Old vs new - reciever differences

Reply

  #1  
Old 01-28-15, 09:22 AM
E
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 22
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Old vs new - reciever differences

Is there really any sound quality differences between different recievers? I have an older kenwood reciever, extremely bare bones unit by today's standards, used primarily for movies and occasionally gaming. I'm wondering if I would get better sound from something newer BUT not high end.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 01-28-15, 09:40 AM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I'm no expert and I'll wait to see some replies just as you. My thinking is this (and I could be wrong). The new stereos have better surround and are easier to hook up. As far as sound quality, I have a Kenwood Receiver from around 1988. 250W per channel and at the time was one of the best receivers ever made. I doubt anything would sound as good as this receiver except maybe very high end power amps.
 
  #3  
Old 01-28-15, 11:14 AM
E
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 22
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
As a side note, my kenwood reciever is 12 years old and has dolby digital, pro logic2, and DTS.
 
  #4  
Old 01-28-15, 12:14 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,119
Received 3 Votes on 3 Posts
Surround sound does indeed sound better...even on a cheap unit. If yours is only 2 channel stereo, 5.1 or 7.1 will be a huge change.
 
  #5  
Old 01-28-15, 12:22 PM
E
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 22
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
My reciever is 5.1. It has a passive sub which I am replacing with an active one. Don't believe the reciever has adjustable crossover frequencies .
 
  #6  
Old 01-28-15, 12:36 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 21,119
Received 3 Votes on 3 Posts
I guess if you are a maestro, you might notice differences between cheaper and better brands. These old ears just don't really hear it anymore. I can feel the bass but I need to clearly hear the highs (talking, singing, etc). Thats all about the sound settings.

I had a system with an active sub...much easier to hook up except for finding another outlet for it. Much better sound I thought too...att. Now the passive pounding away in the other room drives me crazy when trying to sleep. The active you could at least turn off!.
 
  #7  
Old 01-28-15, 03:27 PM
P
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 23,393
Received 586 Votes on 540 Posts
Like you I am running a 12 year old receiver. At this point it's video side is where it's really lagging behind the times. Sound wise though it's still holding up well. You've got good basic audio decoding so as long as it has the inputs and does the switching you want I would not change.

The big question for me is a amp. I assume you have an all in one with the amplifier in the same box as the receiver. Depending on your speakers and the volume levels I find the amp is where you might notice the biggest difference with a more modern receiver. The amp sections have gotten more efficient and the distortion at higher output is generally much less. A cheap unit will still fall apart at higher output but modern technology has made higher output cleaner and more affordable.

Would I chunk a 12 year old unit for a new one expecting better sound? No. Save your money for when someone spills a beverage on your old unit killing it. I don't think you'll see enough benefit to go from a working 10 year old to the same quality/price category just newer.
 
  #8  
Old 01-28-15, 07:40 PM
Beachboy's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northeast Kansas
Posts: 756
Received 1 Vote on 1 Post
My fleet of receivers consists mainly of 30-35 year old mid-level units from Kenwood, Sony, Marantz, and Realistic. I also have a 10 year old Yamaha 5.1 receiver, but for 99% of my movie watching, I prefer 2 channel stereo through a 1986 60 wpc Sony receiver. Just my preference.

As for construction quality, I feel the older units that were built in Japan (or in the USA for really vintage stuff) are superior to much of the equipment coming out of China nowadays. The older units used discrete output transistors, rather than the monoblock amplifiers found in most mid-range new amps. Additionally, components on older equipment were mounted on the printed circuit boards as to be fairly easy to access and replace, unlike today's surface-mount components. I also feel the quality of the individual components was much better several decades ago. There has been a lot of concern recently over faulty electrolytic capacitors sourced from China that fail prematurely. As for aesthetics, the old receivers have it hands-down over new units, with their walnut cabinets and brushed aluminum front panels and machined knobs.

One thing in favor of new units is the price --- I paid $350 for a 40 wpc Kenwood stereo receiver in 1977, and today you can get a 100 wpc 5.1 surround sound receiver for half that (not even taking into consideration the value of the dollar in 1977 vs 2015).
 
  #9  
Old 01-28-15, 08:42 PM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I like your thinking Beachboy and the fact you have a fleet of receivers.
Price is a big factor, I think most would agree. The Kenwood I speak of was about $800.00 in '88.
That was quite a bit at the time.
I wanted a Yamaha with separate amp, preamp and tuner. That was a little more so I went the other route. Besides, nobody needs a 350 watt per channel amp?? Or do they?
 
  #10  
Old 01-29-15, 09:07 AM
A
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 4,064
Received 75 Votes on 69 Posts
On older receivers you typically have a separate path for each kind of video for example connect HDMI receiver output to Video 1 on your TV. If you have a VCR, connected via red/white/yellow (composite & audio) cable, then you need to make another TV connection, red/white/yellow to Video 2 of the TV. Then if you have a DVD player connected via red/red/green/blue/white (component video & audio) you need to connect red/red/green/blue/white to Video 3 of your TV, and so on.

Many newer receivers will funnel (or cross feed) it all to a single HDMI connection for your TV.
 
  #11  
Old 02-02-15, 12:49 PM
E
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 22
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
My method would be to connect all my devices to the TV with the best type of cable each device supports ( hdmi for ps3, rca for ps2, component for wii...). Then run a digital optical cord from the TV to the reciever. I don't really see why a reciever should be connected differently since the only purpose is audio. Video through a reciever is just passing through and subject to reciever problems ( connectors being bad or lag time when switching from one input to another).
 
  #12  
Old 02-13-15, 02:46 AM
A
Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Old vs new - reciever differences

I totally agree with beachboy. I am also using 7.1 for almost 8 years and one of my friend recently purchase a home theater hmmm if I am not wrong it's samsung HT and he is not to happy with the output when he compare with my old home theater
 
Reply
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description: