Right now I am running a VP150 center and M22Ti's but may upgrade to M60's in the future. I can get a new AVR240 at a pretty good price locally but I don't know if the 50 watt rating is adequate. I currently have a 65 watt HK AVR65 which is plenty loud. I am also looking at the Denon AVR2106 which I would rather have, but is is over $100 more than either of these HK's. I suppose if I plan to keep this receiver for several years, my current one lasted 8, then I should get the one I want and not worry about the extra cash.
But is 50 watts will suffice, I may go that route.
Greg
As long as it has pre-outs, I wouldn't be concerned at all about the amp section. 50 watts would prob prove adequate - if not, adding an outboard amp need not be too expensive. Plus, after you get a fancy amp you can go on and on about how it made the _______ more _________, and the ________ more _________.
It is my understanding that HK rates their receivers very concervatively, and are high current designed. Some manufacturers claim gobs of watts per channel, however, they are not full bandwidth rated (20hz - 20khz). I think the HK will do fine, and give you all the volume you can take. Besides the m60's are very easy, efficient, speakers anyway.
I'm sure some of the other HK owners will jump in here and provide feedback...
Greg, the first point is that the 240 rating is 65 watts, using the more realistic two channels driven standard. Then, as Randy mentioned, HK is also conservative and takes their rating farther down on the distortion curve than they'd have to; the rating would probably be about 70-75 watts on the same standard which the 2106 uses for a 100 watt rating(which is an accurate rating, as legally required by the FTC, and is 20-20KHz, full range). That number of watts should be enough in most cases, and if it wasn't, 100 watts is only about 1-1/2 dB more in maximum output and wouldn't make that significant of an increase in capability.
It depends how good that price you mentioned is. The 240 is available for around $350; the 2106 for around $500(the HK 435 is also around $500 and so is more nearly comparable in price). My own view would be to go with the 435 or 2106 if the budget will stretch a bit.
I agree with Johnk. It will work fine but if you can stretch the budget a bit I would go a little higher.
I'd probably go with a 40 series H/K, just for that cool iPod passthrough function.
In reply to:
I would go a little higher
If you are buying to last a few years, spend the bucks and get the features you want.
Feature wise the HK AVR240 has what I want, it is the power rating that might be off. The 335/340 has only a five watt power advantage but does have multi-room which I have no use for. So the money is not well spent on that unit. The 435 would be a good move but it doesn't have the iPod bridge option and the 440 is too far off.
The Denon is a nice option but it to lacks the iPod connector and bass management is limited to setting the same crossover for all speakers. You can choose 40hz, 60hz, 80hz and so on, but all speakers need to use the same frequency. The HK's allow for independent crossovers.
www.relayvillage.com has a way you can buy the AVR240 online for $399 and pick it up locally. So no freight charge makes the price comparable to an on-line etailer for $350 where you have a $30 shipping charge. Then there is the local advantage where I can return it for whatever reason for 30 days. That makes the $20 price premium worth it. I would still probably buy the Denon if I could get one locally for even $550 but I doubt that will happen.
I'll give a listen to an AVR240 on my lunch break and take it from there.
Thanks for the input.
Greg
Sounds like a good plan to me.
Are you music or HT? Do you have a sub?
Primary use is HT, but I am listening to more music as my M22Ti's sound so good. I also have a powered sub.
Greg
Hey GregM, I'm running an AVR110 which is 45 watts all around I think.
I'm currently running M60's VP150 QS8's and HSU VTF3-MKII and it goes plenty loud and clear. I've not had any distortion yet as it has got too loud to push it any further.
The only thing I noticed is that I do not seem to get as much bass from the 60's as I've heard at other places. This could easily be my room/set up/layout though.
For h/t it will easily do the job for you depending on your room size. Mine is 20' long by 10 wide. Tv & speakers on the short wall.
With the powered sub and 22s, I think you'll do well to try the 240.
Good Luck!
Took an early lunch and went to RelayVillage. I did a side by side comparison between a 335 and a 235. The volume knob needed about a 5db adjustment to get sound about even, but the subwoofer difference was huge. With the 335 the sub sounded like I expected it to. With the 235, it barely put out anything. I checked speaker settings on both receivers and they were the same. The difference was like not having a sub altogether.
I'll have to go back after work when I have more time and see if I can get the AVR235 to sound better. Maybe the 235 wasn't working right? I can always buy the 240 and if it is bad, just return it. I thought this was going to be easy.
Greg
That's wierd. I would be careful about drawing any conclusions from this. The subwoofer output is the only place where a bigger/better receiver should NOT make a difference.
Did you have a chance to check the channel levels between the two receivers ? It sounds as if the sub level might have been turned down relative to the other speakers on the 235.
The sub is usually connected to a pre-out. This means the reciver isn't providing any amplification to the sub.
The sub takes the line level signal (which should be the same between the 235 and 335 if the levels arent set different in the reciever) and amplify it with the subs own internal amplifier.
Check the levels setting in the receivers and the gain/volume knobs on the subs, make sure they are equal. If so, switch subs- maybe one's blown?
You guys are right about the pre-out thing of course. From a sub standpoint, these receivers should sound identical.
I went ahead and bought a new AVR240 despite this concern and will pick it up after work. I can take it back in 30 days time for any reason which is the nice thing about buying local. It was worth the $50 premium I had to pay.
I am sure it will sound great and I'll post back tonight with my findings.
Greg
Sounds like a good call. I have put HK130s into a few friend's HT setups and in every case it plays clearly at higher volumes than they would ever care to hear, assuming the sub can keep up.
What a good move the AVR 240 was!
I am sure I am suffering from newcomponentitis but it seems like this 2005 model receiver does a better job with surround sound than my 1998 era HK AVR65. That is probably wishful thinking but oh well. The 50 watts is plenty of power and Iike being able to set crossovers whereever I want them to be. Movie watching is done about 5db higher than with the AVR65 but I still have plenty of headroom. At -10db, the into to Fellowship of the Ring was a little too loud. Music needs to be at about -20db but my older model had this same 10 db difference.
If one has money to burn or other demands, a higher price receiver is likely worth it. But if you just want to watch movies at moderate to pretty dang loud levels, take a look at this unit. Money well spent. Time to watch Riding Giants.
Greg