Originally Posted by pioneerisloud
And then there would be no low end at all.
Those 60s play down to ~40hz just fine. That's more low end than most people are accustomed to.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a good Onkyo, Yamaha, or Denon receiver. My Yamaha receiver was only $200 (open box deal), and its absolutely excellent, and powers my speakers very VERY well. I measured 80w RMS out of it cleanly (to my ears), and its rated for 110w RMS. I could care less if its cleaner on paper, I go for what sounds good to my ears.
I'm sorry, but I just can't justify spending $400 on a receiver, when he's using $200 tower speakers and no sub.
It's a $400 receiver, $200 speakers, that can grow in time to include a proper centre, surrounds, and sub/s. At which point the cost in other speakers in the system will overwhelm the cost of the receiver anyways. You're suggesting that because the initial introduction to the system does not include all the speakers, the receiver should suck more? I don't understand this philosophy at all. I recall you talking about the importance of getting the biggest best centre channel possible and have reiterated it here in this thread. I know from my experience that the reason you believe you need the bigger centre channel has more to do with your amplification quality than anything else, but you are not willing to give in to this harsh reality.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The consumer "hears" the speaker so they blame the speaker for anything bad that comes from it. The philosophy is backwards. While some speakers are flat and some speakers are bright, and some are boomy, I'm not aware of any reasonable/decent speakers on earth that introduce any significant distortion of their own across most listening levels. If you feel the sort of harsh, fatigued listening you expect at high volume, you can blame your amp first and foremost.