Okay, confused

DRoyarcher
DRoyarcher Posts: 2
edited June 2005 in Electronics
First off, I need some opinions, I am looking for an all purpose reciever and I have been jumping back and forth between Onkyo and HK. Personally I do not like the way the HK's look, but I'll get over that if the performance is there. I am currently looking at the Onkyo 702 and probably the HK 435. Any opinions?

I like the true second zone on the 702 and I think the rear of the Onkyo is set up better. I have heard a lot of good things about HK as well. If anyone has another reciever in the under $1000 range that they recommend I would appreciate any information.

So why do some recievers advertise 7.1 surround with dual zone when they technically are 5.1 with a second zone? I do not understand why this is, ecspecially when Onkyo has a true 7.1 with a seperate second zone on it. Can someone explain why this is? The second zone is going to be a key feature for me.

Thanks
Post edited by DRoyarcher on

Comments

  • Toxis
    Toxis Posts: 5,116
    edited June 2005
    because it IS a 7.1 receiver that has dual zone capabilites. They don't advertise 7.1 AND dual zone at the same time.

    Denon 2805 > 435 > 702.
    Never kick a fresh **** on a hot day.

    Home Setup: Sony VPL-VW85 Projo, 92" Stewart Firehawk, Pioneer Elite SC-65, PS3, RTi12 fronts, CSi5, FXi6 rears, RTi6 surround backs, RTi4 height, MFW-15 Subwoofer.

    Car Setup: OEM Radio, RF 360.2v2, Polk SR6500 quad amped off 4 Xtant 1.1 100w mono amps, Xtant 6.1 to run an eD 13av.2, all Stinger wiring and Raammat deadener.
  • AsSiMiLaTeD
    AsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,728
    edited June 2005
    ...what Toxis said...

    Also, if your bedget is $1k...take a look at some other brands like NAD and B&K (you can get a used receiver for your price and ultimately have a betteer product).

    I'll also second the Denon choice. If you're gonna go the Denon route, you should be able to grab the 3805 for yourd budget...I'd personally reccomend that over the 2805, but both are great receivers...
  • TheReaper
    TheReaper Posts: 636
    edited June 2005
    Originally posted by DRoyarcher
    So why do some recievers advertise 7.1 surround with dual zone when they technically are 5.1 with a second zone? I do not understand why this is, ecspecially when Onkyo has a true 7.1 with a seperate second zone on it. Can someone explain why this is? The second zone is going to be a key feature for me.
    To clarify, the Onkyo txsr702 isn't quite true 7.1 with second zone. The onkyo lets you wire in speakers for both surround back and zone 2. But the onkyo 702 only has 7 amplifiers. So when zone 2 is turned on, the surround back channels are automatically turned off, and the amplifier channels used to power the zone 2 speakers. When zone 2 is turned off, the surround back channels are automatically turned back on and use the amplifier channels. This makes the switch back and forth, quick and easy, with only 2 button pushes on the remote (zone 2 + on/standby).

    Making things quick and easy to do, is one of Onkyo's strong points. The TXSR702 is also a sweet spot in the Onkyo lineup, where I think you get the most bang for your buck, as well as a good sub-$1000 receiver (you can get one for $600 at www.jr.com).
    Win7 Media Center -> Onkyo TXSR702 -> Polk Rti70
  • PolkThug
    PolkThug Posts: 7,532
    edited June 2005
    I'll take the 702 over the HK any day.
  • RVJII
    RVJII Posts: 167
    edited June 2005
    I used to be a big HK fan until a few years ago. (I've had 2 HK amps and 1 HK receiver) The HK receiver that I got seemed to perform rather poor and I got the feeling that they had "cheapened" their product to play to a wider target market.

    About 2 years ago I picked up an Onk TX-NR900 and have been very pleased with it. (driving RTi12's, CSi5, and FXi3's) Having said that, I am planning to add 2 Outlaw M-Blocks to bi-amp the mains because even though they sound good now, I know that they can sound better with the extra 200wpc driving the woofers.

    Maybe HK has gotten better but I'd lean towards the Onk.
    A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...
  • aaharvel
    aaharvel Posts: 4,489
    edited June 2005
    "Also, if your budget is $1k...take a look at some other brands like NAD and B&K (you can get a used receiver for your price and ultimately have a betteer product)."

    I agree with PolkManiac and would go this route but if you're stuck on Harman Kardon or Onkyo, you owe to yourself to also look at Denon and Marantz.

    To me, it depends on the speakers you have and if you like a "warm" sound, "Neutral" sound, or "bright" sound.

    Most polks i've heard tend to be neutral sounding-
    For receivers, H/K and Marantz tend to sound warm, Denon, B&K and NAD Neutral and Onkyo, Yamaha and Sony bright.

    Myself I prefer warm sound for music- but neutral for movies. IMO Bright sound bose err... i mean blows.

    whichever you choose- in the end it's all up to you and your ears to decide what's best. Good luck. =)
    H/K Signature 2.1+235
    Jungson MagicBoat II
    Revel Performa M-20
    Velodyne cht-10 sub
    Rega P1 Turntable

    "People working at Polk Audio must sit around the office and just laugh their balls off reading many of these comments." -Lush
  • DRoyarcher
    DRoyarcher Posts: 2
    edited June 2005
    Thanks for the information! I'll take a look at Denon and B&K.

    Thanks