Receiver vs. Separates sonic quality

[Palmtree]

<font color='#000000'>I'm hoping to get some help deciding between separates and a receiver. &nbsp;

I'm putting together a system for music only. &nbsp;It is for my home office; it will not now, or in the future, need video capabilities. I listen to classical(sonatas to symponies), jazz, and a little pop(on the radio). I've ordered a pair of Ohm Micro Walsh speakers(and if they prove to be bass-deficient, I'll add a sub), it seems like the Denon 2200 universal CD player is a good choice, and now I'm shopping for electronics. &nbsp; I've read about 4 million reviews, and spent a few hours at two stereo stores listening. &nbsp;And I'm confused.

I'm willing to spend up to about $1200(though less would be better) for the amp, preamp, and tuner. &nbsp;My goal is to get very good sound without breaking the bank. &nbsp;While I would like the option of later adding speakers and having multi-channel sound, this consideration is secondary to overall sonic quality.

It seems to me I have three general choices:

A safe bet would be to get moderately priced, well regarded separates, such as an NAD 372 integrated amp and a tuner, or, spending a little more, maybe an Odyssey Khartago amp and a similarly priced pre-amp tuner. &nbsp;Depending on choice, $1000-$1500. &nbsp;

The next choice would be an AV receiver, such as Denon 3805, Yamaha 2400, HK 7200, etc. &nbsp;Focusing on the Denon 3805(which can be had for $1080 at Crutchfield with 10% off), and considering running it in stereo direct mode, I'm wondering if there would be an audible, qualitative difference in sound quality between it and the level of separates described above. &nbsp;I don't want to sacrifice quality of sound, but if it was as good, it would be like getting all of the surround processing(and multichannel upgrade possibilities) for free. &nbsp;Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

I've read so much about soundstage, detail, and imaging, and I'm wondering if there really is much of a difference between a top level $1200 receiver and $1200 worth of stereo separates. &nbsp;

And that brings me to the third, wild card choice. &nbsp;How would a quality stereo receiver compare? &nbsp;For $300 the HK3480 promises plenty of power. &nbsp;Would it compare sonically to the choices above?

I realize this post has gotten lengthy; and I do appreciate any help and feedback.</font>

 

[jeffsg4mac]

<font color='#000000'>Definitely get a 3805 or similar, receiver. You will be very pleased with the sound quality of the receivers of today. I have owned separates since the early 1980's and I now have a Denon 2803 and I am quite pleased. If you are unhappy with the amp section, which I doubt, you can always add another one later as these new units all have analog outs and make superb A/V preamps. &nbsp;Getting a AV receiver is a win, win situation for you.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>There will be no audible difference between separates and a good receiver.

And you've been reading Stereophile and/or The Absolute Sound reviews, haven't you? In spite of their palaver, amps and electronics have nothing to do with soundstaging or imaging beyond channel separation; all modern electronics have more than adequate separation to render it a nonissue.

The major variables that really affect imaging and soundstaging are the recording (how well the engineer did at microphone placement), speakers, and room interaction. Those Ohms are supposed to be awesome at soundstaging, and fine in other regards too. Let us know how you like them!</font>

 

[zumbo]

<font color='#000000'>Put my vote in for receiver now, &amp; add an amp later if not happy. That is what I did. I had a feeling, as you seem to, that a receiver would not be enough. So I went with the Yamaha 1400 instead of the 2400. Much to my surprise, it performed very well. But, with this great sound, I was longing for more. So I added an amp. It has been argued that I would not be able to tell a difference, but I can. A HUGE difference!
Point is, if you feel you will add an amp, you can save $200 or so by getting the 1400 or comparable Denon, H/K, or NAD!</font>

 

[Palmtree]

<font color='#000000'>Well this is exactly why I'm confused!

Zumbo-- &nbsp;A HUGE difference? &nbsp;Could you describe it? &nbsp;Would the difference still be there if you only ran the front two speakers? &nbsp;Any chance the difference is attributable to running out of headroom on the amp while running all channels simultaneously?</font>

 

[zumbo]

<font color='#000000'>That would be the difference. Also, at very high volumes, the music keeps it's detail. Heck, the more I crank it, the better the sound quality seems to be. It was the other way around before. But, like I said, some people said I was FOS!

</font>

 

[Palmtree]

<font color='#000000'>Well my Ohm MicroWalsh's arrived today, two weeks ahead of schedule! &nbsp;And before I ordered any electronics to go with them!

So I dug out my SAE receiver, circa 1980, 35 watts/channel, and borrowed my younger daughter's Daewoo DVD player($49). &nbsp;Found the speaker wire that hooked up the SAE receiver to the old Ohm L's 25 years ago. &nbsp;There seemed to be some faint green? coating on the copper half of the speaker wire even when I cut off a foot on each end and stripped them.

But I wanted to hear the speakers, so I cobbled it all together.

Popped in Schiff's version of Bach's English Suites.

Couldn't help smiling.

Then my older(15) daughter came into the room, and looked at the piano! &nbsp;Then she saw the speakers. &nbsp;I asked her if she thought I was playing. &nbsp;She replied that I couldn't play that well, and that our piano didn't sound that good.

Well I'm still smiling!

I ordered a Denon 1804 and DVD 2200, along with Cobalt cables speaker cables and interconnects. &nbsp;But frankly, I'm pleased as punch already.</font>

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

<font color='#000000'>Nothing like that satisfied audiophile smile! Love the story about your daughter.

Before I went DIY for my speakers I was strongly considering the Ohms.

Happy listening!</font>

 

[Kichy]

<font color='#000000'>Well my Ohm MicroWalsh's arrived today, two weeks ahead of schedule! &nbsp;And before I ordered any electronics to go with them!

So I dug out my SAE receiver, circa 1980, 35 watts/channel, and borrowed my younger daughter's Daewoo DVD player($49). &nbsp;Found the speaker wire that hooked up the SAE receiver to the old Ohm L's 25 years ago. &nbsp;There seemed to be some faint green? coating on the copper half of the speaker wire even when I cut off a foot on each end and stripped them.

But I wanted to hear the speakers, so I cobbled it all together.

Popped in Schiff's version of Bach's English Suites.

Couldn't help smiling.

Then my older(15) daughter came into the room, and looked at the piano! &nbsp;Then she saw the speakers. &nbsp;I asked her if she thought I was playing. &nbsp;She replied that I couldn't play that well, and that our piano didn't sound that good.

Well I'm still smiling!

I ordered a Denon 1804 and DVD 2200, along with Cobalt cables speaker cables and interconnects. &nbsp;But frankly, I'm pleased as punch already.</font>

A little late to the party but I had a Sherwood receiver from 1983 (S-2680) that drove Ohm Ls to perfection. Or so I thought. Fast Forward 15 years and an Acurus A250 power amp and pre stepped in. I was shocked how well the Sherwood held up in comparison, but the Acurus outdid it in the areas of air and space around the instruments. The Sherwood DID however have slightly more bass. Tried it with Walsh 2s as well. The power/pre sounded more live. Haven't hear any of todays A/V receivers but I doubt they could clean the Sherwoods clock unless you dropped serious coin.

 

[Tone Deaf]

<font color='#000000'>Definitely get a 3805 or similar, receiver. You will be very pleased with the sound quality of the receivers of today. I have owned separates since the early 1980's and I now have a Denon 2803 and I am quite pleased. If you are unhappy with the amp section, which I doubt, you can always add another one later as these new units all have analog outs and make superb A/V preamps. &nbsp;Getting a AV receiver is a win, win situation for you.</font>

How would you compare the 3805 to the Pioneer Elite VSX-90?

 

[TLS Guy]

<font color='#000000'>I'm hoping to get some help deciding between separates and a receiver. &nbsp;

I'm putting together a system for music only. &nbsp;It is for my home office; it will not now, or in the future, need video capabilities. I listen to classical(sonatas to symponies), jazz, and a little pop(on the radio). I've ordered a pair of Ohm Micro Walsh speakers(and if they prove to be bass-deficient, I'll add a sub), it seems like the Denon 2200 universal CD player is a good choice, and now I'm shopping for electronics. &nbsp; I've read about 4 million reviews, and spent a few hours at two stereo stores listening. &nbsp;And I'm confused.

I'm willing to spend up to about $1200(though less would be better) for the amp, preamp, and tuner. &nbsp;My goal is to get very good sound without breaking the bank. &nbsp;While I would like the option of later adding speakers and having multi-channel sound, this consideration is secondary to overall sonic quality.

It seems to me I have three general choices:

A safe bet would be to get moderately priced, well regarded separates, such as an NAD 372 integrated amp and a tuner, or, spending a little more, maybe an Odyssey Khartago amp and a similarly priced pre-amp tuner. &nbsp;Depending on choice, $1000-$1500. &nbsp;

The next choice would be an AV receiver, such as Denon 3805, Yamaha 2400, HK 7200, etc. &nbsp;Focusing on the Denon 3805(which can be had for $1080 at Crutchfield with 10% off), and considering running it in stereo direct mode, I'm wondering if there would be an audible, qualitative difference in sound quality between it and the level of separates described above. &nbsp;I don't want to sacrifice quality of sound, but if it was as good, it would be like getting all of the surround processing(and multichannel upgrade possibilities) for free. &nbsp;Is there such a thing as a free lunch?

I've read so much about soundstage, detail, and imaging, and I'm wondering if there really is much of a difference between a top level $1200 receiver and $1200 worth of stereo separates. &nbsp;

And that brings me to the third, wild card choice. &nbsp;How would a quality stereo receiver compare? &nbsp;For $300 the HK3480 promises plenty of power. &nbsp;Would it compare sonically to the choices above?

I realize this post has gotten lengthy; and I do appreciate any help and feedback.</font>

Thanks for the post. I have to say I did not know that OHM were still in business and producing the Walsh driver. It is quite some time since I heard a speaker with the Walsh driver. Every time I have heard one I have been very impressed with them. I have been on their site and they seem very good value for money. I bet you will really like them. As you state later, they reproduce a piano realistically and that puts them in select company for a start.

I think one of the big reasons for the smooth natural sound of the Walsh, is that they realize that trying to make cones extremely rigid is bunk. I used to represent Jordan Watts In Canada years ago back in the seventies. The Jordan Watts modular driver uses a spun aluminum cone weighing 3 Gm. The driver was designed by Ted Jordan back in the sixties. We used to have good discussions with the OHM people at CES. Both these drivers are silky smooth. The reason: they follow Ted Jordan"s law, that the radiating area of the cone should be the inverse of the frequency. Put simply the last thing a loudspeaker cone should be is rigid, unless it is a subwoofer. Carefully controlled break up is what you need, with no reflected waves from the edge termination. That is the essence behind the Walsh driver also.

 

[fmw]

Congratulations on the new speakers, Palmtree. Ohm walsh have been a staple in the high end audio world for a long time. If they reproduce piano well, then you know they will reproduce other sounds well.

You have gotten a lot of misinformation. Note that amplifiers made today don't "sound" different than amplifiers made 30 years ago. They have been making linear, distortion free amplifiers for decades. The new ones are lighter and cheaper (IC's) relative to the value of a dollar, but they don't sound any different.

A two channel system in a home office should be able to get by with 10 watts per channel, particularly if you are listening to solo instrumentals or chamber music. The power is needed really for movie soundtracks or large orchestral recordings (Beethoven's Ninth or Tchaikovsy's 1812.) So the power of amplifiers in your application isn't as important as many will lead you to believe.

Separate amps only sound better when they are played louder. Everything does by the way. It is the psychological nature of hearing. They will also sound better if the receiver or integrated amp is clipping and a separate amp clears that up. But since you have 35 watts per channel in what is most likely a small room, I would bet you won't encounter the problem.

Good luck with the new system and keep practicing until you can play like one of the pros. I've been practicing for 40 years and I haven't gotten there myself.

 

[ppontiac]

There is a difference in sound quality between $300 A/V recievers and separate components costing $350 to $500 each. I have both. My Klipsch Heresy II's lacked bass with my Technics A/V receiver until I switched over to my Carver separates. You get what you pay for with the all the Chinese sourced electronics. It's a crap shoot. Try eBay for good deals on separates. My Carver stuff is 25 years old and sounds awesome.

 

[Seth=L]

I would say Technics receivers are below par for the money spent. Having said that, the Carver undoubtably has far more output capability. Carver amplifiers tend to have lots of headroom and are rigged to handle phase shifts very well. A Technics receiver sees a 3 ohm load and it'll do 1 of 2 things, sound terrible, or shut down.