# AVR vs. Separates??



## wgmontgomery

I may be opening Pandora's box with this, but I'm a bit curious. How many people here think that separates offer better sq than an AVR for 2 channel music? PLEASE keep in mind that opinions will vary and nobody is right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion!

I'll also post this question in the HT forum to see if there's a difference with movies instead of music.

Link to HT forum: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/av-home-theater/57153-avr-vs-separates.html#post516043


----------



## tonyvdb

I think that with todays receivers being so much better there is little to no difference in the sound quality. Almost all receivers offer a Pure direct mode bypassing all of the processing so there should be no reason to go that route unless you like spending 4 or 5 times as much on separates with little to no audible gain.


----------



## OZZIERP

I think if you run full range speakers without a sub then yes separates will have the edge because the amp section in most AVR's are not strong enough but if you cross over to a sub at 70 or 80Hz then all bets are off.


----------



## Jon Liu

I think overall, I find that separate ANYTHING can generally sound better. That is not limited to pre/pro and amplifiers exclusively either. I think just dedicated circuitry can yield better results for anything. It's not guaranteed to be better, but it is as a general guideline. I think there is more potential for more power essentially. With the limitations of an AVR housing, you are limited to the amount of heat that the component can generate.


----------



## Jungle Jack

In a sense, with an AVR with Preamp Outputs and Pure Direct, you can have your cake and eat it too. Especially with power hungry speakers, the differences an Amplifier can make are profound. However, if strictly interested in 2 Channel, I do see the advantages of getting a powerful Integrated Amplifier or separate Preamplifier and Power Amplifier combo for simplicity. Personally, I like the flexibility of having HT capability and still having solid 2 Channel performance.


----------



## victor tubeman

This is a good question,in a combined 2chan/ht system(as most have 1 system,room) even a modest separates will yield sound benefits.What holds all AVR,S back is pre amp section, amp section and digital etc noise generated.It is all the things an AVR must do that it is master of none.

If 2 chan sound quality is important,then an integrated amp can improve your combined 2ch/HT system ,at only a low $ cost.A 2 chan pre amp and power amps is better still but at the cost of space and $.

This is really a $ question as most have not listen to a good hi end 2 chan pre with great amps ,will it cost more yes.Is it worth it,to me ,yes.

I had a combined 2 ch and ht,but even then ,there are limits with speaker placement for HT and 2 chan performance ,they conflict.So I use another room for uncompromised 2 chan sound quality.

Try it,in your systems even a modest 2 chan pre will improve any combined 2 chan and HT system.

Cheers Victor.


----------



## vann_d

Power requirements are basically logarithmic so it really comes down to how loud the playback needs to be and how efficient the speakers are. Almost all amplifier designs have good frequency response and sufficiently low distortion when they are in their comfort zone. (Ironically, some of the audiophile favs suffer here) 

*There is no such thing as digital noise*. It's 1's and 0's. A breakthrough decades old that many still don't understand.

Digital to analog conversion could be an area for improvement but I think modern AVRs have that down pretty well. I have done a loop back test (sine sweep) in REW with my cheap AVR and it handled it flawlessly.

Channel to channel crosstalk could be an issue in AVRs in the analog amp section. This can definitely be improved in a separate amp. I don't know how much of an issue it is though.

From my experience, the electronics are the least important piece of the puzzle and only account for a small fraction of the sound quality. Speakers and their setup must constitute at least 95% of the overall objective quality if not more, IMHO.


----------



## tesseract

By virtue of their design, AVR all in one architecture is a compromise and built to a price point. Higher performance separates are available from most AVR manufacturers, conversely, many high end manufacturers would never consider making an AVR, for good reasons.

AVR's of today are much better than they were even a few short years ago. Enough so that I just purchased my first one, coming from a high end passive pre integrated amp. I am interested in hearing my Hi Rez recordings surround sound tracks, and especially interested in room EQ.

At lower volumes, sans AVR EQ, I would be hard pressed to tell the two apart. With movies in 2.1, also hard to tell them apart. With music at higher volumes (above -20 to -25 dB), the AVR sounds strained and a bit veiled in spite of having the advantages of high pass XO for the mains and more than double the 4 ohm rating of the integrated. The AVR LFE feed to my subwoofer amp _has_ improved my bass response, probably because the integrated's pre out signal isn't nearly as hot as the AVR. This allowed me to back off the sub amp gain considerably.


----------



## victor tubeman

Digital noise I am taking about is from cheap switch mode power supplies used in an avr.

Try a 2 chan pre then get back to me.


----------



## lcaillo

victor tubeman said:


> Digital noise I am taking about is from cheap switch mode power supplies used in an avr.
> 
> Try a 2 chan pre then get back to me.


Unless something has changed in the last couple of years, most AVRs do not use SMPS. The digital noise that you speak of is generated by the various processing circuits, but it is generally well filtered and does not enter most audio signal paths in the better AVRs (which is the level of product Tony was talking about, I am sure).

Most of the people in this thread HAVE experienced high end 2 channel systems, so please, leave your condescending tone elsewhere when you come to HTS to post. 

Having been in the audio business since the late 1970s, and serviced, sold, and used some pretty high end two channel systems, I have seen the quality increase tremendously. The assumptions about cheap receivers, digital problems, and the relative differences in performance are less valid today than in the past to a large degree. There are, however, more really cheap complex products on the very low end that are problematic, but a good AVR today is actually going to produce sound that is much closer to separates than ever before.

Digital noise from power supplies can have a number of causes, but it is pretty easy to find and filter. When you find it in an analog signal path, please let us know what product you are talking about and who did the testing and we are happy to report it. If you just heard what you attribute to such, please identify your personal experience as such and let's not confuse a personal impression with facts.


----------



## wgmontgomery

Thanks everyone for their responses. I'll restate (and this is not aimed at anyone) that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so let's continue to show each other respect. 

One thing that I find interesting (and it has been touched on a bit) is the idea that if you can't measure it, it isn't there. Wasn't Red Book CD supposed to be "perfect sound forever?" Flat 20-20k response with almost zero THD and wow-and-flutter was "perfect." Since then we've discovered that other formats (SA-CD etc.) with improved response DO sound better. 

Extrapolating from that, if an AVR's measurements are the same as separates', it must sound the same? Without going into my Biology background too much, I know enough about the human brain to know that we (humans) do NOT understand it very well. Years ago x-rays were used to look into the body; we could finally SEE broken bones without removing tissue. Years after they had been in use we (humans) discovered that we did not fully understand everything that was happening. Many people (especially Doctors) died from over-exposure to the very "breakthrough" meant to help them. 

We've also found that "bits _aren't_ always bits." Copy a CD in a "lossless" format enough times and-after enough generations-you will hear that the sq degrades. That should not happen based on current (accepted) knowledge, but it does. I've heard it, and I'm not alone.

My point is that even if you (anyone) subscribe to the "specs mean everything" idea, doesn't that still leave room for something that we don't yet know HOW to measure? Perhaps there are things happening that affect our brain that we have yet to discover?

I pose this as a question and not as a "flame;" I'm very curious to read other opinions. onder:


----------



## lcaillo

These are age old questions that bring out strong opinions. My view is that there may well be differences that are not captured by the traditional measures and assumptions about what is audible. I also feel, based on 30 years of experience, that the sound quality of relatively inexpensive products has improved greatly in recent years and that for most people any differences between products other than the really low end are not meaningful. What is audible and meaningful, however, has much more to do with perception and personal preference and priority than technical differences.


----------



## JoeESP9

Place me firmly in the separates category if for no other reason than flexibility. I have the budget and room for only one system. This is the same system I've slowly been improving since the late 70's. It's a two channel system with little or no compromising. To that I've added surround capability with as little compromise as possible.

When I play two channel music I use a dedicated two channel preamp driving an electronic crossover, SS driven dual subs and tube driven electrostatics. All two channel sources are connected directly to my two channel preamp. 

All surround/MC sources are connected directly to my processor. For surround/MC music and movies my front speakers and amplifiers are driven by my processor through my two channel preamp running in bypass mode. The rear electronic crossover, rear amplifiers, rear dual subs and rear electrostatics are driven directly by the processor. This gear is all in a dedicated acoustically treated room. 

I run my processor's center channel in phantom mode. I don't have room for another large electrostatic speaker. This is my only real compromise and IMO is a very small and insignificant one.

IMO this setup gives me the best of both worlds. Plus, I have more power and flexibility at my disposal than any receiver made by anyone at anytime.


----------



## wgmontgomery

lcaillo said:


> These are age old questions that bring out strong opinions. My view is that there may well be differences that are not captured by the traditional measures and assumptions about what is audible. I also feel, based on 30 years of experience, that the sound quality of relatively inexpensive products has improved greatly in recent years...


Well put.


----------



## victor tubeman

Vol control on all Avr,s and SSP,s is also a major detriment to sound quality, this is where 2 chan pre,s are better and in SOTA 2 chan pre s far better.
I have tried SSP,s in my large ht and are not even close on multi chan sound and that's with the older bat vk-5. People want easier not better sound quality , an AVR is easy .

Bluray movies and music in main HT I use analog out from player .
Bat vk-5 and Audio research amps do front left, right.Copland cva-306 centre and rears krell mono for centre and bat vk-500 for rears.proceed AVP only .1 chan to peavey 4 subs with Eq .
I could use the Copland 6 chan pre for all chans but the bat is better sounding.
Unlike most I'm only interested in results not cost. 

Charles Hansen from Ayre can explain the theory of why 2 chan pre,s are way ahead.(Avs forum Dx-5 p4,p9 can't link on an iPhone )
I have found that bluray movie soundtracks do sound very good an better than most cd,s even with what audio for movies go thru. 

Regards Victor.


----------



## OZZIERP

I wonder how many people could actually pick out a dedicated 2-ch setup versus an good AVR with the same source same speakers I tried it once and failed. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear especially if we spent our hard earned money on a supposed upgrade.


----------



## J&D

^Not many and when I worked in a the hi-end retail bus we sponsored quite a few "internal" head to head DBT's with everyone in the shop and a few select customers. There was one test in particular where I was able to get everyone to agree to let me take my $600 200W/ch H/K Citation 22 solid state stereo amplifer and test against several of the esoteric and hand build mono-blocks we sold all the time for $6k to $25k apiece. The result was that nobody either internally or externally could reliably pick out the pricier amps including the resident and self-proclaimed "Golden Ears" who could not believe that I would spend my hard earned cash on the H/K.

Granted this thread is talking mostly about pre-amp sections and I do believe there are areas where differences can be heard but again they are minimal at best and the laws of diminishing returns quickly come into play. For the majority of enthusiasts a well designed AVR will do an excellent job of reproducing 2ch faithfully. I use my Denon AVR as a pre-pro to do just that. My Citation 22 continues to serve regular duty with my surround L/R channels!

JD


----------



## PT800

J&D said:


> ^Not many and when I worked in a the hi-end retail bus we sponsored quite a few "internal" head to head DBT's with everyone in the shop and a few select customers. There was one test in particular where I was able to get everyone to agree to let me take my $600 200W/ch H/K Citation 22 solid state stereo amplifer and test against several of the esoteric and hand build mono-blocks we sold all the time for $6k to $25k apiece. The result was that nobody either internally or externally could reliably pick out the pricier amps including the resident and self-proclaimed "Golden Ears" who could not believe that I would spend my hard earned cash on the H/K.
> 
> Granted this thread is talking mostly about pre-amp sections and I do believe there are areas where differences can be heard but again they are minimal at best and the laws of diminishing returns quickly come into play. For the majority of enthusiasts a well designed AVR will do an excellent job of reproducing 2ch faithfully. I use my Denon AVR as a pre-pro to do just that. My Citation 22 continues to serve regular duty with my surround L/R channels!
> 
> JD


I can certainly believe it about the Citation 22. I've got a Citation 19 connected to a HK 3390 receiver.
The 19 just provides more muscle. I did have the 19 connected to a Parasound P7, until it needed a repair on the front end. But I can say that older HK AVR635 put out very good sound.


----------



## mannymulle

From the AVRs and separate power amps that I have owned and inspected I would say the separates usually have heavier gauge wiring, better heat sinking, and balanced in's and out's that can reduce hum and noise.


----------



## OZZIERP

Modern AVR's have excellent shielding where some fall short is one power supply to do all some flagships come with 3 independent power supplies and when test benched they don't supply 50% of their rated power all channels driven 20Hz to 20KHz at .01 % distortion with the exception of the Flagships in 5.1 only. 
Usually if it supplies an honest 100wpc and you cross the bass over to the sub at 80Hz your 99% there.
Most of the time you are using 5watts leaving 95 for dynamic headroom.
Remember if you have a 100wpc AVR and you add a 200wpc amp you only increased it 3db it takes a lot of watts to increase sound substantially.


----------



## lcaillo

Generalizations do not really inform anyone. Please post some test results for specific models that do not deliver the rated power. Just saying that AVRs do not deliver 50% of rated power is not useful, in fact, it may be very misleading. 

Let's have some facts to back up statements about bench testing. If you want to express your opinion that they sound to you like they don't generate half of their rated power, that is fine.


----------



## wgmontgomery

OZZIERP said:


> I wonder how many people could actually pick out a dedicated 2-ch setup versus an good AVR with the same source same speakers I tried it once and failed. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear especially if we spent our hard earned money on a supposed upgrade.


FWIW-I've done it in a single blind test. I certainly will not discount that a self-fulfilling prophecy (or the placebo effect) can be real, but it is often over-looked that it can work both ways. Just as people may hear a difference because they expect/want to hear a difference; NOT hearing a difference for the same reasons is also a valid argument. onder: Just a thought...


----------



## J&D

That's is why a proper DBT is critical to convince those that are always going to be skeptical of the outcomes. The bottom line is if you prove that you can hear a difference then that is relevant and all subjectivity needs to be removed from the equation.


----------



## OZZIERP

lcaillo said:


> Generalizations do not really inform anyone. Please post some test results for specific models that do not deliver the rated power. Just saying that AVRs do not deliver 50% of rated power is not useful, in fact, it may be very misleading.
> 
> Let's have some facts to back up statements about bench testing. If you want to express your opinion that they sound to you like they don't generate half of their rated power, that is fine.


I use Home Theater Magazine when they do Lab measurements.
There are a few more as I use their lab measurement when shopping unless someone can show me that it is flawed.http://www.hometheater.com/content/yamaha-rx-v871-av-receiver-ht-labs-measures


----------



## jackfish

The fact is that an AVR will deliver its rated power with two channels driven, which is the focus of this thread. If it is sold in the US, FTC rules establish how amplifiers are to be tested and how the results of those tests are to be reported.

That said, with my limited experience with hometheater setups and vast experience with two channel rigs, I'd say one will notice improved sound quality with equipment designed for two channel music reproduction over a system with the typical home theater receiver. Just my opinion.


----------



## OZZIERP

jackfish said:


> The fact is that an AVR will deliver its rated power with two channels driven, which is the focus of this thread. If it is sold in the US, FTC rules establish how amplifiers are to be tested and how the results of those tests are to be reported.
> 
> That said, with my limited experience with hometheater setups and vast experience with two channel rigs, I'd say one will notice improved sound quality with equipment designed for two channel music reproduction over a system with the typical home theater receiver. Just my opinion.


They really should advertise this or they should change the standards as to how things are measured there are a lot of us with multi-channel music (SACD and DVD-A) and while I will admit not all the channels are dynamic at once the front three can be on certain music.
Over the years of reading different forums I have noticed when the AVR comes closer to its advertised wattage around 100wpc most not all posters seem to notice little or no difference with an external amp but let that figure fall below it by a good portion and then that external amp becomes noticeable especially those that like it loud.


----------



## tonyvdb

It all depends on the speakers your driving. If they are efficient (above 90db) then a receiver that outputs a clean 65watts per channel will be more than ample to drive them to reference full range levels without distortion. Its where your driving inefficient speakers that an amp will struggle and can use the help from outboard amps.


----------



## wgmontgomery

jackfish said:


> The fact is that an AVR will deliver its rated power with two channels driven, which is the focus of this thread. If it is sold in the US, FTC rules establish how amplifiers are to be tested and how the results of those tests are to be reported.
> 
> That said, with my limited experience with hometheater setups and vast experience with two channel rigs, I'd say one will notice improved sound quality with equipment designed for two channel music reproduction over a system with the typical home theater receiver. Just my opinion.


This is NOT meant as a flame, so please don't misunderstand my intentions in this post. I mean only to inform and inquire:

-An AVR's ability to deliver its rated power is a_ part _of this thread, but only because it relates to its SQ. As I stated in my original post, _"How many people here think that separates offer better sq than an AVR for 2 channel music?"_

-The FTC rules have changed...and not for the best IMHO.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/12/amprule.shtm

Here's one example of the changed that were made ~1999: "allow the subwoofer and satellite amplifier sections in combination self-powered speaker systems to be driven to full rated power separately, rather than simultaneously, _during the power rating tests_." (emphasis added)

Manufactures can also add all of the peak power (say 50 watts peak, one channel driven in a 7 channel AVR) and label it as a 350 watt AVR. How does that give a true representation of an AVR's power output? How many of us have seen "1000 watt" HTiaB at a local big box store?

My point is that power specs can be practically meaningless unless more info is given.


----------



## wgmontgomery

J&D said:


> That's is why a proper DBT is critical to convince those that are always going to be skeptical of the outcomes. The bottom line is if you prove that you can hear a difference then that is relevant and all subjectivity needs to be removed from the equation.


I don't really disagree, but the entire topic is subjective. Also, the idea that "if you can't measure it, it isn't there" will _always_ persist. Even if you believe this, a point that I mentioned in an earlier post is how do we know that there isn't more to the equation? 

For example, when I was in High School I was taught that protons, neutrons and electrons were the smallest particles in the universe; we had yet to discover quarks and leptons. onder:


----------



## J&D

wgmontgomery said:


> I don't really disagree, but the entire topic is subjective. Also, the idea that "if you can't measure it, it isn't there" will _always_ persist. Even if you believe this, a point that I mentioned in an earlier post is how do we know that there isn't more to the equation?
> 
> For example, when I was in High School I was taught that protons, neutrons and electrons were the smallest particles in the universe; we had yet to discover quarks and leptons. onder:


By your standard we do not know and you do prove the point that science marches on. We will continue to learn more about the world around us every day. W

With regard to the subjective topic of AVR vs. separates it is possible to satisfy to a large degree both sides of the fence with a proper blind test. In my experience it is the only way to convince those with ears that can hear things others cannot. No matter what the measurements say there is always an argument that my ears will tell me what I like. My response is to submit your ears to the test and let's find out.


----------



## bambino

I am on the AVR bandwagon as previously stated you can have your cake and eat it too. Now if my budget allowed i would have to put the wife kids and house up for auction as the seperates i want are way too expensive.:spend::spend::spend:


----------



## wgmontgomery

FWIW-Here are a few more changes made by the FTC as they relate to "rated" power:


reduce the power output requirement during the one-hour preconditioning period from one-third of rated output to one-eighth of rated output, and grant testers of self-powered subwoofers the discretion to choose the frequency of the test signal to be used during the preconditioning period; 


exempt advertising disseminated through the media from disclosure of total rated harmonic distortion and the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim is made

More here

BTW-I know that the FTC is a gov't agency, but this post is just meant for _informative_ purposes; *NO* political comment is implied.


----------



## Dub King

Over the years I've found you really cannot have too much power to run speakers -20 years ago I was running a pair of TAN-77ES amps - monoblocked (400w/channel!) - into a pair of Image Concept 200 speakers (dual 5 1/2"). Eventually I sold one amp to buy one of the first stand-alone surround sound decoders from Yamaha. The loss in 2-channel dynamics was tangible, although the upshot is I stopped frying my tweeters and of course having full-blown surround sound back in 1990 was very, very cool indeed. I actually miss having the stand-alone surround processor as I would find such a thing very handy today, instead of having to buy a whole AVR or preamp that is mostly redundant vs. my HTPC.

Even a modest bookshelf like the Pioneer SP-BS22 benefits from being hooked up to an amp that exceeds the speaker's power rating by a factor of 3 or more. In my case that mean comparing the SP-BS22's sound while connected to a Sony STRDN1030 vs. a Crown XTi-1000. Without question, dynamic compression crept in earlier with the Sony than the Crown and that resulted in listening fatigue. The difference was not readily apparent in REW graphs, but it had an effect on the overall experience. I have also become convinced of the value of a separate music interface vs using a receiver's internal DAC, especially with modern sound cards supporting swap-able op-amps it's possible to beat the S/N ratio and dynamic range of some rather prodigious receivers.


----------



## JoeESP9

That's a good argument for separates.


----------



## Savjac

I would like to think separates are better than an AVR but in reality there are too many variables involved in this equation. Expensive well built AVR may operate and sound better than a less well built and less expensive 2 channel system. 
After playing in this game since 1975 I can honestly say it is really difficult in this day and age to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Mass produced or boutique can oft times be a game changer when it comes to the cost of components in the moderate price range.
I would think, imho of course, that in the relatively high end of separates, they may well do better in a 2 channel system as there may not be a competitive AVR. Things have changed a great deal since I started playing.

A wise man did make a good point on measurements... “Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts"


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Careful matching of speakers to a manufacturer's higher end AVRs will result in equally satisfying sounds to separates. I doubt very much in a DBT that people could discern a difference whether the amp is a separate or an AVR if that same speaker is matched to the AVR. What a seperate power amp will give you is more flexibility on speaker choice. 

The specs of some of the highe end preamp section of Yamaha's AVR will absolutely clobber many a higher priced separates in terms of THD, SNR, and stereo separation. AVRs have come a long long way.


----------



## OZZIERP

One thing I did do was borrow an external amp just to see if I could hear a difference and being somewhat surprised I did not but if I had purchased said amp I think it would have some bias since money was spent thats why I recommend borrowing one.


----------



## JoeESP9

The main thing that separates have over receivers or integrated amplifiers is flexibility. Where can I get a receiver that has a hybrid preamp with tubed and solid state amplifiers? Having separates also allows you to put the money on the exact device that you think needs it. 

For instance, using separates I put together a two channel system with (IMO) very few compromises. Rather than compromise this or build another system for MC/surround I added a TOTL surround processor, two 100WPC amps, electronic crossover, a pair of esl's and a dual sub. With the flick of a switch I can go from straight two channel to full surround and back with no compromising with either setup. If technology changes or anything breaks or needs replacement I replace that device and that device only.

My processor is due for replacement mid to late 2013. That will be the only thing that gets replaced. All the rest of my gear will probably stay the same. Because I have separates I only replace what needs replacing. There's no need for me to replace everything which is what happens when you use a receiver.

For those who bring up specs as being part of their decision making process; good for you. I really don't concern myself with specs any more. The truth is, I've learned over the years that specs rarely tell you much of anything about how something actually sounds. Besides, all the gear that I even remotely consider has great specs. I'm concerned with how something sounds and if it will have synergy with the rest of my gear.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

JoeESP9 said:


> The main thing that separates have over receivers or integrated amplifiers is flexibility. Where can I get a receiver that has a hybrid preamp with tubed and solid state amplifiers? Having separates also allows you to put the money on the exact device that you think needs it.
> 
> 
> For instance, using separates I put together a two channel system with (IMO) very few compromises. Rather than compromise this or build another system for MC/surround I added a TOTL surround processor, two 100WPC amps, electronic crossover, a pair of esl's and a dual sub. With the flick of a switch I can go from straight two channel to full surround and back with no compromising with either setup. If technology changes or anything breaks or needs replacement I replace that device and that device only.


True but look at how many upper end AVRs can you purchase for the replacement cost of just one of your separate components which will equal the sound quality of your separates? 



JoeESP9 said:


> For those who bring up specs as being part of their decision making process; good for you. I really don't concern myself with specs any more. The truth is, I've learned over the years that specs rarely tell you much of anything about how something actually sounds. Besides, all the gear that I even remotely consider has great specs. I'm concerned with how something sounds and if it will have synergy with the rest of my gear.


Properly measurered specs provided by independent reviews provide a very valuable resource. I use specs to weed out the chaff from the grain before I even begin to audition. I also use specs to match my components as well. Much easier and far more accurate.


----------



## JoeESP9

3dbinCanada said:


> True but look at how many upper end AVRs can you purchase for the replacement cost of just one of your separate components which will equal the sound quality of your separates?


IMO none! 
Name one receiver ever made that has a preamp the equal of any Audio Research Corporation preamp. Name any receiver ever made that has hybrid circuitry in the preamp section let alone SS and tubed power amplifiers in one chassis. In 45+ years in this hobby I've never heard any two channel receiver come close to the sound of good separates. AV/Surround receivers operating in two channel mode are even worse in this respect. 



3dbinCanada said:


> Properly measured specs provided by independent reviews provide a very valuable resource. I use specs to weed out the chaff from the grain before I even begin to audition. I also use specs to match my components as well. Much easier and far more accurate.


More accurate than what? Using what specs? Compared to what?

Being a retired Electrical Engineer with a shop full of test and measuring gear I can speak with some knowledge about the non importance of specifications with most decent gear. With the exception of impedance matching (usually only of importance with some tube gear) most specs tell you absolutely nothing about how something sounds or how well it will interface (have synergy) with other gear.

When you find a piece of modern gear that doesn't have pretty good specs please let me know. Having at one time designed discrete differential amplifiers and regulated power supplies for a living I have some insight into what specs really mean, which are actually important and at what level. In the last twenty five years no gear that I've even considered buying has had anything but very good specs. That's one of the main reasons I don't pay a lot of attention to them. If I was interested in HE speakers and SET amplification I'd be even less concerned with an amplifiers specs. SET amplifiers have possibly the worst specs imaginable. What's interesting is how good they sound in despite their poor specs. 

I started with a "high end" two channel system to which I added "high end" MC/surround capability. No receiver based system I've ever heard sounds nearly as good in either two channel or MC mode. Of course having my gear set up in a dedicated acoustically treated room makes a difference.


----------



## OZZIERP

Sometimes we hear what we want to which is something all of us at one time or another have been guilty of but in a DBT most get it wrong more so than right and visual appeal of the product plays a role in the subconscious more so than what we would like to admit.


----------



## JoeESP9

Been there and done that. At one time I owned an ABX Comparator box. I've found that the quick switching normally used for ABX testing masks subtle differences that are only heard under long term listening.

When and if I have real questions about the audibility (or lack of) a perceived difference I have but to ask one of the female audiophiles I know to come over and give things a listen. Besides being nice company they have better ears and hearing than virtually all men. Plus they have a different perspective on the whole reproduced sound thing.

So, no, I have no interest in doing any DBT. I don't really care what the meter readers think. There is plenty of gear with meters and CRT's in my workshop if I want to look at that sort of thing. So, I'll continue to rely on my and my lady friends ears.

Frankly, I get tired of "meter readers" always suggesting I and other subjectivists are hearing or imagining things. Those of us who feel the way I do don't go around suggesting objectivists have poor hearing.

Finally: To reiterate, in 45+ years in this hobby I've never heard any receiver made by anyone sound as good as higher end separates. They don't sound as good and they certainly don't have the flexibility.


----------



## J&D

^I have had the exact opposite experience. I have not been in the HT world for 45+ years but I did build my first dedicated HT (based on separates) in 1988. I have built several for friends over the past 25 years including 3 more for myself and the one thing I have found is that the quality of sound reproduction and the capability of AVR's has dramatically changed especially over the past 10 years. Pre-amp sections of AVR's are night and day from where they were back in the 90's.

I agree that my wife and daughter have much better hearing then my son and I and do hear things that we do not. So, if I was building an HT primarily for them I might choose slightly different equipment but they are far more concerned about ease of operation and picture quality then focusing in on extremely minute details of audio reproduction. I also find it interesting when you say you let someone with better hearing influence your purchasing decisions. I completely gave up on relying on others to tell me if something sounds better after putting their ears to some rigorous testing scenarios. I spent a lot of time working in high-end audio shops in the 80's and 90's and learned a great deal in the process. Golden ears both male and female are a highly interesting topic. 

In my experience current generation AVR's (especially when used as a pre-pro) can not only meet the sound quality of high-end separates they offer additional flexibility just not found in most separates like the latest room correction software and processing options that do not exist in the slow to evolve and adopt world of esoteric components.


----------



## OZZIERP

I grew up on tubes then solid state then AVR's and completely agree you would be hard pressed to tell the difference on the Flagship models of today years ago it was an easy choice as the quality of audio did not come close to separates . When in doubt borrow equipment and try it out and by all means if it sounds better go for it if you have to strain to hear a difference spend the money where it will make an immediate improvement.


----------



## J&D

After rereading my post above it sounds as if I am dismissing the "high end." Just to be clear I am not dismissing these components as they do have their place and there is a definite market for them. What I am promoting is some reassurance, for the majority who cannot afford the price of entry into these systems, that you can achieve incredible performance by leveraging the advancements available in today's world of audio technology.

Forums like HTS are amazing resources where the average HT enthusiast can come and learn a wealth of information just not readily available 15 years ago. I have to wince when I think about the mountain of cash I could have saved by starting out with options that exist today - easily accessible knowledge of room acoustics and treatment products, technology advancements, the ID marketing model, each of these and more combine to make that once very exclusive club quite a bit less exclusive.


----------



## tesseract

After 30 years in this hobby, I bought my first AVR, to be used in my 2.1 system. I switched back to a passive pre integrated amp that preceded the AVR, and the integrated is here to stay. The only thing the AVR did better was bass management, setting distances proved helpful. But highs and mids suffered too much from the DAC conversion and mid-pack pre amp and amplifier.

Last night, I attended a local Home Theater tour. The final stop featured a HTPC run with JRiver Media Center software, the owner has never owned a receiver. The sound his system made bore out his decision to eschew an all in one solution. I've visited his home twice, different speakers each time but the same signal processing and amplifiers. Best 2 channel sound I've ever heard, both visits.

An AVR would like to be separates, but is a compromise made to meet a price point.


----------



## tesseract

When I do go back to surround sound, I will employ the use of my AVR once again, knowing that it is a compromise with concessions made to budget limitations. At least until I can afford a purpose built AVR run with software like JRivers and feeding separate amplifiers. :spend:


----------



## tesseract

J&D said:


> In my experience current generation AVR's (especially when used as a pre-pro) can not only meet the sound quality of high-end separates they offer additional flexibility just not found in most separates like the latest room correction software and processing options that do not exist in the slow to evolve and adopt world of esoteric components.


Some of the best software, like TACT and 64 bit Trinnov, is found only in separates. As a bonus, the circuitry is generally top notch is these machines as well.


----------



## J&D

tesseract,
I agree to a point that the circuitry is better in some cases and that there are also software options that are only available at the high end. I think the general misunderstanding is that by going with high-end separates it is always the absolute best sounding option and completely audible which in my experience is just not always the case. 

Your room and your speakers will always completely dominate what your ears hear followed by the actual quality of the source recording. There is also a phenomenon that I like to characterize as "an experience that is completely new and different from what you currently have and are accustomed to." 

This experience not only manifests itself in the high end but also in so called mid range systems. Because we become settled into the sound we hear from our own systems on a regular basis, new systems - primarily speakers and the rooms they interact with can easily make us think what we have in our own home is inferior. A good example is if you are used to multi-channel sound using room correction just turn off all room correction and (if you have some good source material) run your AVR in direct stereo mode. In cases I have witnessed the first impression is always, wow, that sounds great. Why, because it is different from what we are used to. I attribute this to our brains just liking things that are new and different and a big reason why many of us get caught up in the never ending quest for new additions to our systems.


----------



## tesseract

J&D said:


> tesseract,
> I agree to a point that the circuitry is better in some cases and that there are also software options that are only available at the high end. I think the general misunderstanding is that by going with high-end separates it is always the absolute best sounding option and completely audible which in my experience is just not always the case.
> 
> Your room and your speakers will always completely dominate what your ears hear followed by the actual quality of the source recording. There is also a phenomenon that I like to characterize as "an experience that is completely new and different from what you currently have and are accustomed to."


This is very true, the room/speaker/listening position interface cannot be ignored. Once those basics are managed, gear will come into play, however.



> This experience not only manifests itself in the high end but also in so called mid range systems. Because we become settled into the sound we hear from our own systems on a regular basis, new systems - primarily speakers and the rooms they interact with can easily make us think what we have in our own home is inferior. A good example is if you are used to multi-channel sound using room correction just turn off all room correction and (if you have some good source material) run your AVR in direct stereo mode. In cases I have witnessed the first impression is always, wow, that sounds great. Why, because it is different from what we are used to. I attribute this to our brains just liking things that are new and different and a big reason why many of us get caught up in the never ending quest for new additions to our systems.


People often equate different with better, and we have to be cautious making assumptions based on short listening sessions. Although I have participated in blind listening tests, I am a huge fan of extended listening for determining a component's absolute worth. 

As an instrumentalist, I also rely on actual musical instruments as a benchmark for judging reproduced sound. Too often, folks use the best electronic system they recall hearing as a reference. Been a while since I have picked up an instrument, though. :hide: I need to do something about that...


----------



## JoeESP9

I too use the sound of live unamplified music as my reference. In my case it's the Philadelphia Orchestra at the Kimmel Center. I regularly attend their concerts and others that have live unamplified music. I also regularly attend live Jazz concerts. Here in Philadelphia there is always live music somewhere.

Sorry if all you receiver owners think I'm "dissin'" your favorite whatever. Some do sound pretty good. I'm sure you're happy with them. None IME sound as good in two channel mode as a good two channel preamp. None, without exception have the flexibility separates allow. All other things being equal (room, source, etc.) IMO/IME separates sound better.

To clear up any confusion, I don't ask others for buying advice. I do however, value some peoples opinions on how my system sounds.


----------



## tonyvdb

JoeESP9 said:


> None, without exception have the flexibility separates allow. All other things being equal (room, source, etc.) IMO/IME separates sound better.


How do you figure that separates have more flexibility than a decent receiver? I would have to disagree with that.
I agree that most sub $1000 receivers lack some clarity and even "thin out the sound" but your making some very blanket statements and thats not very realistic of you considering you cant possibly have listened to every receiver out there in a two channel system.
To also add that a tube amp or $5000+ pre-pro is a fair comparison is also silly considering most people can not afford to plop down the $$ to buy into that level of system.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I do think there is a dichotomy between 2 Channel Preamps and Surround Sound Processors. When I was heavily invested in a 2 Channel rig, I absolutely went with separates. Things like the quality of the potentiometer really mattered more to me with an analog setup.

However with Home Theater while I have used outboard amplification for all channels for over a decade, even after demoing several SSP's at home I have never felt the juice to be worth the squeeze. Until Onkyo released the 9.8/885 SSP's, it always felt like to me you were often far behind on features while paying a rather high premium for the sake of using an SSP. It still does not make sense to me that Onkyo charges more for their SSP's than the AVR's which they are almost wholly based off of yet with the cost savings of not having a Amplifier Stage.

Especially now that HDMI has become more or less compulsory, it really has made it difficult for the boutique high end brands to keep up. Arcam is about the only brand I can think of that wrote their own code as opposed to using a Chinese OEM. While the Arcam range is Made in China, they spent 3 years designing it in the UK. Moreover, while the 888/600/500 all sound wonderful, they have been problematic for some owners in respect to HDMI issues. I do think the Japanese brands greatly benefit from the much higher amount of R&D and ability to spread this investment over a large price bracket. And of course sell in much higher numbers across the board.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## JoeESP9

tonyvdb said:


> How do you figure that separates have more flexibility than a decent receiver? I would have to disagree with that.
> I agree that most sub $1000 receivers lack some clarity and even "thin out the sound" but your making some very blanket statements and thats not very realistic of you considering you cant possibly have listened to every receiver out there in a two channel system.
> To also add that a tube amp or $5000+ pre-pro is a fair comparison is also silly considering most people can not afford to plop down the $$ to buy into that level of system.


I didn't realize this discussion was restricted to gear you think is affordable.:devil: 

Making comparisons based on sound quality not cost is what this discussion is about.

I started with IMO a very good two channel system to which I added MC/surround sound of equivalent audio quality. Since I didn't do this all at once the overall cost is something I've never considered. Sometime in the next year I'll be replacing my current processor. I anticipate spending up to $3K for this one item. Every other piece of gear I have will stay exactly where it is. 

As for flexibility, lets see?
What receiver gives me the choice of having AM/FM reception or not?
What receiver has tubes or hybrid circuitry in the preamp section?
What receiver has a mix of SS and tubes for power amplifiers?
What receiver has the kind of power my bridged Crown's can supply to my TL sub woofers? 
OK, the last one really isn't receiver related since most people use powered subs. However, my Bridged Crown's give me 900 Watts each for my subs and if I wanted to I could use them to drive my mains. What receiver has that kind of power? 
And last but not least: 
The ability to change any single individual piece at my whim and desire without having to replace what I'm happy with. With most receivers it's all or nothing. With the ones that allow separation of preamp and power amp sections you've still bought amplifiers you don't need if you opt for external amplification. I buy exactly what I want and need.

You or anyone else is welcome to bring their receiver to my dedicated room and we'll hear how it compares to my ARC preamp when in two channel mode. I drink Pilsner Urquell!


----------



## 3dbinCanada

JoeESP9 said:


> When you find a piece of modern gear that doesn't have pretty good specs please let me know. Having at one time designed discrete differential amplifiers and regulated power supplies for a living I have some insight into what specs really mean, which are actually important and at what level. In the last twenty five years no gear that I've even considered buying has had anything but very good specs. That's one of the main reasons I don't pay a lot of attention to them. If I was interested in HE speakers and SET amplification I'd be even less concerned with an amplifiers specs. SET amplifiers have possibly the worst specs imaginable. What's interesting is how good they sound in despite their poor specs.
> 
> I started with a "high end" two channel system to which I added "high end" MC/surround capability. No receiver based system I've ever heard sounds nearly as good in either two channel or MC mode. Of course having my gear set up in a dedicated acoustically treated room makes a difference.


As an electrical engineer, I know just how important specs are in solid state amplification. Its clear to me that you prefer the colored sound of tubes over solid state so this whole argument is moot since AVRs are all solid state. As far as solid sate gear goes, I also challenge you to use more rigirous testing like blind listening tests in stead of sight biased tests to determine what something actually sounds like. 

I'll stick to my principles. Modern high end AVRs can easily hold their own sonically against separates when properly matched to their speakers.


----------



## tonyvdb

3dbinCanada said:


> As an electrical engineer, I know just how important specs are in solid state amplification. Its clear to me that you prefer the colored sound of tubes over solid state so this whole argument is moot since AVRs are all solid state. As far as solid sate gear goes, I also challenge you to use more rigirous testing like blind listening tests in stead of sight biased tests to determine what something actually sounds like.
> 
> I'll stick to my principles. Modern high end AVRs can easily hold their own sonically against separates when properly matched to their speakers.


Could not have said it better, Comparing tubes to solid state is like comparing an apple to an orange, they are both a fruit and are round thats it. The flavor and texture are very different inside.  Tubes do color the sound no matter how you look at it and is NOT how the studio meant it to be heard. Is this necessarily a bad thing? not really as if you like how it sounds then Great! Enjoy it but to say that a SS receiver changes how good it sounds its really the other way around.
And as far as external amplification I cant think of any receiver in the $1500 range that cant manage running 2 speakers on its own without help from an external amp even my Onkyo 805 can without a doubt run any speakers you like in two channel mode without even breaking a sweat yes I do run my mains on a two channel amp but thats only because I run a 7.1 system.


----------



## Dub King

It's going to be a long day with hurricane Sandy heading straight for Philly, so here are my thoughts:

Progress has brought great improvements in almost every area of audio. One thing about huge, expensive 'audiophile' separates is that the hardware designs for what makes a great class A amp were perfected some time ago. Then Stereophile Magazine participated in The Carver Challenge which entered the history books and the truth became known - a building a great amplifier is a matter of having a great reference point and the right engineering skills rather than using lots of expensive materials. The ultimate conclusion? Reference-quality amplification can be had for under $1,000. Today we accept that as fact.

At every price point you can think of, _this_ is the golden age of high fidelity. Amazing speakers cost a few hundred bucks. A thousand watts per channel costs under five hundred dollars. Great amps can be made of plastic, aircraft-grade aluminum or anything in-between, and the majority sound great! Everyone should be glad this hobby is more accessible than ever, and that the gap between the bottom and the top is shrinking.

For my own purposes, I long-ago swapped out a pair of Sony TAN-77ES amps for a combination of Crown pro amps and an AVR, an approach that has served me well, yet is quite economical for the quality I get. The amp itself could be any decent brand, my preference is to use an AVR together with dedicated amps for the mains, center and a good passive sub(s)... but there's one more thing - the signal source for my AVR is an audiophile sound card, which does exactly what preamps do, and the trend towards replaceable op-amps makes it a legitimate way to pursue more refined sound. When I listen to 2-channel music, I sometimes opt to listen to the sound card directly through the amp. Unless I'm feeling the need for excessive volume, the experience is the same as with the AVR... but for music to have that 'live concert' feel, I end up using almost all of the power the Crown XTi-1000 puts out into 2 ohms, which is 1,000 watts per channel. 

I'm self-employed and I am not rich, and stereos are my #1 hobby so I'm always looking at the price/performace/complexity formula and then inch towards an ideal that works for me. I think every approach that is being discussed is legitimate, especially after spending time on my computer using Ableton Live as a DAW with signal processing/compression/amplifier simulation software. Any decent AVR and speakers can put out the sweetest sound if you know how to mix sound properly and compensate for any given systems weakness. I've done it with the Andrew Jones Pioneer bookshelf speakers and a Sony AVR which is as entry-level as it gets in high-fi... and it is amazingly good.

It is always worth repeating: good sound starts with the room itself, followed by speakers, followed by the source, and ending with amplification... because for most people what an AVR has is enough, and most AVRs are versatile enough to add amps creating hybrid AVR-separates type system, which is the approach that works for me.

Now I just hope I don't lose power!


----------



## J&D

^Mark,
Well stated and my thoughts exactly on room, speakers and source as the single largest contributors to what we hear. I hope you do not lose power as well. Was just in Philadelphia last week on business and had my trip East cancelled this week due to the storm. Hope it is something much less than what is predicted.


----------



## tesseract

Jungle Jack said:


> When I was heavily invested in a 2 Channel rig, I absolutely went with separates. Things like the quality of the potentiometer really mattered more to me with an analog setup.


It's often overlooked, but the potentiometer is very important to me, especially with a passive pre amp.


----------



## tesseract

Guys - Another thing to consider. I understand that A/D & D/A conversion is a necessary evil in affordable HT, but it can kill 2 channel sound dead.


----------



## lcaillo

Unless you start with an analog source, you have to at least do D/A conversion. Converters have actually gotten pretty good in AVRs.


----------



## Savjac

tonyvdb said:


> Tubes do color the sound no matter how you look at it and is NOT how the studio meant it to be heard.


You must be quite the young man, most recording studios not too long ago used tube equipment for recording and for cutting the masters. The studios also most probably used some huge highly efficient speakers or small Yamaha speakers as monitors. In reality you will not hear what the studio intended until you step back and get efficient. Higher power and less efficient speakers are somewhat new to the music lover. Actually I doubt many will ever hear how the studio meant it to be heard. I used to record on four / eight track 1/4" reel to reel tape and master on Magnepans with Dynaco electronics in the late 70's so one never knows what lies beyond the recording.


----------



## Savjac

lcaillo said:


> Unless you start with an analog source, you have to at least do D/A conversion. Converters have actually gotten pretty good in AVRs.


Absolutely. Even starting with an analog source these days may not guarantee that computers are not used in mastering or saving the product for other generations. We see that a good deal with very valuable recordings that are being brought over to digital to save the masters from further decay. Not to mention the ease with which the newer artist can do recordings on a home computer from start to finish.


----------



## tonyvdb

Savjac said:


> You must be quite the young man, most recording studios not too long ago used tube equipment for recording and for cutting the masters. The studios also most probably used some huge highly efficient speakers or small Yamaha speakers as monitors. In reality you will not hear what the studio intended until you step back and get efficient. Higher power and le


not so young (43) analog mixers and solid state amps were widely used from the 80s to around the mid 90s when digital started to become the norm. Yes tube amps were used for guitar players amps and such but most used solid state analog mixers converting to digital on the mixing side as fast as possible to avoid noise and get better dynamics.
I personally used a B16 reel to reel multi track recorder for years before ADAT and other forms of digital media became affordable.
My Theater room system uses the very Studio monitors that many studios loved to use (see signature) they ere no small monitors and to this day sound amazing for two channel listening.


----------



## Savjac

I bet it does sound Nice Tony. Well done.

I guess I was speaking to the age I came up in the 60' and 70's where tubes were more the rule than the exception. None the less, digital is here, transistors are here and when properly utilized they work very well.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> You must be quite the young man, most recording studios not too long ago used tube equipment for recording and for cutting the masters. The studios also most probably used some huge highly efficient speakers or small Yamaha speakers as monitors. In reality you will not hear what the studio intended until you step back and get efficient. Higher power and less efficient speakers are somewhat new to the music lover. Actually I doubt many will ever hear how the studio meant it to be heard. I used to record on four / eight track 1/4" reel to reel tape and master on Magnepans with Dynaco electronics in the late 70's so one never knows what lies beyond the recording.


Yes but studios they long since switched to Solid State amplifiers. There is a warmth to tube amps and its a subjective taste, neither right or wrong. However, do a spectral analysis of the output of a tube am and a SS amp and you will find the SS much more accurate to the input signal.


----------



## Savjac

3dbinCanada said:


> Yes but studios they long since switched to Solid State amplifiers. There is a warmth to tube amps and its a subjective taste, neither right or wrong. However, do a spectral analysis of the output of a tube am and a SS amp and you will find the SS much more accurate to the input signal.


I am sorry for taking this off track and I will stop with this post. Tube can sound like anything it wants. The first time I heard an ARC SP9 I was shocked at how un tube like it sounded. Even today, I have some tube equipment and if I roll the tubes I can change the sound from warm like you mention to bright and cold or anything between. The old belief that tubes sound warm is just not always true.


----------



## tonyvdb

Savjac said:


> I am sorry for taking this off track and I will stop with this post.


Dont be sorry, thats the beauty of this forum is we can have a great discussion without slinging mud  Feel free to discuss Tubes as they did and still do have a part in sound reproduction. As Joe was saying he like the sound of the pre pros that use tubes in his signal path and I dont doubt that it adds a warmth that you dont hear with SS.


----------



## Savjac

Thanks Tony and yes discussion is a good thing, but I think in this case I butted into an AVR vs Separates discussion...oops.
Never the less, I am down to one tube component, a DAC and frankly I used the tube DAC to bring the sound to where I wanted it, tailored if you will and it is a beautiful thing :T


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Savjac said:


> Thanks Tony and yes discussion is a good thing, but I think in this case I butted into an AVR vs Separates discussion...oops.
> Never the less, I am down to one tube component, a DAC and frankly I used the tube DAC to bring the sound to where I wanted it, tailored if you will and it is a beautiful thing :T


Well stop butting in!! :nono:  There's more than enough here.


----------



## Savjac

Whoops, I am done butting...well until the next time anyway


----------



## J&D

Savjac said:


> You must be quite the young man, most recording studios not too long ago used tube equipment for recording and for cutting the masters. I used to record on four / eight track 1/4" reel to reel tape and master on Magnepans with Dynaco electronics in the late 70's so one never knows what lies beyond the recording.


:gulp: I just have to say it. 60's and 70's was not too long ago? In the world of electronics and advancements in technology that could be considered a horse and buggy vs. the gasoline powered automobile. Nothing against tubes and vinyl but there is a reason I watch my movies on Bluray.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I personally love Tube Amplifiers and Preamplifiers. And as for questions about their use in Professional Applications, a significant number of Guitar Players use Tube Amplifiers and vintage gear goes for a fortune.
In addition, Mastering Engineer Bob Ludwig uses a great amount of Tube gear at Gateway Mastering and he is an absolute legend.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## J&D

But where would we be without Auto-Tune?


----------



## Jungle Jack

J&D said:


> But where would we be without Auto-Tune?


Right. AT is quite depressing. However, Mr. Ludwig does not seem to attract the Kei$ha's of the world. No offense to her fanbase...


----------



## Dub King

My suggested analogy is a classic car vs. the Mars 'curiosity' rover. By the 1960's-1970's HiFi audio was past 'horse and buggy' stage. Optical discs, solid-state computing, color television and video recording were all invented or significantly advanced through research in that time period. When I request a speaker demo, it's amusing how often "Money' from DSOTM is the first song they play! 

There are exceptions, such as 2-way systems based on turntables... but for the most part the last decade has erased any connection high-end audio production and reproduction has to the past, unless one deliberately chooses to use old methods/designs etc. - the same way digital photography & Photoshop forever changed that medium, digital music and the ability to record/play almost any bitrate and bit depth and process those bits in any way one desires - including emulating analog amplifiers and many other old-school tricks like emulating buss compressors from famous studios. 

In fact I'd say digital photography vs. film offers the best analogy. Sound recording and playback went through the same process - of being liberated from the medium - as photography. For a while there were holdouts, people who sang the praises of film and how it was analog and possesses a quality that could not be reproduced through digital means. Now Kodak barely exists and their most famous product - Kodachrome - is extinct The iPhone - born of the iPod which was born of the Walkman which was born of the personal hifi stereo system - dominates. As it does in the world of emulated film effects. 

I can't wait to see what comes next.



J&D said:


> :gulp: I just have to say it. 60's and 70's was not too long ago? In the world of electronics and advancements in technology that could be considered a horse and buggy vs. the gasoline powered automobile. Nothing against tubes and vinyl but there is a reason I watch my movies on Bluray.


----------



## Savjac

This is a cool discussion, we are talking about changes in many different things from tubes to transistors, analog to digital, however, one description that is somewhat allusive is the word "better".

I dont really hear things sounding better than they did several decades, just different. Maybe some of the changes are for the better some maybe not so much. One of the changes is the quicky listen or watch. We can now change our listening and viewing with the touch of a button or mouse. Not as many folks will sit through an entire concert or movie or dinner any longer without texting or chatting on the phone. The new 3 minute society is really becoming jarring for those not used to it.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Dub King said:


> My suggested analogy is a classic car vs. the Mars 'curiosity' rover. By the 1960's-1970's HiFi audio was past 'horse and buggy' stage. Optical discs, solid-state computing, color television and video recording were all invented or significantly advanced through research in that time period. When I request a speaker demo, it's amusing how often "Money' from DSOTM is the first song they play!
> 
> There are exceptions, such as 2-way systems based on turntables... but for the most part the last decade has erased any connection high-end audio production and reproduction has to the past, unless one deliberately chooses to use old methods/designs etc. - the same way digital photography & Photoshop forever changed that medium, digital music and the ability to record/play almost any bitrate and bit depth and process those bits in any way one desires - including emulating analog amplifiers and many other old-school tricks like emulating buss compressors from famous studios.
> 
> In fact I'd say digital photography vs. film offers the best analogy. Sound recording and playback went through the same process - of being liberated from the medium - as photography. For a while there were holdouts, people who sang the praises of film and how it was analog and possesses a quality that could not be reproduced through digital means. Now Kodak barely exists and their most famous product - Kodachrome - is extinct The iPhone - born of the iPod which was born of the Walkman which was born of the personal hifi stereo system - dominates. As it does in the world of emulated film effects.
> 
> I can't wait to see what comes next.


Hello,
Speaking of Apple, the Retina Display 13 Inch MPB now comes without a Optical Disk Drive with them pretty much saying physical media is dead. Sadly, it really is getting to a point where the vast majority of media is now being consumed via streaming.

As someone with thousands of CD's, thousands of DVD's, and getting close to 1000 Blu-ray Discs, this whole idea horrifies me. Scores of folks spend hundreds and thousands of Dollars on iTunes where you cannot even leave it to your family in the future. Already it is about impossible to go find most of the bands I enjoy on CD locally, DVD/BD Sales are in the dumps, etc.

As for Film versus Digital, it really feels to me like 3D is a major driving force behind this. Of course there is the huge cost savings for Movie Studios not having to deal with Film Prints and other advantages. However, many Film Directors, Cinematographers, and viewers still prefer 35mm.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## Dub King

Hi there,

I was not thinking 'film' as in movies. The digital transition is still occurring in Hollywood. I was thinking digital vs. film still photography. The driving force behind the switch was none other than hobbyists who opted for DSLRs over their film-based counterparts. 

Kodak still makes film stock for movies, one area where the old-school technology remains cost-effective vs. digital. Those days are just about over as well, since soon full-frame DLSRs will be able to film non-stop at just about any frame rate.

Funny thing about the dominance of the DSLR - in camera land it is the equivalent of the AVR in audio land, with medium-format cameras playing the part of 'separates'. There's no hope for medium format to compete as technology brings more power at a lower cost. AVRs will likely see a similar evolution - specifically in the efficiency of the amplifier section - where in the near future most any AVR will be able to push most any speaker and any coloration of the sound will be strictly user-controlled/applied. I would not be surprised if AVRs of the future include the capability to emulate the characteristics of numerous 'classic' tube and solid-state amps. Bob Carver would surely approve.

As for passing media on to 'the kids' - digitization is your friend. 24/96 recording has enough bandwidth to capture the nuances of the very best recordings. My collection of ripped CDs dates back to 1996, the original discs sit in some books in the basement, collecting dust. The whole collection is archived - redundantly, including a copy 'in the cloud' - so I figure that's a lot more future-proof and disaster-proof than the stuff in my basement.



Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Speaking of Apple, the Retina Display 13 Inch MPB now comes without a Optical Disk Drive with them pretty much saying physical media is dead. Sadly, it really is getting to a point where the vast majority of media is now being consumed via streaming.
> 
> As someone with thousands of CD's, thousands of DVD's, and getting close to 1000 Blu-ray Discs, this whole idea horrifies me. Scores of folks spend hundreds and thousands of Dollars on iTunes where you cannot even leave it to your family in the future. Already it is about impossible to go find most of the bands I enjoy on CD locally, DVD/BD Sales are in the dumps, etc.
> 
> As for Film versus Digital, it really feels to me like 3D is a major driving force behind this. Of course there is the huge cost savings for Movie Studios not having to deal with Film Prints and other advantages. *However, many Film Directors, Cinematographers, and viewers still prefer 35mm.*
> Cheers,
> JJ


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
I too have a pretty large collection of ripped CD's that I use in my iP5. In addition, I have these same 2500 or so tracks on the Windows Media Player for easy access when using the Onkyo iOS Application, While certainly a preference thing, I just enjoy having all my discs in my Media Room.

As for Photography, it is indeed all about DSLR's on the whole. It is just at my Father's house he was a professional grade Dark Room replete with a Red Light outside the door. He purchased all the equipment when one of the hospitals he practices at divested themselves of all Film Processing equipment and it happened to be at the same time when he was building his latest home. I really enjoy coming home and mucking about in the Dark Room and still use 35mm Film.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## tesseract

J&D said:


> :gulp: I just have to say it. 60's and 70's was not too long ago? In the world of electronics and advancements in technology that could be considered a horse and buggy vs. the gasoline powered automobile. Nothing against tubes and vinyl but there is a reason I watch my movies on Bluray.


I bet you would also enjoy contemporary recordings made with tubes in the chain from Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab and Mapleshade. :T


----------



## Savjac

J&D said:


> Nothing against tubes and vinyl but there is a reason I watch my movies on Bluray.


Because the movie theater is too far away ??


----------



## OZZIERP

What I do see wrong with the industry now is 9.1/11.1 meaning weaker amp sections and cheaper speakers do to the amount needed so this will do to the home movie experience what MP3's did to music give you quantity without all the quality.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

OZZIERP said:


> What I do see wrong with the industry now is 9.1/11.1 meaning weaker amp sections and cheaper speakers do to the amount needed so this will do to the home movie experience what MP3's did to music give you quantity without all the quality.


Actually, I don't see this at all. All of these 9.1/11.1 options are listed with the higher end AVRs, not the entry level. Further more, 91. and 11.1 set-ups are taken from the zone 2 and zone 3 modes of these higher end AVRs with the flexibility of choosing 9.1 and 11.1 instead of just offering zone2 and zon3 playback. Its been around for at least 5 years now judging on the age of my receiver.


----------



## JoeESP9

3dbinCanada said:


> As an electrical engineer, I know just how important specs are in solid state amplification. Its clear to me that you prefer the colored sound of tubes over solid state so this whole argument is moot since AVRs are all solid state. As far as solid sate gear goes, I also challenge you to use more rigirous testing like blind listening tests in stead of sight biased tests to determine what something actually sounds like.
> 
> I'll stick to my principles. Modern high end AVRs can easily hold their own sonically against separates when properly matched to their speakers.


First, I'm a retired electrical engineer and I have a bench full of all manner of distortion analyzers and other test gear. I didn't say specs weren't important. I said they are not that important to me because any of the gear that I consider buying has good specs. As one who was around when the spec wars were rampant I know that an ultra low distortion spec (for example) when achieved with lots of negative feedback makes amplifiers sound awful. As proof of this I present the Crown IC-150. It has vanishingly low amounts of noise and distortion and sounds truly awful. 

Second, I didn't say I preferred tubes over SS or vice versa. I said that separates give me that option. That's some of that flexibility I've been mentioning. if you think that a receiver is as flexible as separates we live in two entirely different worlds. I would suggest that yours is colored by your obvious hangups with owning a receiver.

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post where I mentioned owning an ABX comparator at one time. You can't get anymore blind than using one of them. Instead of blindly defending a one box device (receiver) and claiming it's as flexible as separates flexible as separates you should look again. 

A one box solution or separate boxes that are optimized for each individual task? Please explain how one box is more flexible. 

Not having heard every receiver I can't speak for all of them. Of the ones I've heard over the last 45+ years not one has equaled let alone surpassed the sound of separates when in two channel mode. 

FYI:
To reiterate; I don't concern myself with specs. IME they tell you absolutely nothing about how something sounds or how well it will interface with (have synergy) something else. All decent modern gear (including your beloved receivers) that's competently designed and made has good specs anyway. 

This discussion isn't about the merits of SS over tubes. It's about whether a receiver is as flexible as separates. It's physically impossible for any receiver to be as flexible. Having everything in one box assures that. As long as you dispute this you are deluding yourself.

I lost all web access Sunday night and only got it back today. Fortunately I still had electricity. I spent a lot of time listening to music. Many people here on the East Coast lost everything or are without power. My heart and prayers go out to them.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

JoeESP9 said:


> First, I'm a retired electrical engineer and I have a bench full of all manner of distortion analyzers and other test gear. I didn't say specs weren't important. I said they are not that important to me because any of the gear that I consider buying has good specs. As one who was around when the spec wars were rampant I know that an ultra low distortion spec (for example) when achieved with lots of negative feedback makes amplifiers sound awful. As proof of this I present the Crown IC-150. It has vanishingly low amounts of noise and distortion and sounds truly awful.
> 
> Second, I didn't say I preferred tubes over SS or vice versa. I said that separates give me that option. That's some of that flexibility I've been mentioning. if you think that a receiver is as flexible as separates we live in two entirely different worlds. I would suggest that yours is colored by your obvious hangups with owning a receiver.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post where I mentioned owning an ABX comparator at one time. You can't get anymore blind than using one of them. Instead of blindly defending a one box device (receiver) and claiming it's as flexible as separates flexible as separates you should look again.
> 
> A one box solution or separate boxes that are optimized for each individual task? Please explain how one box is more flexible.
> 
> Not having heard every receiver I can't speak for all of them. Of the ones I've heard over the last 45+ years not one has equaled let alone surpassed the sound of separates when in two channel mode.
> 
> FYI:
> To reiterate; I don't concern myself with specs. IME they tell you absolutely nothing about how something sounds or how well it will interface with (have synergy) something else. All decent modern gear (including your beloved receivers) that's competently designed and made has good specs anyway.
> 
> This discussion isn't about the merits of SS over tubes. It's about whether a receiver is as flexible as separates. It's physically impossible for any receiver to be as flexible. Having everything in one box assures that. As long as you dispute this you are deluding yourself.
> 
> I lost all web access Sunday night and only got it back today. Fortunately I still had electricity. I spent a lot of time listening to music. Many people here on the East Coast lost everything or are without power. My heart and prayers go out to them.


First ... Glad to hear you made out ok. I also feel bad for those suffering..

Now back to the slug fest lddude:.

The discussion isn't about the merrits of tubes but yet you keep coming back to them. I can use an AVR as a preamp and have them feed a tube amp if one wants the tube sound. Even stepping outside the tubes, many friends I know use their AVRs as preamps and use power amps to drive their loudspeakers. 

I don't know how you can say that specs "tell you absolutely nothing about how something sounds or how well it will interface with (have synergy) something else" when reading specs about the load of a speaker can tell you if the amp or AVR is capable of driving the loudspeaker to volume levels without going into clipping. That's synergy.

Speakers properly matched to an AVR's power envelope will sound just as good if those same speakers were attached to a power amp. No difference in sound. A flat frequency response is a flat frequency response regardless of the driver.


----------



## JoeESP9

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> I too have a pretty large collection of ripped CD's that I use in my iP5. In addition, I have these same 2500 or so tracks on the Windows Media Player for easy access when using the Onkyo iOS Application, While certainly a preference thing, I just enjoy having all my discs in my Media Room.
> 
> As for Photography, it is indeed all about DSLR's on the whole. It is just at my Father's house he was a professional grade Dark Room replete with a Red Light outside the door. He purchased all the equipment when one of the hospitals he practices at divested themselves of all Film Processing equipment and it happened to be at the same time when he was building his latest home. I really enjoy coming home and mucking about in the Dark Room and still use 35mm Film.
> Cheers,
> JJ


I too prefer having physical media (1600 CD's, 3500 LP's). Eventually they will be all be "ripped" to my purpose built music server. They will not be disposed of.

I recently retired my Olympus OM-2 and OM-4 bodies, all my dark room gear including my enlarger and the Cibachrome developing gear. All that stuff was replaced with two E series bodies (E-P3, E-PL1) half a dozen 8GB SD cards (much cheaper than film) and some Micro 4/3 lenses. Now I have to learn how to really use Photoshop! As an added benefit all my old OM lenses fit the new bodies with an adapter.

Ya see fella's, although I like and use tube gear I'm not a complete Luddite!


----------



## Savjac

JoeESP9 said:


> Now I have to learn how to really use Photoshop!


Wow aint that the truth, being an older gent myself, film seemed much easier as I could see it, the processing was very hands on and visual with editing similar. Photoshop really can have a steep learning curve so been using Lightroom and it seems to do well, although still tough to learn for the hands on crowd....ahem that means old farts. :innocent:


----------



## JoeESP9

3dbinCanada said:


> First ... Glad to hear you made out ok. I also feel bad for those suffering..
> 
> Now back to the slug fest lddude:.
> 
> The discussion isn't about the merrits of tubes but yet you keep coming back to them. I can use an AVR as a preamp and have them feed a tube amp if one wants the tube sound. Even stepping outside the tubes, many friends I know use their AVRs as preamps and use power amps to drive their loudspeakers.
> 
> I don't know how you can say that specs "tell you absolutely nothing about how something sounds or how well it will interface with (have synergy) something else" when reading specs about the load of a speaker can tell you if the amp or AVR is capable of driving the loudspeaker to volume levels without going into clipping. That's synergy.
> 
> Speakers properly matched to an AVR's power envelope will sound just as good if those same speakers were attached to a power amp. No difference in sound. A flat frequency response is a flat frequency response regardless of the driver.


Sorry, there's more to system synergy than making sure you have adequate power. Of course, with a receiver most don't experiment and can't/won't find this out. It's that one box solution syndrome.

With a receiver I'd have to pay for and be stuck with things I may not want. For instance, why should I be forced to pay for a tuner? I have an Accuphase tuner. It's audibly better than anything currently available except for a Magnum Dynalab (with tubes:R) tuner and has better specs (you think they're really important) than any tuner section of any receiver ever made by anyone. Suppose I don't want any kind of tuner? With a receiver I'm forced to have one regardless. Suppose I want tubed power amplifiers? Why should I pay for the ones in a receiver if I'll never use them. Those are just two examples of the flexibility that separates have over a receiver.

I don't match speakers to my gear. I match gear to my speakers. I found speakers that I like then built my system around them. 

I'm not suggesting tubes over SS or vice versa. I use both technologies. 

Another poster has said some nice things about my hybrid preamp which in his words doesn't sound like tubes. In my words it sounds like music. I've never heard the preamp section of any receiver sound as "musical". That's musical, not tube like, not SS like, just musical. There are plenty of other serious listeners who agree with this. Many of them are as technically competent or more so than I.

Just about no one including other audiophiles would know I'm using any tubed gear. When I tell them some of my gear has tubes they are all, without exception surprised. The standard comments once they get over being confronted with full range esl's is something like "I never knew music could sound this good" and "It's better sound than the theater". 

Having a dedicated treated room helps quite a bit for this. IMO the room makes a bigger difference than tweaking or swapping gear anyway. Fix the room you'll get a better ROI (return on investment).

Savjac:
Although I'm 65 I'm fairly comfortable with most software as I ran my own IT business before retiring. Even so, the learning curve for Photoshop is one of the steeper ones.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

JoeESP9 said:


> Sorry, there's more to system synergy than making sure you have adequate power. Of course, with a receiver most don't experiment and can't/won't find this out. It's that one box solution syndrome.


Your thinking here is so wrong. Most people who shop for AVRs (not the two channel receivers of yesteryear) are very careful in matching speakers to their receiver. Its not just a blind purchase like you think it is. Incorrect assertion on your part. 



JoeESP9 said:


> With a receiver I'd have to pay for and be stuck with things I may not want. For instance, why should I be forced to pay for a tuner? I have an Accuphase tuner. It's audibly better than anything currently available except for a Magnum Dynalab (with tubes:R) tuner and has better specs (you think they're really important) than any tuner section of any receiver ever made by anyone. Suppose I don't want any kind of tuner? With a receiver I'm forced to have one regardless. Suppose I want tubed power amplifiers? Why should I pay for the ones in a receiver if I'll never use them. Those are just two examples of the flexibility that separates have over a receiver.


We're talking about AVRs, not two channel receivers. World of difference in the two. 



JoeESP9 said:


> I don't match speakers to my gear. I match gear to my speakers. I found speakers that I like then built my system around them.


I'm not going to argue semantics .. waste of time. 




JoeESP9 said:


> Another poster has said some nice things about my hybrid preamp which in his words doesn't sound like tubes. In my words it sounds like music. I've never heard the preamp section of any receiver sound as "musical". That's musical, not tube like, not SS like, just musical. There are plenty of other serious listeners who agree with this. Many of them are as technically competent or more so than I.


Just for sh"ts and giggles, when was the last time you auditioned an AVR and what make and model was it? 



JoeESP9 said:


> Just about no one including other audiophiles would know I'm using any tubed gear. When I tell them some of my gear has tubes they are all, without exception surprised. The standard comments once they get over being confronted with full range esl's is something like "I never knew music could sound this good" and "It's better sound than the theater".


Audiophile is a bad word in my dictionary as they report as fact all kinds of subjective claims without understanding the physics or electronic concepts. They believe in all kinds of weird things like cables, power cables and interconnects imparting a sonic signature. I also find this behaviour in you very perplexing as you claim to be an engineer but claim to hear difference between amplifiers operating well within their power envelope.


----------



## jackfish

All the ad nauseum polemics aside, the original question was "How many people here think that separates offer better sq than an AVR for 2 channel music?"

It is clear that as far as sound quality goes, separate two channel gear is going to be better than an audio/visual receiver. Has to be. There are just too many compromises in an AVR which negatively affect sound quality whereas sound quality is the primary goal of separates. Period.

There would be no need for multi-thousand dollar AVRs to have HT bypass if it weren't the case.

There, 10 pages of this dung. Satisified?


----------



## Dub King

Yup.

At some point the extra dynamic range the separates approach affords will result in increased percieved SQ, assuming the same care is spent matching components.

Thanks to the aggressively low pricing of 'pro' amps, building a 2-channel system with 'separates' can/does cost less that buying an AVR with an equally capable amplifier section. That extra money can go straight into the speakers. Net result, dollar for dollar a bare-bones 2-channel 'separates' system can/does sound better than attempting to do the same thing with an AVR.



jackfish said:


> All the ad nauseum polemics aside, the original question was "How many people here think that separates offer better sq than an AVR for 2 channel music?"
> 
> It is clear that as far as sound quality goes, separate two channel gear is going to be better than an audio/visual receiver. Has to be. There are just too many compromises in an AVR which negatively affect sound quality whereas sound quality is the primary goal of separates. Period.
> 
> *There would be no need for multi-thousand dollar AVRs to have HT bypass if it weren't the case.*
> 
> There, 10 pages of this dung. Satisified?


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Dub King said:


> Yup.
> 
> At some point the extra dynamic range the separates approach affords will result in increased percieved SQ, assuming the same care is spent matching components.


But there in lies the whole fallacy. Dynamic range is only used when its needed. If careful matching i sdone between speakers and an AVR, then the extra dynamci range never comes into play. 



Dub King said:


> Thanks to the aggressively low pricing of 'pro' amps, building a 2-channel system with 'separates' can/does cost less that buying an AVR with an equally capable amplifier section. That extra money can go straight into the speakers. Net result, dollar for dollar a bare-bones 2-channel 'separates' system can/does sound better than attempting to do the same thing with an AVR.


Actually an AVR with room correction facilities engaged can help reduce acoustic interaction between speaker and room which no separate 2 channel system can do.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

jackfish said:


> All the ad nauseum polemics aside, the original question was "How many people here think that separates offer better sq than an AVR for 2 channel music?"
> 
> 
> 
> There, 10 pages of this dung. Satisified?


Nobody is claiming better.. although under extreme circumstances it is possible for an AVR to sound better. Thanks for contributing to your share of the dung!! :clap:


----------



## Savjac

Well there you have it, a perfect and complete answer. It all depends on the person you ask. Seems like that is the most important person to please, whoever is buying whatever product.


----------



## Dub King

double post - see response below...


----------



## Dub King

There are numerous solutions for room correction - miniDSP and the Behringer UltraCurve Pro come to mind or one could run ARC System 2.0 on a HTPC.

If you are willing to restrict yourself to speakers that can be driven to 115db from 20-20,000 hz +/-3db with zero dynamic compression, powered exclusively by an AVR, you'd be shopping from a rather short list of speakers - many of them self-powered with built-in subwoofers. In that case sure, you can pull off the trick. With separates, amps with sufficient power to drive just about any speaker pair can be had for under $1,000, even if you add the UltraCurve Pro to the package.

Even with ten times that budget no AVR connected to a single pair of speakers is capable of reproducing the full dynamics of concert-level live sound with 100% accuracy, 100% dynamic range from 16hz-20,000 Hz, especially in larger spaces - with separates this is achievable. 

I've maxed out twin monoblock Sony ES amps, I've maxed out 1,000 watt/channel pro amps, and I've done it in smaller rooms with reasonably efficient full-range speakers. The cards are stacked against any AVR replicating the SQ at those higher levels because bass at reference levels (even the kind of bass you hear in classical recordings) requires displacing lots of air and conusmes lots of watts - eventually an AVR is going to run out of juice while separates are nearly infinitely scalable - all the way up to a football stadium-sized two-channel rig, if you wanted.



3dbinCanada said:


> But there in lies the whole fallacy. Dynamic range is only used when its needed. If careful matching i sdone between speakers and an AVR, *then the extra dynamci range never comes into play*.
> 
> Actually an *AVR with room correction facilities* engaged can help reduce acoustic interaction between speaker and room which *no separate 2 channel system can do*.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Dub King said:


> There are numerous solutions for room correction - miniDSP and the Behringer UltraCurve Pro come to mind or one could run ARC System 2.0 on a HTPC.


Hmm Anthem's ARC, Yamaha's YPAO, and Audsessy spring to mind already contained in AVRs? Why buy something additional? 



Dub King said:


> If you are willing to restrict yourself to speakers that can be driven to 115db from 20-20,000 hz +/-3db with zero dynamic compression, powered exclusively by an AVR, you'd be shopping from a rather short list of speakers - many of them self-powered with built-in subwoofers. In that case sure, you can pull off the trick. With separates, amps with sufficient power to drive just about any speaker pair can be had for under $1,000, even if you add the UltraCurve Pro to the package.


I'm not willing to listen to music at 115db with either separates or an AVR? I like my hearing to last thank you very much. Who says one has to listen to music that loud? 



Dub King said:


> Even with ten times that budget no AVR connected to a single pair of speakers is capable of reproducing the full dynamics of concert-level live sound with 100% accuracy, 100% dynamic range from 16hz-20,000 Hz, especially in larger spaces - with separates this is achievable.


No speaker I know off is capable of doing that regardless of whats driving that. The concerts you go go to are driven by multiple amps and loud speakers. Why on earth would I buy separates for a smaller listening environment? Can you tell me that? 



Dub King said:


> I've maxed out twin monoblock Sony ES amps, I've maxed out 1,000 watt/channel pro amps, and I've done it in smaller rooms with reasonably efficient full-range speakers. The cards are stacked against any AVR replicating the SQ at those higher levels because bass at reference levels (even the kind of bass you hear in classical recordings) requires displacing lots of air and conusmes lots of watts - eventually an AVR is going to run out of juice while separates are nearly infinitely scalable - all the way up to a football stadium-sized two-channel rig, if you wanted.


Sounds like you damaged your hearing by listening to music too loud. Your audiophile card has just been revoked. :foottap:


----------



## Dub King

_"Actually an AVR with room correction facilities engaged can help reduce acoustic interaction between speaker and room which no separate 2 channel system can do."_

becomes

_"Hmm Anthem's ARC, Yamaha's YPAO, and Audsessy spring to mind already contained in AVRs? Why buy something additional?"_

:unbelievable:

---------------------
Speakers exist that can do exactly what I described, especially in a 'smaller listening environment'. I've been to a number of concerts that had zero amplification - the Philadelphia Orchestra, for example. They play up to 110-115db during a crescendo, replicating that intensity is not some irrational pursuit. My hearing is perfect, had it tested recently enough. I can even hear those seagull repelling and anti-roach and pest devices squealing away. Please try not to make false statements about me.



3dbinCanada said:


> Hmm Anthem's ARC, Yamaha's YPAO, and Audsessy spring to mind already contained in AVRs? Why buy something additional?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not willing to listen to music at 115db with either separates or an AVR? I like my hearing to last thank you very much. Who says one has to listen to music that loud?
> 
> 
> 
> No speaker I know off is capable of doing that regardless of whats driving that. The concerts you go go to are driven by multiple amps and loud speakers. Why on earth would I buy separates for a smaller listening environment? Can you tell me that?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you damaged your hearing by listening to music too loud. Your audiophile card has just been revoked. :foottap:


----------



## tonyvdb

Mark, you make a point but your also running away with this. We are not talking about large venues we are talking about a livingroom size space with poor acoustics in many cases. 
I can guarantee you that my AVR (Onkyo 805) in Two channel mode driving my EV sentry 500s 30-20000Hz will play well past reference without distortion. Again dont make blanket statements like that as there are many AVRs that do have the power to drive nice speakers to very comfortable levels. 

As far as the comment about AVRs having a Pure/Direct mode some like to have a bypass of all internal processing well others like myself understand that the room and the speakers will color the sound so correction is necessary, so your fooling yourself if you think that you are hearing the music as it was recorded unless your room is perfect and your speakers are as well. Who has that setup? I bet not many if any.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Dub King said:


> Please don't troll me.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> "Actually an AVR with room correction facilities engaged can help reduce acoustic interaction between speaker and room _which no separate 2 channel system can do_."
> 
> becomes
> 
> "Hmm Anthem's ARC, Yamaha's YPAO, and Audsessy spring to mind already contained in AVRs? _Why buy something additional?_"
> 
> :unbelievable:


You are the one trolling but I'm not biting. All of your arguements are based on large rooms with power hungry speakers? Do you honestly think some one will buy an AVR for that application? Off couse, one could use the AVR as a preamp and connect it to power amps if need be. Conversely, why would any one buy so many separate components for a small room? The question was about SQ and the answer is "it depends on the environment its to be used in. The right tool for the right job.


----------



## Dub King

Tony,

I should not be making arguments based on hypotheticals. I brought up pro amps only because they offer a lot of watts in a compact inexpensive package and the thinking on amps these days is that they are the most transparent part of the signal chain - so the main qualitative improvement one can make with amplification is in fact quantitative... more power = more headroom = better dynamics through a larger frequency range.

I've certainly heard many great AVRs powering many great speakers, and I've owned a few such combinations in the past. The AVR approach is perfect for 99.98% of music lovers.

But if you get down to recording music and whether I'm fooling myself, I take issue with that... I have a recording studio and the purpose of my speakers is to act as monitors. Neither my speakers nor my room are perfect, but they are sufficiently good that along with EQ, yes the sound is good enough to resemble the 'reality' of a live concert, or to replicate the 'reality' of an uncompressed studio mix. I've checked out several albums vs. the real concert. I'm not saying it isn't 'rare' to have such a system but I am saying it can can be done without an astronomical budget and thanks to modern tools, relatively easily. This is especially true for playback through ARC System 2 - which is Audyssey Multi-EQ with a sophisticated, pro-oriented interface. With modest room treatment, the software creates a substantial bubble of 'neutrality', certainly enough to make an entire sofa into a reference-quality, flat EQ'd listening position.

And yes, from 30hz on up I agree, there's more than enough power in a decent AVR to do whatever you need in most homes.



tonyvdb said:


> Mark, you make a point but your also running away with this. We are not talking about large venues we are talking about a livingroom size space with poor acoustics in many cases.
> I can guarantee you that my AVR (Onkyo 805) in Two channel mode driving my EV sentry 500s 30-20000Hz will play well past reference without distortion. Again dont make blanket statements like that as there are many AVRs that do have the power to drive nice speakers to very comfortable levels.
> 
> As far as the comment about AVRs having a Pure/Direct mode some like to have a bypass of all internal processing well others like myself understand that the room and the speakers will color the sound so correction is necessary, so your fooling yourself if you think that you are hearing the music as it was recorded unless your room is perfect and your speakers are as well. Who has that setup? I bet not many if any.


----------



## Dub King

You have switched from making absolute statements to 'everything is relative' which is a frustrating debate tactic. Large rooms exist, so do power-hungry speakers that happen to sound good. Often, those who can afford it buy into exactly that combination, and often those are the systems that outperform AVR-based systems, in the opinions of critics as well as that of consumers.

Using an 'extreme' example to debunk and 'absolute' statement, sure I am guilty of that. 

In no way shape or form do I wish to understate the quality that can be achieved with an AVR-based system. I should also realize that for many people, the bottom octave from 16-32 hz just isn't that important, and when they do address it, they do it with a subwoofer - whereas I finally kicked the subwoofer out of my system when I finally achieved the specs I wanted solely through my mains. I only listen to super-loud music for brief bursts, but it's really nice to have that capability. Same thinking that goes into buying a car _capable_ of going 190mph. Some might argue that at 65mph, there's no difference between a Lexus GS wagon and a Porsche Panamera Turbo S - that you can't 'feel' the difference at those lower speeds, nor can you measure it - so the extra performance in the Porsche never gets used. Yet they could very well be mistaken, if only in other people's opinion. It could just be how cornering feels, or that extra second shaved off the 0-60 time. Same goes for music listening IMO. Others disagree. 



3dbinCanada said:


> You are the one trolling but I'm not biting. All of your arguements are based on large rooms with power hungry speakers? Do you honestly think some one will buy an AVR for that application? Off couse, one could use the AVR as a preamp and connect it to power amps if need be. Conversely, why would any one buy so many separate components for a small room? The question was about SQ and the answer is "it depends on the environment its to be used in. The right tool for the right job.


----------



## tonyvdb

The issue with the original question is that there is a place for separates but to say that an AVR cant sound as good as separates is 100%wrong. There are many AVRs costing less than $2000 that will preform just as good I know of a few prepros that are relatively inexpensive that have not lived up to the hype, some have never even made it to market due to all sorts of issues. 
If you want true pure sound skip the pre pro and receiver all together and just plug a CD player directly into a 2 ch amp . You skip all the so called coloring of the sound that a processor adds that way (oh I forgot, the amp will color the sound also). Sure you loose all flexibility of input switching and remote control volume control but then you wont have any of the above named issues


----------



## Dub King

Tony,

I have my system listed in my profile. My primary listening is HTPC sound card directly to amp. That's why subwoofers are no longer a part of my 2-way system. When I argue for more power and simplicity and separates, I am also arguing for my own 'preference'... my own bias. There is an AVR is my system, ready to pick up whenever I stick a 3D Blu-ray into my PC. Everything else happens inside the PC, where the signal-procesing options are near-endless... especially because I've invested far more in music production software than I have in hardware... and I've got thousands sunk into hardware. Remote Control is achieved through an Android/iOS app or using a mouse, and input switching... that's basically obsolete since all source media goes through the HTPC.

As an aside, I never did like pre-amps. AVR with pre-out is a much better solution and has been so for some time now. The AVR is indispensable, even in a 'separates' system!



tonyvdb said:


> The issue with the original question is that there is a place for separates but to say that an AVR cant sound as good as separates is 100%wrong. There are many AVRs costing less than $2000 that will preform just as good I know of a few prepros that are relatively inexpensive that have not lived up to the hype, some have never even made it to market due to all sorts of issues.
> If you want true pure sound skip the pre pro and receiver all together and just plug a CD player directly into a 2 ch amp . You skip all the so called coloring of the sound that a processor adds that way (oh I forgot, the amp will color the sound also). Sure you loose all flexibility of input switching and remote control volume control but then you wont have any of the above named issues


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Dub King said:


> You have switched from making absolute statements to 'everything is relative' which is a frustrating debate tactic. Large rooms exist, so do power-hungry speakers that happen to sound good. Often, those who can afford it buy into exactly that combination, and often those are the systems that outperform AVR-based systems, in the opinions of critics as well as that of consumers.
> 
> Using an 'extreme' example to debunk and 'absolute' statement, sure I am guilty of that.


Please read my posts. No where did I say or even imply absolute. I always mentioned matching the speakers. Maybe I should have said in a matching environment as well but I thought that went hand in hand with matching speakers. My apologies for that. 



Dub King said:


> In no way shape or form do I wish to understate the quality that can be achieved with an AVR-based system. I should also realize that for many people, the bottom octave from 16-32 hz just isn't that important, and when they do address it, they do it with a subwoofer - whereas I finally kicked the subwoofer out of my system when I finally achieved the specs I wanted solely through my mains. I only listen to super-loud music for brief bursts, but it's really nice to have that capability. Same thinking that goes into buying a car _capable_ of going 190mph. Some might argue that at 65mph, there's no difference between a Lexus GS wagon and a Porsche Panamera Turbo S - that you can't 'feel' the difference at those lower speeds, nor can you measure it - so the extra performance in the Porsche never gets used. Yet they could very well be mistaken, if only in other people's opinion. It could just be how cornering feels, or that extra second shaved off the 0-60 time. Same goes for music listening IMO. Others disagree.


I would like to hear your system.


----------



## tonyvdb

I agree, Its a shame our continent is so big. I would love to hear other members systems and just enjoy other tastes in music


----------



## Dub King

Ditto to that... I really love all kinds of sound and sound-making devices. I am no absolutist, I can appreciate any stereo that has some attribute which makes it interesting: delicacy, precision, warmth... whatever makes it special. I can even appreciate a pair of 1980's-era Cerwin Vegas playing Bob Marley through a Fisher receiver, a pair of EPIs run by a Technics, or Krell running a pair of Magnepans one minute, a pair of ProAC bookshelfs the next. Same way I don't eat grilled NY strip and drink champagne for dinner every night, sometimes I'll grab my $100/pair 2012 Andrew Jones Pioneers and hook them up to the Crown XTi - knowing full well that the Crown and my Sony AVR will probably sound identical through them, because I'm really listening to the speakers - cheap, small, great sounding speakers. The upshot? Often listening to something different, even for a bit, refreshes my appreciation for my 'mains' while also allowing me to hear a 'different take' on a recording.



tonyvdb said:


> I agree, Its a shame our continent is so big. I would love to hear other members systems and just enjoy other tastes in music


----------



## jackfish

3dbinCanada said:


> But there in lies the whole fallacy. Dynamic range is only used when its needed. If careful matching i sdone between speakers and an AVR, then the extra dynamci range never comes into play.


What fallacy? Dynamic range is used so often that it will be clear when the AVR can't deliver. 



3dbinCanada said:


> Actually an AVR with room correction facilities engaged can help reduce acoustic interaction between speaker and room which no separate 2 channel system can do.


Two channel systems don't muck up the works with superfluous circuitry to alter acoustics. Treat the room.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

jackfish said:


> What fallacy? Dynamic range is used so often that it will be clear when the AVR can't deliver.


I better correct the use of the terminology Dynamic Range..Its the difference between the loudest and quietest part in music or source material. All AVRs cover the full dynamic range of source material. What you are talking about is digging into power reserves or headroom. Form this context, headroom only becomes an issue if you near the AVR's power delivery limits. If you stay well within the AVR's power envelope, then the AVR will sound as good as separates within its limits..meaning don't expect to run concert levels in a large room.




jackfish said:


> Two channel systems don't muck up the works with superfluous circuitry to alter acoustics. Treat the room silly.


Analog and digital circuits are kept separate in competently designed AVRs just so you know.


----------



## JoeESP9

3db; Many of the people who post here are technically competent and the majority of those who've been posting to this thread are seasoned "audiophiles", just so you know.

BTW: The term audiophile according to Merriam Webster means; 
*au·dio·phile*

_noun_ \ˈȯ-dē-ō-ˌfī(-ə)l\


*Definition of AUDIOPHILE*

*:* a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction 

 See audiophile defined for kids »

*First Known Use of AUDIOPHILE*

1951
_______________________________________________________________________________________
That's all it means and nothing more.That you don't agree with this is as obvious as the other things you don't agree with.

When I was a brand new engineer with a still wet degree I too though that specs tell everything. I've learned since then that that's not always the case.


*
*


----------



## tesseract

3dbinCanada said:


> We're talking about AVRs, not two channel receivers. World of difference in the two.


Other than the obvious addition of surround sound, what are the differences?

Also, keep in mind that this is the 2 channel forum. Personally, I've found that I can live with an AVR for movies, but not for music.


----------



## tesseract

tonyvdb said:


> The issue with the original question is that there is a place for separates but to say that an AVR cant sound as good as separates is 100%wrong. There are many AVRs costing less than $2000 that will preform just as good I know of a few prepros that are relatively inexpensive that have not lived up to the hype, some have never even made it to market due to all sorts of issues.


The pre pros that didn't live up to the hype do not define the entire genre of separates. There are at least as many AVR's that don't live up to the hype...



> If you want true pure sound skip the pre pro and receiver all together and just plug a CD player directly into a 2 ch amp . You skip all the so called coloring of the sound that a processor adds that way (oh I forgot, the amp will color the sound also). Sure you loose all flexibility of input switching and remote control volume control but then you wont have any of the above named issues


I have done this, via a passive pre integrated amplifier. I EQ below Schroeder only, via powered subwoofers.

I tried to let a premium AVR handle modal and specular, it just didn't work for me, in my room.


----------



## tesseract

Dub King said:


> As an aside, I never did like pre-amps. AVR with pre-out is a much better solution and has been so for some time now. The AVR is indispensable, even in a 'separates' system!





3dbinCanada said:


> I would like to hear your system.





tonyvdb said:


> I agree, Its a shame our continent is so big. I would love to hear other members systems and just enjoy other tastes in music


I'd like to hear all of your systems. I bet each sounds great!


Dub King, I have a friend who has been in the hobby since at least 1989. NEVER owned a receiver, CD player, DVD player, or BD player. He currently runs an HTPC with JRivers that directly feeds his amps. I've visited his home twice, even though his speakers are quite different now than the first time I visited, both times were the best sound I have ever heard.


----------



## Dub King

Tesseract,

Removing physical crossovers from my speakers and bi-amping with DSP-based crossovers is one of the best upgrades I have made. The best part is that with no physical crossover, swapping drivers is no big deal. I enjoy using bookshelf speakers in place of my horns (on occasion), since the dual-12" bass modules I use are crossed-over at 600hz they act as modular speakers. With a bookshelf on top, they look like WATT-PUPPYs - with the horns... let's just say they sound better than they look. The moment you see the attached you're going to ask yourself 'Sony XPLOD?' - well, they were rated up to 1,000hz so I figured if I'm crossing over at 600 they should do just fine as full-range bass drivers. Bingo. It was a total, unexpected surprise that particular driver sounded so good - because I put four times their cost in drivers in the basement after I heard exactly how good they sounded... Thanks to REW and on-board DSP in the Crown, it was easy to put this together and make it work. 

 




tesseract said:


> I'd like to hear all of your systems. I bet each sounds great!
> Dub King, I have a friend who has been in the hobby since at least 1989. NEVER owned a receiver, CD player, DVD player, or BD player. He currently runs an HTPC with JRivers that directly feeds his amps. I've visited his home twice, even though his speakers are quite different now than the first time I visited, both times were the best sound I have ever heard.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tesseract said:


> Other than the obvious addition of surround sound, what are the differences?
> 
> Also, keep in mind that this is the 2 channel forum. Personally, I've found that I can live with an AVR for movies, but not for music.


I can understand your comment if the AVR is not mated to speakers it can drive easily in a room that's too large. If that is the case, you are using the wrong tool for the job is all.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tesseract said:


> The pre pros that didn't live up to the hype do not define the entire genre of separates. There are at least as many AVR's that don't live up to the hype...


Who said all AVRs or all PrePros? :sneeky:





tesseract said:


> I have done this, via a passive pre integrated amplifier. I EQ below Schroeder only, via powered subwoofers.
> 
> I tried to let a premium AVR handle modal and specular, it just didn't work for me, in my room.


Again, the right tool for the right job.


----------



## tesseract

3dbinCanada said:


> I can understand your comment if the AVR is not mated to speakers it can drive easily in a room that's too large. If that is the case, you are using the wrong tool for the job is all.


My gear is listed in "My System" info, and pictures of my room and gear can be found throughout the forum. Here is one thread. I encourage others to post pics there too. :T

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-audio/50460-2-channel-picture-gallery.html


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tesseract said:


> My gear is listed in "My System" info, and pictures of my room and gear can be found throughout the forum. Here is one thread. I encourage others to post pics there too. :T
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-audio/50460-2-channel-picture-gallery.html


My setup serves dual purpose HT and two channel and the pictures are better suited for HT only because of the distance from which I took the pictures. No detailed pictures of the components. Is there a similar thread for HT setups?


----------



## tesseract

My system is 2 channel with a TV (that rarely gets turned on), hence "two channel view". :dumbcrazy:

Here you go, 3dbinCanada. :T

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-room-photos-finished-rooms-only/


----------



## 3dbinCanada

tesseract said:


> My system is 2 channel with a TV (that rarely gets turned on), hence "two channel view". :dumbcrazy:
> 
> Here you go, 3dbinCanada. :T
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-theater-room-photos-finished-rooms-only/


Thanks for the link.. Pictures have been posted. :wave:


----------

