Should I trade my Technics stereo amp for an Onkyo receiver?

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
4
0
Visit site
This is my first post, so greetings to everyone!

My system consists of a Denon DCD-685 cd player and a Technics SU-V300 stereo integrated amp driving a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 speakers.
I enjoy the sound I'm getting, but sometimes it feels a little "cold".
I can get an Onkyo TX-SV373 5.1 receiver for €80.
My question is if, besides getting a radio tuner and more speaker outputs, I will gain more stereo musical quality listening to CDs with the Onkyo rather than the Technics.

Thanks.
 

FennerMachine

New member
Feb 5, 2011
83
0
0
Visit site
Not sure about the specific amps you listed but:

Generally speaking pound for pound (cost wise) a stereo amp will beat a 5.1 receiver for stereo music.

AV amps/receivers may have more power on paper, which is great for movies, but a good stereo amp should have a better pre-amp section and is dedicated for stereo.

If you can demo the Onkyo first that would be good.

It might seem like a cheap 'upgrade' but might not have the desired affect! If €80.00 is all you can spare then you better be sure its on the right item!

What do you mean by the music sound 'cold'?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
By "cold" I mean it sometimes sounds a little harsh in the high frequencies, but maybe its a problem with the recordings. Perhaps you are right and I'm just jumping on the Onkyo because it's a bargain but I have no idea if it's better.

thanks for the reply Fenner!
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
What about considering second hand? The SUV300 was the entry level Technics amp of its time. If you like the overall sound but want something a bit more refined and involving, why not try to pick up a used SU-A600? The '600 was a much better amplifier and might be worth a try if you can pick one up cheaply.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the wharfedale 9.1's are neutral to slightly warm sounding speakers so if you find the sound cold it could be your amp. I have owned countless Technics amplifiers and as Matthew has said the su-v300 was the entry level within that range of amps. The next model up was the su-v500 which wasn't much of an improvement but from the su-a600 upwards the sound quality does improve. I have owned the 600, 700, 800 and 900 and I think the 600 and 700 are the warmer sounding of that group.

You could also look at some second hand Marantz or Denon amps. I always feel that with surround receivers you pay for features first and sound quality second unless of course it is very high end.
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
FennerMachine said:
Not sure about the specific amps you listed but:

Generally speaking pound for pound (cost wise) a stereo amp will beat a 5.1 receiver for stereo music.

AV amps/receivers may have more power on paper, which is great for movies, but a good stereo amp should have a better pre-amp section and is dedicated for stereo.

If you can demo the Onkyo first that would be good.

It might seem like a cheap 'upgrade' but might not have the desired affect! If €80.00 is all you can spare then you better be sure its on the right item!

What do you mean by the music sound 'cold'?

I disagree entirely, I believe that that viewpoint is a common misconception.

AV amplifiers offer far better value in terms of features alone. Regarding sound quality, if an amplifer can deal well with movie soundtracks and audio, then it will certainly not be any worse than a stereo amplifier when faced with music that generally has less dynamic range. If anything, the more powerful AV amplifier (pound for pound) will be better in terms of offering a power overhead and suffer less clipping for more demanding music, particularly at higher volumes. The option exists to biamp with an AV receiver also, bringing additional benefits.

Whether or not the OPs amplifier is better than the Onkyo or vice versa, is another matter though, but that is down to amplifier design and quality, rather than the fact that one is an AV receiver.
 

Native_bon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2008
180
4
18,595
Visit site
yes i agree with overdose, i which for once people will listen & think for themselves. Some Av amps can out perform some 2 channel amps. So i dnot know why people take this as the rule. Yea its what people say so i will say it as well, kind of attitude.

So dnt let that put you off AV AMPS.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
I agree that a well implemented AV amp can compete very favourably with a 2 channel amp. However, I'm not sure where the sense is in spending money on extra channels of amplification if they aren't going to get used. Surely, particularly at the budget end of the market, the budget is best spent on the performance rather than features that aren't going to get used.
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
matthewpiano said:
I agree that a well implemented AV amp can compete very favourably with a 2 channel amp. However, I'm not sure where the sense is in spending money on extra channels of amplification if they aren't going to get used. Surely, particularly at the budget end of the market, the budget is best spent on the performance rather than features that aren't going to get used.

All very true, but at 80 Euros? it looks like whatever choice is to be made, it's likely to be best served by the used market.
 

FennerMachine

New member
Feb 5, 2011
83
0
0
Visit site
What I wrote is from personal experience when demoing stereo and AV kit whilst trying to choose between a flagship AV amp or a much cheaper AV amp with the rest spent on a dedicated stereo amp. After lots of testing with various amps and speaker I personally decided on a cheap AV amp and a dedicated stereo system. This was quite a few years a go so maybe AV amps have improved. Even so, why spend money on extra features and extra channels when that can be put into better dedicated components? Unless the aim is to eventually have an AV/surround system? Maybe not pertinent to the sums of money we are talking about here but surely a good 80 Euro stereo amp will do a better job than an 80 Euro AV amp for stereo listening?
 
T

the record spot

Guest
I must admit, I do rather fail to understand the logic at work with AV amps - personally, I get music from a pile of different sources these days at different bitrates and/or in different formats; why would I want to restrict myself to an integrated amp?

My Onkyo outpeforms a number of its predecessors - Sansui AU717 (in fairness to the 717, it was built in 1977!), Leema Pulse, HK990...in my eyes, my amp sits in that league although it may be the speakers. I have no idea, I just know it sounds good. Now my amp isn't a stereo integrated and it's not an AV receiver but it borrows from both. Heaps of inputs, etc, etc.

The question around "why pay for facilities..." MP raised is part of the whole "what do you need from your stereo" gear I think. For me, stereo integrateds are so off the pace these days, barring a few (HK990, XTZ's D-100...) it's untrue and the difference in sound quality isn't as great as people think in many cases. The Onkyo I use is a fine amp, but well up there in keeping up with its competitors.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No doubt, many AV amplifiers have good 2.0 channels sound. Somehow, high cost AV amp is better than mid 2.0 integrated amp and mid cost AV amps are inferior to high end integrated / separate 2.0 amps. This is a general, natural analysis.

I would believe if one is to get an AV amp for video on large TV, then visit the showroom for video demo as well as bringing your own CD's for 2.0 playback to check that the pure audio is satisfactory. Then you may trade the integrated amp away.

I added equipments for Home Theatre since 2006 when large LCD TV became affordable and acquired HDMI and HD DVD players in 2008 for music concerts. Somehow, Pure Audio 2.0 is always my main music playing. As the convenience of Web bids, I find many vintage audio amp shining at me. I got them at unbelievable low costs. I keep AV and Pure Audio systems in my living room. (Somehow, I use headphone in bedroom only)

the record spot: I can see AV amp are multi-channel ( 9.2) integrated amp plus video processor ( 11 Audio + multi systems decoders, lip-syncho processors ... etc). All features (channels and decoders ) have their own circuitry and parts to add up the total cost.

Modern electronics use more and more integrated IC instead of discrete components. This is the difference between legendary amplifier and current productions. The beauty of legendary 2.0 amps arebest cherished by music lovers of difference groups. For orchestral music, they search for 3D soundstage( width , depth and height) , the timbre, the ambience. For vocal, they are chasing after silky high, fleshy mid-low and mouth sizes... To conclude, the liviliness and palpable in music reproduction from these amps. I find very, very few of these exist in AV amps. Also, when I use AV for watching music concerts, video always draw my attention and my audio demands is fainting away - audio equipment is less demanding inside AV playing system ( for me).

Moreover, a 7.2 channels amp cost 4.5 + times ( + video processing ) that of 2.0 channels. So the sound of 2.0 integrated amps should be 5 times the sound of 7.2 AV amp of same price --if cost of sound is ideally linearly to the cost of components/circuitry/ design mathematically! So "AV amp are inferior to Integrated amp" is based on both are of the same PRICE range.
 

drummerman

New member
Jan 18, 2008
540
3
0
Visit site
Slightly old thread but interesting nevertheless.

Agree, there is no reason why AV receivers can not sound as good as a conventional stereo amplifier. Measurements are around aplenty and show that many of the better receivers measure as well as the best amplifiers.

Everyone knows that measurements are not necesseraly a guarantee for likeing the end result but at the very least they can show good, sound engineering ... some very expensive hifi only stuff doesn't ...

Tricky to generalise but the added facilities AV receivers offer can be very useful. From capable on-board DAC's to streaming and whathaveyounot, there is something to please most people and they can offer a viable alternative to the all-fashionable all-in-ones such as from Naim etc. if you are prepared to put up with the additional bulk and willing to use, say your bluray player as transport.

I recently acquired an AV receiver which sounds absolutely fab in 2ch. Internal build is what I'd only expect from much more expensive stereo amplifiers. Herein lies the caveat though. A lot of todays AV receivers have a lot of facilities and neglect build and component quality. Most often they use transformers only just capable to supply enough to somehow match often obscurely quoted power figures and further down the line, power caps of relatively small values. - So discounting the cheaper AV receivers I'd say the sweet point is around the £1000 to £1200 mark where one probably can expect a marked step up in sound quality.

regards
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I returned to 2.0 for serious music listening but I still like to say that the web bids have a lot of used AV receivers.

'Technics is cold ', yamaha's 'Natural ' may be your cup of tea. Good used Higher Level Yamaha AV receivers may be around i the Web. But, you must search for their reviews and test for working conditions.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts