be noted that the Yamaha AX-596 can hold its head up
>>>> against *much* more expensive competition. The sonic differences
>>>> between this and say a Krell KSA-50 are absolutely minimal - if they
>>>> exist at all.
>
>>>Would you be for an even-steven sap - my Yamaha for your Krell? :-)
>
>> Only if you can find a Yammy that'll put 400 watts continuous into a
>> 1-ohm load.
>
>The 1 ohm might be a problem. If it was 2 ohms it would be alright:
>
>Yamaha MX-D1
>
>Minimum RMS output power (1 kHz, 1.0 % THD, 4 to 8 &) 500 W + 500 W
>Dynamic power (IHF) 2/4/6/8 &......................... 1000/1000/850/700 W

Did you not notice the word *continuous* in my post? 'Dynamic' power
is not the issue. Note that even under these far from stressful short
term conditions, this Yamaha amp is heavily current limited, as it
puts out hardly any more power at 2 ohms than at 8 ohms. Compare and
contrast with my trusty Krell KSA-50 mk II:

Continuous output rating at 8/4/2/1 ohms - 50/100/200/400.

See the difference? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 7:23:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 17 Oct 2004 20:47:29 GMT, littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:<ckrdlt02n8b@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> littlelambie33@aol.com (Laura) wrote in message news:<ckpmdg010ud@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> > Hello
>> > This is my first post so please be gentle with me.
>> > My stereo receiver Yamaha CR-840, Natural Sound, is slowly fading on
>> > me. I have taken it to an authorized dealer who repaired it, however
>> > it still shorts out on me. My question is what stereo receiver in
>> > todays market would give me the same sound and quality? My entire
>> > stereo system is Yamaha, and I am open to other suggestions on other
>> > high end receivers.
>> > Thanks!
>> > Laura
>>
>> Denon, Harman-Kardon, and Onkyo all make stereo receivers in the
>> $200-500 range. Any of them would be comparable to your old Yamaha
>> (the tuner sections possibly excepted, as Harry notes). A few might
>> not have a phono section, which is essential if you still listen to
>> vinyl.
>>
>> Brick-and-mortar stores tend to concentrate on multichannel receivers
>> for home theater these days, so you'll probably find a wider selection
>> at online dealers like Crutchfield or J&R.
>>
>> bob
>Thanks for all the feedback!
> If I were to purchase a stereo receiver in the $500.00 range what
>makes it a "better performer" vs. the $200.00 stereo?

The difference would be mostly (but not entirely) in providing 100
watts or so of clean power at the high end, rather than 50 watts of
somewhat doubtful power without much reserve for 'difficult' speakers
at the low end.

What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you
truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260
tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier.

> I negleted to
>state that I also use Yamaha Speakers NS-244. To me the sound is rich
>and crisp. The volume never needs to exceed "2". For example when
>listening to classical music you feel like your right there! You can
>hear a performer breathing in for air.

Well, you can do that with any reasonable system, and there are *much*
better speakers out there in an absolute sense. However, if you like
those Yammys, then that's fine for you.

> A few more questions:
>1. Do the acoustics come from a combination of speakers and reciever
>relating to eachother? Or does the sound quality come from a
>multichannel reciever?

The sound quality comes almost entirely from the speakers and their
interaction with the room.

>2. If I were to purchase say a Denon reciever, will I be sacrificing
>any sound qaulity? Is it important to stay within the Yamaha system?

It does not matter at all what manufacturer you choose, but I'd
generally avoid receivers of any kind.

> I will not be listeining to vinyl, so the option to have that
>selection is not necessary. Cost is not an option. I want to
>purchase a stereo that I will have for the next 25 years with the same
>sound output. Is this a reasonable request?

Sure - I've had the same system for close to ten years, and it gives
me no problems at all.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 4:58:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2004 03:21:50 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>>OOPS! Yes, the Denon TU-260 - like the one I have in my kitchen. DOH!
>>
>>in the kitchen? Hope you don't cook too many deep fried Mars bars, all
>>that grease can't be too good for the hi-fi!
>
>
> No, Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer
> more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days.

one of the secrets to a good stir fry is a very hot wok ... so make sure
the gas burners are cranked up!

> I have always
> preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar.....

if you are talking about that incident where the cops busted her and
Mick with said Mars bar, Q magazine disproved it as a myth a few years back.
Anonymous
October 28, 2004 4:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


> What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you
> truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260
> tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier.
>

Now, now, we all know that there is no such thing as a "Rotel TU260"
tuner ...

:) 
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:02:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Oct 2004 00:58:33 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> What is your objection to a separate amplifier and tuner? If you
>> truly want the best sound for your money, I'd go with a Rotel TU260
>> tuner and a Yamaha AX-596 amplifier.
>>
>Now, now, we all know that there is no such thing as a "Rotel TU260"
>tuner ...

A little known model, closely related to the Denon TU260 I have in the
kitchen! DOH! :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 29, 2004 4:02:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 28 Oct 2004 00:58:08 GMT, Tat Chan <le_king_num_7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>Scotland is the heart-attack capital of the world, but we veer
>> more towards grilled fish and stir-fries these days.
>
>one of the secrets to a good stir fry is a very hot wok ... so make sure
>the gas burners are cranked up!

Oh yes, we have the unfortunately named Smeg A2, with two powerful wok
burners and an industrial-power extraction hood!

>> I have always
>> preferred the Marianne Faithfull Mars Bar.....
>
>if you are talking about that incident where the cops busted her and
>Mick with said Mars bar, Q magazine disproved it as a myth a few years back.

Oh dear, that was an urban legend of some attraction...... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
June 1, 2009 3:25:23 AM

hay i got an 840 that works perfect but needs 3 bulbs ill sell it . thanks hundley7
!