If you listen to music at home--don't buy an AV receiver!
(Credit:
Harman Kardon)
Today's audiovisual receivers are complicated things. They can be a real pain to use, have excruciatingly complicated menu systems, and many don't even accommodate turntables! Point is if you're mostly interested in playing music do yourself a big favor and buy a stereo receiver.
Like Harman Kardon's new HK 3490 two times 120 watt receiver ($449). In my opinion Harman makes the best sounding AV receivers, and I have every reason to expect their stereo models to be even better. The engineers invested in a high-performance phono preamp, pre-out/main-in jacks, and high-current amplification. You also get front panel access to bass & treble controls, dual subwoofer outputs and if you ever miss surround sound switch on the Dolby Virtual Speaker processing that simulates surround from two speakers.
You can, of course, use the HK 3490 with a 2.0 or 2.1 channel home theater system.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
I usually like reading your columns because on a lot of audio topics you are right but this is the dumbest advice I have ever read. ?Spend your hard-earned $500 on a piece of equipment that is obsolete. It won?t even let you hear movies in the sound that they are encoded for, but don?t worry you can use a sound program (this coming from a man that doesn?t like CD?s because they are digitally compressed) to get a movie LIKE sound.?
DUDE the advice should be blunt and honest, not a sales job for HK. I cannot see how you can even recommend a stereo receiver. OK maybe if you have globs of cash and you already have your $6 million home theater with upconverted picture and subs in front of speakers to further distort the sound than you should go buy yourself a useless stereo receiver.
For that same $500 you can buy a new Yamaha/Pioneer or Onkyo that will have video and audio capability don?t waste your money on a stereo only receiver.
Next you will recommend spending your money on an analog 13 inch black and white tube TV, because you don?t really need color or high definition or for that matter remote controls as we are too fat and should change the channel manually.
Just for the record, Steve, I've owned both a high-end audio receiver and a AV receiver and if you get a quality AV receiver, the sound is just as good as an audio receiver of similar quality. ..and yes, I do listen to music at home. I would assume as an audiophile, most of us actually have some ability in hooking things up so to say AV receivers are complicated could not be giving your audience enough credit.
If you're really serious about two channel sound, buy an integrated amplifier, not a receiver.
I think that Steve may have been alluding to an economic factor, but I'm not certain. If you DO consider costs, a similarly priced stereo unit should, by all means, outperform the multichannel unit in terms of music playback performance. If the cost is the same but the number of parts is less (2 amp outputs vs 5-7 outputs, no digital circuitry vs surround sound processor, etc) the manufacturer should be putting in higher quality parts in the stereo version than in the HT version. In my opinion, Arcam makes the best sounding HT receivers (in terms of music playback - Lexicon? Sorry, they're the best in surround, but they suck for 2 channel), but even their (Arcam's) more modestly-priced integrated amps outperform their flagship receiver in 2 channel playback.
SO, it's all about priorities, IMO. If 2 channel is really what you're after, and HT is, eh, just nice to have, skip the "nice to have" and get better 2 channel for the same price...
Why don't you rethink this last post, and how about next friday come out with an apology letter to your LOYAL readers. Furthermore, if you really want to promote two channel audio from specifically engineered devices why don't you write up a full review of "stereo" from the entry level (the HK unit here), all the way up to a McIntosh separates system.
Due to your unique situation in the world of audio your blog is one of the few that I really look forward to each week. It's usually fun and light hearted, but if your going to continue to call yourself the "AUDIOPHILIAC," you need to get back to writing like an audiophile.
One more thing, STOP criticizing center channels. We get it, you're not down with them.
It's the first electronic device I find confusing at times. In fact it simply has too many options.
It's also the first receiver I actually feel is poorer in quality over all then any I have owned before.
I have had Yamaha integrated amps and receivers and felt the sound was much better. It seems in the design to have as many input and output options. Companies have gone cheap on the audio section.
Cambridge Audio A-500 stereo integrated amp ($250.00)
Tivoli Audio Model One AM/FM radio used as a tuner ($75.00)
And if your budget is under $500.00, I'd still have money left over for either a Sony SCD-CE595 5 disc CD/SACD changer or an Oppo 980 universal player.
I have a "hi-fi" (Odyssey monoblocks, Perreaux pre-amp) but I still like the sound of the HK very much. It's sweet sounding and it rocks with power to spare.
i think Steve kinda gets there by pointing out AV receivers are complicated, and by citing the good things the HK has, but...I would have liked more compare and contrast.
That said, it's a fair piece.
Scott Atkinson
Watertown NY
You can work the menu system if you can work a Mac.
How about saying Harmon Kardon the best available at Big Box, or Jaguar, not as sucky as a Ford. (and a grille that looks like a toilet seat lid)
Could we be honest once in awhile?
- by exerciseguy June 30, 2008 7:26 PM PDT
- I generally steer away from CNET for audio reviews, they tend to be oversimplified & too geared towards HT, IMHO. This "review" is a joke, however, HK products aren't., and stereo receivers are every bit as useful today as they were 30-40 yrs. ago. I own & love my HK3485, it's sweet & simple, sounds great, and was priced right (under $200). I listen to a lot of radio, virtually everything I want to listen to is in stereo, and sometimes even mono, so why by extra channels if you'll NEVER use them?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (25 Comments)I assure you, the HK3485 is as good as, or better than every other stereo receiver south of $600. Might a separate integrated amp/receiver combo sound better, perhaps (but I doubt it at this price range), but good luck trying to find them for less than the HK3490 ($329), let alone the price of the HK3485 ($199).