• If you ever spot Spam (either in the forums, or received via forum direct message) please use the Report button at the bottom of each post to make sure a Moderator can handle it quickly. Thanks for your help in keeping things running smoothly!

Please WHFSV......

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Please can you guys do a group test of Recievers v Stereo amps.

Current leaders in their price range i.e Yamaha 673 v Rotel 10, Rega, Yamaha rx-a1020 v Cyrus6 or Rocksan Kandy or Arcam FMJ19 etc.

Recievers set up for stereo playback and both anolog and digital inputs tested, is this possible?
 

simonlewis

New member
Apr 15, 2008
590
1
0
Because what you are really saying is which stereo amp is best for movies & which reciever is best for music.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
No... The comparison is for stereo playback only - its a popular question around this forum at the moment, with many using their av recievers for stereo playback - Id genuinly like to hear the objective opinions of the WHF crew regards this debate.

having swtched between the two amp types I have an opinion but my 'research' is limited....lol..... superior resources which WHF have would yeild a better set of views me thinks.
 

simonlewis

New member
Apr 15, 2008
590
1
0
Well i would have thought the answer would be obvious, if you are into music & prefer stereo, buy a stereo amp, recievers are designed for movies & NOT music, i have an onkyo 606 reciever because i'm more into movies if i was more into music i would have a stereo amp, simples, if i had the money & the room i could have a dedicated room for both music & movies.
 

bigboss

Moderator
I participated in the Big Question feature at WHF 3 years ago, when we compared a BUDGET stereo amp with 3 AV receivers at different price points (including one which was about 8 times as expensive as a stereo amp). The stereo amp was superior to the AV receivers.

It's unfair to compare a stereo amp & an AV receiver costing the same. All the money goes into audio components only in a stereo amp, whereas money goes to video components as well in an AV receiver which compromises on quality of audio components.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
simonlewis said:
Well i would have thought the answer would be obvious, if you are into music & prefer stereo, buy a stereo amp, recievers are designed for movies & NOT music, i have an onkyo 606 reciever because i'm more into movies if i was more into music i would have a stereo amp, simples, if i had the money & the room i could have a dedicated room for both music & movies.
Fair enough but not all have the budget, especially if their into both music and movies.

I have an old reciever that sounds notibly better than 2 moden stereo amps I have bought and returned/sold one was a 5star amp too, there definately is a debate there.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
bigboss said:
I participated in the Big Question feature at WHF 3 years ago, when we compared a BUDGET stereo amp with 3 AV receivers at different price points (including one which was about 8 times as expensive as a stereo amp). The stereo amp was superior to the AV receivers. It's unfair to compare a stereo amp & an AV receiver costing the same. All the money goes into audio components only in a stereo amp, whereas money goes to video components as well in an AV receiver which compromises on quality of audio components.
O.K....But maybe things have moved on.

I know the recievers I have owned (both Yamaha) don't sound as if any compromises have been made regards 2 channel playback - the old 500pound amp actually sounds the best of all, better than 700pound amps in my home anyway...... its crazy, I know, with my new reciever bedding in nicely and sounding better with some tracks already - I don't see how it would be an unfair comparison.
 

biggus_1961

New member
Nov 24, 2007
53
0
0
i recently heard the NAD T757 playing in stereo, no sub, just 2.0 and it sounds really good, it sounds like nad did 10 years ago...its as though they have taken a stereo amp and added centre and surround amps into the box...
 

bigboss

Moderator
Thompsonuxb said:
bigboss said:
I participated in the Big Question feature at WHF 3 years ago, when we compared a BUDGET stereo amp with 3 AV receivers at different price points (including one which was about 8 times as expensive as a stereo amp). The stereo amp was superior to the AV receivers. It's unfair to compare a stereo amp & an AV receiver costing the same. All the money goes into audio components only in a stereo amp, whereas money goes to video components as well in an AV receiver which compromises on quality of audio components.
O.K....But maybe things have moved on.

I know the recievers I have owned (both Yamaha) don't sound as if any compromises have been made regards 2 channel playback - the old 500pound amp actually sounds the best of all, better than 700pound amps in my home anyway...... its crazy, I know, with my new reciever bedding in nicely and sounding better with some tracks already - I don't see how it would be an unfair comparison.
I must add that the difference was very small and I had to hear really hard to appreciate the difference. Yamahas are renowned for their musicality.

AV receiver manufacturers have to pay licences for THX, DTS HD etc. besides video components and upscalers. So, out of £1000, hardly £300 goes into audio components whereas all of £1000 in a stereo amp goes into audio components only.
 

robolowski

New member
May 12, 2010
52
0
0
I'd personally say that it's a good idea to do such a test. I own both , av and stereo amp . I played couple of different cds in stereo pure mode ( marantz sr5004) and kept switching to stereo amp ( marantz pm8003 ) and , yes pm8003 was better , but I wouldnt call it a massive difference.

This made me think that , maybe the latest av 7007 from marantz could perform even better in stereo??

I rang Marantz and friendly chap has said , that basically av7007 would perform in stereo with the same quality as pm6004 ! Considering you can buy this receiver for as little as 700 , it would be the best compromise for both worlds of music and cinema.

I am seriously thinking of selling both amps I have and buy just one nice looking and sounding box...
 

bigboss

Moderator
I don't think things would have moved on in the past 3 years. It's been the recession period, and AV receivers are coming with even more features like AirPlay, 4K etc. without any increase in price. Compromises have to be made somewhere. 2 channel audio performance is less likely to see much improvement.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Not that I'm putting anything out there or anything like that, but some of them amp makers only change the box they put the electronics into and move buttons and labels around - probably cost them 97p to do, then flog it for a grand -
 

bigboss

Moderator
Thompsonuxb said:
Not that I'm putting anything out there or anything like that, but some of them amp makers only change the box they put the electronics into and move buttons and labels around - probably cost them 97p to do, then flog it for a grand -
Agreed. Why else is Denon available at 30% discount within 2-3 months of release?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts