Onkyo TX-SR507 vs. Denon AVR-1610

I was all ready to purchase an Onkyo TX-SR507 for my new Energy Take Classic system. Then I read that it does not do analog to digital coversion, whereas the Denon AVR-1610 does. This is an issue since my XBOX 360 is one of the early models that uses component cables. It would be nice to only have one line to the TV, but the Denon is about $50 more than the Onkyo. They seem to be fairly similar otherwise. Does anyone have an opinion on which would be the best route to go? I have also looked at the Onkyo TX-SR607, but I don't need the 7.1 setup.

Also, I have read conflicting information that the units will (or will not) allow the signal to pass through even when the power is off. Not a huge issue, but there are a few times when I don't need/want the surround sound on.

The 1610 would be a better choice over the 507 in my opinion and worth the extra $50. More features and better build than the 507 and analog upconversion is a big plus for those that want it. The 607 would be my choice for overall features vs. price. The 607 can be found at Amazon for $407 shipped. That is only $35 more than the 1610 and is a much better receiver and best bang for your buck you can find. 6 HDMI inputs vs 3 as well. It is a 7.2 receiver but can be used as 5.1 or whatever. Just leave the extra speakers off. I use my 606 as a 5.1..

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-SR607-7-2-Channel-Surround-Receiver/dp/B001VEI2KO/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2

I am not 100% sure about the 507/607 but I think it is the same as my 606. You can pass the audio through to just the TV speakers, but the receiver needs to be on for this.

I too will agree with what Bigloww said, for the reasons mentioned. Either the Denon AVR1610 or the Onkyo TX-SR 607 (my preference/recommendation).

Thanks for the replies, so now I think the 507 is totally out of the running.

Besides the extra HDMI inputs, is there anything else that would make the Onkyo 607 a better choice than the Denon? I really only need two HDMI inputs for the cable box and Blu-Ray, since the XBOX is component. The 6 inputs isn't a huge deal for me, but I wouldn't mind spending the extra 35 bucks if the 607 is way better.

I have also heard about overheating issues with Onkyos, any truth to it?

I've never had an Onkyo OVER-heat, but they do get quite hot. I would say you need a lot of ventilation, or have it in an open rack OR buy one of the cooling products.

Pycroft

Thanks for the replies, so now I think the 507 is totally out of the running.

Besides the extra HDMI inputs, is there anything else that would make the Onkyo 607 a better choice than the Denon? I really only need two HDMI inputs for the cable box and Blu-Ray, since the XBOX is component. The 6 inputs isn't a huge deal for me, but I wouldn't mind spending the extra 35 bucks if the 607 is way better.

I have also heard about overheating issues with Onkyos, any truth to it?

The Onkyo has a few more features/bells and whistles including Analog to HDMI video upconversion by Faroujda DCDi, Audyssey Dynamic Volume which helps to keep the volume normalized when switching channels, etc.

Heat is not a problem if the receiver is well ventilated as any receiver should be.

Thanks for the replies, so now I think the 507 is totally out of the running.

Besides the extra HDMI inputs, is there anything else that would make the Onkyo 607 a better choice than the Denon? I really only need two HDMI inputs for the cable box and Blu-Ray, since the XBOX is component. The 6 inputs isn't a huge deal for me, but I wouldn't mind spending the extra 35 bucks if the 607 is way better.

I have also heard about overheating issues with Onkyos, any truth to it?


Many of the key upgrades of the 607 over the 1610 are:

1. 90 wpc vs 75 wpc (not a biggie).
2. Zone 2 speaker capability for speakers in another room.
3. 6 HDMI's vs 3. I know you said you only need 3 but always good to have too many than too few. Also nice that 1 is in the front for easy hookup of HDMI devices like digital camcorders and such.
4. 7.2 capable vs 5.1. I know you only want 5.1 now, but things may change in the future and nice to have and definately does not hurt. I also only use 5.1 at the moment, but thinking of adding 2 more in the near future.
5. Sirrus and HD radio ready.

You may not need/use any of these upgrades, but for only around $35 more, well worth it for "possible" upgrades down the road. But both receivers are great performers and 2 great bang for your buck receivers. So either way you go it is a win/win.

All receivers that put out that much power also put out heat (especially when cranked). But as long as it is in a well ventilated space, it will be fine.

Cool, thanks for all the responses! I am leaning more toward the 607 now. I like the look of the Denon more (I know that should not really play into it), but prefer the features of the Onkyo. I just hate that I have to wait another month for my holiday bonus to buy!

Cool, thanks for all the responses! I am leaning more toward the 607 now. I like the look of the Denon more (I know that should not really play into it), but prefer the features of the Onkyo. I just hate that I have to wait another month for my holiday bonus to buy!

Waiting is a killer...

I am in the same situation, looking for a receiver for my parents that are using a 12 year old Pioneer.
At first I was looking at the Denon 1610 versus the Onkyo 507, 607. Then I realized that the on screen display does not work via HDMI on the 507, only the 607. I have read that this is also the case for the Denon 1610. Also the Onkyo 607 has a HDMI input on the front.
So just a couple of things I thought I would add. The Onkyo 607 is the way I am going to go. Although I do like that the Denon is Ultra THX certified. Whether or not that means anything to anyone, is up for debate. It sounds good on my Onkyo 805.

This is going to sound sad, but I can't explain to you guys how happy I was to get to work this morning and find this thread. I've been over on the AVS forums for the last week trying to get someone to post an answer to basically the same exact question, and am having no luck.

Anyway just like the OP, I'm replacing a pretty old receiver, a Kenwood VR-6050 that has served me very well for the past 8 or so years, but I need the connectivity of a newer receiver (recently bought a PS3 and an HDTV).

My question is more about the receiver/speaker power relationship. I really like the 1610, and it has pretty much everything I need. The only concern for me is the wattage per channel. I'm running a 5.1 setup with two JBL e30s (60W nominal, 200 max), two JBL e10s (50/200), a Wharfedale center channel and a JBL PB10 sub. Am I at risk of underpowering the speakers with the 1610? Or given my setup (which is also in a pretty small room.. about 12'X15') do you think it will be just fine? Or am I looking at the wrong metrics altogether?

Thanks for reading, I'd appreciate any opinions.

Waiting is a killer...

Totally agree!

This is going to sound sad, but I can't explain to you guys how happy I was to get to work this morning and find this thread. I've been over on the AVS forums for the last week trying to get someone to post an answer to basically the same exact question, and am having no luck.

Anyway just like the OP, I'm replacing a pretty old receiver, a Kenwood VR-6050 that has served me very well for the past 8 or so years, but I need the connectivity of a newer receiver (recently bought a PS3 and an HDTV).

My question is more about the receiver/speaker power relationship. I really like the 1610, and it has pretty much everything I need. The only concern for me is the wattage per channel. I'm running a 5.1 setup with two JBL e30s (60W nominal, 200 max), two JBL e10s (50/200), a Wharfedale center channel and a JBL PB10 sub. Am I at risk of underpowering the speakers with the 1610? Or given my setup (which is also in a pretty small room.. about 12'X15') do you think it will be just fine? Or am I looking at the wrong metrics altogether?

Thanks for reading, I'd appreciate any opinions.

Sorry, I can't help with the speaker issue, but maybe someone will see this after the bump.

My question is more about the receiver/speaker power relationship. I really like the 1610, and it has pretty much everything I need. The only concern for me is the wattage per channel. I'm running a 5.1 setup with two JBL e30s (60W nominal, 200 max), two JBL e10s (50/200), a Wharfedale center channel and a JBL PB10 sub. Am I at risk of underpowering the speakers with the 1610? Or given my setup (which is also in a pretty small room.. about 12'X15') do you think it will be just fine? Or am I looking at the wrong metrics altogether?

It should have enough power for your current speakers (1610). Rather than looking at wattage, looking at the speakers efficiency is a much better indicator of how much power will be needed to drive them properly. Anything above 90db is pretty efficient and several are in the 93 to 95 range which means they require very little power to drive them to reference levels.

Hope this helps...:D

It should have enough power for your current speakers (1610). Rather than looking at wattage, looking at the speakers efficiency is a much better indicator of how much power will be needed to drive them properly. Anything above 90db is pretty efficient and several are in the 93 to 95 range which means they require very little power to drive them to reference levels.

Hope this helps...:D

Thanks very much for the reply. Unfortunately, the speakers (which admittedly, are a couple years old) have a sensitivity of 86db, and I'm currently not in the market for a new pair of speakers. Do you see this as being an issue?

Also I'm starting to like the 1910 now, but I don't think the power per channel difference is huge. However, will a receiver with more power per channel pair better with speakers that aren't as efficient?

Thanks again!

Thanks very much for the reply. Unfortunately, the speakers (which admittedly, are a couple years old) have a sensitivity of 86db, and I'm currently not in the market for a new pair of speakers. Do you see this as being an issue? It certainly could be as those are inefficient speakers and would require plenty of power to drive them.

Also I'm starting to like the 1910 now, but I don't think the power per channel difference is huge. However, will a receiver with more power per channel pair better with speakers that aren't as efficient? Yes and in this case I would recommend the Denon 1910 or the Onkyo 807

Thanks again!

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps.

It does, I think I'm probably going to go with the 1910.

Thanks again... I guess I should start looking into some new speakers too.

It does, I think I'm probably going to go with the 1910.

Thanks again... I guess I should start looking into some new speakers too.

Paradigm, Klipsch and several others make some very fine efficient speakers.

Paradigm, Klipsch and several others make some very fine efficient speakers.

I've always had a soft spot for Paradigm, perhaps I'll look into those. So, anything above 90db should do?

Thanks for all your help Loves2!

I've always had a soft spot for Paradigm, perhaps I'll look into those. So, anything above 90db should do?

Thanks for all your help Loves2!

I certainly love the Paradigms I own. They just came out with a new SE model that is supposed to blow the doors off speakers costing many times more. You might want to check those puppies out.

That's correct 90db and above...