Denon AVR-2803 or Yamaha RX-V1400
 

I have been shopping for a new surround receiver to place my 4 year old
Pioneer Elite 24tx that is acting up. I have rounded it down to the 2
receivers mentioned. Can anyone please give me their opinion on these
receivers. I will be using it 70% for music and the rest of the time for DVD
movies and HDTV. I have Paradigm Monitor 7 fronts, Paradigm CC-350 center
and Bose 100 rears (I know , don't bash). Thanks a million for all replies.

Eddie

These models were two of the three on my recent short list. Several
things swayed me to the Yamaha. The Yamaha remote is just plain better
designed, with most used functions in easy to reach areas. It was
suggested to me here to place emphasis on the remote, since that is the
part of the receiver we interact with most often, a suggestion that I
agree with. Also, the YPAO automatic optimization feature sounded
useful. In use it's more than just useful, it's great. And the Yamaha
upconverts lesser video signals to component video, doing a better job
of it than my TV, and allowing me to use the 2nd component video input
on the TV for other things, like game consoles.

Lisa

Eddie E wrote:

I have been shopping for a new surround receiver to place my 4 year old
Pioneer Elite 24tx that is acting up. I have rounded it down to the 2
receivers mentioned. Can anyone please give me their opinion on these
receivers. I will be using it 70% for music and the rest of the time for DVD
movies and HDTV. I have Paradigm Monitor 7 fronts, Paradigm CC-350 center
and Bose 100 rears (I know , don't bash). Thanks a million for all replies.

Eddie

"Lisa Horton" wrote in message
...
These models were two of the three on my recent short list. Several
things swayed me to the Yamaha. The Yamaha remote is just plain better
designed, with most used functions in easy to reach areas. It was
suggested to me here to place emphasis on the remote, since that is the
part of the receiver we interact with most often, a suggestion that I
agree with. Also, the YPAO automatic optimization feature sounded
useful. In use it's more than just useful, it's great. And the Yamaha
upconverts lesser video signals to component video, doing a better job
of it than my TV, and allowing me to use the 2nd component video input
on the TV for other things, like game consoles.

Lisa thank you very much for your reply. I went to Tweeter and did an A/B
switch comparison on the 2 receivers using the same speakers and my personal
CD's. The Yamaha has quite a few more features but I ended up choosing the
Denon for 3 reasons. The first and most important being the sound. I felt
the Denon sounded smoother & warmer but not overly so. I felt the Yamaha
while nice sounded maybe a little too bright for my taste. Secondly even
though both receiver's MSRP is $799, the Denon was discounted to $649 and
the Yamaha was not discounted at all. That may be because the Yamaha is the
newer model and Denon may be replacing the 2803 soon. Thirdly and not all
that important is that I prefer the appearance of the Denon. I also have a
Denon 1600 DVD player and they match well. Since I have had the Denon home
and hooked-up to my Paradigms I am very happy with it's performance. The
only downside and you were very correct in your assessment of the remote.
The remote is very confusing. But my system has never sounded better. The
surround sound really compliments my Mitsubishi HDTV. Tweeter has a 4 month
upgrade policy so I may eventually upgrade to the 3803 or the next model in
the 280X series.

Regards,

Eddie

There's that word again...BRIGHT.

...I ended up choosing the
Denon for 3 reasons. The first and most important being the sound. I felt
the Denon sounded smoother & warmer but not overly so. I felt the Yamaha
while nice sounded maybe a little TOO BRIGHT for my taste"...

Could someone explain to me exactly what bright sounds like? I only see the
word in reference to Yamaha receivers. Don't think I have ever seen any
other manufacturer's product called bright, and speaker selection doesn't
seem to matter either. Just curious.

"stevev" wrote in message
m...
There's that word again...BRIGHT.

...I ended up choosing the
Denon for 3 reasons. The first and most important being the sound. I
felt
the Denon sounded smoother & warmer but not overly so. I felt the Yamaha
while nice sounded maybe a little TOO BRIGHT for my taste"...

Could someone explain to me exactly what bright sounds like? I only see
the
word in reference to Yamaha receivers. Don't think I have ever seen any
other manufacturer's product called bright, and speaker selection doesn't
seem to matter either. Just curious.

i totally agree. everyone tosses this word around (including me) and i just
spent 15 minutes searching for a definition and didnt even come close. the
word bright also seems to be used around the word 'warm' which is equally
ellusive to find a definition for.

that said, brightness generally refers to how well the speaker reproduces
the highs. if a speaker is too bright, it sounds shrill and tinny. if its
not bright enough the highs just dont come through.

post a new thread with your question as the topic. i would be interested to
hear what others say.

randy

"stevev" wrote in message
m...
There's that word again...BRIGHT.

...I ended up choosing the
Denon for 3 reasons. The first and most important being the sound. I
felt
the Denon sounded smoother & warmer but not overly so. I felt the Yamaha
while nice sounded maybe a little TOO BRIGHT for my taste"...

Could someone explain to me exactly what bright sounds like? I only see
the
word in reference to Yamaha receivers. Don't think I have ever seen any
other manufacturer's product called bright, and speaker selection doesn't
seem to matter either. Just curious.

When someone uses the term bright they are usually referring to an emphasis
on the higher end of the musical spectrum. A tighter, sharper sound. The
opposite would be a warm, soft sound with the emphasis on the lower end.
Then there is neutral that does not emphasize either end of the spectrum.
Then of course everyone’s ears are not the same. Older people who do not
hear the higher frequencies as well may not find certain speakers or a
receiver as bright as a younger person.



Eddie