Are stereo amps for music still a better choice than AVR? AVR has roomcorrection en many ways to correction the sound if it is too bright or too much bass. Stereo amps still doesn't execpt maybe the expensive Lyngdorf tdai 2170. Also in these days isn't a AVR a better choice for music?
Stereo amps still better than AVR for music?
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
AV receivers have improved noticably over the past decade, that's for sure, and the DAC chips inside them should be just as capable of decoding a CD or a WAV or a FLAC as any other. HOWEVER, ask yourself this question. If you spend 1000 Pounds, Euros, Dollars, Sheckles, whatever on a multi-function device of any kind, or spend the same amount on a device designed and built specifically for one task, which is more likely to perform that task better? All the electronics inside, and all the terminals and switches on the outside of that AVR cost money, and that money is spent on the power amplifiers or the power supplies or...
IMHO even the best AV receivers still aren't a match for comparably-priced "proper stereo" amps when it comes to music playback, but equaly importantly, you shouldn't assume that AV speaker setups are necessarily as good, Pound for Pound, or Dollar for Dollar or Euro for Euro, as "proper stereo" speakers either. The caveat being, of course, that if you're using "proper stereo" speakers as your AV fronts, with the AVR front pre-out signals being fed into a "proper stereo" amplifier, that doesn't apply.
Yes a $1000 AV receiver may sound better than a $200 integrated amp, but will it sound better than a $1000 integrated amp? Probably not.
IMHO even the best AV receivers still aren't a match for comparably-priced "proper stereo" amps when it comes to music playback, but equaly importantly, you shouldn't assume that AV speaker setups are necessarily as good, Pound for Pound, or Dollar for Dollar or Euro for Euro, as "proper stereo" speakers either. The caveat being, of course, that if you're using "proper stereo" speakers as your AV fronts, with the AVR front pre-out signals being fed into a "proper stereo" amplifier, that doesn't apply.
Yes a $1000 AV receiver may sound better than a $200 integrated amp, but will it sound better than a $1000 integrated amp? Probably not.
Benedict_Arnold said:
1) If the amplification is properly designed (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be, kids in high school do it as homework) both amplifiers will sound the same when level matched and not pushed into clipping. All good amplifiers sound the same, all the bad ones sound different.
2) You are ignoring the economy of scale that applies in much greater number for AVRs than audiophile stereo amps.
1) Er, no. There are class A amps, class B amps, class C amps, class D amps and all kinds of hybrids and variations and whilst, yes I agree that a sine wave put through one should come out the same as a sine wave put through another, you are ignoring the complexities and nuances of intricate musical signals, the frequency responses and attenuation characteristics of different electrical components, circuit board layouts, power supplies, etc. If not, we'd all be buying our "hifi" at Argos, and WHF magazine would have disappeared off the shelves long ago, right?
2) Economies of scale? Whilst it's true that a small scale manufacturer like Cyrus or Naim or any other small volume brand you care to mention has to divide their overheads between only a very few units comapred to the big boys, this is manifest in the exponentially higher prices of their products. Brands like Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer, Marantz, etc. sell their units on a global basis, more or less only changing the power supplies, plugs and the language of the knob and button labels to meet local conditions. When you divide out their development costs over the huge numbers of units they produce, development costs are a miniscule part of their price. That's why they're such good value.
If you've got the same fixed target retail price for your black box, whether it be a receiver or a two-channel amp, you've basically got the same fixed amount of money to spend on components. If more of that money goes on HDMI sockets, RCA sockets, speaker sockets, AV DACs, 7 channel amplification instead of 2-channel, licence payments for Dolby surround sound codecs, DTS codecs, etc. etc. etc. it de facto means there's less to spend on the components inside the box that actually process and influence the sound of the 2-channel amplification.
2) Economies of scale? Whilst it's true that a small scale manufacturer like Cyrus or Naim or any other small volume brand you care to mention has to divide their overheads between only a very few units comapred to the big boys, this is manifest in the exponentially higher prices of their products. Brands like Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, Pioneer, Marantz, etc. sell their units on a global basis, more or less only changing the power supplies, plugs and the language of the knob and button labels to meet local conditions. When you divide out their development costs over the huge numbers of units they produce, development costs are a miniscule part of their price. That's why they're such good value.
If you've got the same fixed target retail price for your black box, whether it be a receiver or a two-channel amp, you've basically got the same fixed amount of money to spend on components. If more of that money goes on HDMI sockets, RCA sockets, speaker sockets, AV DACs, 7 channel amplification instead of 2-channel, licence payments for Dolby surround sound codecs, DTS codecs, etc. etc. etc. it de facto means there's less to spend on the components inside the box that actually process and influence the sound of the 2-channel amplification.
And let's not forget how many more tweeters 7.1 setup AVR has to run compared to a stereo amp. The sub is powered, but that doesn't matter since tweeters use more power than subs. Even if the amp in the AVR was as good as the one in the integrated amp, just the sheer tweeter ratio 7 vs 2 means huge strain for the AVR.
Al ears
Well-known member
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
I would say a stereo 2 channel amp has all the money spent on it for the quality of music it does what it says on the tin . But an AV amp has most of its money spent on 7 channels , licenses to decode Thx , Dtx , Dt ex , Dolby digital , pro logic...... And so on this are expensive licenses . But if you spend £5000 on the arcam AV amp then I would say you might be getting both quality for music and for film soundtrack for the film side of things and any other gadgets they put on this AV amps
steve_1979
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
7 vs 2?
Shouldn't that mean that the AVR is 3.5 times better than a stereo amp? Or is it 3.5 times worse?
Al ears
Well-known member
I think the OPs original question was a bit ambiguous and possibly misworded.
The is little point in getting an AV amp for a purely stereo system. Quite a few amps still have tone controls and you will not get any other form of room correction as this is essentially a requirement of multi channel affairs that are meant to handle surround sound DVDs etc.
Most 'music' is normally presented as two channel stereo for most home consumption formats.
This is not to say an AV amp will not make a hash of it playing through just the two channels but I don't think this is what was asked.
The is little point in getting an AV amp for a purely stereo system. Quite a few amps still have tone controls and you will not get any other form of room correction as this is essentially a requirement of multi channel affairs that are meant to handle surround sound DVDs etc.
Most 'music' is normally presented as two channel stereo for most home consumption formats.
This is not to say an AV amp will not make a hash of it playing through just the two channels but I don't think this is what was asked.
Obviously.
All of those extra high performance cables will have a cumulative effect on sound quality, the AVR will win hands down. When you factor in the obvious technical advantages of the AVR, such as the ability to produce 7 x 150 watts from a 500va power supply, the all round superiority of the AVR will be clear.
All of those extra high performance cables will have a cumulative effect on sound quality, the AVR will win hands down. When you factor in the obvious technical advantages of the AVR, such as the ability to produce 7 x 150 watts from a 500va power supply, the all round superiority of the AVR will be clear.
IMO. At any price point, it is possible to get "better" sound from a good dedicated 2 channel amp (for music) than from an AVR....though it's still quite possible to get great sound from an AVR.
davedotco said:
Since volts x amps = watts could you explain to me how an electronic device produces more power (7 x 175 watts = 1225 watts) when its power supply can only produce 500 watts? If you can, you've solved the World's energy crisis and put me and every other person in the oil industry out of work.
Moreover, where exactly do you intend cranking up your home stereo to the output of a decent disco PA? Middle of Dartmoor perhaps?
And finally, do you believe in quantity or quality.
Blacksabbath25
Well-known member
I had a yamha AV amp 7.1 before I got the marantz pm6005 I thought to myself at the time I would be getting value for money at the time given how much power in watts it had but when it came down to it the marantz pm6005 was loads better then the yamha any day . The only time I have ever heard a AV amp sound better then a stereo amp was the arcam AV 200 with p7 power amp the THX modal with it setup with some top cables .this AV amp was made for both purposes at the time
I used to sit on the "AV amps suck" side of the fence until I heard my current receiver. I had tried budget receivers from Onkyo and Marantz which, while ok for movies, were bad for stereo music.
I've been through using AV amps in tandem with stereo amps (using AV bypass) and had better results. The problem with this setup was the incessant complaining from the other half and my offspring (wrong inputs selected, too many remotes, magic remote not working as it should etc).
So I switched again to an AV receiver from Anthem (the MRX 510). I must say it is pretty damn good. Great levels of detail, soundstage and all the other hifi cliches.
I've been through stereo amps from Naim, Musical Fidelity, Abrahamsen and others so I have experience of good setups.
Am I happy with it? Yes and no. Yes because it does sound great. No because I always think "how much better would it sound if...."
I've been through using AV amps in tandem with stereo amps (using AV bypass) and had better results. The problem with this setup was the incessant complaining from the other half and my offspring (wrong inputs selected, too many remotes, magic remote not working as it should etc).
So I switched again to an AV receiver from Anthem (the MRX 510). I must say it is pretty damn good. Great levels of detail, soundstage and all the other hifi cliches.
I've been through stereo amps from Naim, Musical Fidelity, Abrahamsen and others so I have experience of good setups.
Am I happy with it? Yes and no. Yes because it does sound great. No because I always think "how much better would it sound if...."
Native_bon
Well-known member
Not in all cases. Generally yes two channel amps should sound better. Some av amps are optimized for two channel play back. I found some less expensive 2 channel amps sound better than the more expensive counterpart.
The argument of two channel amps sounding better in not always the case when cost and optimization comes into play.
Also there is no guarantee that the person listening is going to like the presentation of two channel over the av amp.
The argument of two channel amps sounding better in not always the case when cost and optimization comes into play.
Also there is no guarantee that the person listening is going to like the presentation of two channel over the av amp.
The world is your oyster....with the huge variety of 2 channel amps out there, including valve, hybrid and SS, presentation would not be the barrier. Functionality might be, though. I'm talking SQ only.Native_bon said:
steve_1979
Well-known member
Benedict_Arnold said:
It can do 1225 watt peaks but not a constant 1225 watt output (although 7 x 175 is probably a blatant lie anyway).
EDIT - wait a minute. Is this that Thompson thing again? It's so hard to tell on this forum as so much crazy audiophool **** gets posted every day it hard to tell what's genuine and what's not.
Native_bon
Well-known member
Yes there is an advantage of having more choice with 2 channel and the ability to tailor the sound more to taste.CnoEvil said:
I also give example that some less expensive two channel amps sounded better than some more expensive 2 channel amps.So all 2 channel amps may not necessarily sound better than all av amps at the same price
steve_1979
Well-known member
You have (IMO), one of the most musical AVRs at it's price of £2200....but it could be bettered for 2 channel by a Stereo amp of the same price (again in my opinion). I suspect the cheaper A39 would be an improvement, but I would need to hear a bake off to be sure.Native_bon said:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram