Jump to content

Music only - AV Receiver OR Integrated Stereo Amp?


Recommended Posts

I believe it was the old Z9 that was the grand daddy of them all. Z7 and Z11s were relative light weights by comparison

 

if wanting another flagship AVRs the old denon A1 series (been 3 so far) released every 10 years were also about as good as get when comes to AVRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

I beg to differ. It isn't all subjective. I guess that means that I'm wrong and the exception to the rule?:(

I'm confused. Surely you bought what you have because it sounds good to you? You surely didn't buy it because someone said it is good or because the spec's suggested it would be good or because of the brand name or, god forbid, because it had a high price (so therefore it has to be good)?:cool:  How did you decide on what to buy, if not subjectively? It's definition is as follows: " based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. " So, did your personal tastes influence your choice? I would hope so. Did your personal feelings when listening come into it? I would hope so. Were your personal opinions on how something should sound considered in your decision? I would hope so. If not, maybe you are the exception to the rule. If you didn't select your audio equipment subjectively, pray tell: how did you decide to buy what you bought? :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Marantz AVR and two Musical Fidelity stereo amps. (These are all now a bit 'vintage', around 15 to 20 years old.)
 
A number of the reviews I read at the time I bought the Marantz mentioned that it was quite good in stereo mode. However, out of curiosity I have tried it as a stereo amp, and find it sounds quite hard and flat in comparison to either of the MF amps when played through the same speakers. It is fine as an AVR though (but noticeably better with one of the MF amps connected to the pre-outs from the Marantz and driving the front speakers).
 
Same I have an Onkyo Avr which I run to my Ayre pre and Krell amp sounds way better in my integrated stereo surround system. But has the op even said the critical listening or casual in his office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rantan said:

Damn straight. Life is too short to listen to music via an AVR:lol:

Well you seem to have done that on all our behalfs @rantan, for 99.9% of AVR's and each at only 5 minutes listening. :lol:Perhaps you could break down your top 5, or top 3 as to the differences in some detail?

 

3 x integrated's vs 3 x AVR's or 1x integrated's vs 3x AVR's or 1x AVR vs 3 Integrated's ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, stevoz said:

I would maybe modify that sentence to:

"The beauty of this hobby is that everyone is always right all of the time, especially when they're own ears tell them they are." It's all subjective.:)

There's nothing subjective about more distortion free, noise free power. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



If buying an avr for 2ch look for one with power a plenty and one that doesn’t touch the incoming analogue inputs, Cambridge audio and Arcam come to mind.

 

Im using a CA751r which does both, I’ve had a Cyrus 8xpd and Arcam A38 integrateds and I’m not left wanting one bit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't of thought an AVR the same price as an integrated would be a fair comparison,  especially if the AVR is used for both HT and music sources?

 

If it does double duties maybe comparing an AVR twice the price of an integrated would be a fairer comparison? Most reasonable-ish AVR's seem to be up around the $2500 mark?

 

If the OP doesnt need the bells & whistles of an AVR not sure why he is considering it tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Eggcup The Daft
21 hours ago, stevoz said:

I'm confused. Surely you bought what you have because it sounds good to you? You surely didn't buy it because someone said it is good or because the spec's suggested it would be good or because of the brand name or, god forbid, because it had a high price (so therefore it has to be good)?:cool:  How did you decide on what to buy, if not subjectively? It's definition is as follows: " based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. " So, did your personal tastes influence your choice? I would hope so. Did your personal feelings when listening come into it? I would hope so. Were your personal opinions on how something should sound considered in your decision? I would hope so. If not, maybe you are the exception to the rule. If you didn't select your audio equipment subjectively, pray tell: how did you decide to buy what you bought? :)

The buying process (what I did at the end) you could regard as subjective. Yes, I listened to things. My CD player was bought on a recommendation to a tight budget without audition, though. The Dragonfly Red I own was bought without listening as well, for a pair of specific features it provides.

However, I certainly prepared by ensuring that the products I've bought worked with what I had already, which IS a matter of consulting specifications and ensuring that the resulting setup is technically compatible and at least reasonably accurate. I concern myself with the sound of live, unamplified music, so that I know broadly enough not to decide on what I like in a vacuum. A hifi system has a job to do, reproduce musical performances to a high degree of fidelity.

 

More to the point, though, how do you think that the products from which I selected were developed? Was the design of my components wholly done subjectively, or were listening tests subject to the development of circuits that showed excellent measurements? Was the design of the DAC chips in my players subjective, or the result of highly trained, intelligent chip designers working to a target specification?

 

You seem to forget that we, as end users, are the last people in a chain of component development, product development, engineering and manufacturing expertise. Nothing in my system came out of thin air. Our subjective choices depend entirely on the hard work, experimentation, hard work, acquired knowledge and hard work of thousands of people over what is now more than a century. Yes, designers do use subjective listening as part of their work, but the bulk of what they do remains objective. Maybe your components were willed into being, happened by pure accident or consist of fairy dust, but somehow I doubt it.

 

Subconciously, when it comes to my sighted listening in a demo room, I'm reasonably certain that the unconscious pressure of -

22 hours ago, stevoz said:

someone said it is good or because the spec's suggested it would be good or because of the brand name or, god forbid, because it had a high price (so therefore it has to be good)?

is sat in my subconscious, along with a lot of stuff about expensive cables, overdone setup, and all the other stuff that the audiophile hobby turns up. Same for you, and pretty much everyone else here. That's what subjectivism is. It doesn't come free of what is in your head already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, allthumbs said:

Well you seem to have done that on all our behalfs @rantan.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

Just my opinion for my purposes, which clearly differ to the OP.

 

If the OP wishes to buy an AVR for music it's his business and his alone.

 

Opinions were sought and given and I won't bore you any further:)

Edited by rantan
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the OP is looking forward for support of his own ideas ? We don't know?

So many people can provide anecdotal evidence on both ends of the spectrum,  yet no two have exactly the same setup with the same tastes in same room.

So no matter whether it's forum advice or magazine reviews answers will vary.

There will be many contradictory opinions, some will be much more correct than others.

So if you're buying by anything except by your own experience you your just gonna have to suck it and see. If you are led up the garden path oh well!

 

See my sig

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Thanks for all of your opinions and information given guys. I have decided to go down the dedicated 2ch route. I will be able to directly compare the two aforementioned amp and AVR back to back so I will report back soon with my thoughts on that particular comparison.

 

@swervyn hit the nail on the head there I think. It is probably a fairer comparison to compare an AVR twice the price of any integrated amp that is up for consideration due to the fact the AVR has to do so many more things to do. That may even be a good rule to go by? :thumb:

Edited by A/V
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2017 at 9:27 PM, allthumbs said:

From the web I picked Marantz at random, read the blurb and who would doubt the blurb of a respected legendary hi-fi component manufacturer:)

 

http://www.qualifi.com.au/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=vmj_genx_SR.tpl&product_id=64404&category_id=140&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1049

Not as legendary as you think. The original Marantz was Saul Marantz's company is the US. The name was much later purchased by a Japanese co with Philips backing. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Magicdog said:

Not as legendary as you think. The original Marantz was Saul Marantz's company is the US. The name was much later purchased by a Japanese co with Philips backing. 

 

Correct. When Saul was running the show Marantz was indeed legendary and the products were worthy of that citation, both in the context of the time and even now for the most part.

Even Ken Ishiwata can only be a bulwark against corporate marketing for a certain time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rantan said:

Just my opinion for my purposes, which clearly differ to the OP.

@rantan, I offered an opinion and got "you're kidding right?" 

 

I had no vested interest in pushing one technology over another nor do I have a strong opinion for or against one technology over another.

 

I myself prefer two channel listening exclusively and only rarely use an AVR and when I do, in stereo mode.   Intuitively I would think that considering the global sales of AVR's which I believe dwarf other forms of amplification in a growing market, (although like some others I find it bizarre having  11 ,13.....x channels of sound) and at sometime,as is prognosticated as it all l becomes too complex the soundbar will be its undoing.

 

And the hallowed tones and reverend whispers we use when discussing high end audio, will be passed on to the AV crowd as they look down on the soundbar advocates.

 

A few things just bugged me, the widespread counter argument that was used across the net that AVR's do so many things that they are incapable of doing stereo, not just well, but not even competently. To me because of the widespread use of that argument, it had the ring of a quickly accepted justification, a myth, because the wording of that argument varied little from post to post or poster to poster.  That makes me skeptical.

 

The other was that an AVR being used as an AVR is fine, OK, commendable and apart from nitpicking on features or the supposed different but audible voicings by one manufacturer or the other, in theater mode, even two channel diehards had little to criticize as to the hi-fidelity performance of the AVR? They were good for 5, 7, 9 or 11 channels but not for 2.

 

And as I said before, as soon as just one person says that they consider the AVR in stereo mode to be the equal or better of an integrated amplifier in their experience, the case for the opposite view collapses in totality, if opinion or personal preference is the method of judging products. Looking through various forums including this one I found enough dissenting opinion that put the whole case closed on integrated amplifiers vs AVR's wasn't quite as closed as many would have it.

 

If someone can provide charts or graphs and make them understandable to me as to why and AVR is incapable of producing quality stereo performance I am all ears.

 

I used the term "legendary" advisedly and simultaneously ironically.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites



13 minutes ago, swervyn said:

well I think an AVR will do a better job as a 2ch integrated than a 2ch integrated will do as an AVR.

 

That depends. If one don't mind watching movies or videos on 2ch, and the integrated comes with an in-built DAC, then it pretty much functions like an AVR. You just need a HDMI splitter to extract out a digital feed into the DAC. If the integrate offers a line feed to a sub, then you could get 2.1. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rantan said:

Correct. When Saul was running the show Marantz was indeed legendary and the products were worthy of that citation, both in the context of the time and even now for the most part.

Even Ken Ishiwata can only be a bulwark against corporate marketing for a certain time.

I've met Ken Ishiwata a number of time, done presntations & dinners and while he started as an engineer, for the last17 years or so he's acted purley as a figure head for the co, traveling 300ish day per year doing prom work. No design work going on there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eggcup The Daft said:

The buying process (what I did at the end) you could regard as subjective. Yes, I listened to things. My CD player was bought on a recommendation to a tight budget without audition, though. The Dragonfly Red I own was bought without listening as well, for a pair of specific features it provides.

However, I certainly prepared by ensuring that the products I've bought worked with what I had already, which IS a matter of consulting specifications and ensuring that the resulting setup is technically compatible and at least reasonably accurate. I concern myself with the sound of live, unamplified music, so that I know broadly enough not to decide on what I like in a vacuum. A hifi system has a job to do, reproduce musical performances to a high degree of fidelity.

 

More to the point, though, how do you think that the products from which I selected were developed? Was the design of my components wholly done subjectively, or were listening tests subject to the development of circuits that showed excellent measurements? Was the design of the DAC chips in my players subjective, or the result of highly trained, intelligent chip designers working to a target specification?

 

You seem to forget that we, as end users, are the last people in a chain of component development, product development, engineering and manufacturing expertise. Nothing in my system came out of thin air. Our subjective choices depend entirely on the hard work, experimentation, hard work, acquired knowledge and hard work of thousands of people over what is now more than a century. Yes, designers do use subjective listening as part of their work, but the bulk of what they do remains objective. Maybe your components were willed into being, happened by pure accident or consist of fairy dust, but somehow I doubt it.

 

Subconciously, when it comes to my sighted listening in a demo room, I'm reasonably certain that the unconscious pressure of -

is sat in my subconscious, along with a lot of stuff about expensive cables, overdone setup, and all the other stuff that the audiophile hobby turns up. Same for you, and pretty much everyone else here. That's what subjectivism is. It doesn't come free of what is in your head already.

A bit long:lol: but fair comment......:thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact tbat the more processing you put in the signal path, the more degradation the original signal suffers. Also the video processing circuitry on an amp tends to degrade the audio signal. Comparing a sub $1500 purley analogue stereo amp with a $4000 av reciever almost always(i have to put that in as I haven't tried the all)  the stereo amp wins hands down. 

Also look at the power consumption of even a high end avr verses it claimed power, and the numbers rarely match up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 1/4/2018 at 7:12 PM, Magicdog said:

I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact tbat the more processing you put in the signal path, the more degradation the original signal suffers.

Everyone, but everyone mentions the "fact" Magicdog. Is it audible, is it audible degradation? I'm never aware of it at the cinema for example.

 

If you have some source material on those measurements, test results, charts,graphs etc I for one would be glad to see them and have any one of the many talented, knowledgeable and experienced posters on here explain them to me,  because I am a babe in the woods in regards to the technical although I am trying my very best to get a handle on some of these concepts lately.

 

Power has been mentioned as well and I think we can all agree that the Manufacturer's take liberties with those figures, still in many cases the manufacturers of the AVR's are the same manufacturer's of the stereo amplifiers, so their credibility has to be shot on all products you'd think. Or not?

 

At random off the net. Look pretty good?

 

https://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/pioneer_sc-lx89_av_receiver_review_test_lores.pdf

 

https://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/SI_Pioneer_VSX-932.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said earlier, some AVR manufacturers are actually (too) honest and serious about quality music reproduction........
>>>> Cambridge Audio 640R.....5ch - Rated: 100w/ch>>>> Actual tested: 130w/ch
                                                        Stereo - Rated: 120w/ch>>Actual tested: >170w/ch
                                               *Separate analogue stereo circuitry - no signal degradation......:thumb:
Yes, I'm bias but I do agree most intergrated amp's will beat most AVR's for music reproduction (depending on price, of course) and I plan to one day get an excellent intergrated amp for a dedicated analogue system and just use the 640R for HT and digital music but I will still hold the view that not all AVR's are inferior for stereo music. My previous two amp's were intergrated and admittedly a fair bit cheaper (a 1978 Luxman L3 and an early 2000's NAD c316bee) but the 640R is all over them for stereo music reproduction. :)

Edited by stevoz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top