Hello - it has been awhile since I've been on the forums but I always get great advice here. I am looking for a new receiver to go with a new set of M3s going in a kitchen addition to our house. This will be strictly for stereo listening, though I may add a sub (about 30% likelihood).

I am wondering what people think of the merits of a 2-channel vs. AV receiver on this purchase? I need A/B switching to power a pair of outdoor speakers just outside the kitchen. If I can find a multi-zone receiver, this will be helpful, b/c I am going for a whole house audio setup with Sonos. If the receiver has multizone, it can connect to my existing living room stereo amp, saving me the cost of buying an additional Sonos ZP80 transport in there (there will already be a second ZP80 in the rec/HT room where my main stereo is). Most of the music playing on the receiver will come from our digital music collection via a Sonos ZP80 in the new kitchen. The ZP80 is their transport without an amp. The ZP80 can output analog using its own DACs or digital relying on the receiver's DACs. From what I hear of the ZP80 DACs, using the receiver DACs is the better way to go.

I am looking at HK 3480 and the Onkyo and Denon comparable 2-channel receivers. They look great on paper and in the reviews, but two things concern me: 1) Do they have digital inputs? If not, I'll have to rely on the DAC on the Sonos. 2) Can you get any kind of bass management on a 2-channel receiver? 3) Will the multizone thing work via the receiver, or should I suck it up for another ZP80 ($349)? My wife might rebel at that notion.

Given the concerns, I wonder if I ought to just get a 2-channel or instead an AV receiver from HK, Onkyo, or Denon for the digital inputs and, down the road, bass mgt options. Not sure how the multizone thing will play out.

Appreciate any thoughts on these many issues.

austinbirdman

If you're thinking of going the AV receiver route, check out the Yamaha RX-V659. It has multizone capabilites and costs somewhere in the range of $300-350 US. Powerwise, its rated very conservatively at 100wpc, and has been tested at audioholics.com to put out much more then that, 130-140 if i remember correctly. It does has A/B switching for front mains and I'm about 80% certain that this receiver actually has 3 zones. The main one, a second one that can use the powered amp outputs of the surround back channels, and another zone of outputs that isn't powered. The one I'm not certain about is the last non-powered zone... Either way, it sounds like it will do everything you asked (unless I missed something).

The receiver I have in my sig is nearly identical to this one, except it lacks the second zone and has a slightly different front panel. Only reason I went for this one was because I live in Canada and the RX-V659 is a lot harder to come by at a decent price.

AB, welcome back. As a practical matter an HT receiver is usually a more cost effective buy unless it's almost certain that only two speakers will ever be driven, bass management for a sub won't be needed, and another zone won't be set up. If some of the output transistors aren't being used because of inactive channels that's no big deal and shouldn't be considered a "waste"; the full power from the power supply section is available for whatever channels are in use.

There're several fine HT receivers available at moderate cost. For example, the Onkyo 604 is available for around $380 from J&R or 6th Ave.

Thanks for the advice - I'm a bit shocked a stereo forum can't drum up more defenders of the dedicated stereo receiver. I take this as a sign the AV receiver really is the way to go.

Austinbirdman

If I was In your position I would choose a good integrated amp. You can find many great amps used for 400 or less. No they dont have digital inputs, But many do have a/b speakers.

I would not view it as a negative that more people did not "defend" the stereo receiver, but that it is more a matter of your phrasing of your question.

As we are all aware, HT is the technology choice when looking at home entertainment. Pure 2 channel audio choices can and will, limit the potential to build an HT environment. While HT holds a small portion in my life, audio is a large factor. I can say that I did not respond simply because I am not a big fan of receivers, and would be more inclined to purchase, as someone mentioned, an integrated amp for stereo listening.

There are many choices and directions that you can go...depending on budget, needs and wants.

I'm looking for some vintage equipment for a friend as we speak. The system is only used in stereo, only ever will be used with two speakers.
As such, i see no reason to buy an A/V receiver with options that will never be used, unrequired plugins, etc.

Some of the old Pioneer and Realistic (or gasp, Sony) receivers are beasts and can be found with some careful searching for under $150. Finding a 50lb receiver for under $150 these days is unheard of, let alone one that has the gorgeous wood grain finish!!

I had those same thoughts, I'm currently using 2 vintage pioneer receivers, one for the guest room and one for my outdoor speakers. Both work, look and sound great, and each cost less than $100.00 on e-bay.

I gotta jump in here. I was going through this same dilema about 6 months ago and that was when I got re-introduced to vintage 2 channel receivers. I had forgotten how smooth they sounded and how perfect they were for what I wanted-straight 2 channel stereo with 2 speakers. After going through about 10 different receivers, I now own a Sansui 9090DB & a Pioneer SX-1250. The Sansui is 125wpc & the Pioneer is 160wpc + a few extra!!! I love their sound and they are great with the TV, CD or tuner. For me, they were the perfect fit and I would highly recommend at least considering them as an option for pure stereo playing. This has also led me to another hobby-buying and selling vintage receivers.

I just picked up an Outlaw RR2150 stereo receiver. Sounds great, tons of features, relatively cheap. Did I mention it sounds great? Phono pre-amp + USB input. Future meets past. I've got it hooked up to a pair of M3's, and it sounds phenomenal. Love it.

I have a brand new pair of M60s and am looking to upgrade my existing stereo receiver, a Radio Shack Optimus STA-2170, to a Harman-Kardon HK3480. This system is for stereo music only since I already have an Onkyo based HT upstairs. One thing this forum thread has made me wonder, however, is how much better the newer HK receiver will sound vs. the "vintage" RS one. The RS is 100w/ch (full info at http://support.radioshack.com/support_audio/26927.htm) and has performed well over the years, though I can't help but feel that a modern receiver like the HK should outclass it fairly easily. If I decide to go for it, I'll try to remember to report what I hear here.

I can't say much about the radio shack receiver that you currently have, but I've had the HK3480 for a year or two now paired with M60's and I've been very impressed. No matter what volume I choose it always sounds great. In fact, I occasionally use it as a 2.0 home theater system and it sounds wonderful there too!

One question though. Why do you feel the need to upgrade your receiver? Do you feel that there's something lacking in your current setup?

Well I went ahead and got the HK. I'm ashamed to say it but part of my reasoning to make the purchase was because of laziness. The old RS unit has no remote. The HK not only has a remote, but has an IR port that permits me to sync volume and power to my Squeezebox through its IR blaster function. That's cool. With respect to the sound, the differences are subtle but noticeable. I'm still experimenting, but the HK seems to deliver a more impressive sense of space (soundstage). I could also be convinced that it has better clarity and cleaner bass, but since I don't have an A-B setup and don't fully trust my memory, I can't be one-hundred percent on this one. The VMAx (2-channel surround) feature is an interesting special-effect that's fun to play with, but largely unusable for any serious listening as it makes the music muddy and makes the sound so non-directional that it feels like it's in your head. I guess I can at least say that the RS unit was no slouch, but the HK is a worthwhile step up. Now I just have to figure out what to do with the old unit.