AVR or Stereo Amp dilemma!

[Native_bon]

Given the OP's requirements, and dedicated stereo amplifier makes more sense. No point in spending on additional components you don't need.

I was part of a Big Question feature on What Hi Fi magazine 4 years ago where we compared a budget stereo amplifier to 3 different AV receivers at different price points, with the most expensive AVR at 6 times the price of the stereo amplifier. We didn't know which amp was playing. We didn't even know what we're comparing. We were just told to listen to different music pieces in system A, B, C and D, and just comment on which sounds better. We could appreciate the difference and the budget stereo amplifier sounded more effortless and superior to all the AV receivers.

I was also part of a 2 channel & Av amp blind test & no one could tell which was which so this things are not straight forward as one thinks.

But I would say in this case it makes no sense getting an AV amp if it is for music. I just dnt see the piont.

 

[Native_bon]

I can't remember the speakers as it was over 4 years ago, but they were neutral. I'll check the mag at home and get back.

Thats over four years ago, I think things have moved on since then. You do get excellent music from some AV brands these days, but like drummerman mentioned can be on the expensive side. This was how cables was portrayed for years telling people they made night & day differences. Am sure the same is happening with AV & stereo amps. All things being equal most 2 channel amps are better at music. Does it mean all Av amps are bad at music no. Some AV amps are excellent at music.

My AV amp can drive & control just about any speaker you throw at it. As musical as it gets.. No before you say.. & it is not subjective its fact.

 

[Vladimir]

The event was set up by What Hi Fi experts in a proper acoustically treated demo room.

Were the amplifiers level matched +/-0.5dB (need a microphone), without clipping (need an osciloscope)? Should be an info mentioned in the article.

 

[bigboss]

I can't remember the speakers as it was over 4 years ago, but they were neutral. I'll check the mag at home and get back.

Thats over four years ago, I think things have moved on since then. You do get excellent music from some AV brands these days, but like drummerman mentioned can be on the expensive side. This was how cables was portrayed for years telling people they made night & day differences. Am sure the same is happening with AV & stereo amps.  All things being equal most 2 channel amps are better at music. Does it mean all Av amps are bad at music no. Some AV amps are excellent at music.

My AV amp can drive & control just about any speaker you throw at it. As musical as it gets.. No  before you say.. & it is not subjective its fact.

The difference was small, but definitely there. And all 3 participants came to the same conclusion. Personally, I would be happy playing music from any of the 4 in my house, whether it's an AV receiver or stereo amplifier as I'm not a critical listener. The main point is, the OP's needs are fully met by a stereo amplifier. So no point in wasting money over an AV receiver.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The OP does not really mention source so on those grounds bigboss I cannot see how you have come to your conclusion.

Pound for pound it makes no difference what the OP decides. Only the pros and cons ref his choice.

The price of a budget amp will get you a decent AVamp - last years outgoing models.

But instead of a 40watt output you'll get 85watts into 2 channels plus all the connectivity you can shake a stick at.

With a load of toys to tinker with.

I can't remember the speakers as it was over 4 years ago, but they were neutral. I'll check the mag at home and get back.

Thats over four years ago, I think things have moved on since then. You do get excellent music from some AV brands these days, but like drummerman mentioned can be on the expensive side. This was how cables was portrayed for years telling people they made night & day differences. Am sure the same is happening with AV & stereo amps.  All things being equal most 2 channel amps are better at music. Does it mean all Av amps are bad at music no. Some AV amps are excellent at music.

My AV amp can drive & control just about any speaker you throw at it. As musical as it gets.. No  before you say.. & it is not subjective its fact.

The difference was small, but definitely there. And all 3 participants came to the same conclusion. Personally, I would be happy playing music from any of the 4 in my house, whether it's an AV receiver or stereo amplifier as I'm not a critical listener. The main point is, the OP's needs are fully met by a stereo amplifier. So no point in wasting money over an AV receiver.

 

[bigboss]

The OP was considering Marantz PM6005 so to me it's obvious that it was fulfilling the OP's needs.

In reality, there isn't much difference between 40 watts and 85 watts.

The relationship between volume and wattage output is logarithmic rather than linear. So a 1000-watt amplifier is twice as powerful as a 100-watt one. So the difference between a 40 watt amplifier and 85 watts amplifier is miniscule. My experience at the Big Question showed me that the budget amplifier which had the lowest wattage rating in the test seemed most effortless in performance.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

When I bought my AVamp I owned a pair of Sony 176e budget speakers max handling 100watt into 6ohm- good speakers.

They could not handle the amp.

The Mission originally retailed at £1000 - 200watt handling. The way the amp controls these speakers to deliver I have to put it down to pure luck getting good synergy without trying.

And that's why you'll see me recommend AVamps.

They do need setting up but they can be outstanding and offer so much more.

An AVR could be perfectly good depending on the rest of your system.If you have good revealing speakers i would prefer a dedicated stereo amp which is up to them but these are often not being budget too.

With most budget speakers say up to a price 600-800 an AVR is often good enough providing more options,more power and room correction which  results at least in same if not better performance as with a dedicated budget stereo amp at the same price.

?

?

 

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The Marantz 6005 it's mentioned alot on these pages but it is what it is.

He can do better for the buck.

40w v 85w you'll here a difference in 'ambience' 'presents' and how far music is projected outside of the speakers.

Plus it helps with speaker options.

If the difference was not significant we would all be suggesting a Denon 39dab at 30watt per channel.

The OP was considering Marantz PM6005 so to me it's obvious that it was fulfilling the OP's needs.

In reality, there isn't much difference between 40 watts and 85 watts.

The relationship between volume and wattage output is logarithmic rather than linear. So a 1000-watt amplifier is twice as powerful as a 100-watt one. So the difference between a 40 watt amplifier and 85 watts amplifier is miniscule. My experience at the Big Question showed me that the budget amplifier which had the lowest wattage rating in the test seemed most effortless in performance.

 

[bigboss]

The Rotel amplifier we tested at the Big Question is rated at 40 watts per channel, yet it was better than the Sony flagship which is 120 watts per channel.

 

[bigboss]

Another example: Anthem MRX710 has been rated as superior to Pioneer and Yamaha flagships. Check the watts per channel of each.

 

[davedotco]

I have generally found such units to lack clarity and coherence when used for critical music listening, partly I think because the power specs are, shall we say optimistic. Though many budget 2 channel amplifiers suffer from the same issues, the better ones do not.

A solution that has been discussed and tried by one or two contributers, is to use something like a Marantz NR1504 as a digital pre-amp. Network connection, onboard internet and FM radio and streaming support, a fair range of auxilliary digital and analogue inputs, stereo pre-outs along with a sub, bass managenent system and loads of other fun but less useful toys.

Just ignore the onboard power amps and run active speakers......*dirol*

 

[Esra]

I am pretty happy with my Pio. LX 57 which I could buy for just over 650 Euro( ;-) just a hint) brand new few weeks ago after the LX 58 showed up on the market.The Pio. will easily blow probably any dedicated stereo integrated at this price out of the water not mentioned its 32/192 ESS Dac and other usefull options.From my experience weather the highly recommended NAD D 3020 nor Arcam A19 sound better with Kef LS 50,which is a lot more revealing speaker ( can easily show differences in used electronic) than the speaker the OP consideres.That doesn´t mean the Pio. sounds a prio better but it doesn´t sound worse either and all devices were pretty enjoyable. The Pio. is a lot better than my former Yamaha RXV2700 it replaced because of picture dropouts which is now used as a desktop amp with MA BX2 speakers.I found the 2700 not significantly worse or better with the BX2 than a NAD D3020 and even more expensive amps which I considered first for desktop use.Does that mean the 2700 sounds as good as a NAD D3020? Maybe and imo no it doesn´t but to be correct it is more like the limits of the BX2 were easily reached with both devices and so will be the same with Diamond 220 weather used with a Marantz 6005 stereo amp or an AVR at the same price.As a conclusion I would choose the AVR because of the options it offers even if i wouldn´t need all of them,simple and a no brainer.

 

[steve_1979]

A solution that has been discussed and tried by one or two contributers, is to use something like a Marantz NR1504 as a digital pre-amp. Network connection, onboard internet and FM radio and streaming support, a fair range of auxilliary digital and analogue inputs, stereo pre-outs along with a sub, bass managenent system and loads of other fun but less useful toys.

Just ignore the onboard power amps and run active speakers......*dirol*

+1

AV amps make a great digital front end for use with active speakers. They have audibly perfect hifi sound quality from the DAC and pre-amp section (provided you're not using the power amps). Lots of bells and whistles where functionality and connectivity are concerned and best of all almost new AVR's can be picked up for peanuts second hand.

Two drawbacks with this type of setup is that AVR's are rather large and ugly and even without the power amplifiers being used they still produce a fair amount of heat.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Forgot about this thread Dave

Anyhow you may have come across other threads I have been involved with, the Rotel I have experienced is the RA-1520.

This amp is a step up from the 04 in the 700pound range and delivers 60wpc.

Its a clean sounding amp but lacked timber or lower level control with my speakers - especially in the lower mid-range. Robbing vocals and bass notes of a natural. .er....timber and tone/texture ie you can define the various types of drum /precussion being used in a mix with the Yamaha. The Yamaha also defines how many voices in a harmony and the gender and identity of the singers picks up breathing - fine detail.

Now I appreciate not all receivers will be as good as I'm suggesting - fresh out the box the Yamaha ra-1020 was not very good compared to the old lower spec ax-620. But since installing it under the telly have not tried it again but......maybe it's better now.

But like I've said before, short term in a demo the stereo amp would beat the ax-620. They 'appear' louder initially but listening over a longer period with a wide variety of music the receiver is so much better and way more powerful, not louder but more powerful.

To add I use the digital coax on the CD player out to the amp playback as pcm.

To my ears superior delivery to the analog out on the CDplayer.

Or it coukd be this amp is good - John Duncan's got one. Asked him awhile back to dig it out string it up and let me know what he thought of it......sadly he never got round to it.

The Rotel amplifier we tested at the Big Question is rated at 40 watts per channel, yet it was better than the Sony flagship which is 120 watts per channel.

 

[fuus]

Hi all!

Really appreciate the constructive conversation occuring in this thread, often lost to fanboy-ing in other hobbies!

All music will be played from my PC either through a Schiit Modi DAC or through my Gigabyte Z77X-D3H's onboard sound via either a 3.5mm - phono or a phono - phono depending on which I'm using. Or if the amp has a built in DAC then through that.

Would a CS505-3 Dual Turntable work with the Marantz? My dad had it hidden in the attic so I would love to intergrate it. How would it compare to a new low budget turntable?