Integrated Amp discussion...

[GrimSurfer]

Wow. I never knew that after all these years. Geez.

Isn't there something like an SPL calculator that tells us how much power the speakers need based on SPL, listening distance, speaker sensitivity, placement from walls?

I don't know what those variables are, could you please explain?

You know what they are, obviously. You just don't seem to have very sound judgement when you're willing to trade sound quality in exchange for incremental loudness (50W vs 100W is so trivial, it's almost meaningless from an spl perspective).

Who plays musics at full volume? With a cheap amp? Clipping anyone?

Now if you don't play at full volume, does the power difference mean anything? Not on its own. It only means something once you consider rise time, slew rate, current delivery, headroom.

But watts? That's just a one liner on a spec sheet. You have to look at many things to get the best bang for your dollar.

Now I'm told you understand all this. But the OP may not appreciate your sarcasm. He/she may take what you end with a smiley face as gospel. And that's not helpful, Def.

Not helpful at all.

 

[everettT]

It only takes a couple of watts to have a good time.

 

[GrimSurfer]

It only takes a couple of watts to have a good time.

Yup! And not much clipping to end it.

 

[killdozzer]

It only takes a couple of watts to have a good time.

From time to time you can be so poetic and profound.

 

[<eargiant]

Boy isn't that the truth. Maybe it's because of how they're evaluating the various devices.

When it comes to sighted listening, there's a lot power to be had in ego-gratification.

Why keep bringing up the subjective (sighted tests) to discredit the work of excellent engineers and their objectively demonstrable success just because you can't hear it?

It's ludicrous to even have this conversation especially in the realm of Tuners. What's next? Are you going to tell me that all phono stages sound the same too regardless of how they are designed?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Relieve the amp of extra channels; remove all the video features, make a pretty face plate (since stereo folk like this) and offer that with a price reduced

Sounds good. I'm sure some people will like that.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Why keep bringing up the subjective (sighted tests) to discredit the work of excellent engineers and their objectively demonstrable success just because you can't hear it?

No discredit of electrical engineers here. I'm very grateful for their talents. But why <eargiant would you pay a huge price for a tuner when it sounds the same as the one in your receiver.

It's ludicrous to even have this conversation especially in the realm of tuners. What's next? Are you going to tell me that all phono stages sound the same too regardless of how they are designed?

No, I wouldn't do that unless there was verifiable scientific evidence that led to that conclusion. But because of our brain and how we perceive sound through our eyes and ears, I wouldn't conduct any testing sighted due to skewed results.

 

[<eargiant]

No discredit of electrical engineers here. I'm very grateful for their talents. But why <eargiant would you pay a huge price for a tuner when it sounds the same as the one in your receiver.

Because they don't to me and the price doesn't have to be huge. You can buy what you want.

No, I wouldn't do that unless there was verifiable scientific evidence that led to that conclusion. But because of our brain and how we perceive sound through our eyes and ears, I wouldn't conduct any testing sighted due to skewed results.

Now I know you're trolling or have not heard or even casually compared many phono stages.

I'm happy for you that what you find in a receiver is as good as it gets for you, but like I said you obviously don't have much experience with either tuners or phono stages.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You have people who have owned many different separate components over the years. Been there, done it. We've owned and heard these components. Really. Truly.

In terms of performance, it comes down to opinions again, not facts verified by scientific double-blind testings.

If you believe an integrated amp sounds better, then that's what you believe.

If you believe a separate tuner sounds better and is worth $500, then that's what you believe.

Unless you have actual scientific data, like those randomized double-blind tests, there is no point arguing what people believe.

For my system, I prefer a pre-pro + amp combo. It's what I prefer.

For music, I prefer using DTS NeuralX and DSU. It's what I prefer. Sounds like a GEICO commercial.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Because they don't to me and the price doesn't have to be huge. You can buy what you want.



Now I know you're trolling or have not heard or even casually compared many phono stages.

Sorry, I didn't know science was trolling. How many phono stages have you had experience with?

Like I said, you obviously don't have much experience with either tuners or phono stages.

Well, how much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages?

 

[<eargiant]

Sorry, I didn't know science was trolling.

No, you're not relying on science because science can clearly tell you which Tuners or Phono stage will outperform within the audible spectrum. You are just choosing to look the other way.

Well, how much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages?

Obviously a heck of a lot more than you otherwise you wouldn't be making these absurd statements. But you don't need me, there's plenty of objective proof out there if you choose to seek it out.

Noise is an easy one to measure. There are certain design parameters provable by SCIENCE that allow good phono stage designers to know what can and can't yield a quieter phono stage. And that's just a start.

Any half deaf vinyl enthusiast can tell you that the best phono stages are not found in receivers.

 

[John Parks]

Even when FM was king any manufacturer that made a receiver had a superior model that was an integrated amp with a separate tuner. There are hundreds of examples out there. The integrated usually had superior everything internally vs the receiver. Times have not changed that dramatically to alter this business model.

Not only that, most of the stand alone tuners out there have always been dramatically better than the tuners available in the comparable receiver of that brand. But both were surely better than the poor excuse for a Tuner that is found in AVRs today.

And I'm not even getting into phono stages if they still even put them in there. I know my Denon 3803 has one but it is terrible.

Receivers have always been and still are a compromise. Why would someone buy a receiver over an integrated if they don't need all the extra features? I know I wouldn't trade filter capacitance, quality heatsinks, more robust outputs and reduced complexity for features I don't need or want. Sure, if I need to run video through it I'll get a receiver, if not- why?

I challenge anyone to go to the bottom of the page in the link below and look at the tuners in the rankings. Then find me a receiver from the same manufacturer (or any manufacturer then or now) that has an equivalent tuner. (especially the higher ranked tuners). Or find the matching integrated and show me the comparable receiver that is better.

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/standings.html

Usually, as goes the reduced tuner quality in these receivers (all-in one units) so do the amp sections and everything else in there. BTW when these tuners were made the Receiver was king (at least in America) so the sales volume/cost argument I hear so often about AVRs is a moot point.

Are there isolated unscrupulous examples out there? Sure, but that is not the norm.

Thanks for the link as I think it is super interesting! It was neat seeing the comparisons evolve and how the Kenwood stayed on top wile others were supplanted (except when the Accuphase came along).

Tuners, phono stages (and turntables/carts) and tape decks (not digital) are probably some of easiest - behind loudspakers, of course - pieces of equipment to quantify differences in specs, performance and sound quality because everything remains in the analog domain and there quite a few variables. Sure, it can be argued that a tuner, like an AB amplifier, should be designed to a certain spec and sound/perform exactly like the next, but, in my experience, is rarely the case. Anyway, I have been casually on the lookout for a tuner because some OTA stations (WRR in DFW, for example - they do not use compression in their classical broadcasts) sound better than their digital counterparts. Heck, I would buy a tuner for WRR alone!

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

No, you're not relying on science because science can clearly tell you which Tuners or Phono stage will outperform within the audible spectrum. You are just choosing to look the other way.

Yes, I'm relying on science because when listening to sound sighted, cognitive bias in our brain fools us. If differences are proven to be there blind, then the differences are usually due to increased volume. The volume was not level-matched before the listening test began.

Obviously a heck of a lot more than you otherwise you wouldn't be making these absurd statements. But you don't need me, there's plenty of objective proof out there if you choose to seek it out.

Noise is an easy one to measure. There are certain design parameters provable by SCIENCE that allow good phono stage designers to know what can and can't yield a quieter phono stage. And that's just a start.

Any half deaf vinyl enthusiast can tell you that the best are not found in receivers.

How much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages? Give numerical examples of brands and models.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

....and how the Kenwood stayed on top wile others were supplanted (except when the Accuphase came along).

Anybody can come up with those results through bias. I could pick a favorite tuner among all those listed, then perform the 'shootout' and make sure my favorite tuner always won. It would be very ego-gratifying.

 

[<eargiant]

Yes, I'm relying on science because when listening to sound sighted, cognitive bias in our brain fools us. If differences are proven to be there blind, then the differences are usually due to increased volume. The volume was not level-matched before the listening test began.

How much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages? Give numerical examples of brands and models.

Good lord, the science I was referring to doesn't listen, it measures. And you can rest assured that it can measure the added noise that even a half-deaf person can hear in an inferior phono stage. Like those found in receivers.

If you can't hear (blindfolded or not) the extreme level of hiss & hum differences (level matched) between the basic and the more elaborate phono stages (that are never found in receivers),nothing and I mean nothing I write, list or tell you here is going to change anything. So why feed the troll? Besides, I am fairly confident that you don't listen to vinyl or tuners so what is the point of wasting more time with you?

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Good lord, the science I was referring to doesn't listen, it measures. And you can rest assured that it can measure what even a half-deaf person can hear in a phono stage.

If you can't hear (blindfolded or not) the extreme level of hiss & hum differences (level matched) between basic and more elaborate phono stages never found in receivers, nothing and I mean nothing I write, list or tell you here is going to change anything. Besides, I am fairly confident that you don't listen to vinyl or tuners so what is the point of wasting more time with you?

How much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages? Give numerical examples of brands and models.

 

[killdozzer]

I'm out. This is not what I had in mind.

Sounds good. I'm sure some people will like that.

I hope you didn't snub me like this because I bothered you. If so, I'm sorry. Perhaps some other time, some other thread.

 

[<eargiant]

Thanks for the link as I think it is super interesting! It was neat seeing the comparisons evolve and how the Kenwood stayed on top wile others were supplanted (except when the Accuphase came along).

Tuners, phono stages (and turntables/carts) and tape decks (not digital) are probably some of easiest - behind loudspakers, of course - pieces of equipment to quantify differences in specs, performance and sound quality because everything remains in the analog domain and there quite a few variables. Sure, it can be argued that a tuner, like an AB amplifier, should be designed to a certain spec and sound/perform exactly like the next, but, in my experience, is rarely the case. Anyway, I have been casually on the lookout for a tuner because some OTA stations (WRR in DFW, for example - they do not use compression in their classical broadcasts) sound better than their digital counterparts. Heck, I would buy a tuner for WRR alone!

Have you ever seen anything like this??? I mean even phono stages! Now we're supposed to believe that all phono stages sound the same and if they don't it's all in our heads... LOL!

Don't believe that loud hiss and hum you're hearing in one stage unless you can prove to me that you measured it and the noise is higher than the barely audible hiss in the other stage! For godness sake we're talking phono stages here!! Noise differences are VERY audible. Especially when comparing a well designed stage vs a basic one that was put into a receiver as an afterthought.

I wonder if some people here have to get the infrared heat sensor to confirm that the pan on the stove that just burned them is hotter than the cold pan in the cupboard. Some things are obvious folks, no need to over-complicate.

I won't even dignify these, beyond absurd, gaslighting comments and insinuations with any further responses.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Have you ever seen anything like this??? I mean even phono stages! Now we're supposed to believe that all phono stages sound the same and if they don't it's all in our heads... LOL!

I won't even dignify these beyond absurd gaslighting comments with any further responses.

Build a strawman. I never said that.

You have not answered my question.

Again, how much experience do you have objectively testing tuners and phono stages? Give numerical examples of brands and models.

 

[PENG]

I tried the Sonica and made some comments in this thread:

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/external-dac-pick-one.107601/page-3#post-1239280

I ended up sending it back due to an unacceptable turn-off thump which I couldn't get rid of, and I found the phone app to have very poor responsiveness for use as a remote volume control. The SQ of the Sonica when everything was set properly and in stasis seemed to be the equal of the Benchmark. I was disappointed that the Sonica was unacceptable, seeing as it was only US$799. I considered leaving it powered up all the time to negate the thump problem, but that isn't a good idea in an area that gets some rather impressive thunderstorms. The Sonica did have an IR sensor, so a programmable IR remote could be used, but in the end the Sonica's weaknesses frustrated me, so I sent it back, and ordered the DAC3-L, which is flawless for my use in every way. (And well it should be, at nearly three times the price.)

Yeah we covered that almost a year ago.