Stereo amp vs receiver

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
2
0
I am looking at upgrading my receiver to the Pioneer SC-LX85 which gets great reviews and has plenty of power for the amp.

How comparable is this receiver for stereo music listening to say a stereo amp like a NAD 356? Marantz PM6004?

Would I am thinking a higher end receiver like the Pioneer would have more power and be almost as clean as the above mentioned stereo amps? Not really worth doing? Would I need to upgrade to better spec stereo amps to hear a difference to this Pioneer receiver?
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Recievers are far better than amps. I've discovered this budget amp 'better' than mid priced reciever thing is a myth.

When you look at the numbers the 2channel amp fails.

Take a 60watt per channel stereo amp against a 60watt per channel 5.1 reciever. If both are used as stereo amps (2 channel). the reciever has considerebly more headroom (current) to drive and control any price comparitive speaker. ( max constant power handling 60watts x 5.1 ). Plus you have more flexibility regards connections - i.e digital or anolog.

Some may argue stereo amps are designed ...prrrft. if its about the mathamatics of amplification recievers win hands down.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
8
0
IMO. An AV amp doesn't compete for 2 channel, at a given price level.

This is because:

- Of all the processing the signal has to go through (unless there is a stereo direct function) in an AVR.

- The AV amp has a lot more inside the case, like 7 amps and all the processing it has to do; something has to give re the price. Though saying that, they are getting better.
 

matthewpiano

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2007
494
330
19,270
I think you have to take it on a case by case basis, but generally speaking I would still err towards the dedicated stereo amplifier. I've yet to hear an AV amp at reasonable prices that could really worry something like a Marantz PM6004 or a NAD C326BEE for music replay.
 

bluedroog

New member
Mar 4, 2010
8
1
0
Thompsonuxb said:
Recievers are far better than amps. I've discovered this budget amp 'better' than mid priced reciever thing is a myth.

When you look at the numbers the 2channel amp fails.

Take a 60watt per channel stereo amp against a 60watt per channel 5.1 reciever. If both are used as stereo amps (2 channel). the reciever has considerebly more headroom (current) to drive and control any price comparitive speaker. ( max constant power handling 60watts x 5.1 ). Plus you have more flexibility regards connections - i.e digital or anolog.

Some may argue stereo amps are designed ...prrrft. if its about the mathamatics of amplification recievers win hands down.
I have to say that’s not my experience and I can only go by the examples I’ve heard. I used to have an old Arcam Alpha 8 at 50 wpc that easily had more steam over my Denon 3805 AV amp (in ‘pure direct’ stereo mode) at a reported 120 wpc.
 

Paul.

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2010
745
55
18,970
AV amp makers seem to fib a little with their stats. Common fibs are quoting power output without all channels driven, and quoting power outputs and thd at certain frequencies rather than music with a broad dynamic range. Even biamped, my Onkyo 805 (four channels at 130w) doesn't have the control at volume that my old Marantz PM7200 had at two by 100w. The 805 was £800 new (4 years ago) whereas the marantz was £270 7 ish years ago.
 

hoopsontoast

New member
Oct 1, 2011
12
0
0
I would say its dependant on the amp, I have been using an Arcam AVR200 as both either a full integrated 2-channel amp and a pre amp, and it does pretty well for it! Not quite the dynamic current ability or bass control of the big Sony integrated.

Saying that, the DAC in the AVR200 is rubbish, much better using the inbuilt one in the Philips CDP.
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Lol..... I disagree.

Regardless of 'the puriety' of the inards of these devices it boils down to 1 - personnal taste and 2 - PSU's

Now what you get in an amp/reciever is a power supply unit capable of dealing with power output. So a 2 channel amp driving 60watts per channel will never be able to compete with a PSU driving 60watts p/c through 5.1 when it comes to providing dynamic swings or current for demanding pieces in music.

Don't get me wrong I know 40watt amps can go loud. But its loud as in noise, distortion not in frequencies, which is what you get when a pair of speakers are being driven properly as opposed to an amp running ragged. There is loud and ther is LOUD....if you see what I mean.

plus the DACS in some of these recievers are superb, so feeding the digital output via a quality coax from CD player to reciever can also make a big difference, as opposed to using the DACS in most budget CD players.

in fact with ref tests done by what Hifi amps v recievers I'd like to know if they only use anolog interconnects when testing.
 

Lee H

New member
Oct 7, 2010
336
0
0
Thompsonuxb said:
its about the mathamatics of amplification
Thompsonuxb said:
Regardless of 'the puriety' of the inards of these devices it boils down to 1 - personnal taste and 2 - PSU's
Which is it then? Maths or personal taste?
 

Thompsonuxb

New member
Feb 19, 2012
129
0
0
Both...... :rofl:

The figures ( the mathamatics of it all ) speak for themselves, but it really depends on what you want from your system. If you want a purer. cleaner sound or a "louder" sound, user preference.

Thats both....right?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS