Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Rotel and NAD

In a recent post in "Receiver Flip-Flop", people began discussing Rotel and NAD as brands that bear a close look when considering A/V components.

I've learned quite a bit from reading items on these boards, and I think it is safe to say that the posters here stand behind the Denon 3803, the Yamaha 2400 and a few others as the "standard-bearers" for that particular price-point.

Would anyone care to throw out some similar "can't miss" A/V receivers (or combos) in the price range of 1200-1800. I assume some of the offerings of Rotel and NAD - and perhaps Outlaw which seems to get good press here most of the time - would be included in such a list, but I'd be interested in learning what other brands deserve consideration.

Along the same lines, what DVD/CD players in the 700-1200 realm should be considered "must-sees"?

I seem to enjoy "quote marks".

thanks

Also, I would echo the sentiments of many others by noting that this board is fantastic in terms of levels of advice, scope of information and ease of navigation. I have gone from "Well, I'll just log on to Crutchfield and buy what they're selling on close-out" to "If I don't eat for 4 out of 7 days, I can probably get the M80s..."

LOL!

Glad we could help you with your "diet".

Neo, welcome. I'll make the point that in my view it generally isn't necessary to attempt to differentiate equipment by "price points", since in audio there's very little correlation between price and sound quality. If you had $2,000 instead of $1,000 I wouldn't be thinking Rotel, NAD or anything else for $2,000, but rather to use the $1,000 on a Yamaha,say, and possibly spend the rest on something that'll make more of a difference, like CDs and DVDs. Or if not, invest the $1,000 instead of spending it and it'll turn into $20-$30 thousand years later.

Now is that
$20-$30 a tousand years later or
$20-$30,000 years later?

If it's the later, how many years are you talking? Offer a guarantee, and I'll write you a check right now.

As a proud owner, I'll throw in Arcam as making fantastic receivers in that price range, albeit with limited feature sets. Night-and-day better music performance than Japanese receivers, however.

Unless you're really into the one-box solution thing, give the Outlaw separates serious consideration. There's more choice out there in affordable amplifiers as well, such as Anthem's PVA series. That way, should more formats and features come out, you only need to replace the pre/pro...amplification is amplification, and most amplifiers perform well for decades.

If you're looking for great DVD players, the Denon 2200 is reputed to be fantastic. The new Cambridge Audio DVD-A looks and sounds great. If you're willing to forego DVD-A/SACD, audition those new Panasonic recorders with the buit-in hard drives at that price point.

Peter, if you'd follow the advice of some of the sleazy characters who inhabit the investing and tax board I work, it'd be the former. Follow my advice and it'll be the latter.

Craig, the years are those a young person would have available for investing, say 30 or more(sorry, no instant millionairedom). Since I can't offer that guarantee, I'll have to pass on your check, but just put it into the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund(VTSMX)for the rest of your life and don't worry about it.

Half my 403b is Vanguard (the other half is TIAA-CREF). Are you saying I should put all of my Vanguard assets into that fund?

My father-in-law says you can't go wrong with a fund that follows S&P index (something like 75% of 25% return).

Peter, you're using the two fund groups which I'm constantly suggesting on the board, much to the annoyance of the characters peddling loaded funds with high annual expense ratios. Depends on what specific funds that you have. I specifically suggest the VTSMX or for TIAA-CREF, their equity index fund. Besides the 403(b), once you've put in enough to get the employer match(if any),don't overlook Roth IRA contributions. Your father-in-law sounds like a wise man, although I have no idea what 75% of 25% means.

Just to go farther off topic... my choices are only the funds available within American Funds. Any thoughts? As I'm young yet, I've split it 25% + 25% in high growth, 25% in income, and 25% in bonds. Does that sound reasonable?

Watch out, spiffnme's going to kick us all into the OT thread!

My employer puts in 5% each pay period regardless of my own contributions. I love my benefits. I'm so spoiled in that regard that I'm sure whatever job I end up having next will have to be a step downward in that regard.

About the numbers, I think my FiL meant that my long-term personal rate of return on an S&P-following fund would be 75% of 25% -- which works out to 18.75%. I'm not sure why it works out that way. He just said that if I was doing significantly worse than that I should re-evaluate which funds I had.


I deeply apoplogize for hijacking this thread, everyone -- but I sure love the greatly varied amounts of info we can get around here.

Ken, the American Funds are a good group, but unfortunately they all carry high sales loads(except in rare instances where a very large employer has made special arrangements). What sort of plan are you in, and are you sure that's the only group available(administrators lie on occasion)? If it is, the Growth Fund of America has performed well(but with the huge burden of a load of up to 5.75%)and that might be your best option. You need no income or bond investments, you should be 100% in stocks.

Yeah, it's that one. So no bonds or income, huh? Makes me kind of nervous, that.

Peter, since your own contributions don't affect the employer's contribution, you should in part consider Roths for yourself and your wife instead(you'd have until 4/15/04 to make a contribution for 2003).

Possibly I was a bit hasty in praising your father-in-law. If he implied that you could expect anything like a 18.75% average annual return in the long run, that just isn't realistic. The very long-term average in the market has been about 10% a year.

Wow, did you boys ever take that thread for a hijack and then some.
I'm going back to fhw in his opinions.
I love Arcam stuff.
I love Anthem stuff.
I've heard the Denon 3802 (although i'm positive it is adding some type of funky echo DSP over the top which i have to look into).
The Outlaw stuff is also proving to be a real true piece of hardware for price.
But to throw out an often overlooked brand, Onkyo is also tried and true. Certainly no problems here to date.
For the cash you can get newer features from some brands such as Yamaha though. This is really the latest craze and consideration.

I would have to agree with JohnK here even from a Cdn perspective.
10% annual return is pretty reasonable but over the past 2 years, 5-8% is about the average.
Perhaps us Cdns don't need as much $$ to get by. Certainly our real estate is a ton cheaper. I really pity my relatives in Virginia.

In reply to:

---

Certainly our real estate is a ton cheaper. I really pity my relatives in Virginia.

---

Was that a joke? Please tell me you were joking.

A joke?
Uh, no.
My brother just paid nearly 225k USD for a condo, looking at 300k+ USD for 2 bdrm houses in Virginia (and not much different in Washington nor Florida nor California where we have other relatives).
We just paid 113K Cdn for a 2 story, 3 bdrm, 11yr old house with extra long lot, fenced yard, attached garage in a very new neighborhood.
I would say our real estate is a rather better scene unless you really live in the boondocks somewhere. I don't think California applies as 'boondock' locations though.

Sorry spiif.
Canada is a cheap place to live comparitively (minor exceptions for 3 major cities).

I figured Canada was cheap, but my mother just moved to VA, and it was pretty darn cheap there too!

I've been looking at buying a place here in LA, and have come to the conclusion, that it's simply not going to happen. The STARTING point for a CONDO is about $400,000. Small 2 bedroom houses begin at about $525K, but most are at least $600-700.

I love this place, but I guess I'll be flushing rent down the toilet as long as I live here.

Hey chesseroo,

I take it you're probably in Alberta. Possibly Calgary!! My friend bought there recently as well. Pretty cheap. Unfortunately we don't see those kind of prices here in T.O.

I can vouce for Aeromos. A tiny 2 level loft 990sq feet + 150 sq feet balcony in downtown Toronto is twice and a half your price Chess..

Chess, are there any houses for sale on your street?

still off topic, but if anyone wants to check out real estate prices in Canada check http://www.mls.ca/mls/home.asp.

The price varies greatly depending on your geographic location.

The 3 exception cities i was referring to are Vancouver, Calgary and the GTA. Those locations are inflated compared to the rest of the country.
Nonetheless, there is no price comparison b/w Cdn realestate and the US in general. The States is ridiculously overpriced. A condo in downtown TO is $225 Cdn. A condo in downtown Washington DC (same cost in Arlington, VA) is $250 USD!!
Do the exchange math.
Its not pretty.

Actually Peter, we are moving ourselves sometime later this year.
Incidentally, we have had over 8 ppl move in the past year including our next door neighbor. Mind you, they only moved 6 houses down the road to a larger house.
This really is an excellent neighborhood.
There is an annual (into its 7th year now) pig roast each May in the cul de sac.

For the same money I payed for my place I could have gotten a nice chalet in Fernie, BC twice the size of my place in downtown Toronto. Then I would not be seen in the winters.

Fernie is sick. Some of the best snow I have ever ridden.

Slang these days...