Can a High End Receiver compete with High End Separates

[3db]

The issue is not just about SQ, although I believe it is an issue. As I have stated often, the whole concept of a receiver is a terrible idea. The more complex the processing and the more amps that are shoe horned into one case, the worse the idea becomes. OK you can use preouts. However you have multiple amps wasting electricity pulling significant quiescent current and therefore power generating heat. Not good.

So the end result of receivers is more heat production with definite long term reliability consequences.

The heat generation is significant. With separates the pre/processor will run very cool, newer ones cooler than older ones. It also allows you to purchase solid reliable long pasting power amplification.

Then we come to the issue of obsolescence. I'm on my fourth generation of pre/pro right now after 13 years, but I still have my same power amps.

In installation a lot of attention has to be paid to air circulation, including spacing and added fans.

I have recently installed a couple of systems where pre/pros and power amps are in relatively confined quarters.

Here is a new in wall system 3.1 with passive TL sub.

Total amp power is 1000 watts all channels driven.

Now I have placed four fans in the equipment cases under thermostatic control of four judiciously placed temp. probes. Temperature is displayed in the control panel.

The temperature of all the spaces is seldom more than 2 degrees C above the room ambient temperature. The largest rise I have seen is 4 C above ambient when pushing it hard. None of the fans have yet come on.

Now no receiver would deliver that kind of robust power into four ohm loads (All are 4 ohm). Even if working at lower power, I'm certain those spaces would be much above ambient, and the fans would be running a good deal of the time, if not all of the time. I'm not even sure that design/layout using a receiver would even be sensible or practical. This issue has to have a bearing on reliability and replacement rate. Every solid sate device has a time temperature curve. The higher the operating temperature the shorter the life of the components will be.

By the way the other relatively confined system has had the same result and the fans are yet to come on.

The downside is economic. However if people were sensible and opted for separates then the cost of a pre/pro would obviously be lower than receivers. Owners would then invest in much longer lived power amps. So costs over time I believe would be substantially less.

So in essence this lower quality receiver option is driven by consumer behavior, which I believe to be fundamentally misguided.

These are just some of the reasons I do not purchase or use receivers and never will.

I disagree with your entire post TLS. My Yamaha RX-V1500 and RX-V1900 were both purchased used. The 1500 which is pushing over 15 years old is working flawlessly. It can get hot if you dont give it enough room for airflow. I tried this by covering only a small portion of its top vents with a bluray player and it hot. But make no mistake. Seperates will also overheat with inadequate ventilation.
I agree with you that heat is the enemy in electronics longevity. Other than Onkyo whose thermal engineering results were less than stellar on a few models, I would say that AVRs in general have been every bit as reliable as separates. There is enough proof out on the Internet to prove this.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

actually what you have named is pretty much 'middle of the road' or the low side of 'high end'. Not that they are bad, just the opposite, actually very good ! In that category I'd add Rogue Audio as well.

High end - Accuphase, Audio Research, Boulder, MBL, D'Agostino, PASS, Esoteric, Lamm, Plinius, to name but a few that I've listened to over the years.
I'll also add Technics, especially the SE-R1.

I should have said “under $9K” since the MSRP of those Luxman, Marantz, and Yamaha integrated amps are about $8K.

 

[davidscott]

actually what you have named is pretty much 'middle of the road' or the low side of 'high end'. Not that they are bad, just the opposite, actually very good ! In that category I'd add Rogue Audio as well.

High end - Accuphase, Audio Research, Boulder, MBL, D'Agostino, PASS, Esoteric, Lamm, Plinius, to name but a few that I've listened to over the years.
I'll also add Technics, especially the SE-R1.

And GAS back in the day...

 

[lovinthehd]

So add some cooling to an avr, easier and cheaper and takes up less room than separates. I have amps that are quite old, but they're only 2ch so of limited use/fit for my rack in a multich system. AVR with a bit of cooling reduces boxes and increases reliability....good enough for me as well as more cost effective. YMMV.

 

[bnobre69]

actually what you have named is pretty much 'middle of the road' or the low side of 'high end'. Not that they are bad, just the opposite, actually very good ! In that category I'd add Rogue Audio as well.

High end - Accuphase, Audio Research, Boulder, MBL, D'Agostino, PASS, Esoteric, Lamm, Plinius, to name but a few that I've listened to over the years.
I'll also add Technics, especially the SE-R1.

I'm sorry for not beeing able to reply individual to all of you but i've seen some posts with questions that i would like to adress. One user tell us that that are more high end brands than marantz or onkyo, i agree and to be honest i don't know much about the most esoteric brands.. but lets talk about accuphase, i get the feeling that you always overpay because of brand name.. I know it's good and has very quality components but i can't seem to figure out why i've seen an accuphase stereo integrated amp costing 4k used, when we were told during decades that to better achieve audio quality and better results we should go separates! I mean, i think it's almost contraditory to a brand that excels in separates to build an integrated amp with a very large price tag... if in the past i would only consider separates, these days and mostly because i see brands like hagel and others with some high end stereo integrated amps i think that this is no longer the case, if a manufacturer bulids a integrated amp that costs as much or more than the separates solution he is almost stating that you can have the same thing in one box... And looking at the bench tests on the marantz 8012 and watching it's built, a large toroidal, all individual channels amplified, and then looking at the bench measurements we can get a true ideia.. i am starting to convince myself that if you don't have any special requeriments in power and speaker impedance, a high end receiver from a good brand will do the job and you probably couldn't tell wich were wich if you were in a blind test...

I would take a flagship AVR from Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, or Sony any day over any Onkyo.

People didn't really spend $4K on some Onkyo products, did they?

$2500 for an Onkyo 80-watt stereo amp? Really?

No, i didn't bought it new.. It was a very good deal.

 

[PENG]

I'm sorry for not beeing able to reply individual to all of you but i've seen some posts with questions that i would like to adress. One user tell us that that are more high end brands than marantz or onkyo, i agree and to be honest i don't know much about the most esoteric brands.. but lets talk about accuphase, i get the feeling that you always overpay because of brand name.. I know it's good and has very quality components but i can't seem to figure out why i've seen an accuphase stereo integrated amp costing 4k used, when we were told during decades that to better achieve audio quality and better results we should go separates! I mean, i think it's almost contraditory to a brand that excels in separates to build an integrated amp with a very large price tag... if in the past i would only consider separates, these days and mostly because i see brands like hagel and others with some high end stereo integrated amps i think that this is no longer the case, if a manufacturer bulids a integrated amp that costs as much or more than the separates solution he is almost stating that you can have the same thing in one box... And looking at the bench tests on the marantz 8012 and watching it's built, a large toroidal, all individual channels amplified, and then looking at the bench measurements we can get a true ideia.. i am starting to convince myself that if you don't have any special requeriments in power and speaker impedance, a high end receiver from a good brand will do the job and you probably couldn't tell wich were wich if you were in a blind test...


No, i didn't bought it new.. It was a very good deal.

In theory, all else being equal separates > integrated>2ch receivers>AVR/AVC. In practice, if one hears with ears not eyes, a mid range av receiver such as the sr7012, avr-x3500h, rx-a1080 will do just as good if it exceeds your power requirements

An often neglected fact is the importance of the quality of the media source. Nice recordings will sound great even with a good entry level system, better than poor to average recording quality source on a super high end system.

 

[Pogre]

i am starting to convince myself that if you don't have any special requeriments in power and speaker impedance, a high end receiver from a good brand will do the job and you probably couldn't tell wich were wich if you were in a blind test...

Bingo. You'll find quite a few people who post here pretty much share that opinion with you.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I disagree with your entire post TLS.

I see both perspectives. I agree with Mark that AVRs are fundamentally a bad engineering idea, though I hold my nose and use one (a Marantz NR1607) as a pre-pro, because buying a dedicated pre-pro makes absolutely no financial sense in a modest HT system like ours. The Marantz cost $500 shipped, has great video and audio performance (in the context of videos, which almost always have completely contrived audio), and has a well-designed remote, unlike the cheap Outlaw pre-pro I was using for the same price. The Marantz does dissipate a lot of heat (and that's without the amp channels disconnected, and in full ECO mode), just like Mark notes, but a couple of little fans cool the cabinet compartment it's in. If I cared as much as Mark does about HT, I'd use a dedicated pre-pro too, but I don't. My HT is 2-channel, I use a separate power amp, and I don't even use a sub or a center. I know, I should have gone extinct 65 million years ago with the rest of my relatives.

(Editorial comment - with the exception of projection systems with large screens, I've never experienced a good HT system that benefited from a center speaker. Frankly, I think they do more harm than good.)

While holding my nose tightly, when friends and colleagues ask me for advice about HT systems I always recommend AVRs. I asked one friend, who told me he was looking for really great sound quality, what were typical of the movies he watched. His answer was the Fast and Furious series. Sigh. Now if he said videos of the Berlin Philharmonic on YouTube and he used some really awesome and relatively inefficient L/R speakers I might have a different answer, but I recommended Marantz and Yamaha AVRs.

Economics almost always wins, and AVRs win the economics case, big time. Even I had to submit, and I'm a separates advocate.

 

[Mikado463]

all good arguments gents but I won't be going away from my separates in my 2 channel rig anytime soon. Part of my reason is that for years I listened through planars / stats (di-poles) and very few AVR's could compete with quality separates IMO. Bottom line is if you have an AVR setup that satisfies your needs and ears, all the more power to you !

 

[Alex2507]

a mid range av receiver such as the sr7012, avr-x3500h, rx-a1080 will do just as good if it exceeds your power requirements

... and if not: huge monoblocks with battery cables for bi-wiring.

 

[Mikado463]

a mid range av receiver such as the sr7012, avr-x3500h, rx-a1080 will do just as good if it exceeds your power requirements

and they're in lies the rub, defining an AVR's power. measuring power into a simple resistive load is not the same as a reactive load. But I will agree that if ones true power requirements for their speakers, impedance swings, current demands combined room / acoustic anomalies are accounted for then you should be good.

 

[M Code]

Another argument against separate components is the space they take up... In today's average HT system install there is limited space so the less occupied the more satisfied the wife is..
There are definite performance advantages of separate HT components but then more $ are required...

Just my $0.02...

 

[PENG]

and they're in lies the rub, defining an AVR's power. measuring power into a simple resistive load is not the same as a reactive load. But I will agree that if ones true power requirements for their speakers, impedance swings, current demands combined room / acoustic anomalies are accounted for then you should be good.

I am talking about measured power, by reputable reviewers/labs such as Gene's and I did say "exceed", and yes impedance swings, current demands accounted for, okay then? People familiar with my posts would probably know I never go by advertised power specs, and power consumption figures etc., unless the test conditions/standards are clearly specified, then may be....

 

[PENG]

No need to choose or argue, nice to have both, compare/measure them and enjoy them..

 

[Mikado463]

I am talking about measured power, by reputable reviewers/labs such as Gene's and I did say "exceed", and yes impedance swings, current demands accounted for, okay then? People familiar with my posts would probably know I never go by advertised power specs, and power consumption figures etc., unless the test conditions/standards are clearly specified, then may be....

alright kid, don't get your panties in a bind !

 

[HTfreak2004]

The only reason I can see for separates vs AVR is to utilize dedicated power supply’s with independent power from the wall instead of one power cord to service an AVR.

Any AVR worth buying in my book should as a minimum offer the ability to use an external amp later if I should wish to.

Now if you don’t see yourself wanting that feature ever than by all means look the other way and make no excuses for lack of that feature later!

I chose separates and still use the same ones for 15 years. Unfortunately this industry changes its electronics as often as we change our socks but such is life.

I doubt many of us will hear much in the way of sound quality assuming HT application but I would second guess 2.0 audio especially if using true full range mains. That being said the more serious one is the more likely each full range speaker has its own dedicated amp!

For any doubters here take a good look at your high powered subwoofer and if you would prefer the bass output of your speakers that can only play with authority to 45 hz over your sub that can reach well under 20 hz than ask yourself what the hell were you thinking when you purchased your sub? (Dedication/amplification)

People suffer from a need for approval from others to feel their choice was good enough. For years I thought wow my dad has a great system. Then I purchased my system and my dad came over for dinner.

We listened to music, watched some movie clips and trailers. He walked away inspired about HT again and I knew I had earned my name HTfreak

He never “felt” the visceral impact of a real subwoofer before( some boom yes) but house shaking not even close! He also admitted that he hadn’t taken the time to actually place any of his speakers in suitable spots for great sound stage imaging. It’s all in good fun really. My biggest fan for my HT is myself.

So if your truly satisfied with an AVR setup that’s wonderful. I could buy a decent not flagship model and mate it to my external amp taking full advantage of DTS master audio or Dolby Atmos, but in the end I have never once felt my current setup is underwhelming and most of the time that’s at -20 from reference!

There are certainly valid reasons for AVRs rather pre/pro and vice versa but mostly for 2 ch in my opinion. HT is really not a factor even for mid level products!

 

[PENG]

This thread seems like a variation of do amps sound the same or not , that by nature would/could go on forever but I am ready to retire.., actually only posted because I thought it was a thread about something else.. Like Pogre alluded to, it may still be fun to watch though..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

While I do not believe there is a significant difference in sound quality (assuming he AVR has adequate power for the speakers),the concept of spreading out the electronics to maintain a lower temperature is pretty irrefutable logic. I add a fan for my AVR to compensate for having everything packed in one case, I believe this keeps the operating temperature well below what a typical AVR would see. However, if separate pre-amps were not so expensive, I'd follow your example!

I think everyone can see the theoretical benefit of spreading out the electronics to maintain a lower operating temperature.

What I don't understand is that for some people, this seems to only apply exclusively to AVR, but not to Subwoofers and Speakers with plate amps crammed inside them.

If it's good to separate amps from the AVR, isn't it also theoretically good to separate amps from the speakers and subs?

So it seems to me that most people are just trying to justify what they currently own.

It's okay for me to cram amps inside speakers and subs because I do that.

It's not okay to cram amps inside AVRs because I don't do that.

It's okay to put amps inside a preamp and call it a "Separates" Integrated Amp, but it's not okay to put amps inside an AVR.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

... i can't seem to figure out why i've seen an accuphase stereo integrated amp costing 4k used, when we were told during decades that to better achieve audio quality and better results we should go separates! I mean, i think it's almost contraditory to a brand that excels in separates to build an integrated amp with a very large price tag... if in the past i would only consider separates, these days and mostly because i see brands like hagel and others with some high end stereo integrated amps i think that this is no longer the case, if a manufacturer bulids a integrated amp that costs as much or more than the separates solution he is almost stating that you can have the same thing in one box...

So let's see if I got this correctly.

1. You don't think that Integrated Amps (some costs $8K or more) are truly "Separates" because they have built-in Amps inside the Preamp?

I think many people would agree with that because they think "separates" should mean that the Amps are SEPARATE from the Preamp.

2. Since we have high-end and high quality NON-Separates (high-end Integrated Amps with built-in Amps, high-end speakers with built-in Amps, high-end subwoofers with built-in Amps), it's also perfectly okay to have AVRs with built-in Amps since it's okay to have built-in amps for everything else?

And I think many people would also agree with that logic. Let's not have double standards here.

 

[HTfreak2004]

So let's see if I got this correctly.

1. You don't think that Integrated Amps (some costs $8K or more) are truly "Separates" because they have built-in Amps inside the Preamp?

I think many people would agree with that because they think "separates" should mean that the Amps are SEPARATE from the Preamp.

2. Since we have high-end and high quality NON-Separates (high-end Integrated Amps with built-in Amps, high-end speakers with built-in Amps, high-end subwoofers with built-in Amps), it's also perfectly okay to have AVRs with built-in Amps since it's okay to have built-in amps for everything else?

And I think many people would also agree with that logic. Let's not have double standards here.

Separates should not include subs and speakers with built in amps for comparison. All amps are mates to some speaker.

There major differences between integrated and separates is more than one power cable to the wall! Each component has its own dedicated power if you arranged it that way on a single breaker!

It the end it’s all about preference. But don’t make a false statement that a powered sub/speaker is the same as an AVR because that’s BS to call the spade a spade!