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!