NR 609 7.1 Onkyo Receiver "died" after 2.5 years (heavely used)

I usualy dont buy mainstream electronics on Ebay, i always got the feeling someone want to get ride of a failure... people need good reason for giving away cheap stuff or stuff for cheap.

Those 2.0 HDMI receivers are OK but my mind is saying me that i pay a huge bonus just in order to get a new HDMI, but for a comparable price i can get slightly aged receivers of better quality but dated HDMI. The next 4 years i dont need HDMI 2.0 anyway. Surely it seems Pioneer and Yamaha are the only manufacturers with mainstream hardware of average quality, other companys use low quality... stuff that is somewhat dishonoring the whole audio-industry... a industry with long quality history. Those days and years have ended in many terms, but there is the light of hope.

Btw. Cheapest price for RX-A1040 is ~1400 USD in my country, thats far above the Pioneer. 677 is 650 USD, price cut rather marginal.

Surface mount MOSFETs and HVICs are the best amplifier technology up to about 300W/channel or so. They can operate at very high carrier frequencies due to their very low parasitic capacitances and inductances, sometimes as high as a few MHz. In contrast, 250-400kHz is about as high as most IPMs and through hole MOSFETs can do. In short, they give much higher resolution, especially at lower volume settings.

The Yamaha seems to advertise a bunch of little through hole components as their "high quality parts", which appear to be the charge pump and snubbers for the output stages. In reality, surface mount is far superior due to reduced parasitics. They also, for some reason, don't show the output filter inductors/capacitors or even the power stage semiconductors, when both of those are more important. The only time when through hole makes more sense is at very high power levels, but there will be plenty of surface mount even there.

What we need is a Jonnyguru, knurlgnar, or EEVblog for home audio reviews, including teardowns so we'll know exactly what's inside.

Thats the problem... Google seems to be a "knows it all" but as soon as i want to know specific stuff such as "what parts are exactly inside device X" then the net is surprisingly dumb and Google close to useless.

Manufacturers? Oh well.. dont trust it! They are always polishing theyr stuff up to the unbelievable clouds and most consumers either dont care or simply got no clue and are easely fooled. All the years consumers was mostly watching at the raw Watt specs, not much more. So the wise manufacturers used different measurements that are in no way realistic, in order to show high Watt on the paper. For example 165 W single channel/single speaker (yeah thanks) over 6 or lesser Ohm, but most speakers drive at 8 Ohm and most people use at least 2-5 speakers... the Watt will be drastically reduced but no one knows by how much... at 5 channel for example. Most receivers can barely keep up 300 W total output, the real output is probably barely higher than 75 W on a 5 channel system, but people are fooled all the time... somewhat makes me mad. The stuff is not even that powerful even if the power magically seems to increase every 2 years. I had 20+ years old amps pushing my chest into the air.. but not even the most expensive receiver nowadays seems to be capable of. At least it got supreme HDMI 2.0... wow im so happy! When i look inside, its usualy full of cheap junk, i wonder how it even can sound that good... probably by using 10 processors but most stuff isnt high powered and im actually confused why my Onkyo died.. all it takes are a few heat sinks at the right spot to bring the 300 W under control but heat sinks are just to expensive and other parts too, i assume. The single low powered case fan was never spinning, i guess the fan control was to expensive too.

Dunno what to say... hope i find my quality as fast as possible.

Ivy, you have a lot of complaints for "mainstream electronics" in regards to HiFi gear. If you want to get "your" high quality, then you might be in the wrong hobby, unless your budget is in the 10's of thousands of dollars.

While there might not be a Johnnu guru for HiFi gear, there are numerous sites with great reviews. You can start here: http://www.audioholics.com/ & here:http://www.avsforum.com/

Well no... i can never buy 50 good caps, MOSFETs and a fan controller including 1A cooler, impossible on a HIFI. Thats why i usualy only have PCs with good hardware, sad bear stuff. Someone should open the case desolder all parts and tell me the market value and how much higher the price at higher quality.

Besides it is not my hobby... i just want good quality HIFI because the only thing that should "boom" is a speaker not a Amp, this is how i see "my world", i see the stuff in term of potential, not just "the current condition". I am not a audiophile, i know way to less. Besides, the word "hobby" is almost unknown to me. My personal vocabulary is not including it because splitting myself into something i do and dont do is a lie. I may do way to much stuff in term there is a opportunity, i usualy only say "no" in term there is harm or lack of mind. I simply do the best i can, even if i am incapable or insufficient, i just do it in term i feel the need or when i feel joy... no matter how far i can go, i just move because i am not immovable, i always make a move somewhere, outside or inside, doesnt matter.

So, just because i may lack money... doesnt mean i dont touch it, it doesnt matter how much i lack, i simply touch it and will find the best solution possible for my needs. For now i was able to find a probably satisfying solution and will slowly build up from that spot to even higher stages.

Good MOSFETs aren't that expensive nowadays. The bulk of the power electronics costs are actually in the capacitors and (especially) the magnetics. And then there's all the digital logic that doesn't cost much in materials but very costly to develop all the software and HDL that goes inside. It doesn't help that there's a push towards making the receiver a "do everything" box, while relegating standalone amplifiers to the professional market.

I got my Pioneer SC-LX56-S + Q300 KEF today. 3 Speakers still missing but i get them another time. The SC-LX56-S was heavyer than i got in mind, because there is no handles attached, always have to be so careful when moving HIFIs too, that makes it 2 times as heavy and the 15.3 KG was truly leeching my arms *gasp*. If it goes bigger than that, there is help needed. Overall the quality of the new receiver is much better, outside and inside. The material from the outside is much better and so far the caps seems a higher level. In term the caps are pricy then that device isnt cheap. I think its truly the best option for the next 4 years... satifsying quality and sound, cant ask for more.

Regarding the KEF, well, they are clearly very strong at the "penetrating clarity", they are very accurate and fill the room at almost any spot. However, the weak spot is that they are as mild as a dove, they arnt pushing bass and dynamics of modern rock music and such a lot, surely the downside. Although its somewhat a illusion because they create sonic waves as soft as marshmallows and at almost any spot of the room, even at very high dB. The rock performance for modern music is in that term pretty weak (so i would not use for "boom boom"), they always use bass in order to "attack" but the KEF dont attack... anyway doesnt matter. The real deal is for example one of my most beloved classics (from the biggest instruments ever made) and the KEF are great at organ music, because they need to penetrate at high clarity, bass too, all around the room without attacking it, they are all about the "behaviour" of a stance such as that one and hearing every fragment of that stance. Neither Pioneer nor KEF are good at "bass drive", but simply the most honest and most accurate way possible. The Onkyo was almost opposite... they was good at "bass drive" and modern music but they was weak at the "penetrating clarity". Surely i can say, i never had such a direct sound with unusually few processing in between... i think i made the right choice. Im not audiophile but i guess even a audiophile may be fine using it.

As löng as that stuff will last i have nothing to complain about the quality of the sound... its the stuff i am satisfied with, no less and no more.

the pics are potato grade on purpose, tad dusty at the moment, but you get the idea, I used a trim board to seal off the front of the rack area, added red light that's the failsafe ALWAYS on fans, I don't want my wife cooking my receiver by using it, and forgetting about the fans. 2 120s on the side suck air out the side of the area, air runs under case, into case out the top and then out the side...your ears will give out before the rcvr ever gets hot.

In term the pics are not dusty there would be to much focus on the look but it should be focused on the music... and temperature.
Anyway, i will find a way to implement such a "cooling rack" but im not gonna do it that complicated, i will simply add a rack on top of the receiver and draw the air toward the back. Quality fans of course, barely audible or not audible at all. Heat will always go upward and the most critical spot is the top area of the receiver.

http://www.parasound.com/vintage/zbreeze.php There should be similar products out there if you don't want to go the DIY route.

Besides, HDMI 2.0 is incomplete itself, it doesnt offer 4k 3D 50/60P support, so it means it is not covering the whole 4k standart and as soon as someone is gonna watch a full motion 3D 4K Movie/Game or any material at all, its gonna be a problem, so its still not the most "future proof" standart. In that term i did fairly well simply getting a slightly dated receiver with HDMI 1.4 standart that is able to use all the picture techs i need for my plasma the next 4 years. I will check for a new receiver as soon as i get a 4k TV and it will take at least 4 more years, thats certain. Until that moment i think i made best deal possible, thats clear. Especially with the 4k standart, a huge resolution, 3D content is becoming even more popular so its not a nonsense tech... it got potential. But the hardware wont be powerful enough the next 5+ years (it would need insane builds that is no way economical), so 4k is simply not ready in order to set a new "standart"; its still enthusiast grade and with limited use many years. At the moment gaming need powerful hardware so its not the most affordable stuff and surely enthusiast grade unable to set a new standart in a economical way. On the other hand, 4k is able to provide so many details, most content simply isnt able to use the possible rate of detail that format is able to deliver at the current time (not even games, many games are bloating details that simply isnt available). So it means, its unnecessary bloating as long as the quality of the content is unable to fill up a 4k standart. Its same such as we are simply scaling up a 1080P into a 4k and then we call it "4k" just because of the raw pixel amount but detail didnt change at all. Pixels is like a big bag that is able to provide space but the space isnt always used by content... as long as the content is unable to fill the bag. Anyway, at current time that format is not ready in order to set a new standart, it will take at least 5 more years i guess.

Actually i made a failure, but kinda a failure on purpose because peoples mind are numbed by excessive marketing strategy. 4k is a commonly used term but 4k is a industry standart for movie with the exact resolution of 4096x2016. 4x1080P (in marketing terms "Full HD") is in fact a 2160P standart (in marketing terms "UHD"). 4k itself is another marketing term for industry grade movie content but its in fact HD 19:10 2160P. So we mainly have SD 4:3: 480P (in technical/marketing terms "NTSC Full D1"), 576P (in technical/marketing terms "PAL Full D1"). HD 16:9: 720P (transition format from SD to HD), 1080P, 1440P (transition format from 1080P to 2160P), 2160P and movie industry (digital cinema) or simply HD 19:10: 2160P. Thats the main SD and HD standarts. There is many ugly formats in between but its no good thing because it cant easely be scaled because of the different x and y ratio, so its simply a issue playing around with incompatible formats. The easyest in order for smooth scaling without any issue is when ratio isnt changed, so HD means to have comparable ratio. In PC terms there is way to much formats but its a huge chaos so i only list the truly necessary and essential formats. Most of the "dated" PC games have been remade in order to fit a 1080P resolution, so there is just few aged PC games that wont be compatible with 1080P and SD is mainly a "console" matter for aged console games and aged movies. Regarding human eyes, 16:9 should be the most realistic when it comes to the real viewing angle, so i think its the best standart.

Two 970s will do 4K quite well.

Probably true but i know no monitor that will be sufficient at such a challenging resolution, with the exception of OLED but they are currently way to pricy, because at such a high resolution motion blurr can become a huge issue when the technology isnt shockingly fast (LCD isnt fast enough in order to remove any blurr, no matter the stuff people saying*). On top of that, almost no good "4k" content available now, so its just not worth it. More important is the quality of the content, and i mean in double-quality term, the artistic and the technical quality, or simply "art count" and "tech count", so "4k" is very worse at both of them with very rare exceptions, its simply not ready. I think in around 5 years we will be "set" for the new standart, so i have lot of time enjoying my "slightly aged", flagship-plasma and Pioneer receiver.

*Plasma in theory is a little bit faster dependable on color (because its using a 3 color tech, same such as OLED and blue is by far the fastest color) but the main problem is that Plasma cant be miniaturized so much, it is good at 1080P but for home sized TVs it can be used at 4k anymore, it would simply be way to huge (even for US terms). So Plasma will have to pass for home environment and OLED will be the next big step in TV and general screen technology i guess. LCD was never a option for me as a real gaming or movie screen, it was only good at very bright "standing pictures", such as when i am browsing the web (work or whatever, but not entertainment with fast moving content)... thats why i use a small LCD on my browsing-only PC. But most consumers dont even know what im talking about, they just run to the store and say "Ooh... LED i got a real LED, now i am so happy and it got A+ rating in power consumption too, amazingly green" (well i wont bring up how fast many TVs are dying because of bad parts and how many industry chemicals are polluting the environment, especially from the production of "green" LCDs), so thats the stuff they usualy say and finish story... sad bear i guess.

Of course, freaks, many OCers, many enthusiasts and more may have a different view and thats theyr right... its simply theyr own world and i wont interfere. We all simply use the stuff that makes us happy and i think i know the stuff that will keep me happy.

The main benefit of 4K in my experience is all the extra desktop space, which is actually the main reason I upgraded. 4K gaming isn't here quite yet as the overall experience is better at 1080p120, with the details turned way up, and just one 970 will work nicely.

Beware that plasma tends to burn in. (I have encountered many rackmount SMUs and DMMs with badly burned in plasma displays as they were left on 24/7 in a test environment.) A screen saver really is a good idea, as is turning down the brightness.

I use plasma for 5+ years in a row already and i always use screen savers, on absolutely any screen (nothing to do with plasma). Even LCD can have some sort of image retention in term there is a 24/7 standing picture, but usually LCD is able to regenerate itself after a while. However, a plasma when to much of standing picture may suffer permanent retention and in that term we could call it "burn in", thats the highest form of retention with no chance to restore. Retention is not always resulting into burn in, and usually the critical thing is white content, so it should be prevented to have to much white content at a 24/7 pace. However, the newest flagship-plasma got a pixel-orbiter, it can be useful in order to reduce such risks and it is always enabled aswell. Screen saver and pixel orbiter... and i think the burn in issue is almost gone by using it. So far i had no burn in issues and i use plasma for 5+ years already. My old plasma got some retention but thats because of age, not truly a burn in (if you are not gazing at the affected spot like a goose on steroids you would hardly notice it). I used that TV 24/7 for almost 5 years in a row, many TVs may already be dead at that point...but it was no problem for my plasma.

Its sometimes difficult to say the difference between usual retention and burn in, because its only natural that a TV and any screen over time will become weaker, so the color and brightness of certain pixels may become weaker with age. In term there was always a uneven use of those pixels (some pixels may be always white and other pixels always very dark) then the wear of the white pixels is much higher than the wear of the dark pixels, at least on any self illuminating screen (for example Plasma, OLED). At some point the pixels that was used a lot will become darker because they simply have more wear on it. The result is a lack of screen uniformity but its not really a burn in, burn in is not necessarily affected by age and its usually way more aggressive and clearly visible, it may show wrong colors and not just a "darker spot". In future some advanced self illuminating TVs may have a wearleveling on every single pixel, and may measure the amount of brightness. In term certain pixels may have higher wear it may automatically try to make some compensation for that lack, so it may have almost no visible "wear". Although on current TVs there isnt really a "single pixel wear leveling" but a general wear leveling instead. In term a plasma passed a certain hour-line, the electronics may change the way how they work (more Volt or different frequency) in order to make compensation for the new weakness. The new OLED TVs may have a advanced "wear leveling" at some point and i think its the most advanced stuff a TV can have, dependable on quality of that tech.

LCD arnt working the same way a plasma and True LED (OLED, AMOLED and more) is doing, so a LCD basically got a very good uniformity even at high age (although even LCD will suffer the usual age-weakness). However, the basic uniformity is always lower than single pixel screens that are self illuminating on every single spot. LCD are not self illuminating (the color is not created by the source, but instead by the primary "picture driver", the LCD tech, even LED-LCDs* is LCD driven), so its simply another tech but not going into details here, to much content and OT. *In the beginning the light source (not picture driver) was a floursecent bulb, but we didnt call it "flourescent bulb-TV", for good reason (no one would buy it).

Anyway, know the risk and know how to handle a screen, then most users may be fine. A plasma is clearly not a standing picture "rackmount" screen, thats the stuff LCDs truly will beat any other technology, even OLED, because OLED is able to suffer wear the same way a plasma is doing, its not the best "standing picture" screen. A OLED is supreme at moving picture and general picture quality and totaly unmatched at that spec, so it always depends on the use... of course. Even plasma is able to beat almost any LCD at moving picture content and black level performance (that makes plasma a supreme science fiction/space movie and games screen) and the uniformity inside black level range. But just as i said, LCD is superior at white level range and any content in need of standing pictures all the time. So the truth is more difficult than most people may believe, it always depends on use... and what spec people value the most, almost any tech got some weak and strong spots.

Hmm, some news to add: I got me a pair of Klipsch RB61 II because they was pretty cheap at 500 USD, KEF was 700 USD, so i am at a price of 1200 USD already. Im not gonna add a Elac because simply to expensive and the center speaker need to be good at vocal not at overall sound. So i use a slightly smaller Wharfedale Diamond 10 CS instead, so the speakers wont be higher than 1500 USD in total but pretty solid 5 channel sound for sure. Only the Wharfedale center missing now, other speakers are ready.

Some questions of course:
1. Usualy they say "dont mix speakers" but even speakers from same manufacturer can have lot of differences and even some of the same series arnt always a good match (i heard many stories already). On top of that, the bass is usualy done either by subwoofer or frontspeakers, other speakers are not going down lower than ~125 Hz because the receiver wont allow. In THX and surround mode there is already some kind of separated work, its not a complete equality. As far as i know surround speakers (in that term im using KEF Q300) dont need to be a perfect match, and on top of that the KEF are masters of "off axis dispersion", a penetration type of speaker so it is perfectly suitable for surround. I got the Klipsch as the new front speakers because of theyr supreme efficiency (they are extremely powerful even at low amp power*) and they are very dynamic in the entire sound range, so they are able to push bass and other specs suitable for frontspeakers, but as a surround they would be inferior. *Im just glad they apparently got a 400 W peak capability, else the crazy efficiency when driven by hard amp could truly kill them when bass is to harsh.

Anyway, I think thats perfect, the only stuff that is a bit of headache is center because they say it should fit to the front speakers, but in a non subwoofer setup they already have to pass regarding bass duty, simply not suitable, there is not much center that would be suitable. Klipsch own series arnt fitting in my mind, i was checking them all, but im not satisfied with the stuff offered, they didnt build a good center speaker. But anyway, the center speaker is usualy used for vocals when watching movies, in usual music environment its pretty much a background speaker and not a main driver. So i think i will try to use a Wharfedale instead. In order to make it suitable i will adjust any of the channel manually and i will adjust as much as possible by hearing... nothing else. I guess im simply gonna try... some speakers may be able to fit, its not a hard rule that "other brands" will never fit, i guess.

2. I finally was able to find the advanced configuration menu for EQ and more, and now the Pioneer is pretty powerful at bass performance, especially with the Klipsch speakers, its crazy stuff. Pioneer may have one of the most advanced setting adjustment and a lot of stuff can be fine tuned, but its very hard to use and lot of stuff simply messed up so it will take incredible work for all the fine tuning but at least its possible. Onkyo never had so much finetuning options, not even nearly... Now that i was making lot of adjustments, the sound is so much better than the one from Onkyo.

But i am not sure how to handle Bi Amp and if that is any use at all? I guess my Pioneer is able to drive 5 channel at Bi Amp?

Finally: Actually lot of stuff im not sure about but i simply trust my ears and feelings. As long as it will fit the budget... all good. There is indeed many good and affordable Hifi stuff but i simply lack the experience and so im a bit unsure how to handle it. If i study to much i will never reach a result, so thats why i was simply "trying out". Ultimately my ears have to say "yes"; no other can take over that duty but some wise knowledge is never wrong.

To bi-amp a speaker (pair) you would need two separate amplifier modules. Using one amplifier and removing the jumper to wire the two sets of binding posts would be bi-wiring. It's a lifestyle choice that has proponents and nay-sayers. LOL I hope that joke translated well. Bi-wiring is a debated subject , but bi-amping can have a positive effect by ensuring the mids and highs have sufficient current during high demand , bass heavy passages.
You've assembled a nice system , BTW. I'll bet it sounds nice.

Yes they sound nice, to nice... im hearing so much of music and watching many movies at current time that i lack the time for other stuff... i just cant resist. Compared to the loudspeaker-companys the amp-producing companys seems to lack innovations (you never truly know whats inside, they just always boast with device support such as Iphone and other junk) and nowadays most speakers are kinda cheap, cant go much lower than that. The stuff im truly satisfied with is that even the bookshelf speakers are very good sounding and there is no need anymore for huge stand-speakers. So i can have compact and still powerful speakers at the same time. Most of them got 25 mm tweeters and 165 mm bass cones and so many different stuff, its kinda hard to decide. Especially the center speakers are somewhat in a big competition and its almost foolish not to pick one of the cheap center speakers.

Bi Amp: I think im gonna Bi Amp the Klipsch, not sure about other speakers but they all seems to support it. Even the Wharfedale has it and its incredible cheap considering the materials used (Kevlar, Neodymium). The question remains how much Bi Amp the SC-LX56-S is able to support.

Nowadays there is the new trend of "active speakers" and there is almost no subwoofer anymore without active Amp inside (but i truly dont need them anyway). According to Wikipedia those active speakers are supreme compared to passive ones... but im not gonna list all the stuff they say regarding the supreme active specs (simply better at everything). My personal view is that a good Amp is a special thing and cant easely be replaced by some active speaker Amps but to everyone their own goodie. Using active Amp is probably the main culprit why the people say that a mix of different speakers is not valid. The active Amps got a pretty limited setting adjustment, while a good dedicated Amp is able to combine many speakers and is able to feed every speaker with another specified setup that can be a good benefit in order to make it fit. So in my mind, a dedicated Amp will always be supreme, even if the industry nowadays is all about "standardization" with a fix set of mostly low powered speakers. In my mind there is many speakers that are unchallenged at many specs, thats why Klipsch is probably "best in class bookshelf for bass/efficiency". KEF "best in class bookshelf for of axis and surround", and Wharfedale can be very harmonic and smooth with great price/performance ratio. In theory if someone can combine the strong spots of many technology it may become supreme. The technology of a single speaker is always lacking at a certain spot. However, dedicated Amp is the only Amp able to make different tech work together, depends on the settings and how much finetuning possible but Pioneer is surely outstanding.

Anyway, there is so many different stuff people say and i truly stop to believe it... i just trust my own ears and im petty enthusiastic in order to try out many different technology at once. There is so many great speakers, im unable to pick only one when i could use several of them.

The main advantage of biamping is that it allows you to use a lower voltage but much higher frequency power stage for the tweeters. Main problem is that's there's not much equipment that supports it outside of specialty pro audio hardware.

Not much support? Well.. my Receiver is supporting it and every single of the new speaker too... even the cheap Wharfedale (ordering now). But i am not sure if i can make a single Bi Amp for front or several Bi Amps, guess have to check it out somehow. I simply will have to check it out regarding its advantages, else i never know the truth.