Jump to content

Using 2ch Amp for L & R of HT, wow what an improvement!


Recommended Posts

I recently brought a 40w 2ch amp from local (SA) Richard McDonald.

Amp is called the "Quasimodo".

Using a Yamaha V663 for HT.

Found at higher volumes the yamaha combined with my main Standmount with Ribbons are a bit bitey at the higher freqs (especially with lower quality videos e.g. older Music videos).

Now with the "Quasimodo" running the Main L & R things are more organic, analog and smoother.

The "Quasimodo" is very tube-like.

Enjoying the journey .....

Yamaha V663 pre-out L R > Quasimodo 2ch amp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

no surprises there! been doing it myself for ages. nothing in an AVR will touch a 2 channel integrated.

Yes.......but if you spend a bit more, you can get an even better 2 channel amp!

Nah. only in the mid bass

  • Moderators

I was a great defender of quality AVRs producing good music until I also saw the light.

You are treading a well-worn path, Ron. Congrats on the purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Totally agree :)

On another thread, there were discussions regarding a CE AVR vs one with better amp modules but shaky HDMI implementations.

I'd always go with the CE unit with preouts and use external stereo preamps with HT bypass or direct to good power amps.

Link to post
Share on other sites




I will focus on the Centre channel next ......... Maybe another Quasimodo amp!!! Liking the tube-like amp combined with Ribbons.

Also, down the track - using an AV Pre .....

i had an old Pioneer valve amp that had an output for a centre channel.

Sadly, it died a terrible death!

Was a great sounding amp

PP EL84's.

Fair bit of distortion but made the music sound very exciting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And to get SURROUND SOUND from your favorite two channel stereo amplfier, you need this device:

If it does what it is purported to do, then it will be a breakthrough product for many normal homes that do not have a dedicated 7.1 channel Home Theatre room.

Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
I was a great defender of quality AVRs producing good music until I also saw the light.

You are treading a well-worn path, Ron. Congrats on the purchase.

 

I never went down the AVR path. Heck, I've never even owned a TV! :)

 

Cheers!

 

SS

Link to post
Share on other sites


I've been doing this for years too, works well. Good thing is that for playing music you can just use the stereo system without even switching on the AVR. For HT, the system is more dynamic sounding with both amps as compared to the AVR alone, probably because the AVR only has to concern itself with powering the centre and surround speakers.

 

As for the centre channel, I'm personally not convinced that its strictly necessary. (Opinions will differ on this, of course.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so let me get this straight, you guys are still decoding audio via the AVR but using the pre-outs on the AVR for L and R only, feeding a 2 channel amp which has the mains hooked up to it. You then simply leave the AVR off when listening to stereo ?

 

hmmm, wonder if i can get a Marantz Pearl Lite past The Gatekeeper

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh ok, I didnt think you could split up the speakers like that, I knew you could pre-out, but I wasnt aware your rears and centre, for example, would still run off the AVR. Nifty ;-)

 

I had plans of simply losing the AVR altogether and just running  2.0 decoded at the source into a (nice) integrated amp. Proper imaging would take care of any dialogue, wouldnt even need a centre (in my set-up)

 

edit: if a demo of 2.0 moviewatching proved satisfactory

Edited by mello yello
Link to post
Share on other sites
ok so let me get this straight, you guys are still decoding audio via the AVR but using the pre-outs on the AVR for L and R only, feeding a 2 channel amp which has the mains hooked up to it. You then simply leave the AVR off when listening to stereo ?

 

Spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking that the ht bypass idea could be used to set up an intimate two channel, by using the rears of a 5.1 setup with a suitably sweet integrated. Just for a different listening option.

Could even plonk a TT on top for the dark side lads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
combined 2ch and ht system here as well. goodness of the 2ch amp driving the mains also helps the ht side :)

Same here and absolutely no regrets

Have actually taken it a step further as well with running the ML1s (surrounds) with mono-blocks, monoblocks are right next to the ML1s with some RCA cable runs and short speaker cables, would recommend this setup too.

Really let's the AV receiver do the processing and amplify the centre speaker only, definitely getting some more punch out of the centre as a result.

Maybe off-topic as i guess it's just one step away from separate pre/pro...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been thinking that the ht bypass idea could be used to set up an intimate two channel, by using the rears of a 5.1 setup with a suitably sweet integrated. Just for a different listening option.

Could even plonk a TT on top for the dark side lads.

 

I'd considered that at one point but in HT it helps to have timbre matching so it makes more sense to invest more for the front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done the full circle, starting off with a 2 channel integrated I then added an AVR with L R pre outs to the integrated then decided to loose the whole surround setup after changing to speakers with better stereo imaging and the Nad M51

I don't miss my centre channel etc.

Cheers

Liam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do AVR receivers lack so much even when using them as 2 channel playback ? Not sure if Im going OT here, but its related to the general idea the OP is talking about, so I suppose the question could be to the OP, why is it that this needs to be done ?

 

Is it a simple case of power rating specs where an AVR is rated at say 100W (as an AVR ) it only produces say 25W in real stereo terms ? or is it the AVR circuitry that lets it down when compared to a 2 channel  integrated amp. Is it because the lower frequencies are "lost" or diverted to account for a sub.

 

Would a 200W AVR for example compensate.?

 

Is it inbuilt equalisation in an AVR ?

 

 

edit: my AVR has the typical marantz direct mode, but that doesnt really affect the overall sound, I just noticed a huge hole when I switched from an integrated amp rated at 4 times less output than the AVR ( same speakers)

Edited by mello yello
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Not sure Mello.

 

I have quite a reasonable/good AVR, it would have retailed about $2.5k.(YammyRXV-3800)

As a pre its not really bad but still not a patch on the dedicated pre I use.

 

As an intergrated pre and amp it really falls short of a dedicated pre/power combo.

 

As a ht receiver it does very well.

 

But IMO there is too much going on within which adds some stuff and strangles other stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks joz, possibly as close an explanation as can be made...an AVR is purpose built and an integrated amp, the same

 

2 different horses for 2 different courses, however the power ratings can be confusing ( at best)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a pre its not really bad but still not a patch on the dedicated pre I use."

 

 

I spent a lot of time going back and forth between 2 channel / surround setup with preamps, processors, AVRs, etc.

 

(Including some reasonably expensive "audiophile" AVRs)

 

 

What common theme I eventually found.... was that the quality of the preamp was much more important than the amps.

 

 

I guess what I mean is that AVR amps, or large multichannel home theatre poweramps, or good stereo amps ... all when used with in their limits with middle of the road designed speakers

 

..... will make less of a difference between each other than

 

The difference between preamps between say, AVRs or HT processors, VS good seperate preamps or integrated/passives (when used carefully).

 

 

 

That being my experience, my recommendation for anyone who wants "stereo music" from a HT system .... should look for a preamp with a "HT bypass"  (defeatable volume control for a specific input) ... and run their surround system into that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
That being my experience, my recommendation for anyone who wants "stereo music" from a HT system .... should look for a preamp with a "HT bypass"  (defeatable volume control for a specific input) ... and run their surround system into that.

 

As I have done, best of both worlds! :thumb:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Why do AVR receivers lack so much even when using them as 2 channel playback ? Not sure if Im going OT here, but its related to the general idea the OP is talking about, so I suppose the question could be to the OP, why is it that this needs to be done ?

 

Is it a simple case of power rating specs where an AVR is rated at say 100W (as an AVR ) it only produces say 25W in real stereo terms ? or is it the AVR circuitry that lets it down when compared to a 2 channel  integrated amp. Is it because the lower frequencies are "lost" or diverted to account for a sub.

 

Would a 200W AVR for example compensate.?

 

Is it inbuilt equalisation in an AVR ?

 

 

edit: my AVR has the typical marantz direct mode, but that doesnt really affect the overall sound, I just noticed a huge hole when I switched from an integrated amp rated at 4 times less output than the AVR ( same speakers)

 

its all the way through, starting with analog capability they usually are a bit stripped back as most avrs typically used with digital inputs. even there you'll find the dacs used will be budget affairs ie $2 8ch dac on a chip vs say more elaborate dac implementations than what will find in most disc players and standalone dacs. the pre amp stage is often in the digital domain restricted by the onboard dac or if analog very rudimentary again because typically geared for digital inputs. the power amp stage is usually constricted by internal space limitations of fitting 7 ch of amplification including power supply and cooling etc which usually are what suffer.

 

that is not to say good avrs dont exist you just have to pay for them I think. eg the denon 4308 I owned had a decent analog capability but had 7 ! power supplies and quite an elaborate dac implementation. was a big mutha too and cost nearly $5k ! the A series avrs denon make is step up again with more elaborate amps, dacs and power stages etc

 

an easy path if chasing good 2ch ability with an av system is just augment with some dedicated analog gear, with source and 2ch integrated or pre-pwr with ht bypass. best of both worlds indeed :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually al I fired up my marantz SR6005 in multi channel stereo mode today and gave Brothers In Arms a loud spin, and tell you what...Im happy

 

Orpheus Auroras with Mission M5C set at -5db, nice shake of the house, and a nice soundstage across the front

 

i think music is an emotional appreciation sometimes,

Link to post
Share on other sites
 I don't miss my centre channel etc. Cheers Liam

 

 

What about your 'surround' left and right speakers?

 

They deliver a more 'surround' (ha ha) stereo experience, and one which I personally find enthralling when cranking up the tunes when I really want to get a buzz!

Link to post
Share on other sites
its all the way through, starting with analog capability they usually are a bit stripped back as most avrs typically used with digital inputs. even there you'll find the dacs used will be budget affairs ie $2 8ch dac on a chip vs say more elaborate dac implementations than what will find in most disc players and standalone dacs. the pre amp stage is often in the digital domain restricted by the onboard dac or if analog very rudimentary again because typically geared for digital inputs. the power amp stage is usually constricted by internal space limitations of fitting 7 ch of amplification including power supply and cooling etc which usually are what suffer.

 

that is not to say good avrs dont exist you just have to pay for them I think. eg the denon 4308 I owned had a decent analog capability but had 7 ! power supplies and quite an elaborate dac implementation. was a big mutha too and cost nearly $5k ! the A series avrs denon make is step up again with more elaborate amps, dacs and power stages etc

 

an easy path if chasing good 2ch ability with an av system is just augment with some dedicated analog gear, with source and 2ch integrated or pre-pwr with ht bypass. best of both worlds indeed :)

so if you were to compare just the apples with apples, a AVR's stereo stage would basically be worth about a 1/4 in value and quality as  an integrated stereo amps componentry,... I can see that

 

my old marantz PM45 had some nice ceramic capacitors, I doubt the SR6005 would have anything as elaborate, thanks al

 

might still dream about a Pearl though

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
actually al I fired up my marantz SR6005 in multi channel stereo mode today and gave Brothers In Arms a loud spin, and tell you what...Im happy

 

Orpheus Auroras with Mission M5C set at -5db, nice shake of the house, and a nice soundstage across the front

 

i think music is an emotional appreciation sometimes,

 

and thats the thing as long as hits the spot ! 

 

so if you were to compare just the apples with apples, a AVR's stereo stage would basically be worth about a 1/4 in value and quality as  an integrated stereo amps componentry,... I can see that

 

my old marantz PM45 had some nice ceramic capacitors, I doubt the SR6005 would have anything as elaborate, thanks al

 

might still dream about a Pearl though

 

dollar for dollar have always found cheaper to achieve better 2ch with dedicated 2ch gear. stands to reason I guess ! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had a fixed budget, and wanted good surround AND good 2ch, would it be better to invest in a better AVR?

eg if you only had $2k to spend, do you buy an AVR for $1k and an integrated for $1k, or spend $2k on a better AVR?

Just wondering.....

ps don't bother with buy one now and then add the other, or "you don't need a centre channel', that's not the point of this hyperthetical!!

Edited by jel
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had a fixed budget, and wanted good surround AND good 2ch, would it be better to invest in a better AVR?

eg if you only had $2k to spend, do you buy an AVR for $1k and an integrated for $1k, or spend $2k on a better AVR?

Just wondering.....

ps don't bother with buy one now and then add the other, or "you don't need a centre channel', that's not the point of this hyperthetical!!

 

I'd buy a second hand NAD integrated and then an AVR with the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...