The SEPARATES vs. AVR Thread

[Mikado463]

I use separates because well-chosen examples have better ergonomics on the front and back panels, less heat, higher reliability, smaller size, and overall better build quality as measured by mechanical sturdiness.

I think AVRs generally suck, I have no interest in surround sound, and there's no way I'll ever have another one in any of my systems.

had to re-quote Irv's post again, in order to get this thread back on track, he's 'spot on' for 2 channel !

 

[lovinthehd]

There's more to life than 2ch.

 

[Irvrobinson]

There's more to life than 2ch.

Not for Irv.

 

[lovinthehd]

Not for Irv.

Yeah, I know. Mikado, too.

 

[lovinthehd]

Langauge is all we have to communicate an any experience.
My friend had no trouble picking the A820 and felt it had "a bigger wider sound".

The receiver is not released and looks to be pricy.

https://www.avnirvana.com/threads/emotiva’s-top-secret-xmr-1-avr-makes-an-appearance-at-ces-2018.2061/

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/emotiva-shows-new-avr-and-separates

There is some difference in pricing. Emotiva is gettting the feature set right but, as awlays, has trouble meeting advertised delivery dates.

- Rich

All great and well if we use the language similarly. Audiophiles often come up with gross exaggerations like night and day differences for what turn out to be very slight differences. So your friend felt the A820 had a bigger soundstage effect?

I do wonder if the Yamaha was affected by its limitation circuitry at +8 on the volume....

Thanks for the links.

 

[3db]

If one is happy with 2 channel, that's great. Personally, I need both 2 channel and multichannel. Two channel for music and multichannel for Home Theater. I've heard some very expensive two channel systems and they sound good but they do not come close to producing an emersive soundstage as multichannel system when it comes to HT.

If Irv has moved away from HT to two channel, then I can see his points as far as wasted heat, ergonomics, etc go but not necessarily sound quality. However, when you move the arguement to seperates, the ergonomics and wasted heat fall away.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

There's more to life than 2ch.

Not for Irv.

Quality over Quantity, right?

Different philosophies, different ideas, different needs/desires.

I have 2Ch only in the living room for both music and movies. 2Ch can definitely sound awesome for both movies and audio.

I think the salient thing for both music and movies is the crystal clear high resolution vocals/dialogues. And you can definitely achieve this with 2Ch.

I won't argue if the dialogue/vocal in discrete MCH is better than 2Ch when it comes to BD.

But I certainly agree that the dialogue/vocal in 2Ch for discrete MCH BD movies can be absolutely crystal clear. For example, a DTS-HD MA 7.1 BD movie played back on a 2Ch system can have stunningly and powerful crystal clear dialogue.

After the salient vocal/dialogue, the next important thing is the bass. And you can get great bass with both 2Ch and MCH.

Surround sound effects can be enjoyable for many people. But not everyone likes to hear a bunch of sound coming from the rear and ceiling. So this is just personal preference.

I have both a 2Ch system and a MCH system for both music and movies. Both sound awesome. When it comes to movies, I do prefer DTS-HD MA in my HT room over the 2Ch system. But I can see why some people have no desire for MCH systems when they have a fantastic 2Ch system for both movies and music.

 

[Irvrobinson]

If one is happy with 2 channel, that's great. Personally, I need both 2 channel and multichannel. Two channel for music and multichannel for Home Theater. I've heard some very expensive two channel systems and they sound good but they do not come close to producing an emersive soundstage as multichannel system when it comes to HT.

If Irv has moved away from HT to two channel, then I can see his points as far as wasted heat, ergonomics, etc go but not necessarily sound quality. However, when you move the arguement to seperates, the ergonomics and wasted heat fall away.

We have an HT system, which my wife is very fond of, but it is 2-ch only. We never had surrounds, so we didn't move away from anything. We generally don't watch movies where immersive sound is required. In fact, we don't feel a need for a center speaker or subs. The mains do a fine job for stereo imaging without speaker localization, and the mains are good to about 35Hz, which is enough.

I've heard some state-of-the-art HT systems in friends' homes, and they strike me as an audio gimmick. Projector systems are a temptation though...

I like separates in the HT system mostly because the Outlaw prepro was cheaper than a decent AVR (used as a prepro) and much more compact and cool. I can stack the BD player right on top of it, and the Roku thing on top of that. Also, a separate amp was just more convenient for placement, and it was also inexpensive. I do not believe that the separates would sound better than a $1K AVR, especially with our highly efficient speakers, though the Outlaw does not have any audible vices.

 

[lovinthehd]

Quality over Quantity, right?

Different philosophies, different ideas, different needs/desires.

I have 2Ch only in the living room for both music and movies. 2Ch can definitely sound awesome for both movies and audio.

I think the salient thing for both music and movies is the crystal clear high resolution vocals/dialogues. And you can definitely achieve this with 2Ch.

I won't argue if the dialogue/vocal in discrete MCH is better than 2Ch when it comes to BD.

But I certainly agree that the dialogue/vocal in 2Ch for discrete MCH BD movies can be absolutely crystal clear. For example, a DTS-HD MA 7.1 BD movie played back on a 2Ch system can have stunningly and powerful crystal clear dialogue.

After the salient vocal/dialogue, the next important thing is the bass. And you can get great bass with both 2Ch and MCH.

Surround sound effects can be enjoyable for many people. But not everyone likes to hear a bunch of sound coming from the rear and ceiling. So this is just personal preference.

I have both a 2Ch system and a MCH system for both music and movies. Both sound awesome. When it comes to movies, I do prefer DTS-HD MA in my HT room over the 2Ch system. But I can see why some people have no desire for MCH systems when they have a fantastic 2Ch system for both movies and music.

Yep different strokes for different folk. Personally have never setup a 2ch system for a tv/screen as I prefer multi-ch and also like multi-ch music as well as 2ch music, so my most used setups are all multi-ch. My 2ch setups are generally unused, they're in spare bedrooms I don't use much. I did try no center at my brother's house and found dialog a bit difficult, but so was his room/placement for WAF.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yep different strokes for different folk. Personally have never setup a 2ch system for a tv/screen as I prefer multi-ch and also like multi-ch music as well as 2ch music, so my most used setups are all multi-ch. My 2ch setups are generally unused, they're in spare bedrooms I don't use much. I did try no center at my brother's house and found dialog a bit difficult, but so was his room/placement for WAF.

Although there are some great 2Ch-only systems for both music and movies, I think personal convenience and aesthetics also play a significant factor.

Some people find the aesthetics of just 2 speakers more appealing than 5 speakers plus 1 or 2 subwoofers.

Also, there is a lot less to deal with when you only have 2 speakers.

2Ch Audio-only System = Integrated Amp vs Stereo Receiver vs AVR.

2Ch Audio-Video System = AVR vs Pre-pro/Amp.

 

[panteragstk]

Yep different strokes for different folk. Personally have never setup a 2ch system for a tv/screen as I prefer multi-ch and also like multi-ch music as well as 2ch music, so my most used setups are all multi-ch. My 2ch setups are generally unused, they're in spare bedrooms I don't use much. I did try no center at my brother's house and found dialog a bit difficult, but so was his room/placement for WAF.

I run 4.1 in my office and have no issues with dialog, but placement options are good and I've got things dialed in quite nicely.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I run 4.1 in my office and have no issues with dialog, but placement options are good and I've got things dialed in quite nicely.

That sounds like a nice office setup.

I assume you mean HOME office?

Because my work office at the hospital has a 0.0 audio system.

 

[Mikado463]

Myself, 2 channel is what's in my listening room for it's vinyl and CD/SACD only. In our family room, where there is a TV, it's supported with a 5.1 setup and yes, I do own an AVR (Denon 4300 or something)

 

[Irvrobinson]

That sounds like a nice office setup.

I assume you mean HOME office?

Because my work office at the hospital has a 0.0 audio system.

My office system at work is circumaural headphones. They actually work pretty well for the competition's youtube videos.

 

[lovinthehd]

Although there are some great 2Ch-only systems for both music and movies, I think personal convenience and aesthetics also play a significant factor.

Some people find the aesthetics of just 2 speakers more appealing than 5 speakers plus 1 or 2 subwoofers.

Also, there is a lot less to deal with when you only have 2 speakers.

2Ch Audio-only System = Integrated Amp vs Stereo Receiver vs AVR.

2Ch Audio-Video System = AVR vs Pre-pro/Amp.

Aesthetics of hulking speakers/subs don't bother me, no WAF involved. I remember when a gal friend of mine came over for a party as soon as she walked into the living room where my main system is, said "man cave!" with just a bit of disgust...LOL.

 

[TechHDS]

Yep.. My big Yamahas



jealous of??

Hey!..Hey Man! How dare You Twos get in a smack down without inviting me! . Man I knew should haven't left town today.

 

[TechHDS]

Aesthetics of hulking speakers/subs don't bother me, no WAF involved. I remember when a gal friend of mine came over for a party as soon as she walked into the living room where my main system is, said "man cave!" with just a bit of disgust...LOL.

Did you crankup the Subs and,
let her sit on it.
I knew you could Roll!. .

 

[Mikado463]

Hey!..Hey Man! How dare You Twos get in a smack down without inviting me! . Man I knew should haven't left town today.

no smack down, just good clean fun and a little ribbing !

 

[Mikado463]

Aesthetics of hulking speakers/subs don't bother me, no WAF involved. I remember when a gal friend of mine came over for a party as soon as she walked into the living room where my main system is, said "man cave!" with just a bit of disgust...LOL.

LOL. women, they just don't understand !

 

[TechHDS]

The topic of using “Separates” vs. AVR is extremely popular. It seems like we see a new thread on this topic almost every week. Many people have asked, “Should I buy an AVR or a Pre-pro?”

Many of us have used a variety of components through the years including Integrated Amplifiers, Preamplifiers, Amplifiers, Audio-Video Receivers (AVR), Surround-Sound Processors, Preamplifier-Processors (Pre-Pro). And with the recent introduction of the AVC-8500 in Europe, Denon now has the world’s first 13.2Ch Audio-Video-Controller (AVC). Yes, just remove the AM/FM Tuner section of the AVR, and we get the AVC, which I guess qualifies the AVC-8500 to some people as a “separates component”, instead of the lowly AVR.

I think many audiophiles/enthusiast only consider “separates” as high fidelity or Hi-Fi audio; they often sneer at AVR and deem AVR only appropriate for the mass-market folks who think Bose is official speaker of the world.

Why do you use Separates?

Do AVRs have enough power for most speakers and rooms?

Do AVRs sound inferior to Separates because Separates have better measurements?

Are AVRs more prone to obsolescence?

Are $3,000 AVRs more prone to malfunction than $3,000 Pre-pros ?

What constitutes a “Separates”? Is the new Mark Levinson Integrated Amplifier with DAC and USB connections really a “Separates”?

Since we have a thread for everything, I thought of starting an official thread just for this extremely popular topic. After all, I can’t let <Eargiant have all the fun starting a new thread every week!

I got these measurements from S&V Magazine:

AudioControl M9 $9,000 Pre-pro:
FR +0.04dB@ 20Hz, -0.03dB @ 20kHz
SNR: 118dBA
THD: 0.02%

Denon AVR-3400 $1000 AVR:
FR -0.01dB@ 20Hz, +0.1dB @ 20kHz
SNR: 110dBA
THD: 0.004%

Just looking at these S&V measurements, the Denon X3400 (which some people are paying $550 brand new) doesn’t look all that different than a $9,000 AudioControl Pre-pro. Are any of these measured specs even audible and worth losing sleep over?

Here are some more lab measurements from AVTech Miller Audio Research.

Denon AVR-3805:
Dynamic Power Output into 1 ohms: 170W (1%THD) x 2 Ch
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download/reports/aug04/denonavr3805.html

Arcam P1 Monoblock Amp:
Dynamic Power Output into 1 ohms: 46W (2%THD)
http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download/reports/nov04/arcamp1.html

It seems like the lowly Denon AVR can output even more power than an Arcam Monoblock Amp. Wow! 170W into 1-ohm at 1% THD vs. 46W at twice the THD! How is that possible? An AVR can output 170-dynamic watts into 1-ohm?

For people trying to decide between AVR vs. Separates, what are your thoughts and what advice do you have?

You are talking about mid- level gear right? I changed my vote. Entry level AVR flagships units can sound the same. That was proven to my ears about 2 years ago. Upper end gear separates hands down. Unless added gear to a Flagship AVR to compete. Umm yeah, like a nice Tube amp, for your front mains for music only and a kicka$$ multi-channel amp. Just have to find the right pre-amp with HTBP.