The Ultimate Battle : Stereo Performance of AVRs ?

[Jon AA]

do home amps hav auro 3d??

Mine does. Nearly all mid-high and above level processors are coming with it. DSU (with center spread option) can be good as well. JBL's new processors will have all that plus Logic16 which might be better than all of them.

 

[Kingnoob]

I have four avrs that don't suck for music, must have gotten lucky or you just don't have any experience? I replaced 2ch separates with those avrs, too. 2ch music can be matrixed well altho it may depend on what you listen to.

Thought you got rid of the stupid phone/tapatalk ad?

Ahh maybe it turned itself back on , I just don’t have good enough speakers to use the pure audio mode on my onkyo 818, a very obsolete receiver no atmos or 3d auro . Nothingness and only 7.2
Glad to here I don’t need a 2channel amp for music .
My onkyo sounds good for music but the treble needs lowered it can be overpowering. My subwoofer is more of a theater sub.

 

[lovinthehd]

Ahh maybe it turned itself back on , I just don’t have good enough speakers to use the pure audio mode on my onkyo 818.
Glad to here I don’t need a 2channel amp for music .

Nothing wrong with the 818 for music, altho maybe the all ch stereo mode wouldn't be best tho....your speakers could always be an issue of course, or placement, or room treatment. Ever play with the active crossover feature of that avr?

Doubt it turned itself back on...at least never happened to me.

 

[Kingnoob]

Nothing wrong with the 818 for music, altho maybe the all ch stereo mode wouldn't be best tho....your speakers could always be an issue of course, or placement, or room treatment. Ever play with the active crossover feature of that avr?

Doubt it turned itself back on...at least never happened to me.

Yes that’s the mode I used , what’s active crossover ??? Is it already set to on normally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lovinthehd]

Yes that’s the mode I used , what’s active crossover ??? Is it already set to on normally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think all ch stereo for 2ch content is just to be avoided mostly. Good for parties with lots of bodies perhaps. With an active crossover you can do some actual (active) bi-amping....maybe useful with a diy speaker project (so as not to have to use a passive crossover).

 

[Verdinut]

Yep, too bad we got stuck with the limitations of 2ch audio....I blame vinyl

You can't blame vinyl because of it's limitations. In the 1960's, there were some quadraphonic cartridges and quadraphonic vinyls but 2 channel stereo had launched not too long before and the timing wasn't right I guess. I don't recall having heard them but I heard quadraphonic reel tape in the 1960's and that of course was abandoned too. But in my opinion, neither of those products came close to the performance of the SACD , DVD-A or DTS HD Master Audio on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.

 

[lovinthehd]

You can't blame vinyl because of it's limitations. In the 1960's, there were some quadraphonic cartridges and quadraphonic vinyls but 2 channel stereo had launched not too long before and the timing wasn't right I guess. I don't recall having heard them but I heard quadraphonic reel tape in the 1960's and that of course was abandoned too. But in my opinion, neither of those products came close to the performance of the SACD , DVD-A or DTS HD Master Audio on DVDs and Blu-ray discs.

In a way it is both the medium and the gear to use it with, and until digital came along I think did dictate the use of 2ch to a great extent. Quad was never very good via vinyl in any case, tape perhaps (but who had multi track tape playback capabilities in those days either).

 

[killdozzer]

This multi-channel experience is not a surround-sound one where sound seems to imitate from behind my listening chair.

This is something I once wanted to talk about with people in this forum; is your system supposed to virtually place you in the middle of the orchestra, like you're being one of the players or is your LP still virtually in the audience of the event the recording of which you're listening to and your system only makes a more noticeable space difference between the first and, let's say, third row of musicians?

Personally I don't like either, but I'm trying to understand the goal multich crowd tries to achieve.

The former I mentioned, the immersion, I really have a thing against and think it is an actual problem, but that would be a long discussion not to be had here.

Latter I simply don't care about as much as you do and wouldn't bother with. I don't want to provoke, but to explain my position, it just sounds silly to me. As silly as saying my understanding of this painting, for example:

is lacking, but not due to my humble understanding of art in general, but because the medium prevents me from precisely assessing how far away the pompous looking black coat, black haired figure to the right, really is.

Point being, I do think your system images better than mine, I just don't see what exactly do you think you're getting from it.

As far as vinyl goes, I do see it as looking at the above picture through a stained glass, and that surely won't do. I see it that way because it adds non existing noise and that noise doesn't do anything for me. One might argue that vinyl could be seen as an impressionist painting and I do see it that way but only when an artists adds it for effect like on Odelay by Beck (adds it to a digital file).

On the other hand, you do realise that when this painting was painted the space wasn't all that 2D and there was rustling of the fabric of gowns and some whisper... And that is all gone because these art producers want to present 2D paintings as means to enjoy art.

Also, the numbers game is not on our side (and I include myself here for going after hifi sound). On the biggest rise are all the: single BT wireless speaker, small and portable as obligatory, YouTube as the only source, smart phones and ear budds (which can sound good, but let's not attribute any multich. properties to that, still today you put a 1k earphones and the music is coming from the split center of your brain),playing music of your laptop/mac book, playing it of your smart phone but with no headphones - over the "speaker", TV over a sound bar and a sub etc.

In house multich. is only on the rise when compared to 2ch stereo, but as a part of a hifi-home-audio, I think it's still on a downward spiral. I think we can still ask the question will multich. mixing pay off?

LATER EDIT: @sterling shoote : in your comment, I read "seems to imitate" as "seems to emanate". I hope I wasn't wrong to do so. If I was, please tell me.

 

[lovinthehd]

This is something I once wanted to talk about with people in this forum; is your system supposed to virtually place you in the middle of the orchestra, like you're being one of the players or is your LP still virtually in the audience of the event the recording of which you're listening to and your system only makes a more noticeable space difference between the first and, let's say, third row of musicians?

Personally I don't like either, but I'm trying to understand the goal multich crowd tries to achieve.

The former I mentioned, the immersion, I really have a thing against and think it is an actual problem, but that would be a long discussion not to be had here.

Latter I simply don't care about as much as you do and wouldn't bother with. I don't want to provoke, but to explain my position, it just sounds silly to me. As silly as saying my understanding of this painting, for example:
View attachment 31760
is lacking, but not due to my humble understanding of art in general, but because the medium prevents me from precisely assessing how far away the pompous looking black coat, black haired figure to the right, really is.

Point being, I do think your system images better than mine, I just don't see what exactly do you think you're getting from it.

As far as vinyl goes, I do see it as looking at the above picture through a stained glass, and that surely won't do. I see it that way because it adds non existing noise and that noise doesn't do anything for me. One might argue that vinyl could be seen as an impressionist painting and I do see it that way but only when an artists adds it for effect like on Odelay by Beck (adds it to a digital file).

On the other hand, you do realise that when this painting was painted the space wasn't all that 2D and there was rustling of the fabric of gowns and some whisper... And that is all gone because these art producers want to present 2D paintings as means to enjoy art.

Also, the numbers game is not on our side (and I include myself here for going after hifi sound). On the biggest rise are all the: single BT wireless speaker, small and portable as obligatory, YouTube as the only source, smart phones and ear budds (which can sound good, but let's not attribute any multich. properties to that, still today you put a 1k earphones and the music is coming from the split center of your brain),playing music of your laptop/mac book, playing it of your smart phone but with no headphones - over the "speaker", TV over a sound bar and a sub etc.

In house multich. is only on the rise when compared to 2ch stereo, but as a part of a hifi-home-audio, I think it's still on a downward spiral. I think we can still ask the question will multich. mixing pay off?

LATER EDIT: @sterling shoote : in your comment, I read "seems to imitate" as "seems to emanate". I hope I wasn't wrong to do so. If I was, please tell me.

It's more about the way the recording was made than your gear/listening position particularly as to trying to picture some orchestra's seating arrangements....

 

[killdozzer]

It's more about the way the recording was made than your gear/listening position particularly as to trying to picture some orchestra's seating arrangements....

Meaning there was more than two channels when it was recorded so there should be more than two when played?

 

[Jon AA]

is your system supposed to virtually place you in the middle of the orchestra, like you're being one of the players or is your LP still virtually in the audience of the event the recording of which you're listening to and your system only makes a more noticeable space difference between the first and, let's say, third row of musicians?

Entirely dependent upon the recording. Here's an example of the former:

That's the microphone array in the middle. I don't really care for that style all that much.

Here's an example of the latter:

Recorded from the conductor's standpoint (you can see the 9-mic array right in front of her). That's the style I really like. BTW, both of those come from the same album, they simply chose to do some songs one way and some songs the other.

Latter I simply don't care about as much as you do and wouldn't bother with. I don't want to provoke, but to explain my position, it just sounds silly to me.

There's nothing wrong with that. Many are content to listen to Beethoven from a 2" bluetooth speaker. But that is sort of contrary to the goals of most who pursue this hobby--always looking for a "better way" to "experience the art."

Point being, I do think your system images better than mine, I just don't see what exactly do you think you're getting from it.

Here's what I know I get from it--a better way to experience the art. All my Auro and Atmos music blu-rays also have a stereo track right on them, so it's very easy to switch back and forth in real time. When I close my eyes and listen to the stereo track, it sounds like a very good recording being played on a very good stereo through a couple good speakers.

When I switch to the immersive track, it no longer sounds like that at all. It sounds like I'm there, sitting right behind the conductor. All those same things 2-channel Audiophiles ooh and ahhh about when reviewing uber expensive gear--the speakers "disappearing," the "suspension of disbelief," sounding as if the musicians are actually there in front of you...that's it exactly. Only it does it much better.

It doesn't just make the speakers disappear, but your walls, your entire room--your room now no longer sounds like your room, but the concert hall in which it was recorded. The ambient reflections you hear from different directions that tell your brain "you're really there" simply can't be reproduced by two speakers reflecting around in your room, even with all the post-processing studio magic applied. Actual recordings of those sounds with actual microphones played back through actual speakers from the correct direction just can't be replaced/replicated with two speakers.

If you haven't actually experienced a really good demo of such a recording on a good system, I highly encourage you to keep an open mind about it until you do so. You might like it a lot more than you think. If you're the kind of person that would appreciate sitting in the front of a concert hall with a live orchestra in front of you as a "better way to experience the art" than listening to the same material on a bluetooth speaker, you'll probably appreciate this.

No, it's not the same as being there obviously, but it's significantly closer than listening with two speakers in my experience.

 

[sterling shoote]

This is something I once wanted to talk about with people in this forum; is your system supposed to virtually place you in the middle of the orchestra, like you're being one of the players or is your LP still virtually in the audience of the event the recording of which you're listening to and your system only makes a more noticeable space difference between the first and, let's say, third row of musicians?

Personally I don't like either, but I'm trying to understand the goal multich crowd tries to achieve.

The former I mentioned, the immersion, I really have a thing against and think it is an actual problem, but that would be a long discussion not to be had here.

Latter I simply don't care about as much as you do and wouldn't bother with. I don't want to provoke, but to explain my position, it just sounds silly to me. As silly as saying my understanding of this painting, for example:
View attachment 31760
is lacking, but not due to my humble understanding of art in general, but because the medium prevents me from precisely assessing how far away the pompous looking black coat, black haired figure to the right, really is.

Point being, I do think your system images better than mine, I just don't see what exactly do you think you're getting from it.

As far as vinyl goes, I do see it as looking at the above picture through a stained glass, and that surely won't do. I see it that way because it adds non existing noise and that noise doesn't do anything for me. One might argue that vinyl could be seen as an impressionist painting and I do see it that way but only when an artists adds it for effect like on Odelay by Beck (adds it to a digital file).

On the other hand, you do realise that when this painting was painted the space wasn't all that 2D and there was rustling of the fabric of gowns and some whisper... And that is all gone because these art producers want to present 2D paintings as means to enjoy art.

Also, the numbers game is not on our side (and I include myself here for going after hifi sound). On the biggest rise are all the: single BT wireless speaker, small and portable as obligatory, YouTube as the only source, smart phones and ear budds (which can sound good, but let's not attribute any multich. properties to that, still today you put a 1k earphones and the music is coming from the split center of your brain),playing music of your laptop/mac book, playing it of your smart phone but with no headphones - over the "speaker", TV over a sound bar and a sub etc.

In house multich. is only on the rise when compared to 2ch stereo, but as a part of a hifi-home-audio, I think it's still on a downward spiral. I think we can still ask the question will multich. mixing pay off?

LATER EDIT: @sterling shoote : in your comment, I read "seems to imitate" as "seems to emanate". I hope I wasn't wrong to do so. If I was, please tell me.

Thanks for making me aware of my misspelling, did not notice. At any rate, what multi-channel delivers is an impression of being closer to the performers, a better seat, if you will. It's deeper and broader. In other words, it's bigger than stereo. That's it. And, it's enough to cause me to prefer it over stereo presentations of same material. The best example I've heard for how dazzling the multi- experience can be is The Seattle Symphony performance of The Firebird. It's available as a FLAC download from Acoustic Sounds. I copied it to a thumb drive to enjoy it gaplessly from my OPPO 205. That's very inconvenient for me but worth it. I highly recommend it.

 

[highfigh]

From Tommy Lee's drum kit.

Unless they shut off the FOH sound, the rest of the band stops playing and he's flying very low, I would imagine the sound from the drums would be pretty weak, by comparison. I don't care how hard he pounds when the rest of the band is playing through the PA. The sound coming from his drums would also be misaligned with the sound from the PA in most locations, too.

 

[highfigh]

If we're not talking about what suffices, but what is an "ass kicking, built like a tank, most clean and stable" amp in the most difficult situations?

This?

 

[sterling shoote]

Here's a sidebar to our discussion. This is a post I made in the Steve Hoffman Music Forum yesterday, responding to notice of it being the 20th anniversary of SACD: I bought a Sony DVP-S9000es back in 2000.It plays DVDs, CDs, and stereo SACDs. I had much trouble acquiring SACDs back then. My first was Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue. I could not discern the stereo SACD layer sounding better in any manner than the CD layer. Also, I could not discern that CDs sounded better from the 9000es than when played from my Sony 55ES CD Player. From that point the Sony DVP-S9000es was for the most part just used to play DVDs. About 6 years ago the Sony's laser went out and although I replaced it, the unit was pretty much eclipsed by a Panasonic BD Player for CDs, and BDs. Everything changed again a little over 2 years ago when I entered the market for a UBD Player, which I exited with the purchase of an OPPO-205. Upon initial use, having connected the OPPO to a Sony TA-P9000ES analog multi-channel preamp, I played the 5.1 layer of the Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue SACD and I was just as they say blown away by it's breath and depth. The OPPO produced better sound from other media too, a lot better with all media. From that very pleasant experience, I now am collecting multi-channel SACDs as I can find them in the music genres I enjoy the most. This has so far yielded the most satisfying experiences with recorded music I have known. I don't know what others think about SACD today; but, if others are experiencing what I am, it seems SACD may be well poised to return from the dead. After all, unlike 20 years ago, all it takes to enjoy stereo and multi-channel SACD today is an inexpensive Sony UBD Player hooked up to a ubiquitous AVR which has HDMI input. One thing though, it seems the "high end" stereo only SACD Players being introduced these days miss the mark, since multi-channel SACD clearly shines over stereo.

 

[highfigh]

Here's a sidebar to our discussion. This is a post I made in the Steve Hoffman Music Forum yesterday, responding to notice of it being the 20th anniversary of SACD: I bought a Sony DVP-S9000es back in 2000.It plays DVDs, CDs, and stereo SACDs. I had much trouble acquiring SACDs back then. My first was Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue. I could not discern the stereo SACD layer sounding better in any manner than the CD layer. Also, I could not discern that CDs sounded better from the 9000es than when played from my Sony 55ES CD Player. From that point the Sony DVP-S9000es was for the most part just used to play DVDs. About 6 years ago the Sony's laser went out and although I replaced it, the unit was pretty much eclipsed by a Panasonic BD Player for CDs, and BDs. Everything changed again a little over 2 years ago when I entered the market for a UBD Player, which I exited with the purchase of an OPPO-205. Upon initial use, having connected the OPPO to a Sony TA-P9000ES analog multi-channel preamp, I played the 5.1 layer of the Miles Davis, Some Kind of Blue SACD and I was just as they say blown away by it's breath and depth. The OPPO produced better sound from other media too, a lot better with all media. From that very pleasant experience, I now am collecting multi-channel SACDs as I can find them in the music genres I enjoy the most. This has so far yielded the most satisfying experiences with recorded music I have known. I don't know what others think about SACD today; but, if others are experiencing what I am, it seems SACD may be well poised to return from the dead. After all, unlike 20 years ago, all it takes to enjoy stereo and multi-channel SACD today is an inexpensive Sony UBD Player hooked up to a ubiquitous AVR which has HDMI input. One thing though, it seems the "high end" stereo only SACD Players being introduced these days miss the mark, since multi-channel SACD clearly shines over stereo.

It's a nit, but I'm going to pick it- the title is 'Kind of Blue'.

That was originally recorded in mono and three channel "stereo", so what you heard was a remaster. Listen to it in mono, to get an idea of the original sound. Even multi-speaker mono is interesting.

https://www.analogplanet.com/content/miles-davis-kind-blue-monophonic-reissue-sonylegacy-analog-planet-exclusive

 

[3db]

Good point , but the death of most brands carrying stereo amps seems to say . Avr is king in sales , even if they suck for music.
Aren’t avr king?? The only way you can get stereo is often separates.
If music is recorded for stereo it’s always going to sound better in that mode then
Surround sound .

On my onkyo I only like music on all channel stereo . Everything else usually sounds buzzard or overly processed, surround and music only mix in a overly big room .
My vote goes to vintage stereo receivers winning this battle as new ones are rarely made or cost a small fortune.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're talking way out of your league and know not of what you prattle on about. Its clear to me from your Onkyo reference that you have no idea how to work a modern AVR. Have you read the manual?

 

[killdozzer]

Thank you all for your answers. I dare say I understand better where you're going with your pursuit.

I did hear a good multichannel, but even so, I'm not stopping there, of course, as I'm not one of those "it's gotta be stereo", I'll always give it a chance and listen to it. Who knows, maybe one day I'll find something I like.

A common feature in your answers is this "like being there" and that's exactly the thing I don't like. For me, and please don't get offended, that's exactly what is gimmicky and silly about it. Being fooled into believing I'm there, again; for me, has nothing to do with art unless we're talking David Copperfield. And the better the illusion is, the more gimmicky for me it is.

That's why @sterling shoote 's post got me interested when he said it's not about surround. Since I try not to be closed-minded, I am always thinking about using multichannel just to "enhance" stereo so to speak. That's why I asked is it merely to do better 3D imaging.

Thank you @Jon AA and @sterling shoote (and I didn't want to correct you, English being my 2nd I was checking myself more than correcting you)

This?

I don't know what that is. But my question was serious and I believe well founded since in these same forums very often we have recomms for adding an amp and very often it is 2ch for L/R. Although it may be clear at the surface, it is our very memebers who don't always hold onto this "AVR is just as good". It does get complicated. I remember once a newb came here asking the same question for millionth time so I offered the first few tips on how an honestly rated Marantz with 110 or 115Wpch/8ohms should drive her speakers with no trouble, but then came an older member and said, no, she should add a stereo power amp.

How, I asked? And it was because of Ohm dipps bellow 4. Then I said my speakers dipp bellow 4Ohms, should I look for more power? Are my speakers "power-hungry", but no was the answer. So, with all our numbers, tests and meassures, you obviously have dipps and dipps.

And really, I'm not stiring the pot. I'm looking for rules to help in simmilar situations. I'm not even a stereo-phile. I couldn't care less is it AVR or 2ch amp. At this time I have a 5.1 AVR that I'm using, but for stereo. But, unless I'm very much mistaking, there should be a simple law-based rule to explain why I don't need more than 75Wpch/8 and that lady did need more than 110, right?

If I can continue with car-analogies; rally cars and formula does outperform your cars even though they don't have Wireless, BT, active suspenssion control, automatic gear shifts, cosy seats, heaters and the rest.

That's what I wanted to hear about; an amp that is merely an amp, nothing more, no gadgets, but you couldn't burden it no matter what you do, at least for home audio. An amp that sees all your need as child's play and could easily outlive you as well.

As oppose to always hearing same ol' talk about honestly rated Marantz AVR that can do everything as good as any amp, but as soon as I recommend it for the first time, and for some ladies living rome, no less, it's a no go! And you have to resort to extra muscle from 2ch.

So, do you know any amps out there that have so much headroom in all divisions that reference level SPL in let's say medium rooms never even brake a sweat and without serious THD raise?

 

[lovinthehd]

Meaning there was more than two channels when it was recorded so there should be more than two when played?

Again, depends on the recording. Multi track recording is pretty common, tho. Matrixing 2ch stuff into multich at home is something else.

 

[Jon AA]

A common feature in your answers is this "like being there" and that's exactly the thing I don't like. For me, and please don't get offended, that's exactly what is gimmicky and silly about it. Being fooled into believing I'm there, again; for me, has nothing to do with art unless we're talking David Copperfield. And the better the illusion is, the more gimmicky for me it is.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's certainly not offensive--this hobby is all about doing what you like, that's all that really matters to you.

Just know your goals are contrary to that of most who like multi-channel music as well as the two channel purists--we're all looking for the most accurate and believable reproduction of the music, a feeling of "being there." In my opinion those who limit themselves to two speakers are trying to get there with one arm tied behind their back, but they're still trying to get to the same place I am.

If that's not your goal, that's fine, but it doesn't necessarily put you in one camp or the other, but outside both camps. You must find the efforts many two channel users go through with equipment, room and setup in order to increase their sense of "being there" are equally as silly.

The amp question is another subject in my opinion. Yes, if you have a large room and power hungry speakers, more amp power might be something you need. There are good amps available from 1 channel to 11 channels and everything in between. They work fine with any mid-level and up AVR that has pre-outs.