Receiver vs separate amp/preamp

[Mark7]

<font color='#000000'>How well do todays multichannel receivers compair to 2 channel separates when playing the receiver in 2 channel mode for music play back? I know that with many things in audio (cables for example) price doesn't always equal preformance. I thought the same might apply to amps/preamps and receivers as well. Thanks I hope to hear from someone soon.</font>

 

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Mark,
If you read any of the AV publications in the last couple of years or so you will notice that there is a full frontal assault coming from the Reciever manufacturers that have incorporated all the major ingredients. &nbsp;Power, Features, and advertising dollars.

One (at least) Denon has announced that it will service the upscale separates market next year (2005) which will make it pretty much as complete as they come since they presently have a A/V reciever for seemingly every market segment..

To answer your question they can compare very well, or it can be a disastor. &nbsp;
It's important to do your homework and organize yourself to audition both solutions in your price bracket. &nbsp;If all your interested in now or the forseable future is 2 ch music. Audio only separates may give you the best bang for the buck.

Now if your liable to lust after a friends Home Theatre soon then the answer will be completely different.

The quality and power of the onebox solution has gone through the roof and the price (comparativly speaking) has sort of stayed the same or maybee come down a bit..

The advent of SACD and DVD-AUDIO with their mltich focus is very seductive when we hear it done well, which is also being offered in one box solutions and &quot;Guess What&quot; it also plays movies.

You don't know how happy its made me that I've simplified this for you because a couple of years a go I agonized over similar issues.

If I were doing it all over again I would buy the biggest/most powerful mltich pure &quot;Highly Regarded Amp&quot; I could find and a milddle of the road 38/48 Denon series reciever to attach to it. &nbsp;Something that guaranteed about 250pure watts out of each of 7 ch. &nbsp;Then I would go to the previously enjoyed market and spend twice what I had spent on electronics on speakers and I would listen to the speakers in my room if at all possible.

Lastly I would buy Middle of the road cable from folks like Monster or AR and very good connectors.

I just realized that by now I may have rambelled a bit but its Friday afternoon and I'm listening to the Hotel California DVD-A in mltich so I'll finish with the suggestion that even though 2 ch is still great and appropriate for lots of music, the future is mltich IMHO.

Have a nice weekend,
Peter m.</font>

 

[RX-V2400]

<font color='#000000'>Once seperates were tops and recievers often were composed of only the lower quality seperates technology but thoses days are gone. Steophile magazine said recently &quot;Top class recievers like Yamahas RX-V2400 have features and advances that are not yet available in seperates.&quot;

Except for extreamly high-power equipment where weight is a factor recievers offer the best in price and compatability.</font>

 

[RX-V2400]

<font color='#000000'>PS

Dyslexia Rules K.O.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Indeed, the caps used in the RX-Z1/Z-9 are of audiophille grade and so are the transistors and the transofrmers, as a matter of fact since all are sourced in house from Yamaha's parent Sumitomo, on the average I have seen better components in the receivers than some high end hyped seperates, same goes for the quality of Denon, Onkyo, SONY ES, and Marantz.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>In my experience , it's the rare receiver ( even today ) that can compete with good separates for two channel music reproduction. &nbsp;I've listened to a lot of the Yamaha / Denon / Onkyo mid / upper range receivers . &nbsp;I personally haven't heard one that I would take over a good integrated amp or pre/power combo that would be in the same general price range. &nbsp;I hear a great difference between an Arcam A85 integrated ( for example ) and a comparably priced $1500.00 receiver from the above manufacturers when playing two channel music...just as I hear a marked difference in the sonics between a $400.00 NAD integrated and a $ 400.00 receiver from any of the above manufacturers. &nbsp;While I would agree that a lot of the multi-channel units have gotten better in terms of stereo reproduction , for me , it's still a bit of an apples and oranges comparison where stereo is concerned.</font>

 

[Jack N]

<font color='#000000'>I agree and disagree with everybody above.  How’s that for a definitive answer?  I’ve had a fair amount of experience over the years (personal, not professional) with sound systems and have seen a lot of things change that I thought would never change, and have seen high end audio gear get obsoleted that I didn’t think would ever get obsoleted, only improved.  Before buying my current receiver, I gave real serious thought to separates again as I was disappointed in the sound quality of my old multi-channel receiver.  I looked at pre-amps costing much more than what I eventually paid for my receiver, and I simply couldn’t justify it.  There wasn’t  a single one out there that could even come close to giving the same features that most higher quality receivers have.  And then, even after convincing myself that I didn’t need all the missing features anyway, I come to find out that the models that I was considering all had reliability problems.  Go figure.  So this is what I did.  I waited until Yamaha announced that they were going to discontinue the RXV3300 and dropped the price by hundreds of dollars.  It then became a no-brainer.  Even if I didn’t like the performance of the amp section once I heard it in my own listening environment, I still had the pre-amp that I could use, with all it’s features, for far less than the cost of a separate.  I think most serious listeners would agree that the sound of this receiver is quite respectable and wouldn’t need any further tweaking.  For me personally, after listening for decades (please don’t ask how old I am) to separates only “stereo” systems, I missed the dynamic range and other associated characteristics of large power supply amps.  So off to eBay I went and picked up 3 Yamaha M-85 (260 wpc true twin monoblock) power amps to go along with the M-60 that I already had.  Now I have a system that I would put up against systems that cost MUCH more.  The sound quality is amazing because I basically have a total of 4 “stereo” systems tied together to work as one.  So to answer your question, does today’s receiver by itself sound as good in stereo mode as yesterday’s power separates?  No, definitely not.  I don’t think you’ll find hardly anybody that will argue that point.  But right behind that you’ll hear something to the effect that the sound is still quite good however.  But, the potential is there to completely crush yesterday’s audiophile grade stereo system at a fraction of the cost if you assimilate old stereo technology with today’s multi-channel technology.  I’ve had my current configuration up and running for a couple of weeks now, and I’m still shaking my head daily in disbelief at how good it sounds.  Like my girlfriend said, “I’ve never heard anything like it, ever.”  By the way, there’s no way I’m going back to conventional stereo now, 8 channel stereo and NEO 6 are much too addictive and sound sooooo much better than conventional stereo.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Well I do have the class A Yamaha MX-1000 and MX-1 as well as the MX-830 for comparison and although it is unfair to compare a 65lb amp with a multi-channel receiver, the sound quality of high end receivers is quite good, the only thing they loose out to some seperates is dynamics and power rating which is logisticaly impossible to squeeze in a 7.1 receiver.

For audiophilles Yamaha marketed the super heavy RX-950 plain jane non surround receiver incorporating their 130W classs A HCA amplifier section but it sadly never took off as everyone wanted a surround receiver instead of just a two channel one.</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>I would disagree that the only difference between high end receivers and separates is dynamics and power rating. &nbsp;To my ear, there's a relatively consistent SQ difference between what's termed &quot;audiophile grade&quot; sound and what these receivers produce. &nbsp;I don't like to compare a $10,000.00 stereo rig with a $10,000.00 7.1 HT rig in terms of sound - they have different goals . &nbsp;However, where two channel is concerned , unless you have a VERY good receiver , as Jack N says , the receiver in and of itself will not sonically compare to good separates. &nbsp;IMO , it IS an apples and oranges argument because there are folks who are much more interested in multi-channel ( and everything that represents ) versus stereo and vis a versa. &nbsp;If the argument is that the top $5000 receivers sound like separates , I might be closer to agreeing with you but these don't represent the norm of what's out there for multi-channel offerings. Everyone has a perspective that's colored by both what their interests are and the kind of sound they prefer...and that's fine.</font>

 

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>I have to disagree with some of what has been posted here. I just sold an Adcom 5 channel amp after comparing it to a Denon receiver. I kept the Adcom because I was not sure if the Denon was going be as good as the Adcom, after all the the Adcom new 4 years ago cost $200 more than the Denon did this year. Boy was I in for a surprise. I listened to Denon first for about an hour, I then hooked up the Adcom and fully expecting the Adcom to sound much better, I was shocked to find the Denon blew it away. The most noticeable thing was the high end clarity, it was sparkling clear with the Denon and seemed harsh on the Adcom. Things that sounded distant or smeared came alive with the Denon, I heard a few things I did not know were even on the recordings. It seems the Adcom had been hiding some details. The Denon had no trouble keeping up with adcom in the power department either, even though the Adcom out weighed it by about 10 lbs, Heavier is not always better. I would say go with a good receiver and if you think you need more power then you can buy an amp later, but you may find yourself surprised as I did and you will have a little money left for a DVD Audio and SACD player

Good luck</font>

 

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi,
I've never had separates due to my varied media interests and when I got my Denon 5800 and then upgraded it to about 95% 5803 status I felt philisophically that I was probably giving up some sound quality to get the extra bells and whistles. &nbsp;I had purchased the 5800 used and had it upgraded immideatly so I sortof started out with a 5803 right off the bat.

As I said I've never had separates ut I started reading the professional reviews that were being posted for the 5803 and was amazed to find that the lines between (not just middle of the road but high end) separates was starting to get very blurred. &nbsp;
Now were again another year under the manufactures belts for fine tuning, as well as other vendors like Yamaha and others coming out with sophisticated power houses with again more features. &nbsp;The buzz word seems to be convergence and there seems to be a piece of it for everyones budget.

When you get to the flagship products however, the reciever makers don't seem willing to take a back seat to any separates and the market doesn't disagree.

I remember reading the statement in a magazine last year. &quot;This reciever is capable of going toe to toe against all but the highest end separates.&quot; &nbsp; That's quite a testimonial, and 5 years ago it would have been heresy.

Peter m.</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Peter;

I tend to agree with you. &nbsp;I however came from the opposite end of the spectrum then you. &nbsp;I started assembling my HT system with quality separates nearly 4 years ago. &nbsp;I have since then sold all of them off in favor of a super receiver for two reasons:
1) space
2) processing power of the latter

My situation may be unique since my main speakers each feature 400 watt amps, and my speakers themselves are almost 90dB efficient and more of a resitive load then most. &nbsp;In my case, I can get by just fine with a mega receiver, especially since I rarely listen at ear bleeding levels. &nbsp;

This is not to say that I wont one day go back to separates. &nbsp;In fact many of the newer processors being introduced this year and starting to gain back ground in terms of features, bass management, and performance. &nbsp;I think 2004/5 will be interesting years for this market. &nbsp;Going forward we are comparing all receivers/processors we review in our Checklist so that consumers can decide which product best fits their needs. &nbsp;

Receiver/Processor Checklist

When all is said and done, I still feel that today's mega receivers offer a better value then similarly priced separates. &nbsp;The processing power and electronics in these receivers are top notch. &nbsp;If you feel down the road you need more power, simply add a quality, low noise, external amp.</font>

 

[petermwilson]

<font color='#000000'>Hi Gene,
Well I would be bi-amping the front three if I ever find someone willing to part with His Totem Mani-2's which I'm told need more juice than the Denon 58 series can provide due to their dual back to back woofers, (Linn Isobaric style). &nbsp;

Like you I don't play at head banging levels (vol is -22 at sweet spot using Denon test tones) but Totem Model 1's all around for music are 4ohm with a sensitiity of 87 so since I add 8ohm surrounds B as well as 8ohm effects surrounds for film it's probably a good thing that my HT is relativly small.

I'm in no rush for the speakers because I really love the ones I have so I'll probably do the bi-amping first just for the experience. &nbsp;I've read in lots of places that it really opens up the sound even if on paper you don't need more juice. &nbsp;So I'll just keep checking the previously enjoyed ads and look for a bargain. &nbsp;They always seem to pop up when you least expect it.

Take care,
Peter m.
PS: You did such a good job with the review of the Denon 5803, it would seem there are quite a few people here (one in particular comes to mind) that await with baited breath your review of the new Yammy Flagship. &nbsp;If you don't list all the DSP modes by name I think you can be forgiven.</font>

 

[Mark7]

<font color='#000000'>Based on the responces I've gotten the issue of power in separate amps vs receiver would probably be none. But, what about sound quality for simple 2 channel music playback? I know some will say that for this purpose 2 channel separates will always beat a multichannel receiver playing in 2 channel mode. &nbsp;How about the rest of you audioholics,engineers or the like, what is your view point?</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>&gt;How well do todays multichannel receivers compair to 2 &gt;channel separates when playing the receiver in 2 channel &gt;mode for music play back?

That was the original post and it concerned multi-channel receivers ability to reproduce two-channel stereo compared to stereo separates. &nbsp;Again, it's a perspective and interest that generates both your needs and perceptions in relation to the question above. &nbsp;Personally , I have no interest in DSP fields and 5.1 / 7.1 sound reproduction. &nbsp;Is that heresy here ?...I dunno. &nbsp;My bias here is that the HT market was derided as &quot;boom and sizzle&quot; a few years ago and to my ear it still sounds much that same way...only less so. &nbsp;I can certainly appreciate HT enthusiasts but what defines the multi-channel receiver market today ( not the flagship or what's being introduced next year but what the common Joe has in his home ) doesn't IMO equate with the stereo reproduction of good , yet still affordable , separates. &nbsp;I heard a $1K Yamaha multi-channel receiver ( sorry don't remember the model ) play in stereo mode that wasn't even close in sound quality to what are considered &quot;Budget&quot; separates like NAD or Rotel costing a hundred dollars less. Although it may be relatively clear and powerful , bright sound with 800 watts is not what I personally look for in music reproduction. &nbsp;That particular quality of sound is craved by many of the HT people I know . &nbsp;I guess the big difference being I don't define separates as processors but as tube preamp /solid state power combos , SS pre/power amps , integrateds , etc. that mark the 2 channel world. &nbsp;If you don't have the same perspective in relation to sound reproduction , you can't really argue that a lot of this SQ topic isn't subjective.</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'>Certainly if one were to spend $4K on a dedicated two channel preamp and power amp, the fidelity for this purpose could potentially be better than a mega receiver. The mega receiver is designed to excel in all modes of operation, not necessarily to outperform dedicated products for that intent.  When assembling a home theater system, one has to make trade off's, even with an unlimited budget.  For example, placing a Display in the middle of two speakers usually doesn't improve the sound of ones system.

My personal experience with today's mega receivers is that they do perform quite admirably when compared to separates in their price class.  In fact, I preferred two channel music on the Denon AVR-5803 / Yamaha RX-Z1 to some of the separates I have heard and reviewed in the same price class.  I suspect the new Yamaha RX-Z9 will also demonstrate good potential as I will be finding out for myself next month  

</font>

 

[Mark7]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

gene : <font color='#000000'>Certainly if one were to spend $4K on a dedicated two channel preamp and power amp, the fidelity for this purpose could potentially be better than a mega receiver. The mega receiver is designed to excel in all modes of operation, not necessarily to outperform dedicated products for that intent.  When assembling a home theater system, one has to make trade off's, even with an unlimited budget.  For example, placing a Display in the middle of two speakers usually doesn't improve the sound of ones system.

My personal experience with today's mega receivers is that they do perform quite admirably when compared to separates in their price class.  In fact, I preferred two channel music on the Denon AVR-5803 / Yamaha RX-Z1 to some of the separates I have heard and reviewed in the same price class.  I suspect the new Yamaha RX-Z9 will also demonstrate good potential as I will be finding out for myself next month  

</font>

<font color='#000000'>How would they compair to bryston separates for two channel. A good example would be the bp-25 preamp with the 2b power amp?</font>