# Why do I need a receiver/SSProcessor?



## yosturm (Apr 10, 2011)

I am not understanding what Surround Sound Processors do being that one can get a Blu Ray player such as the Oppo BDP-95 and use its 7.1 analog outputs. 

If the Oppo has a really good DAC why can't I just send its signals straight to an amp? I understand that obviously this would not work because then there would be no volume knob, but beyond that what exactly is the Surround Sound Processor doing? 

How come no one has invented the 7-channel integrated amp, which would take the signal straight from the Oppo and probably cost less because it wouldn't need any additional fancy circuitry.

Just like two-channel stereo systems are all analog and rely on the DAC in the CD player and such, why can't we do the same with Home Theater?


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

> If the Oppo has a really good DAC why can't I just send its signals straight to an amp? I understand that obviously this would not work because then there would be no volume knob, but beyond that what exactly is the Surround Sound Processor doing?


-Allows switching between different sources
-true bass management
-Auto-Calibration / Room EQ



> How come no one has invented the 7-channel integrated amp, which would take the signal straight from the Oppo and probably cost less because it wouldn't need any additional fancy circuitry.


Because there's no market for it. HDMI is the modern way to go, quite frankly. If for no other reasons, than the fact that it replaces as many as ten (7 audio + 3 component) RCA cables with a single cable and equivalent fidelity. I'd assume some of the more esoteric brands probably do have analog receivers that you overpay for - IE lexicon. But since there's no market for such a thing, the cost is equally high, even if performance is identical or even inferior to your regular "home theater" brands IE yamaha.



> Just like two-channel stereo systems are all analog and rely on the DAC in the CD player and such, why can't we do the same with Home Theater?


Thing about two channel stereo is that its roots are in vinyl as well as an esoteric community. It's two channel that hasn't made the move to things like multiple subs with bass management even though much research has shown this to be the superior fidelity method.

Many of the best dedicated MUSIC systems use surround processors like AV7005 or Denon 4311 and HDMI. But you can't defeat the beliefs of people who are resistant to this sort of thing - so really it's two channel analog that has lingered around rather than HT that has failed to offer such a thing.

This also gets to the Oppo. Look at how expensive it is. Is it really worthwhile to pay for those analog outputs, when they generally have little to offer? 

I like a BDP with good video decoding but that's about it.


----------



## yosturm (Apr 10, 2011)

But then why does it seem that everyone accepts that "stereo" components will be better quality than Surround Sound components yet those have digital processing?

From all of the magazine reading, forum reviewing, and personal opinions that I have gathered it seems to me that if I were to compare a $1500 integrated amp with a $1500 set of Surround Sound Components (or any other equal price comparison) the conclusion would be that the stereo components would be better. 

I'm just a guy trying to figure out what I need to get, but everywhere I turn I am getting contradicting advice that I need HDMI but should stay away from single-component receivers because they have poor sound quality and/or amplification.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

Actually, you could send the 7.1 signal from an Oppo directly to your amp as the Oppo has some rudimentdy bass management and volume control. I wouldn't recommend it as a long term solution, but it would work.lddude:


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

yosturm said:


> But then why does it seem that everyone accepts that "stereo" components will be better quality than Surround Sound components yet those have digital processing?


Not everyone, but some accept such an idea...because they _want_ to accept it. They want the idea that something is more "dedicated" so it has to be better - not only technically but perceivably. They want to think that digital processing has to be a bad idea. They want to think that analog is "pure". They want to think that music systems are made for high sound fidelity, while HT systems are made for dinosaur footsteps and gunshots (I've seriously been told this in the past) when really, a good system is a good system invariably. 

The attempt is to differentiate, and i'm sure you can imagine some reasons human beings _want_ to differentiate.



> From all of the magazine reading, forum reviewing, and personal opinions that I have gathered
> it seems to me that if I were to compare a $1500 integrated amp with a $1500 set of Surround Sound Components (or any other equal price comparison) the conclusion would be that the stereo components would be better.


Well, at the very least, I'd _hope_ $1500 2ch amp ($750/ amp) performs better than a $1500 7 ch amp ($215 / amp channel). Beyond that, most electronic impact, is so similar that most people's ears can't hear the difference between a decent $800 receiver and any other electronic out there. 

However this doesn't even make it necessarily true because of market dictation of price. If people are more likely to buy that 7 channel receiver, even if the profit margin is low, sheer volume can sometimes mean that manufacturers don't need to mark up as much as compared to something which won't sell as well.

Personally for me, as a general rule, I skip straight to the features and measurements sections of electronics reviews in the publications. Whether something sounds great or not is something so fickle and easy to "imagine", but whether something measures great is repeatable, provable, and correlatable.

As for forum reading and public opinion, how much of human psyche comes into play? Again, these are subjective statements, and while it's not wrong to have an opinion, it's tough to prove a position with one. So basically, if one person says an $16000/pr Classe Monoblock sounds better than a $800 Marantz 7.1 receiver, it's of course natural to believe them. 

We think of the former as being dedicated, refined, and to use the best tolerances. We think of the latter as mass produced, more features, more amp channels, means they had to skimp somewhere certainly.

And I'm sure all of the above sentence is true. But does it mean the Classe invariably sounds better than that Marantz? Well, if we've got measurements of things like FFT, crossover distortion, frequency response deviation, output impedance, max unclipped voltage, current capability, we can tell which one will perform better for sure.

But even then, once you factor in control over variables (level matched to within _.1_ db, obscure the equipment from view so cost/appearance doesn't factor into your thought process, and present both with a speaker load their measurements show they can handle) - There's no sureness in telling you could _even tell the difference_ with your ears.

Some electronics definitely sound different - usually because they're designed to sound different but occasionally due to poor design. The rest, the majority of solid state electronics - sound pretty similar - perhaps identical.



> I'm just a guy trying to figure out what I need to get, but everywhere I turn I am getting contradicting advice


Indeed... different factions exist with vastly different opinions. All I can say is to audition things yourself, and if you hear a difference, then there's a reason for that difference that goes beyond something as silly as "The DAC was in the CD Player, not in the receiver". Amps are the electronic most likely to compromise fidelity, beyond that, other electronics are essentially negligible IN MY OPINION, in SOURCE DIRECT mode (no DSP applied). So pick something with a robust amp invariably. Beyond that, i'd say 90-95% of what you hear is the speakers and the room. Even if there's a difference in that last 5%, chances are your speakers and room are compromising fidelity upwards of 40-70%. Do you really care about that last 2% that the electronics MIGHT (and not even necessarily) be compromising?



> that I need HDMI but should stay away from single-component receivers because they have poor sound quality and/or amplification.


Do you need HDMI? I don't know. Personally I couldn't live without it. 

Do single component receivers, never mind their amps, have poor sound quality? I doubt it, considering most decent circuitry does not really do much if anything to the electrical signal as it passes through. Sometimes cheap receivers do lack pre-outs or have very poor pre-out jacks (IE 0.9V) which means they can clip driving some separates amps. 

Do receivers have lacking amplifier sections? Well...

I'd say that a good $700-1k receiver will have a good enough amp section for the average speaker(6 or 8 ohm, dips to 4 ohm, sensitivity above 87db), but nothing beats separates amps when it comes to power and ability to drive difficult loads or active loudspeakers. 

So I like a receiver with a powerful pre-out voltage, just in case you want to experiment with a separates amp someday and see if it helps any. Marantz x003 and x004 receivers clock in around 7v pre out so they're always my personal choice as that's as good or better than some dedicated pre-amps!! Their receivers also nearly double down into 4 ohm loads which is a sign of dependable amp channels.

Nothing against other brands though - like I said, most of the major brands - Parasound, Emotiva, Yamaha, Denon, ATI, Harman/Kardon, Pioneer, really do make similar products in their own way. Once you've made a choice, chances are it often that it was a good one. Same with Blu ray players, CD Players, Interconnects, Speaker Cables - stick to the mainstream and affordable and you're usually well off... with the exception maybe of a Turntable because of how they work (ancient, dated technology  ).

Speakers, Room, Display, Projection Screen, though? Those are things that want money and time dedicated to getting right.


----------



## Kal Rubinson (Aug 3, 2006)

yosturm said:


> From all of the magazine reading, forum reviewing, and personal opinions that I have gathered it seems to me that if I were to compare a $1500 integrated amp with a $1500 set of Surround Sound Components (or any other equal price comparison) the conclusion would be that the stereo components would be better.


Because such an equal-price comparison is inappropriate. The $1500 integrated amp has 2 amplifiers and a control preamp inside. The $1500 AVR (the equivalent set of separate prepro and power amps does not exist) has a more complex control preamp and 5-7 amplifiers inside (and that ignores its DSP componentry). How can they possibly be of equivalent "quality?"

Of course, that does not address the definition of "quality." Everyone accepts that low distortion, adequate power and wide frequency response are included but how do you weight consideration that multichannel systems offer superior spatial representation? So, make the comparison between a $15,000 integrated amp with a $15,000 set of Surround Sound Components (or any other equal price comparison) and we have a better contest.


----------

