Why cant we use the AVR to power CDP?

[admin_exported]

I know that it is better to use a dedicated amp to use with a good CD/SACD player but just wondering why cant we use the AVR for the same purpose, I mean, they also boast 192khz/24 bit DAC for stereo!

Any thoughts?

 

[Anonymous]

IMHO it basically comes down to :

My AV amp (DSP A5) originally cost about 400 quid to provide 5 channels of 70watt amplification plus loads of clever electronics and dsp-bits, almost uncountable numbers of inputs and sockets (well, hardly any by todays standards), whereas my Audiolab 8000a originally cost about 700quid (I think - 2nd hand to me) to provide 2 channels of about 60 watts and much simpler input switching.

If you subscribe to the basic principle that you get what you pay for, the stereo amp at 350 quid per channel is always gonna win compared to the AV amp at 80 quid per channel (okay, crappy metric, but you hopefully get the point).

What I have never done is compare the stereo performance with my newer (to me) but not actually installed on that system yet DSP-A1, which is 5x110 watts + 2x35 watts for about 1500quid original price - so the price per channel or watt is much closer.

My 2 penn'orth, as usual.

 

[Anonymous]

Who said you can't????
Just kidding. Know your question

Well, Jim put a good point across. Some other important points are: Bass Management and priority of DAC/DSPs.
AVRs tend to do everything 'the cinema way'. The sound stage is presented with low power positional satelites. Sub is extremely important (never saw an HT without a sub). Low end grunt is handled by a sub dedicated to the duty. In brief, an AVR, out of the box, is optimized for home cinema usage.
A stereo receiver is, and can only be, for two channels. Bass management is not a principle. Amp amplifies the whole stereo signal without passing them through a filter. (exception being recent amps with a sub out). Result? Fullness of the sound.
That said, an AVR is not 'incapable' of stereo duty. A good AVR can beat an average stereo receiver by a huge margin if configured properly. I have myself used an AVR for stereo duty for a long time. And the sound was better controlled than my previous stereo amp.
The point is: Out of the box, an AVR is not suitable for stereo duty. But a really good AVR can be configured for stereo duty and it will not be far behind. Yes, generally when people buy an AVR, they want it to be a dual use system, which is not recommendable.
Buy a good AVR, disable all but front channels, set speaker size/type to large, disable/set the bass threshold to the lowest AVR allows, buy full range towers in stead of bookshelves+sub, use pure direct if available and you can get very good sound from an AVR.

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you guys!

I am an advocate of having good seperates for hifi experience. The root cause of my question is interestingly a brainstorming with my fellow addicts during one of our breaks.

I got singled out and was acused of being an audionut

and the whole movie buffs, or dare I call them videophiles, pranced up on me for 'wasting' my money on seperates when the same amount or many times lesser amount will actually fetch you a 7.1 AVR.

But like Ranjeet pointed out, you can indeed fine tune a good AVR to perform audio duties as well. That is a nice point. May be I'm old fashioned for believing in simple but potent 2 channel amp and source.

Best regards.