The Latest Purchase - Onkyo TX-NR818

[the record spot]

Did any of that need to be said? Not to mention that if you have not heared the 8050 and the 818 your opinion is worthless...

Well, indeed, or at least, to discount my view based on my own experience, but then spouts off some nonsense about AV amps not amps not being up to the job. Well, maybe once upon a time, but this amp proves there's at least one AV amp out there that can deliver.

I just tire of some of the nonsense that some audiophiles spout; it's almost like a depressing mantra that gets pushed out there as "fact" when it's just a tired opinion that doesn't hold up anymore. People rightly are more questioning of some of this stuff.

 

[rendu]

So, you are the one who found the only AVR receiver that is wonderful with music, eh? Right. Aleluya!

I have spent already too much energy today on this non-sense post and I am not going to accept anybody continue insulting me anymore calling me idiot or ingnorant. It seems that after several attempts it has been impossible to clarify the reason for my post and my original interest in the 8050. You can keep your false courtesy for yourself like the rest of your advises, to me your credibility is gone. I definetly do not own you any additional explanations and I could not care less about what you do with your AVR. You can use it to make toasts if you like, I am sure that you will manage same as you will manage to get the THX experience with your 2 channels, right?

 

[matthewpiano]

I just tire of some of the nonsense that some audiophiles spout; it's almost like a depressing mantra that gets pushed out there as "fact" when it's just a tired opinion that doesn't hold up anymore. People rightly are more questioning of some of this stuff.

Couldn't agree more RS. It is all getting a bit old.

 

[Overdose]

Blimey!

If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought someone would have mentioned AVI speakers in this thread to get this response.

 

[GMK]

TRS, how do the speakers sound biamped in comparison?

 

[the record spot]

So, you are the one who found the only AVR receiver that is wonderful with music, eh? Right. Aleluya!

LOL, I don't think I said that. Try reading again and then understanding the inference.

I have spent already too much energy today on this non-sense post

...says the guy who created a post that stated he wasn't going to buy the 8050 because someone else decided to buy another the NR818 having previously owned the 8050 and as a result of his own misguided prejudice about AV amps, having previously been idiotic enough to have bought five of them and still not managed to get one sounding good, decides not to buy the 8050.

I think that sums your position up. You were saying about nonsense posts...?

...and I am not going to accept anybody continue insulting me anymore calling me idiot or ingnorant.

Then don't come onto this thread like the big "I am" and acting like you know it all. You chose to to behave as you did, express yourself as you did and as far as I'm concerned, you reap what you sow,

It seems that after several attempts it has been impossible to clarify the reason for my post and my original interest in the 8050.

You were thinking about buying the 8050 when you read my thread on it. You read this thread and now doubt the 8050 because we might have different requirements about what constitutes good sound, therefore you won't buy the 8050 because traditionally AV amps have had poorer sound quality. I mean, you haven't even gone to the bother of finding out for yourself...?! #screwy

You can keep your false courtesy for yourself like the rest of your advises, to me your credibility is gone.

Like I care; count the tears ducky...

I definetly do not own you any additional explanations and I could not care less about what you do with your AVR. You can use it to make toasts if you like, I am sure that you will manage same as you will manage to get the THX experience with your 2 channels, right?

I wasn't asking for any additional explanations. Your exhibition of yourself todate has been worth the price of entry alone. I'm rather glad you don't care what I do with my amp, but, fortunately, I do, and that's what counts.

Hmmm, I don't recall saying that my two speakers would give me the benefits of multichannel, which of course THX and the various other formats offer. Why would you assume that? Are you over-tired...?

 

[the record spot]

TRS, how do the speakers sound biamped in comparison?

Just need to get some new cable mate - probably at the weekend. Might order some off Ebay though - another trip to Digitalis Direct is in order methinks...!

 

[Anonymous]

Blimey!

If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought someone would have mentioned AVI speakers in this thread to get this response.

LMAO :clap:

 

[the record spot]

I just tire of some of the nonsense that some audiophiles spout; it's almost like a depressing mantra that gets pushed out there as "fact" when it's just a tired opinion that doesn't hold up anymore. People rightly are more questioning of some of this stuff.

Couldn't agree more RS. It is all getting a bit old.

For sure Matthew, it does my head in. Once upon a time, it probably held true, but in recent years, the manufacturers have upped their game with regard to music. The 8050 does a great job, but I'm deeply impressed with the 818 in Pure Audio mode. I'm listening to Madeline Peyroux's "Careless Love" album and it's just excellent. Very high quality audio and I'd recommend this amp if someone likes a refined, detailed and crystal clear (but not bright) presentation that oozes atmosphere. I've been got slap-bang in the sweet spot.

 

[the record spot]

Blimey!

If I didn't know any better, I'd have thought someone would have mentioned AVI speakers in this thread to get this response.

Hahaha, good one! Oi you...!

 

[matt49]

I personally believe, hAVIng used both the 8050 and the 818 as well as other, aherm, "serious" hifi amps (what do statements like this mean, really?), that both do "hifi" well.

Overdose, your instinct was correct. It's a subliminal thing.

 

[GMK]

Just need to get some new cable mate - probably at the weekend. Might order some off Ebay though - another trip to Digitalis Direct is in order methinks...!

I did laugh when I saw this thread today. I've been away for 5 days at my partners, sans WHF and I happened to mention in passing the 818 to her only a couple of days ago. The look I got when I told her/excitedly explained biamping was priceless :rofl:

 

[the record spot]

It's a curse I tell ya, it's a curse!

 

[rendu]

Well, maybe once upon a time, but this amp proves there's at least one AV amp out there that can deliver.

Yes, you did say so, but appart from insulting others pretty good you also seem be able to say 5 lies out of 4 words. You definetly seem to "tick all the boxes" also like your lovely amps.

I have owned 5 AVRs because I love CINEMA. This is the main purpose of multichannel AVRs. You seem to be the only iluminated in this forum who has purchased a multichannel home cinema to use it with 2 channels. First I thought that it was a joke but, well later I found that the only joke here is yourself.

Regarding "old prejudes audiophile depresing mantra" bla, bla, bla.... I still have not seen any review of any AVR from WHF where they classify any AVR as anything better than good for music (never seen "very good" or, extraordinary, etc.). Every review where they state that the AVR is good with music also contains the sentence "not as good as a dedicated stereo amp". Read the lates Sony, Denon and Yamaha reviews.

I have also previously added a link for your reading pleasure .

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20082026-47/how-can-30-year-old-receivers-sound-better-than-new-ones/

Here is the curriculum of this guy in the article:

"Ex-movie theater projectionist Steve Guttenberg has also worked as a high-end audio salesman, and as a record producer. Steve currently reviews audio products for CNET and works as a freelance writer for Home Theater, Inner Fidelity, Tone Audio, and Stereophile."

Let me tell you something, if I have to choose who I have to believe between WHF, expert opnions, reputable forum members, my own experience over many hi-fi years and yourself, well let me think....

Go tell about your "old audiophile bad karma from oldtimes" blablabla to anyone who is as ignorant as you. Listen to real systems before you open your mouth or at least if that is not possible... read somenthing.

You started last year with a post on your 8050 where you convinced everybody that you found the holly grail. Many people purchased this based on your passionate review where you compared with much higher level stereo amps. Now a year later you change it for AVR to use with 2 channel. At least you have addmited that you already stop looking for good sound some time ago. Maybe next year you will buy an "iron machine" with speakers and we will see that again "ticks" all the boxes and sounds as good as any stereo amp you have heard. You are a bluff.

 

[richardw42]

Crikey you've got a bug up your arse.

Ive thought for some time that a competent AVR can compete very well with so called hi Fi amps. Perhaps you could explain technically why they shouldn't.

Times are changing. We want our devices to do multiple things. I see no real attraction in some over priced lump that offers nothing more than the ability to get music out of my speakers. 2 ch audiophile purists are hanging on by their fingernails.

 

[BigH]

rendu have a look at this review: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/onkyo-tx-nr818

 

[drummerman]

Well rendu, I use an AV receiver exclusively for 2 channel (2.1) in the main system.

I also have a few stereo amplifiers.

regards

 

[hammill]

rendu have a look at this review: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/onkyo-tx-nr818

Well if that doesn't convince him/her, nothing will.

 

[rendu]

Crikey you've got a bug up your arse.

Ive thought for some time that a competent AVR can compete very well with so called hi Fi amps. Perhaps you could explain technically why they shouldn't.

Times are changing. We want our devices to do multiple things. I see no real attraction in some over priced lump that offers nothing more than the ability to get music out of my speakers. 2 ch audiophile purists are hanging on by their fingernails.

Richardw42, I am not a technical engineer but I believe that the article explains very well the logic; If you dedicate 1000 pound on 2 channel vs 1000 in : 9 channel, 2 subwoofer output, networking connectivity, 8 HDMI input, 2 HDMI output , etc.... When it comes to 2 channel reproducition the pure stereo amp should win. This is my experience also. I am the first one here who wish that the modern AVRs sounded good in stereo because I own one but honestly it is not the case, at least for me I am not happy with it.

 

[matthewpiano]

Wow. This is turning into some heated thread, which is saying something round here at present.

Times are changing and it is the people who are prepared to embrace these changes, and consider all options who will end up getting the best value for money in the future.

Firstly, reviews in any magazine are not the be-all by any stretch of the imagination, and neither are the conclusions of an ex 'high-end audio salesman'. When high end includes products like the ludicrous Krell Connect streamer featured in the News pages of this website yesterday, you have to start to ask a few questions. £2,500 for a streamer that doesn't even include a DAC chip and analogue output stage? £1,000 extra if you want the DAC chip and analogue output stage? So what are you actually getting for £2,500 apart from a pretty ugly looking (but probably well made) box packed with lots of air and the ability to process digital files? Seemingly Krell think its great that their £2.5k box can play gaplessly. Well I should bleeding hope so at that price, when my Squeezebox Touch which cost me £180 can do it.

The last thing I've ever wanted to be is an 'audiophile'. To me it is simply a nom-de-plume for snobbery, one up-man-ship, and believing everything you read, rather than being driven by the music. There is so much drivel in this industry and so many opportunities for spending lots of money for little or no gain, filling the home with upgraded power supplies, stupidly priced cables (I'm talking about ridiculous things like the £6.5k Crystal Cable USB recommended in the last HFN), and paying good money for revolutionary technology that just doesn't work (take the early Servo Evolution CD transports from Cyrus, which picked which discs they wanted to play).

The best gear I've owned has been the Denon stuff (particularly the PMA1500AE/DCD1500AE, but also the PMA720AE I have now and for its price the RCD-M39DAB), the Onkyo TX-8050 (yes it is a cracking piece of kit) and the Cambridge Audio 740A and 740C. These items have given far more musical pleasure than the Audiolab, Arcam, Naim, Roksan and Cyrus items I've owned, and surely that is all it is about?

I did dally with an AV amp briefly but only a Yamaha RX-V667. As a £400 AV amp it did a creditable job with music, so I can well believe that RS's £1,000 Onkyo could be very impressive with 2-channel content and a particularly great bargain at the price he paid.

 

[rendu]

rendu have a look at this review: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/onkyo-tx-nr818

Well if that doesn't convince him/her, nothing will.

It looks very good review, honestly.

Here is a review of my own amp...

http://www.cnet.com.au/yamaha-aventage-rx-a2010-339329930.htm#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conload&id=I0_1370944620773&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnet.com.au&rpctoken=50509538

It is as good as the one on the Onkyo and, I can tell you without any doubts that in my case it does not meet my music expectations. Before this one, I have owned an Arcam AVR280 and before that one I owned an Onkyo 702 and so on. There is actually another post out there on the new Yamaha 2020 (1500 pound) where the owner compared this with his Marantz 6004 (400 pount) for music and he concluded that it was no replacement so, he had to keep the 6004. I agree with your review that the AVRs have improved and I only can hope that they will continue to improve even more and close the gap once and for all. With previous AVR like my first Onkyo 505 you could not even listen to music because it hurted. Now with the A2010 at least I enjoy some of the music.

There is one famous hi-fi shop in Spain in Barcelona which after 2 years they stopped selling AVRs because their customers where returning too many of them. At this moment they only sell Arcam and Anthem.

 

[drummerman]

Crikey you've got a bug up your arse.

Ive thought for some time that a competent AVR can compete very well with so called hi Fi amps. Perhaps you could explain technically why they shouldn't.

Times are changing. We want our devices to do multiple things. I see no real attraction in some over priced lump that offers nothing more than the ability to get music out of my speakers. 2 ch audiophile purists are hanging on by their fingernails.

Richardw42, I am not a technical engineer but I believe that the article explains very well the logic; If you dedicate 1000 pound on 2 channel vs 1000 in : 9 channel, 2 subwoofer output, networking connectivity, 8 HDMI input, 2 HDMI output , etc.... When it comes to 2 channel reproducition the pure stereo amp should win. This is my experience also. I am the first one here who wish that the modern AVRs sounded good in stereo because I own one but honestly it is not the case, at least for me I am not happy with it.

I see you are using a Sonic T-amp.

As far as I know, they produce 2digit distortion figures for anything above about 8watts and around 3 to 5 watts with half decent low distortion. Dynamic power is, if I am correct, almost non-existent because of topology used.

Looking at the above and everything we know about power supply, distortion etc your T-amplifier should not be able to produce either volume or the dynamics of music properly yet I know that some people, even experienced ones (hoopsontoast) praise some of these small boxes.

However, I dont quite understand how you can criticise engineering content of AV receivers, some of which measure as good and in some instances better than 2 channel amplifiers yet yourself you use what is surely one of the most technically compromised products on the market?

Dont forget that economy of scale is also at work here. Specialist stereo amplifiers are produced in smaller quantities than AV receivers. You therefore often pay for development cost and exclusivity, most of which have either long been absorbed or are not an issue with products from the likes of Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony etc etc.

regards

 

[BigH]

rendu that review is a load of rhubarb. Under sound it does not even mention sound, just how many watts per channel etc. If you relie on reviews like that then good luck.

 

[rendu]

Crikey you've got a bug up your arse.

Ive thought for some time that a competent AVR can compete very well with so called hi Fi amps. Perhaps you could explain technically why they shouldn't.

Times are changing. We want our devices to do multiple things. I see no real attraction in some over priced lump that offers nothing more than the ability to get music out of my speakers. 2 ch audiophile purists are hanging on by their fingernails.

Richardw42, I am not a technical engineer but I believe that the article explains very well the logic; If you dedicate 1000 pound on 2 channel vs 1000 in : 9 channel, 2 subwoofer output, networking connectivity, 8 HDMI input, 2 HDMI output , etc.... When it comes to 2 channel reproducition the pure stereo amp should win. This is my experience also. I am the first one here who wish that the modern AVRs sounded good in stereo because I own one but honestly it is not the case, at least for me I am not happy with it.

I see you are using a Sonic T-amp.

As far as I know, they produce 2digit distortion figures for anything above about 8watts and around 3 to 5 watts with half decent low distortion. Dynamic power is, if I am correct, almost non-existent because of topology used.

Looking at the above and everything we know about power supply, distortion etc your T-amplifier should not be able to produce either volume or the dynamics of music properly yet I know that some people, even experienced ones (hoopsontoast) praise some of these small boxes.

However, I dont quite understand how you can criticise engineering content of AV receivers, some of which measure as good and in some instances better than 2 channel amplifiers yet yourself you use what is surely one of the most technically compromised products on the market?

Dont forget that economy of scale is also at work here. Specialist stereo amplifiers are produced in smaller quantities than AV receivers. You therefore often pay for development cost and exclusivity, most of which have either long been absorbed or are not an issue with products from the likes of Onkyo, Yamaha, Sony etc etc.

regards

Drummerman you have hit one nail on the head. I am not criticising the engineering content of AVRs, I am critizasing the final result in terms of pure stereo sound. I do not consider myself an audiophile or snobb either, not at all.

The small sonic T-amp (30 Eur) that you have mentioned is a gem in terms of pure stereo sound. Some days when I have time, I disconnect my A2010 speakers and plug them into the Sonic impact just for fun and I always find myself looking how much I am enjoying the sound, every single song, natural, cristal clear, good bass and no strange effects. Pure stereo sound. It is a shame that a 30 Eur amp can beat a 1000 AVR in pure musical performance (without sub). It is ridiculous, this is what I find unnacceptable as an AVR customer.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

I've never heard an AV amp that sounds as good as a dedicated stereo one, and don't really know why you'd want one if you're not interested in home cinema., but each to his own.

The other thing that puts me off is their size and weight - they're not the most attractive of devices, are they?