AV Receiver

"normanstrong" wrote in message news:[email protected]_s53...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as
determined by
some scientific test, at least in part. Seems that most "test" are
nothing
more than a listening test. Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe
how they
did their test of receivers.

CR may not have described how they did the tests, but they certainly
did them. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference in
sound quality between any 2 receivers. My advice is to follow CR
recommendations, unless there is some definite reason not to.

OK by me. I'll add that I suggest that the OP only try the gear
locally and buy locally, to make sure he gets a receiver that's easy
for him to use. Modern HT receivers have so many features, settings,
and capabilities that it's important to get a receiver that's easy to
use. A receiver that's hard or tricky to use will eventually see
little use.

The OP might also consider receivers from the same brand as other gear
he owns. Same-brand gear can often have brand-specific linking
features that will make the gear work together in a convenient way.
For example, inserting a DVD in the DVD player and pressing Play can
cause the receiver to power up automatically and go to the receiver's
correct settings. Check the manuals of the gear for these features.

Norm Strong

(Jeff) wrote in message om...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message ...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as determined by
some scientific test, at least in part. Seems that most "test" are nothing
more than a listening test. Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe how they
did their test of receivers

Why are you replying to a thread that's 5 YEARS OLD? TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!

Dave's post is dated 21-Oct-04. Checking Google, I see another post
with the same title from 1999, so maybe that's what you're looking at.

(N) wrote:

(Jeff) wrote in message
. com...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as determined by
some scientific test, at least in part. Seems that most "test" are
nothing
more than a listening test. Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe how
they
did their test of receivers

Why are you replying to a thread that's 5 YEARS OLD? TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!

Dave's post is dated 21-Oct-04. Checking Google, I see another post
with the same title from 1999, so maybe that's what you're looking at.

Perhaps you're right. I saw it as the 4th post in that particular thread on
Google Groups, dating back to 1999. But now that I see it HERE, it comes up as
the first post in an apparently new thread. My bad. Sorry Dave!

"N" wrote in message
om...
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as
determined by
some scientific test, at least in part. Seems that most "test" are
nothing
more than a listening test. Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe
how they
did their test of receivers.

They never do, which is as good a reason to be leery of them as anything
else. These guys are great with toaster ovens and steam irons, anything more
complicated than a blow dryer and they are in over their head, not to
mention their obvious bias

CR may not have described how they did the tests, but they certainly
did them. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference in
sound quality between any 2 receivers. My advice is to follow CR
recommendations, unless there is some definite reason not to.

OK by me. I'll add that I suggest that the OP only try the gear
locally and buy locally, to make sure he gets a receiver that's easy
for him to use. Modern HT receivers have so many features, settings,
and capabilities that it's important to get a receiver that's easy to
use. A receiver that's hard or tricky to use will eventually see
little use.

The OP might also consider receivers from the same brand as other gear
he owns. Same-brand gear can often have brand-specific linking
features that will make the gear work together in a convenient way.
For example, inserting a DVD in the DVD player and pressing Play can
cause the receiver to power up automatically and go to the receiver's
correct settings. Check the manuals of the gear for these features.

Norm Strong

wrote in message ...
"N" wrote in message
om...
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as
determined by
some scientific test, at least in part.

If you're referring to Consumer Reports' tests, as published in the
December issue, they didn't test for the above. They reviewed some
receivers in the $200 to $800 range, liked the $800 Onkyo the best,
but recommended a $300 Panasonic that scored almost as well.

Seems that most "test" are
nothing
more than a listening test.

Depends on the magazine. Among the consumer AV mags, Sound & Vision
does extensive tests.

I sometimes read the UK magazine "What HiFi?," which reviews a huge
amount of gear and does so often in comparisons (which I like), but
doesn't really test the gear (which bothers me). It's entirely
subjective. This year, they reviewed equipment racks and commented on
their sound quality! Weird.

Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe
how they
did their test of receivers.

The magazine doesn't have the room to describe every detail of their
tests. The audience of the magazine is general, typical consumers, not
the sort of people who want to review the testing process or get into
a lot of detail.

They never do, which is as good a reason to be leery of them as anything
else. These guys are great with toaster ovens and steam irons, anything more
complicated than a blow dryer and they are in over their head,

The testing the magazine does is pretty sophisticated (I believe they
have an anechoic chamber for speaker tests, for example; even many of
the audio magazines done't have those, BTW), they just don't dwell on
that in the magazine, because most typical readers want to read
results, not so much about the testing process, IMHO. Anyone who wants
more info about the testing process can always contact Consumers'
Union and the CR folks, I assume.

(snip)

CR may not have described how they did the tests, but they certainly
did them. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference in
sound quality between any 2 receivers. My advice is to follow CR
recommendations, unless there is some definite reason not to.

Agree. At the very least, it's a good place to start, because CR tests
gear in groups, and I think most consumers want to look at and compare
gear in groups. Sound & Vision does this sometimes also:

www.soundandvisionmag.com

I haven't checked the above web site, but I know in recent months S&V
did a comparison test of (three?) AV receivers that might be useful to
a shopper.

What would I do if I were shopping for a receiver? Unless I was loyal
to a particular brand, I'd probably look at the December SR and the
last year of S&V to get some ideas, then I'd go to my local stores.
Receivers are so complex now that the user interface and ergonomics
are very important to me, perhaps more than what goes on inside the
receivers. If a receiver's not easy to use, I won't use it. Been
there, done that.

I'd also look at whether a receiver will be easy to use with other
gear, which is something that gets scant attention from reviewers,
which can lead to consumers with a hodgepodge of gear, where each
piece of hardware requires its own remote, unless all functions can be
consolidated to a universal remote. Another way to get that sort of
simplicity of operation is to get a one-brand system from makers such
as JVC or Sony that offer linking that keeps all the hardware in
synch.

(snip)

(UnionPac2004) wrote in message ...
(N) wrote:

(Jeff) wrote in message
. com...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...
What is the best av receiver for under $1,000? The best as determined by
some scientific test, at least in part. Seems that most "test" are
nothing
more than a listening test. Even Consumer Reports doesn't describe how
they
did their test of receivers

Why are you replying to a thread that's 5 YEARS OLD? TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!

Dave's post is dated 21-Oct-04. Checking Google, I see another post
with the same title from 1999, so maybe that's what you're looking at.

Perhaps you're right. I saw it as the 4th post in that particular thread on
Google Groups, dating back to 1999. But now that I see it HERE, it comes up as
the first post in an apparently new thread. My bad. Sorry Dave!

It's kinda interesting how things on the internet can be viewed
different ways, with each reader thinking they're seeing the one
correct view. For example, in this thread, which when viewed in
Google, could be easily misinterpreted to be a thread that started in
1999. In this case, the confusion is caused by the 1999 and the 2004
threads both being started by posts with identical titles in the same
newsgroup.

(N) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message ...
"N" wrote in message
om...
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s53...
"Dave Herrera" wrote in message
...

(snip)

What would I do if I were shopping for a receiver? Unless I was loyal
to a particular brand, I'd probably look at the December SR

Oops, meant to say "December CR," as in Consumer Reports.

(snip)