when are manufacturers going to make AV Recievers with dedicated left and right stereo amps for hifi

[bass-boy68]

Hi Guys ,

Im really frustrated in that every forum or review I have read indicates that all the av recivers reviewed dont hold a candle to a dedicated stereo amp in regards to hi-fi enjoyment, Why is that!

Surely these guys understand that most of us who enjoy HT are also lovers of music and that the use of our av recievers to listen to HT content is great but when we try to enjoy hi-fi on a equal level we have to waive our magic wands with improved DAC's and other voodoo inducing manipulations with little gains in satisfaction really when compared to the comparrison of a goodor great stereo amplifier!

It's about time they introduce a 2 channel amp setup within an av reciever so as to allow us to access it to have the oppertunity to enjoy quality hifi as well as quality HT.Way over due! WAY OVER DUE!!! and the marketing and money mongering is very tiring and insulting as the technology is their and has been for an age to make this a reality.

I understand shortened pathways and extra cost would be invloved and isolating curcutry etc etc blah blah blah would be needed as well as other considerations but come on guys, you hifi nerds, you guys who are smart enought to come up with amazing products and improvements.marketing managers and CEO's , come on ,please.

Sure there are names out their that play really good hifi throigh their av systems but the lexicon's, macintosh's , burmester's etc etc are out of mere mortals realms, so come on yamaha,onkyo,rotel ,marantz and pioneer. Get to work and give us the best of both worlds, outsource contracts with smart 2 channel firms to get them to build quality 2 channel amps to cover the front left and right channels so that we can buy 1 amp to use for both for critical listening and then be able to recline with bubbles in hand and bask in the glow of musical and theatrical bliss.

kind regards

I have given thought over the years and have not heard much on this subject, maybe because of a purist belief that both cannot occupy the same space which is elitist and is one of the great blocks to progressing i believe.

thanks guys

 

[Superaintit]

Why this is I wondered myself.

Also for bluray players not being so good playing cds while B&O cd/dvd/bluray players can do just that. I have a streamer/pre amp that according to B&O themselves is good enough for high end speakers and priced at 400,- a bargain. Their speakers and tvs are expensive though. Their speakers are all active, with amps build in. When I would want an av solution that sounds great in stereo this is what I would explore: active speakers and a seperate processor/pre amp.

A simple test with my panasonic bluray confirmed to me the solution is easy but just not available for a reasonable price. Connected to a good dac and music streamed from a usb stick improved things so much it was virtually indistinguishable from cd. So technically it is possible and quite simple imo.

Same with tvs where 2d picture quality is most important to me and 3d, smart features I could well do without. This makes me either want to buy high end or budget.

I personally can't think of any other reason than that there's just not enough money in it. The majority of buyers apparently buy based on features not stereo playback.

 

[fr0g]

To be honest I think AV receivers are just as good as stereo amps. And better value. Hifi snobbery says otherwise, not any real basis in reality.

And what do you mean "dedicated" stereo amp section? They have... The 2 amps that power the front 2 speakers. And most have a "Pure direct" option which bypasses all the AV electronics anyway.

 

[The_Lhc]

It's not a question of not being able to do stereo properly, it's a cost issue, the usual caveat is that an AV receiver costing 500 pounds won't sound as good as a stereo amp costing 500 pounds. The reason is pretty obvious if you think about it, you've got £250 per channel in the stereo amp and only £100 per channel in the av amp (if it's a 5.1 amp, it's more like 70 quid for a 7.1 amp and that's ignoring the cost of all the other digital processing systems in the av amp), so now you want to add a 500 quid stereo amp to your 500 quid av amp, it's not going to cost 500 quid anymore, it'll be 500+(70*5) for the other 5 channels to make your 7.1 system or £850, which is no longer in the same market segment as a 500 quid amp is.

You can get decent stereo performance from an av amp, you just have to pay more for it.

 

[Laurens_B]

To be honest I think AV receivers are just as good as stereo amps. And better value. Hifi snobbery says otherwise, not any real basis in reality.

And what do you mean "dedicated" stereo amp section? They have... The 2 amps that power the front 2 speakers. And most have a "Pure direct" option which bypasses all the AV electronics anyway.

Totally agree with this. I have not been able to distinguish a receiver from a stereo amp with music.

 

[bigboss]

I was part of the Big Question feature at What Hi Fi? few years ago where we compared a stereo amplifier with AV receivers of different prices. The difference is very small and only apparent on very careful listening (not the way you would listen to enjoy music).

Basically, AV receivers have to cram a lot of features in a box: video features, multichannel amps, ability to decode various codecs, wifi features etc. Theoretically, this can cause interference with audio circuitry. That's why purists prefer a dedicated stereo amplifier.

 

[FennerMachine]

I have heard differences between receivers and stereo amps but they were not really fair comparisons. Example: £2500.00 receiver vs £1700.00 pre/power stereo.

Maybe I imagined the differences, or perhaps the speakers needed more control to get the best from them. Just saw bigboss's post – the differences I heard where subtle too. The music was almost identical. The only difference I could detect was imaging.

Marantz make stereo amps with HT bypass. You could use one of their cheaper receivers for the 3 or 5 surround/centre speakers and a stereo amp for the front pair. Using a good mix of amps you could have a very nice stereo and AV system for a relatively modest cost.

I'm sure you could do something similar with other makes.

 

[Al ears]

To be honest I think AV receivers are just as good as stereo amps. And better value. Hifi snobbery says otherwise, not any real basis in reality.

And what do you mean "dedicated" stereo amp section? They have... The 2 amps that power the front 2 speakers. And most have a "Pure direct" option which bypasses all the AV electronics anyway.

I don't think it is hifi snobbery but simple economic (see the_lhc's comments on cost per channel).

Having a Pure Direct button isn't going to make any difference here if it is routing the signal through components that cost a great deal less than those in a dedicated steeo amp.

I have used ,in the past, a £500 Sony stereo amp and a £500 Sony AV amp and I'll leave you to guess which performed better in a pure stereo set-up, and it did so by quite a margin.

 

[drummerman]

Onkyo make some very decent AV amplifiers which probably measure the same as some multi thousand pound stereo only amplifiers and they are powerful too.

However, I can't help think the power supplies of many cheaper AV Receivers are rather weedy. What I would call 'decent' supplies start at around £1k. - Having said that, the afromentioned Onkyo's, which have been tested extensively by HifiWorld seem to do just fine with tiny supply caps and relatively small transformers. Go figure. I can only assume that many stereo only amplifier power supplies are over-engineered beyond their needs.

I myself use an AV receiver in one of my systems (in pure 2channel mode) and love it.

 

[jjbomber]

A £10,000 car will not have the same performance as a £10,000 motorbike. Same logic.

A second hand Nain n-Vi will make you change your mind. Outstanding product.

A power amp will do the job.

 

[fr0g]

To be honest I think AV receivers are just as good as stereo amps. And better value. Hifi snobbery says otherwise, not any real basis in reality.

And what do you mean "dedicated" stereo amp section? They have... The 2 amps that power the front 2 speakers. And most have a "Pure direct" option which bypasses all the AV electronics anyway.

I don't think it is hifi snobbery but simple economic (see the_lhc's comments on cost per channel).

Having a Pure Direct button isn't going to make any difference here if it is routing the signal through components that cost a great deal less than those in a dedicated steeo amp.

I have used ,in the past, a £500 Sony stereo amp and a £500 Sony AV amp and I'll leave you to guess which performed better in a pure stereo set-up, and it did so by quite a margin.

I have 3 systems on the go right now.

One is my ADM9RS + Avi sub system. The best of the 3.

One is an ADM9T + BK XXLS sub, which is for my PC listening.

Another is in the main living room for the moment which is a £300 AV receiver (Yamaha RX V667) powering Dali Ikon 6 main speakers.

I have run those Dalis on 3 different amps. Arcam A80, Lyngdorf SDAI 2175 and now the receiver.

In all honesty at normal to medium high volumes, they all sounded identical. i.e the Yamaha is absolutely no better than the £1300 Lyngdorf or £600 Arcam at amplifying the signal. They still sound great. Turning on the "Pure direct" makes a subtle but noticable difference, but in the end, it's a £300 AV amp with 7 power amps and a multitude of inputs and processing power.

I don't agree that pricewise a £500 stereo amp will beat a £500 AV amp. Not at all. Numbers makes the AV amp cheaper to make. I wonder how much mark-up there is on a £1000 Naim amp compared to a £1000 Yamaha receiver??? And if I were to choose one for stereo only I would take the Yamaha every day.

If I were to buy another amp for passive speakers (unlikely, but possible) it would be a higher end AV reciever. All day long.

 

[Native_bon]

We have been here many times. I once did a test in a hifi shop & no one could tell the AV amp from the 2 channel amp. No matter which way you look at it, an Av amp can play 5 channel music very well why can it not do the same playing 2 channels or even better. Its just simple logic. People just want pride of ownership hence say 2 channel sounds better. *lol*

 

[fr0g]

We have been here many times. I once did a test in a hifi shop & no one could tell the AV amp from the 2 channel amp. No matter which way you look at it, an Av amp can play 5 channel music very well why can it not do the same playing 2 channels. Its just simple logic. People just want pride of ownership hence say 2 channel sounds better. *lol*

Absolutely.

Movie soundtracks are some of the best, well recorded music there is. They sound fantastic on a good system. Suddenly they sound shitty when playing in stereo...really???

Utter nonsense, snobbery and false logic at play imo.

 

[wilro15]

Not snobbery, but it does go against my personal experience. I have both AV and stereo setups and they are very different. I felt I had to have both because my AV amp was really lame in stereo mode.

 

[bigfish786]

Five or seven speakers to watch movies?

We only have 2 ears, and one brain to process the sounds?

 

[Anderson]

Five or seven speakers to watch movies?

We only have 2 ears, and one brain to process the sounds?

Perception is reality kid, you'd think on a hifi forum you'd have understood this.

I mean it's true that your brains are much better at decoding information from the front channels but they're still perceptually aware of rear/surrounds. This is why the cinema is awesome.

 

[Anderson]

Not snobbery, but it does go against my personal experience. I have both AV and stereo setups and they are very different. I felt I had to have both because my AV amp was really lame in stereo mode.

It is when it's made out to be a blanket statement. I've heard expensive stuff, reasonable stuff and budget stuff. It was always the speakers made the big difference not the amplification. I've got a £300 AV amp and to me it sounds nice, I could be a fool but I don't have a desire for a £3000 amp, the one I've got has all the features I need and plays clean at volumes I listen to. Each to their own though.

 

[EvPa]

Five or seven speakers to watch movies?

5? 7?

Hamasaki 22.2 is where it's at, I'm skipping that 4K stuff altogether to wait for Super Hi-Vision.555 (8K and 22.2 sound). *biggrin*

Disclaimer: My "home cinema" setup currently consists of two Devialet Phantoms.

 

[Esra]

To be honest I think AV receivers are just as good as stereo amps. And better value. Hifi snobbery says otherwise, not any real basis in reality.

And what do you mean "dedicated" stereo amp section? They have... The 2 amps that power the front 2 speakers. And most have a "Pure direct" option which bypasses all the AV electronics anyway.

I don't think it is hifi snobbery but simple economic (see the_lhc's comments on cost per channel).

Having a Pure Direct button isn't going to make any difference here if it is routing the signal through components that cost a great deal less than those in a dedicated steeo amp.

I have used ,in the past, a £500 Sony stereo amp and a £500 Sony AV amp and I'll leave you to guess which performed better in a pure stereo set-up, and it did so by quite a margin.

I have 3 systems on the go right now.

One is my ADM9RS + Avi sub system. The best of the 3.

One is an ADM9T + BK XXLS sub, which is for my PC listening.

Another is in the main living room for the moment which is a £300 AV receiver (Yamaha RX V667) powering Dali Ikon 6 main speakers.

I have run those Dalis on 3 different amps. Arcam A80, Lyngdorf SDAI 2175 and now the receiver.

In all honesty at normal to medium high volumes, they all sounded identical. i.e the Yamaha is absolutely no better than the £1300 Lyngdorf or £600 Arcam at amplifying the signal. They still sound great. Turning on the "Pure direct" makes a subtle but noticable difference, but in the end, it's a £300 AV amp with 7 power amps and a multitude of inputs and processing power.

I don't agree that pricewise a £500 stereo amp will beat a £500 AV amp. Not at all. Numbers makes the AV amp cheaper to make. I wonder how much mark-up there is on a £1000 Naim amp compared to a £1000 Yamaha receiver??? And if I were to choose one for stereo only I would take the Yamaha every day.

If I were to buy another amp for passive speakers (unlikely, but possible) it would be a higher end AV reciever. All day long.

Well i think you would have clearly distinguished the different amps with better revealing speakers.If it would have sound "better" and worth the money is an other story.Most impact on sound have speakers and yes you can also get really enjoyable sound out of an AVR nowadays too.If I would not know better i could easily be very happy just with my AVR too which was quite affordable <1k.Imo the future are digital amps with dsp and decent room correction software.I am sure it is possible to create every possible sound signature with that with flawless tec. measurements and eco. power consumption.

 

[Anderson]

Class D amps are very often referred to as digital amps, it's incorrect but easy to understand why people get confused.

Im layman terms they almost act like a DAC. In that pre amplification they it's like they're sampling the incoming analogue signal. They then output at a very high rate upwards of 44,000 An on/off signal which appears as an analogue waveform. This makes Class D very efficient and is why we should love 'digital amps'.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Interesting thread...

I have 2 av amps, one well over 10yrs old the other a couple years old.

The old amp £500 new, sounds excellent in stereo - it's 90x5wpc and for stereo is flexible with regards inputs with a built in DAC and a DSP - Did I say it sounds great in stereo.

Toyed with upgrading it with dedicated stereo amps in the £800 bracket which to my ears did not sound has good - alot of function was also lost.

Subtle differences that make big differences to enjoyment imo.

Funny thing is the newer av amp £1000 sounds worse than both these amps in stereo - it was tested/compared new out the box - no matter what jiggery pokery tried it sounded no were near the other amps.

But it sounds excellent with movie soundtracks. Not tested it since though.

So maybe it's just luck a Monday morning unit against a Friday afternoon one. I don't think there is a clear cut one is better than the other, not what I've found.

 

[andyjm]

Class D amps are very often referred to as digital amps, it's incorrect but easy to understand why people get confused.

Im layman terms they almost act like a DAC. In that pre amplification they it's like they're sampling the incoming analogue signal. They then output at a very high rate upwards of 44,000 An on/off signal which appears as an analogue waveform. This makes Class D very efficient and is why we should love 'digital amps'.

I don't understand your DAC analogy.

Audio bandwidth class D amps switch at frequencies in excess of 250KHz.

 

[Vladimir]

Because of the Pulse Width Modulated (PWM) signal I presume. Digital signal is after all analog signal going on and off at a certain voltage and that is interpreted as 1 or 0.

 

[Anderson]

Class D amps are very often referred to as digital amps, it's incorrect but easy to understand why people get confused.

Im layman terms they almost act like a DAC. In that pre amplification they it's like they're sampling the incoming analogue signal. They then output at a very high rate upwards of 44,000 An on/off signal which appears as an analogue waveform. This makes Class D very efficient and is why we should love 'digital amps'.

I don't understand your DAC analogy.

Audio bandwidth class D amps switch at frequencies in excess of 250KHz.

Thanks, I knew it was quick but didn't know off the top of my head.

Its the only way I can think to describe it with he DAC comparison. It takes analogue in chops it up and spits it out again really fast full on full off etc but does it so fast it appears to be analogue.

It's fantastic tech, I'm going to make a point of buying a class D in a few years, I'm good for now.

 

[Anderson]

Because of the Pulse Width Modulated (PWM) signal I presume. Digital signal is after all analog signal going on and off at a certain voltage and that is interpreted as 1 or 0.

This, Vlad to the rescue.