# AVR vs. Separates??



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

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 surround sound? 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 2-channel forum to see if there's a difference with music instead of movies. 

Link to 2-channel forum question: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-audio/57152-avr-vs-separates.html#post516042


----------



## JBrax (Oct 13, 2011)

I'm running my Klipsch Reference series speakers with an Onkyo 809. My speakers are pretty efficient and feel the power provided from the 809 is more than adequate. Now would they sound better with separates? Maybe, but I'm pretty content for now with the sound.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

wgmontgomery said:


> 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 surround sound? 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 2-channel forum to see if there's a difference with music instead of movies.
> 
> Link to 2-channel forum question: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-audio/57152-avr-vs-separates.html#post516042


I consider it an analogy of the thrust to weight ratio. If your speakers are unusually light than adding more thrust is unlikely to make a noticeable difference. However the opposite is true of heavy speakers, additional thrust will give you a faster, tighter journey to top-end. In my experience this has nothing to do with the size and weight of the speaker, both a bookshelf speaker and tower can be considered "heavy", but more a factor of how hard you like to push your system and how inefficient your speakers are.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I think that for home theater having an external amp only on the mains is a good idea. There are very few receivers out there that can power all 7 to 9 channels at the same time without giving up some headroom to distortion. 
That said a full blown separates setup is in my opinion overkill unless your driving really inefficient speakers like Martian Logans. Sadly receivers that need outboard amplification the most are also the ones that dont come with pre-outs to add them so its in a way backwards as to the way it should be.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

TypeA said:


> I consider it an analogy of the thrust to weight ratio. If your speakers are unusually light than adding more thrust is unlikely to make a noticeable difference. However the opposite is true of heavy speakers, additional thrust will give you a faster, tighter journey to top-end. In my experience this has nothing to do with the size and weight of the speaker, both a bookshelf speaker and tower can be considered "heavy", but more a factor of how hard you like to push your system and how inefficient your speakers are.


Two matters to consider.

Concerning speakers, a driver is going to ring regardless of the amp driving it, one of the reasons speakers (and microphones) are the weakest link in the audio chain. As long as the speaker's Xmech isn't reached, diaphragm weight won't come into play.

Concerning amps, unless the damping factor of an amp is unacceptably low, clipping is going to come into play long before driver weight will. A low powered 50 watt amp putting out 25 watts at "x" frequency should, on paper, do just as well as a 500 watt amp putting out the same 25 watts at "x" frequency. Once again, speaker diaphragm weight should not come into play.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

AVR sounds just as good as separates.
Having said that, if money were no object all of my electronics would say McIntosh on them instead of Pioneer and Sony.
I don't necessarily think McIntosh would sound better, but without question I like the cachet of McIntosh better.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I think that there is a wide range of performance out there in AVRs and separates. High quality AVRs, used within their proper functioning output limits would be hard to distinguish from separates for most people.


----------



## beyond 1000 (Aug 28, 2008)

I have an Onkyo 906 and now use it as a pre/pro. My amp is an Outlaw 7500. Definitely a difference not only in pure power but in detail at lower volumes. Very transparent and clean. The sound becomes 3 dimensional. When driving the system at solid listening levels, watching Master and Commander is a welcomed improvement over the AVR on the part of the amplifier. Watching 3:10 to Yuma, the speed of the amp on gunfire scenes is incredible and the damping factor is rock solid. 

If you get an AVR, make sure you do not spend a lot of money on one. After that go separates. I will be getting a nice pre/pro soon enough. I don't know if that will make a difference over the 906.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

lcaillo said:


> I think that there is a wide range of performance out there in AVRs and separates. High quality AVRs, used within their proper functioning output limits would be hard to distinguish from separates for most people.



"hard to distinguish from separates for most people." Hard to distinguish or indistinguishable? I mean this as an honest question, so please don't take offense. :innocent:

Also, when you state "most people," do you mean that most people _would not _notice or _could not _notice a difference? Thanks!!


----------



## Truls (Dec 20, 2009)

Went from driving my RF-83's with a onkyo tx-nr1007 to running them with a pair of emo xpa-1's(stil use the 1007 as a pre).

Did i notice something? No, not initially, as a almost always listen to music at a "normal" level. But i do notice the extra power when i push them on music with loads of bass. They actually "kick" now=)

Would i go back to only using a AVR to power speakers? No, but i would buy something allot smaller than the XPA-1's if i where to choose again. Rely don't need all that power to run a pair of RF-83's.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Reasonable questions, but they have no answer. You will hear many BELIEFS about what sounds how and what people can distinguish, but the only honest answer is that it is largely a matter of perception that varies greatly with the individual.

Based upon considerable experience with hundreds of systems and hundreds of clients, I would say that most people would not find a difference in the sound between a good modern AVR and modern separates most of the time. Do I believe that there are audible differences? Well, probably, under certain conditions. Do I believe that the there are measurable differences? Well, maybe, but again, there are so many variables it is impossible to generalize.

I do believe that we could do a much better job of identifying and quantifying the differences that people perceive, both objectively and subjectively.

Your questions are good, reasonable questions. There is just not a lot of factual answers that can be provided for them. There are lots of opinions. In the end, you need to listen and determine for yourself what is adequate for your system. Whether there are differences or not, your satisfaction comes down to what you perceive in the sound. Beyond pointing you in the direction of one's own perception, no one can really provide an answer to your questions. That does not mean that sharing opinions is pointless, far from it. It means that as you gather information you need to be clear that the vast majority of it WILL be opinion, and take it for what it is worth.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Truls said:


> Went from driving my RF-83's with a onkyo tx-nr1007 to running them with a pair of emo xpa-1's(stil use the 1007 as a pre).
> 
> Did i notice something? No, not initially, as a almost always listen to music at a "normal" level. But i do notice the extra power when i push them on music with loads of bass. They actually "kick" now=)
> 
> Would i go back to only using a AVR to power speakers? No, but i would buy something allot smaller than the XPA-1's if i where to choose again. Rely don't need all that power to run a pair of RF-83's.


"Kick" is a good word to describe it, even the word 'authority' comes to mind.


----------



## wxthomson (Jan 27, 2012)

I decided to think long term when I bought my separates. I bought good quality amplifiers that should last me many years without replacement. I also bought a pre/pro with all the latest features. Now, in a few years when newer features are common in pre/pros I only have to replace the pre/pro and my amplifiers will still be good. It seemed to me to be the most cost effective way to keep current and still have good quality equipment.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

wxthomson said:


> I decided to think long term when I bought my separates. I bought good quality amplifiers that should last me many years without replacement. I also bought a pre/pro with all the latest features. Now, in a few years when newer features are common in pre/pros I only have to replace the pre/pro and my amplifiers will still be good. It seemed to me to be the most cost effective way to keep current and still have good quality equipment.


The only thing wrong with that is to get a good quality pre/pro with good features your paying 3 times as much as a receiver with pre-outs for adding those external amps that will have far more features. Pre/pro's just dont make sense in this day and age.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> The only thing wrong with that is to get a good quality pre/pro with good features your paying 3 times as much as a receiver with pre-outs for adding those external amps that will have far more features. Pre/pro's just dont make sense in this day and age.


Even as an owner and advocate of separates it's hard for me to argue against this logic. I've brought-up this point in a few other threads: WHY do companies remove 5 (or 7) amps from an AVR and then charge MORE for the SSP sans amps?? Are they adding better components (DACs, caps etc) to the pre/pro or just removing a costly portion of the AVR, putting it in a smaller box and slapping a larger price tag on it? :scratch:


----------



## wxthomson (Jan 27, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> The only thing wrong with that is to get a good quality pre/pro with good features your paying 3 times as much as a receiver with pre-outs for adding those external amps that will have far more features. Pre/pro's just dont make sense in this day and age.


So you are saying that a pre/pro is 3 times more expensive than using an equivalent AVR as a pre/pro?

Let's consider a popular Onkyo/Integra choice. Integra 80.3 pre/pro at $2600 vs. Onkyo 5009 AVR at $2899

Since most everyone considers the Onkyo's pre/pro section to be equal to the Integra, what are the "far more features" one would get using the 5009 as a pre/pro?

The Integra is certainly not 3 times more expensive.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

I believe that was just hyperbole, but I'm sure Tony can clarify.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

wxthomson said:


> So you are saying that a pre/pro is 3 times more expensive than using an equivalent AVR as a pre/pro?
> 
> Let's consider a popular Onkyo/Integra choice. Integra 80.3 pre/pro at $2600 vs. Onkyo 5009 AVR at $2899
> 
> ...


That is true And As I have said in many other posts Onkyo has always been the exception to the rule (although the equivalent receiver to the 80.3 really is the 3009 and is equal in price) . The Integra line is defiantly a good consideration so in that case I do stand corrected. However I do think that that puts you in a totally different class of reviver/pre-pro. If you were not looking for Audyssey XT32 then the Onkyo 709 or 809 are far cheaper and give you the same performance.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

tonyvdb said:


> The only thing wrong with that is to get a good quality pre/pro with good features your paying 3 times as much as a receiver with pre-outs for adding those external amps that will have far more features. Pre/pro's just dont make sense in this day and age. That is true And As I have said in many other posts Onkyo has always been the exception to the rule





Onkyo is not an exception either. According to my math, even including the price of the amp, its still only a 30% increase over a stand-alone AVR, hardly 300%.


Marantz SR7005 AVR, $1700.

Marantz AV7005/MM7055, $2700. Thats about a 40% increase in price over the AVR.

But we can do even better...

AV7005/Emotiva XPA-5, $2400. Thats only about 30% over the AVR price.


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

My personal opinion is that the advantages of using separates instead of an AVR are primarily emotional. The whole point of music and video systems is for them to provide entertainment. If you feel better having more boxes with lots of interconnecting cables, then that's what you should get. There are lots of reasons why separates might make you happier, but claiming there's some difference in the quality of the audio and video signals they produce really can't be used any more. Excellent systems are available in both formats. 

(I originally included "affordable" in the description, but decided that was inappropriate: many people can't afford the price of separates; or of AVRs, for that matter.)

FWIW, the HT in my living room has large separates. The bedroom system has a thinline AVR.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

I have already weighed in on my opinion of using separates for two channel which may not be as cut and dry as for surround sound duty. With the advent of advanced room correction systems AVR's have become the logical choice for HT surround sound duty. Why? Because pre-pro's advance at a snails pace. AVR's rev every year to add the latest surround codec's, room correction software advancements and sheer processing power and capability. 

There are many in the camp that argue less is more even in the world of HT surround and I used to be in the same camp until I had an opportunity to utilize Audyssey XT in my own HT. It does an excellent job making my already treated room sound even better. I currently use a Denon 3311CI as a pre-pro and I settled on this unit after retiring my Sherwood Newcastle P965 processor for an Emotiva UMC-1 which I ultimately returned after 4 months switching over to the 3311CI.

For the money invested this AVR (which is nearly two years old now) performs better in my HT than any currently available standalone sub $1K pre-pro.

JD


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

wgmontgomery said:


> 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 surround sound? 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 2-channel forum to see if there's a difference with music instead of movies.
> 
> Link to 2-channel forum question: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/two-channel-audio/57152-avr-vs-separates.html#post516042


Heres an interesting review of an Emotiva UPA-2 done by audioholics, they directly compared a Harman Kardon AV154's power to a UPA-2's, some snippets:



> All tests and comparisons were done in two-channel mode and we split the output of the DVD player so that AB comparisons could be made as quickly as possible. All in all this was an excellent test to show what advantages the amplifier might have over the entry level receiver. Our results were eye-opening.





> With the Harman, the effects in the scene were pronounced, with the sparking effects coming through cleanly and John Henry's bassy voice really pushing the LEKTOR 8's so that they resonated fully into the living room. When I switched over to the Emotiva, however, the highs seemed to clear up and get more airy and the bass seemed to be a tad tighter and more pronounced. I replayed the shutdown sequence over and over again (thank goodness for DVR!), which was essentially a downward sweep, and felt that the Emotiva did a much better job of controlling the LEKTOR 8 speakers and allowing them to deliver the sweep completely and with more control.





> The entry level receiver did a fine job, but lacked the tightness in the bass or the finesse in the highs exhibited by the UPA-2. The upper frequency range was slightly aggressive in that it felt more tinny and sibilant with the entry level receiver compared to the same track played directly through the Emotiva amplifier.





> The staccato guitar strums were clear on the HK, but really seemed to sharpen up when I flipped over to the Emotiva amp. I could say the same for the high hat and cymbals except that these seemed to lose their tinny and thin nature and take on a softer, loftier tone which gave the CD a more "live" feel.





> the Emotiva UPA-2 increased the soundstage dramatically and opened up the mix, allowing for a wider representation of the music and filling the room more fully. This was perhaps the biggest and most easily perceived difference between the dedicated amplifier and the internal amps of the entry level receiver.


Source


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

Excellent post, Ty! Thanks!!


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

IMHO The UPA-2 to H/K AVR comparison quoted is only an amplifier comparo (using a 2 ch. stereo source) and does not answer the question of which is better, AVR or separates for "surround sound" duty. I am an advocate of and use outboard amps with my 3311CI but I also think this was not a fair comparison of amplifiers if in fact what they are trying to prove is that AVR internal amps are inferior to separates. The H/K receiver was at a huge disadvantage from a specification standpoint. The tests should have compared like to like amplifiers and made conclusions based on price/performance/features/tradeoffs.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I agree, The HK had far less rated 2ch output than the UPA2 so totally unrealistic to make a comparison. I can garrentee that if you use a receiver that was bench tested to output true 100watts per channel you would hear no difference.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

J&D said:


> not a fair comparison of amplifiers if in fact what they are trying to prove is that AVR internal amps are inferior to separates. The H/K receiver was at a huge disadvantage from a specification standpoint.





tonyvdb said:


> I agree, The HK had far less rated 2ch output than the UPA2 so totally unrealistic to make a comparison. I can garrentee that if you use a receiver that was bench tested to output true 100watts per channel you would hear no difference.


I have to disagree with both of you. IMO the HK/LEKTOR 8 combo is a perfect example of what we recommend when we recommend AVR power and mainstream speakers, except HK is notorious for underrating their wattage and the LEKTOR 8's are notorious for being unusually easy to drive. No, I think the HK did a fine job of pushing this pair to levels that most AVR-only owners would be blissfully satisfied with.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

HK rates there receivers power to actual output so in that regard you are correct however 30watts is hardly a fair comparison when comparing to a UPA2 that does very well at producing 125watts per ch.
30 watts is not going to power any decent speaker no matter how efficient to a good listening level without some distortion. Besides I have no idea how they could have done a fair comparison given the HK does not even have pre-outs so how did they get those readings? there is no way to hook up the UPA2 to it to get a comparison?


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

FWIW-the difference between 30 watts and 125 watts isn't as huge as the numbers would suggest. All other things being equal, to double the power of a 30 watt amp you would need 300 watts. Also, I owned an Adcom GFA-555II* (_RATED_ Output Power: 200W into 8 ohms (23dBW); 325W into 4 ohms (22.1dBW), all continuous power, 20Hz-20kHz, with 0.09% THD), and a friend's 25 watt Class A ML amp crushed my Adcom.

*The 555II was (I believe) a Stereophile class C or B amp. My point is that it was no slouch but was crushed (IMHO) by a 25 watt amp.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

Fair comparison with 1/4 the power output and 10x distortion ratings? You are selling the UPA-2 short and obviously providing a poor recommendation (as per the outcome of the comparo) of the HK LECTOR 8 combo.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

J&D said:


> Fair comparison with 1/4 the power output and 10x distortion ratings? You are selling the UPA-2 short and obviously providing a poor recommendation (as per the outcome of the comparo) of the HK LECTOR 8 combo.


Just one note, watts increase _exponentially_. A 60 watt amp is NOT twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp. In order to double the power you need a *10x* increase in watts. 30 watts to 60 watts will give you ~3dB increase in SPL (all other things being equal). :scratchhead: Is IS very counterintuitive, but it's true.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

I understand the relationship of Watts to dB and SPL but a 6dB increase in SPL (all other things equal) is significant as this equates to roughly 1.5X the perceived volume loudness. The more important factor here is noise. The UPA-2 can effectively provide a significant increase in perceived volume level while maintaining a measureably lower noise floor.

The point I am simply trying to make is that the comparison is not really fair and the results of the test as conducted by audioholics is not surprising. I still do not see how a 2 ch. amp comparison relates to multi channel surround performance (AVR vs. Separates). Was the UPA-2 ever designed with the thought of using it in a 5.1 or 7.1 channel setup? Maybe to power the surround back channels but Emotiva has 1,3 and 5 channel amps that would be far better suited for this purpose as they would put the power in the mains where you need it most.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

My question to add to that was what did they connect to the UPA2? the HK does not have pre outs.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

6 dB is certainly significant. Roughly .5dB changes are considered to be audible at midrange frequencies. A good online test to demonstrate is here:

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=0.5


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> My question to add to that was what did they connect to the UPA2? the HK does not have pre outs.


From the source, the HK was used as a stereo AVR. The source was split to the HK and a preamp connected to the Emo amp. I didn't find a mention of what preamp was used when I glanced at the review.

The HK is rated at 40 watts when used as a 2 channel AVR, but considering it's rated to deliver +/-25 amps HCC that's probably a _low_ rating. At 12 volts that would be 600 watts (peak instantaneous)! Regardless, I agree that an AVR with closer specs could have been used.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

wgmontgomery said:


> From the source, the HK was used as a stereo AVR. The source was split to the HK and a preamp connected to the Emo amp. I didn't find a mention of what preamp was used when I glanced at the review.
> 
> The HK is rated at 40 watts when used as a 2 channel AVR, but considering it's rated to deliver +/-25 amps HCC that's probably a _low_ rating. At 12 volts that would be 600 watts (peak instantaneous)! Regardless, I agree that an AVR with closer specs could have been used.


I've been doing a bit of research; using the rated HCC (+/- 25 amps) and slew rate (40V/µ sec) I'm...guessing that the 40 watts per channel IS a low number. I will restate that I agree that the testers _should_ have picked a different AVR for comparison. Just my 2¢...


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

All of this justifies the view that the way we evaluate and specify performance is not very informative in many cases. With the advances in statistical methods, computational capacity, and signal analysis, we should be able to evaluate input vs output at levels that push peaks to the limit of a system and evaluate differences in the output on program material. The unwillingness to challenge current assumptions about relevancy of 50 year old technology in appraising the quality of audio devices continues to be disappointing to me. We really do have much better tools to detect differences than what current specifications imply.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

An interesting thing to note from this thread is that I don't think one single person has even suggested that a "separate" pre/pro is a significant upgrade from an AVR when it comes to processing alone.

Perhaps we are reaching a new era where "separates" is going to mean AVR+amp. It would make sense to me. The AVR is a mass market device whereas the "separate" pre/pro is a niche or enthusiast market device. Given the amount of licensed technologies being crammed in the modern AVR, they probably need mass production to make them cost effective. I don't think the little guys stand a chance of keeping up. Emotiva is a perfect example. Their HT processors are obsolete before they have even been beta tested.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

vann_d said:


> An interesting thing to note from this thread is that I don't think one single person has even suggested that a "separate" pre/pro is a significant upgrade from an AVR when it comes to processing alone.
> 
> Perhaps we are reaching a new era where "separates" is going to mean AVR+amp. It would make sense to me. The AVR is a mass market device whereas the "separate" pre/pro is a niche or enthusiast market device. Given the amount of licensed technologies being crammed in the modern AVR, they probably need mass production to make them cost effective. I don't think the little guys stand a chance of keeping up. Emotiva is a perfect example. Their HT processors are obsolete before they have even been beta tested.


I agree that most people have focused on power output. Let's face it, that is NOT the only thing that contributes to SQ. FWIW-I did mention "better DACs in separates" as a possibility.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

Just to throw in some food for thought:

Bill Conrad (think Conrad-Johnson) is credited with saying "there's no such thing as a part that has no sound" and uses a "simpler is better" approach. In other words, fewer parts=better sound...this from someone who has been designing amps and preamps for 60(??) years.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

I have always been in the less is more camp when it comes to audio. Processing was always a gimmick to me until I took some time with the latest room correction software. There are many that still believe this type of signal processing gets in the way of the experience and it can if care is not taken.

I would also love a chance to try out a new standalone pre-pro with the latest processing capability but it would have to come in at a reasonable price given how good current AVR's are.


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

J&D said:


> I have always been in the less is more camp when it comes to audio. Processing was always a gimmick to me until I took some time with the latest room correction software. There are many that still believe this type of signal processing gets in the way of the experience and it can if care is not taken.


Modern room equalization software can quickly eliminate some of the audible warts that otherwise would require a lot of work on room treatments and speaker selection, but it can't fix everything.



> I would also love a chance to try out a new standalone pre-pro with the latest processing capability but it would have to come in at a reasonable price given how good current AVR's are.


Separate preamp/processors + amps seem to be about 50% more expensive than comparable receivers because so many fewer are manufactured. A typical example might be to compare the Marantz AV7005 pre/pro ($1600) + MM7055 5-channel amp ($1200) with the Marantz SR7005 receiver ($1700). That'd be about a 65% premium. 

All the prices I've mentioned above are list, just to illustrate the premium charged for separates. I don't know if you'd consider that a reasonable price range. Lower prices usually can be negotiated, of course, especially for refurbished units. (Their nnn5 series is almost two years old now.) Comparable amps from other manufacturers (e.g. Emotiva) may be more cost effective, too.

Many people who might otherwise be in the market for a pre/pro often get an AVR which has preamp outputs and use it with external amps. Of course, there are reasons for preferring separates which have nothing whatsoever to do with how they sound, many of them emotional.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

selden said:


> Separate preamp/processors + amps seem to be about 50% more expensive than comparable receivers because so many fewer are manufactured. A typical example might be to compare the Marantz AV7005 pre/pro ($1600) + MM7055 5-channel amp ($1200) with the Marantz SR7005 receiver ($1700). That'd be about a 65% premium.


This is partially so, separates are produced in lower volumes than AVR's, which will be reflected in manufacturing costs and consumer price.

Also consider that separates are often built to a higher standard than AVR's. Individual power supplies for each component, for example, drives up cost.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

tesseract said:


> This is partially so, separates are produced in lower volumes than AVR's, which will be reflected in manufacturing costs and consumer price.
> 
> Also consider that separates are often built to a higher standard than AVR's. Individual power supplies for each component, for example, drives up cost.


That certainly makes sense. A two channel preamp with a "dual mono" design would cost more than a stereo receiver; good power supplies are not cheap. :spend: Add two separate power supplies to the point-to-point wiring found in some high end equipment and cost quickly escalates.


----------



## Driver_King (Sep 19, 2009)

I prefer a hybrid approach. In cases where the main speakers have a low impedance or the listening levels often exceed reference for long periods of time, or where high headroom is the goal, I would use pre-outs on an AVR for that particular channel to a separate amplifier. Most often, the power a mid-range to high-end AVR can put out is more than sufficient when the speakers are at least relatively efficient.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

This hybrid approach seems to be a very popular. It makes _a lot_of sense considering the price of separate SSPs and is probably a very good compromise between _just_ an AVR and complete separates.


----------



## hberg32 (Aug 5, 2012)

J&D:

I saw your post about using your 3311 as a pre/pro and wanted to ask about your experience with it. I'm doing the same, using an NAD as an external amp and the volume settings I have to make seem a little funny. When I had speakers attached to the 3311, I usually found a comfortable listening level to be around -20Db or so. However, when using an external amp hooked up to the pre-out connectors I find that I have to turn the 3311's volume all the way to the max.

What volume setting do you have your 3311 set to?

Thanks,
Henry

P.S. An odd thing happened tonight. I was watching a show in which a character blows his own head off at a climactic moment and the gunshot kicked in the 3311's protection circuit. I rebooted, rewound, replayed and it happened again. This same rig has made it through Blackhawk Down and Saving Private Ryan more than once, but apparently it didn't consider those gunshots loud enough.


----------



## J&D (Apr 11, 2008)

Your volume setting of -20db seems about right using the internal amps but it sounds like you need to rerun your calibration. When you connected the NAD amp to the pre-outs did you rerun an Audyssey calibration? If not I would definitely do that. The gain of the NAD amp will most likely be completely different than that of the internal amps. 

Volume after calibration with the Denon is referenced to 0db. With Dynamic EQ on and Dynamic volume off my normal volume setting is anywhere in a range from -8 to -15db but that could also be -20db as well.

I have not had a time where I ever wanted to increase the dial beyond 0db and into positive territory as this is extremely loud for my ears and my sub amp will quickly move into the red zone on bass heavy movie sound tracks. Not to mention the drywall begins to crack.

Your experience with the gunshots is also not unusual as some movies can have excessive peaks that can drive amps to clipping levels. This varies widely from movie to movie. It could be that the 3311 is just not quite up to the task of driving all of your speakers and the addition of the NAD could help out in that department. Just run a full calibration after you connect it. Good luck,

JD


----------



## hberg32 (Aug 5, 2012)

I tried to re-run the audyssey config but it failed when it detected that there are no speakers attached at all to the Denon. I made an attempt at manually compensating by turning audyssey off, setting the FR and FL channel levels to +12, setting the center and surround speakers to 'none', and the surround mode to just plain old stereo. I'm currently running the Denon's volume at about -4. If I change the FL and FR channel levels to 0 I have to turn the volume up to about +8. For what it's worth, the amp assign is set to the default value of 'zone 2' rather than '2 channel' but I'm not really certain I understand the implication, if any, of the amp assign setting.

This setup also makes that tripping of the protection circuit seem odd. My understanding is that the fast-blinking red indicates an issue in the amplifier section of the AVR but without any speakers attached the amps shouldn't be doing anything. How I wish that the 3311 had an Amp Assign option to shut down the amps entirely like the 4411!!! I tried turning the Denon's volume down and re-running the show and found that it didn't trigger the protection circuit. My only guess at this point (and I most emphatically do NOT consider myself an expert) is that the audio decoder is processing the volume spike of the gunshot, attempting to send it on to the amplifier section, failing given that there is no load attached to any of the amps, and shutting itself down. But given that it's only ever done this once I'm willing to overlook it.

My setup is admittedly strange given that I'm not using the Denon for anything other than a glorified pre-amp. The way I got here is that I bought the Denon and had it in service for a few months when the HDMI board blew up. While it was in the shop I rigged up this old stereo NAD from the '80s as a 'temporary' amp and was floored to find that it sounded way better to my ears with only 2 channels than the Denon did with 5. I wired up the current configuration when the Denon came back from the shop and have been toying with the idea of selling it, moving away from surround sound entirely and just running a stereo output from the TV to the NAD but I have enough invested in speakers and the 3311 that the idea rather hurts (speakers are Boston Acoustics VR-M60, VR-MC, and VR-MX).

Henry


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

hberg32, Welcome to HTS!!! 

I wouldn't worry too much about the _relative_ volume setting on your AVR; in the "_ole' days_" about half-way-up (12 o'clock) was full power. Newer AVRs have much more linear (accurate?) volume controls, so you may find that you turn the volume to a higher setting to get the same volume. There is, of course, much more to the equation than this, but it is something to keep in mind. Of course, if you start to hear distortion then back-off the volume or you may blow a speaker!

I'd try to keep the Audyssey settings if possible; the FL and FR should be at (or close to) 0 dB. If you still do not have enough volume there should be a volume trim for each component in the Denon's menu. 

As for triggering the protection, I assume that you are using the preamp outs to the NAD? Most new AVRs do NOT have jumpers on their pre outs (a jumper is a cable/plug that connects the pre OUT to the amp's INPUT) so there very well could be signal sent to the on-board amps...despite the fact they are not being used. Without getting too technical, that shouldn't matter as the amp still "thinks" that it is driving a speaker. :scratch:


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

wgmontgomery said:


> Just one note, watts increase _exponentially_. A 60 watt amp is NOT twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp. In order to double the power you need a *10x* increase in watts. 30 watts to 60 watts will give you ~3dB increase in SPL (all other things being equal). :scratchhead: Is IS very counterintuitive, but it's true.


You have intermixed to many parameters.

Watts are a unit of measure for power and add on the linear scale.
Power (watts) = Voltage (E) * Current (I).
So electrically, a 60 watt amp is exactly twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp.

However the jump from 30 watts to 60 watts will only produce ~3dB increase in the SPL output from the speakers.


----------



## OZZIERP (Feb 19, 2012)

If you have your mains set at 80Hz cutoff and the sub handles everything from there down and your AVR can produce a clean 100 wpc and handle 4ohm loads I doubt adding an external amp if one is honest with ones self will have any audiable difference or at least that was what happened in my case.
With that being said if you run your speakers full range in a 5.1/7.1 configuration all bets are off the amps in most recievers will fall short with maybe the exception of the new class D amps in the Pioneer SC series .


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

chashint said:


> You have intermixed to many parameters.
> 
> Watts are a unit of measure for power and add on the linear scale.
> Power (watts) = Voltage (E) * Current (I).
> ...


From my post-*30 watts to 60 watts will give you ~3dB increase in SPL *(all other things being equal).

FWIW- I didn't see a reason to complicate things _too_ much; what I deemed important was exactly the same info in your post.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You guys are forgetting that you also have to consider the speakers sensitivity and the speakers Ohms into the equation its not as simple as watts = SPL


----------



## ButchP (Aug 14, 2012)

I moved from a Marantz SR19 receiver to separates (Marantz AV8003/Anthem A5 amplifier) about 3 years ago mainly because of the rapid obsolescence of surround formats and video interconnects. I knew I needed to upgrade to get the latest formats and it seemed a shame to have to throw out processor and amp when its really only the processor which had become obsolete. The next time I'm due for an upgrade I'll be able to keep the amp and replace the processor. Was there a difference? Undoubtedly! I recently replaced the A5 with an Outlaw Audio 7900. Say what you will about overkill, but I like the headroom and ability to recreate a realistic theatrical or concert experience.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> You guys are forgetting that you also have to consider the speakers sensitivity and the speakers Ohms into the equation its not as simple as watts = SPL


That is an important factor. 



wgmontgomery said:


> From my post-30 watts to 60 watts will give you ~3dB increase in SPL (all other things being equal).


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

wgmontgomery said:


> FWIW-the difference between 30 watts and 125 watts isn't as huge as the numbers would suggest. All other things being equal, to double the power of a 30 watt amp you would need 300 watts.





wgmontgomery said:


> Just one note, watts increase _exponentially_. A 60 watt amp is NOT twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp. In order to double the power you need a *10x* increase in watts.





wgmontgomery said:


> From my post-30 watts to 60 watts will give you ~3dB increase in SPL (all other things being equal).
> FWIW- I didn't see a reason to complicate things too much; what I deemed important was exactly the same info in your post.


You have repeated the statement in red twice, it is not correct.
A 60 watt amp is exactly twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp.
A 300 watt amp is 10x more powerful than a 30 watt amp.
For general discussion purposes this is correct, 30 watts to 60 watts will give you aproximately 3dB increase in SPL
I am not complicating things.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

chashint said:


> You have repeated the statement in red twice, it is not correct.
> A 60 watt amp is exactly twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp.
> A 300 watt amp is 10x more powerful than a 30 watt amp.
> For general discussion purposes this is correct, 30 watts to 60 watts will give you aproximately 3dB increase in SPL
> I am not complicating things.


As long as you not going by the Watts output specifications on the receiver. Those numbers are very misleading. In most cases your going to get just over half the actual output that the specifications say.


----------



## OZZIERP (Feb 19, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> As long as you not going by the Watts output specifications on the receiver. Those numbers are very misleading. In most cases your going to get just over half the actual output that the specifications say.


You are correct there that is why I look for test bench all channels driven 20Hz to 20KHz below 1 % and what does it have under a 4ohm load which usually rules out entry and mid level units and where external amps come into play providing those models have pre-outs.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

chashint said:


> You have repeated the statement in red twice, it is not correct.
> A 60 watt amp is exactly twice as powerful as a 30 watt amp.
> A 300 watt amp is 10x more powerful than a 30 watt amp.
> For general discussion purposes this is correct, 30 watts to 60 watts will give you aproximately 3dB increase in SPL
> I am not complicating things.


That is correct. A 60 W amp is double the power of a 30 W amp and is 3 dB difference
However, to get a "perceived" doubling in *loudness* requires a 10dB difference, which is aroud 10x ie 300W.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

robbo266317 said:


> That is correct. A 60 W amp is double the power of a 30 W amp and is 3 dB difference
> However, to get a "perceived" doubling in *loudness* requires a 10dB difference, which is aroud 10x ie 300W.


Yes, and that was the intent of the original post but it was not stated that way.
I let it go back in April and I regret bringing it up now (my bad).
Not trying / intending to fight on here.


----------



## wgmontgomery (Jun 9, 2011)

chashint said:


> Yes, and that was the intent of the original post but it was not stated that way.
> I let it go back in April and I regret bringing it up now (my bad).
> Not trying / intending to fight on here.


Not a problem; although I should/could have been a bit more clear (or accurate) I was attempting to keep things simple. I should have realized that one of the many astute readers here would catch the facts that I omitted. :innocent:

In case anyone is confused, the point is doubling the power output of your amp does NOT double the percieved loudness (SPL) that you will hear. You get a 3dB increase in SPL when you double your power (say, 50 watts to 100 watts), but to double the SPL requires a 10x increase in power (50 watts to 500 watts). 

The main reason is that it takes a _10_ dB increase in SPL to get a perceived doubling of sound. In other words, an SPL of 10 dB is twice as loud a 1 dB, and going from 50 watts to 100 watts only increases SPL by 3dB.

All of this assumes that all other factors (speaker efficiency, impedance etc.) remain the same. Sorry for any confusion that I may have caused. :doh:


----------



## ru4au (Dec 7, 2011)

Really its simple...Its always better to over power instead of under power a speaker...the speaker will be less likely to blow and the amplifier will not be in a high range of distortion or clipping....If your AVR drives your speakers to a volume level that is satisfactory for you without getting into the high distortion or clipping range of the AVR amplifier then its fine...JMHO


----------



## bluemax_1 (Feb 14, 2011)

In comparison between my Onkyo 5008 and Emotiva XPA-1's, the power output was the main factor.

I originally used the 5008 to power my Boston Acoustics E100 speakers (89db/w/m, 400 watt power handling) with my MLP at 10'. The 5008 supposedly puts out 145wpc. 

When I bridged the 5008 to the E100's I noticed the improvement only when I turned the volume up past about -15db on the Audyssey XT32 calibrated system. Below that, they sounded pretty much identical. Note that I 'could' play the system non-bridged at '0' and without comparison, the 5008 seemed to be able to do fine, i.e. distortion/clipping was not too obtrusive, but I felt that it lacked the 'oomph' and dynamics on certain scenes. What I noticed in comparison was that dynamics were better when I bridged the 5008 to the E100's. I was encountering power compression above -15db (possibly sooner, but I couldn't hear the difference at lower volumes).

When I added the XPA-1's, I again heard a difference, but this time only with the volume turned up past about -10 to -5db. Playing movie soundtracks at calibrated THX Reference '0' on the MV definitely produced a noticeable difference on dynamic passages in action movies. It also produced a noticeable difference for music above -7 to -5db MV, but I rarely EVER listen to music at volumes that high.

At lower volumes though, it appears that the amp section in the 5008 is very good. Below levels where dynamic compression might occur, there were hardly any differences in clarity, finesse or any audiophile descriptives.

It also makes a significant difference as to what my crossover settings were. The XT32 calibration produced a default 40Hz crossover (which I prefer, as testing revealed that I can notice the difference between an 80Hz crossover and a 40Hz crossover on specific content and prefer the lower crossover). At this setting (or especially, if the speakers were set to Full Range without a subwoofer, the audible differences were noticeable at lower MV settings.

Bass in particular is quite weak on the E100's without sufficient power. With the XPA-1's though, the bass capabilities of the E100's were more than surprising, capable of rattling the windows and being capable of 'thumping' with the best of them (although the speakers only go flat down to about 30Hz in my room). With an 80Hz crossover setting though, I might not have heard a difference between the bridged setting an the XPA-1, even at higher MV settings (possibly up to '0', but I never tested that as I prefer the 40Hz XO).

In case anyone took a look at my setup and was wondering, I've never tried running the Legacy Audio Focus SE's off the 5008. They've only ever been powered by the XPA-1's.


Max


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I think that it is a little more expensive to manufacture separates but not as much as they are charging. The other thing is for some reason the newest features appear to be offered in receivers, so if you want the newest features you have to buy a new receiver. I do believe that you can get a better made power amp than what is offered in a receiver though. The only thing I can think of is to get the amplifier you want and then buy a receiver and not use the internal amps or use them for separate zones.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Feb 14, 2011)

ellisr63 said:


> I think that it is a little more expensive to manufacture separates but not as much as they are charging. The other thing is for some reason the newest features appear to be offered in receivers, so if you want the newest features you have to buy a new receiver. I do believe that you can get a better made power amp than what is offered in a receiver though. The only thing I can think of is to get the amplifier you want and then buy a receiver and not use the internal amps or use them for separate zones.


Unless one truly believes that the added circuitry and power for the unused amps has some sort of discernibly detrimental effect on the output, using an avr as a pre-pro has the added benefit of having 'spare' amps. When I had a problem with a couple of my Emotiva amps, while they were shipped off for servicing, I could still use my whole setup as I simply connected those speakers back to the avr and used that to power them till I got the amps back from the service.

If I had bought a straight pre-pro, I would have been stuck until I got the amps back.


Max


----------



## OZZIERP (Feb 19, 2012)

Years ago I would agree with having external amps made all the difference in the world but since adding a sub and crossing over at 70Hz and never using my mains set at full range and borrowing an amp that was twice the power of my Integra AVR in all honesty there was no difference to my ears.
The biggest difference has always been a speaker upgrade that i could tell and like the old saying if you have to study the sound for a difference then the chances are its not there.
They have made strides in almost every part of modern AVR's for improving the isolation between circuits better and independant power supplies along with newer and better features.


----------



## pharoah (Jul 21, 2012)

receiver vs separates.i think i like separates better.so far in my experience separates have better sound quality.especially in the area of music.however my avr experience is kinda limited.


----------



## OZZIERP (Feb 19, 2012)

Its real simple borrow an amp if you notice a difference in your sound thats favorable you now need to get an amp of equal or greater than what you borrowed then again if you don't spend the money on a piece of gear that will give you a gain. I bought a better sub instead which I immediately noticed.
The reason I said borrow it removes the I spent money on a piece and think its better where as if you borrow you are out nothing and your results will be more subjective.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

OZZIERP said:


> Years ago I would agree with having external amps made all the difference in the world but since adding a sub and crossing over at 70Hz and never using my mains set at full range and borrowing an amp that was twice the power of my Integra AVR in all honesty there was no difference to my ears.
> The biggest difference has always been a speaker upgrade that i could tell and like the old saying if you have to study the sound for a difference then the chances are its not there.
> They have made strides in almost every part of modern AVR's for improving the isolation between circuits better and independant power supplies along with newer and better features.





OZZIERP said:


> Its real simple borrow an amp if you notice a difference in your sound thats favorable you now need to get an amp of equal or greater than what you borrowed then again if you don't spend the money on a piece of gear that will give you a gain. I bought a better sub instead which I immediately noticed.
> The reason I said borrow it removes the I spent money on a piece and think its better where as if you borrow you are out nothing and your results will be more subjective.


I 100% agree the biggest difference will be the speakers. Just make sure you have enough power and space (to set up properly) to drive your new ones and you will be golden.


----------

