Will adding an old Mcintosh Power Amp to my Onkyo AVR enhance stereo sound

[henkeli]

I wish to upgrade my stereo listening music experience.

I am certainly no expert in this technical arena, but my best and most honest advice would be to use...

the 6000f RP klipsch speakers ( highly sensitive speakers), the Onkyo RZ830 AVR (120 watt per channel 2 channel driven), and the marantz UD 7007 cd player

...that you currently already have with you.

This will absolutely solve your dilemma. The one you have with you is 99% of the time the one you should use. If it breaks or if it can't do something specific like play a source format anymore, then that's a different story. But gear-acquisition-syndrome in the face of diminishing returns is no fun at all.

 

[Ramesh47]

Appreciate your views henkeli. You have echoed what most have said. After careful consideration and taking into account what many have advised, I am.giving up on the idea of adding an external amp. From what most have advised, what I have currently as you have also rightly put; seems to be good enough for good stereo sound. Only an upgrade of speakers and further room acoustic correction will help make a significant audible difference. I am very happy with my speakers; and I have already done up my room acoustics. Most have said that adding an external amp based on my current set up would not bring additional benefits. This is good advise cause it saves me some dough. Last thing I wish for is to spend a bomb and have no audible improvement. I will just work on calibrating my speakers and my two sub woofers. Thanks all for helping me out.

 

[Ramesh47]

Yes the advis

Has anyone already said that you don't need any external amp? Just use your AVR.

The Emotiva amp won't make your Klipsch speakers sound any better either.

If the room acoustics is too dead, then remove those panels.

Have you measured your speakers/room with REW?

Yes the advise has been given. I was wondering if there are other views from camps who have heard a significant difference. But its clear that an overwhelming majority feel adding electronics is not a solution and I have accepted the fact. So am dropping the idea of getting an external amp. I am keeping my acoustic panels as it serves a purpose. But have removed the carpet so the sound is more lively and is not over deadened. In terms of room measurements, these were taken by a professional when he fixed the acoustic panels as I am not technically competent. I am also getting someone to help me calibrate my speakers and further calibrate my two subs with a mini dsp. Think there will be a further mesurement of REW then. Tks

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes the advis

Yes the advise has been given. I was wondering if there are other views from camps who have heard a significant difference. But its clear that an overwhelming majority feel adding electronics is not a solution and I have accepted the fact. So am dropping the idea of getting an external amp. I am keeping my acoustic panels as it serves a purpose. But have removed the carpet so the sound is more lively and is not over deadened. In terms of room measurements, these were taken by a professional when he fixed the acoustic panels as I am not technically competent. I am also getting someone to help me calibrate my speakers and further calibrate my two subs with a mini dsp. Think there will be a further mesurement of REW then. Tks

Well, it's more like 50/50 if you are able to get most members involved.

We've done polls before. And it seems like it's usually a 50/50.

 

[Ramesh47]

Well, it's more like 50/50 if you are able to get most members involved.

We've done polls before. And it seems like it's usually a 50/50.

I only see one side of the 50 speaking up though. And if the other 50 remain silent then the 50 speaking up becomes the majority I guess.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I only see one side of the 50 speaking up though. And if the other 50 remain silent then the 50 speaking up becomes the majority I guess.

Here is one example of separates (amps) vs AVRs:

The SEPARATES vs. AVR Thread

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...

forums.audioholics.com

There are other polls over the years. But it usually turns out to be about 50/50.

 

[bombadil]

Key word seems to be "belief"

I was responding to a post stating that an Anthem AVR had "measured" unfavorably compared to other AVRs. Perhaps I should have said that I favor separates because they clearly "measure" better than AVRs. A quick perusal of the charts at ASR will confirm that "belief".

 

[lovinthehd]

I was responding to a post stating that an Anthem AVR had "measured" unfavorably compared to other AVRs. Perhaps I should have said that I favor separates because they clearly "measure" better than AVRs. A quick perusal of the charts at ASR will confirm that "belief".

My comment was more in regards to "You just can't put 5, 7, 11 high quality amp channels into a box with all the other components". Sure you can, and it has been done. Amir's testing so far is limited in any case. It wouldn't surprise me that you might get higher quality with some separates, tho. Often the spec difference is minimal in any case.

 

[PENG]

I was responding to a post stating that an Anthem AVR had "measured" unfavorably compared to other AVRs. Perhaps I should have said that I favor separates because they clearly "measure" better than AVRs. A quick perusal of the charts at ASR will confirm that "belief".

All else being equal, yes, but there are often exceptions. ASR measured two Audio Research amps not long ago, both looked worse than the AVRs tested there except the Anthem MRX520 and NAD T758, those were even worse iirc..in at least one criteria.

 

[bombadil]

All else being equal, yes, but there are often exceptions. ASR measured two Audio Research amps not long ago, both looked worse than the AVRs tested there except the NAD T758 that was even worse iirc..

Indeed they did but both amps were antiques produced in the 90s. They would more realistically be compared to AVRs of that period, not today. It's exciting to see the tech in the AHB-2 and the D class amps, as Gene has said the D amps are the future and with their particular advantages should be well suited for use in AVRs. In my case separates give me flexibility in choosing amplification and better quality DACs typically found in processors. These advantages are most useful for music listening and less so with movies/TV.

 

[PENG]

Indeed they did but both amps were antiques produced in the 90s. They would more realistically be compared to AVRs of that period, not today. It's exciting to see the tech in the AHB-2 and the D class amps, as Gene has said the D amps are the future and with their particular advantages should be well suited for use in AVRs. In my case separates give me flexibility in choosing amplification and better quality DACs typically found in processors. These advantages are most useful for music listening and less so with movies/TV.

That Benchmark amp is near perfect if used in bridged mode for demanding 4 ohm speakers such as the Salon2.

I wouldnt use processor's DAC for two channel music, they don't typically use the best available chips(specs) and are often bottlenecked by the vol control. Most likely not an audible but on paper separate DACs have to the edge.

 

[Edgar Betancourt]

Adding more power is always beneficial. A more powerful amp will deliver higher volume levels within its safe operating parameters and thus with less distortion or clipping. If you like your music loud, always buy the highest amount of power you can. Conversely you can buy very efficient speakers, but the more power mantra always, always applies. Is the amp the most important factor? No the speakers are, however you can buy the best speakers in the market but if they don't have enough power to sparkle, well, they won't!

 

[JerryLove]

Adding more power is always beneficial. A more powerful amp will deliver higher volume levels within its safe operating parameters and thus with less distortion or clipping.

So switching from a 1,000,000 watt amp to a 1,100,000 watt amp will help me power my headphones with less distortion and clipping?

If you like your music loud, always buy the highest amount of power you can.

Hrm... no.

Seriously.

You are sitting on a 96db speaker that you are going to use with 106db peaks... buying a $30k pair of McIntosh 2kw monoblocks makes absolutely no sense.

Yes. I realize that these are extreme examples; but I am responding to statements that are absolutes.

Look at sensitivity, figure out peak listening levels, add some headroom (say.. double the power) and call it a day.

Conversely you can buy very efficient speakers, but the more power mantra always, always applies. Is the amp the most important factor? No the speakers are, however you can buy the best speakers in the market but if they don't have enough power to sparkle, well, they won't!

Very efficient speakers run at reference levels off average receivers (assuming there's nothing really strange about resistance). That's the great thing about such speakers.

 

[Curtdr]

I cannot agree that amps make no difference, as I've heard them myself.

I used to be a skeptic, but there is a different sound signature between, for example, my Pioneer Elite receiver from 2006 and the Marantz sr7015 receiver that I recently compared back to back. Through my speakers (Klipsch Heresy - IV, in this example), there were differences on several counts, even to my 60 year old ears... It's difficult to describe, definitively, but here's a go: the Marantz was "smoother" to the point of being "soft"... the Pioneer maybe has a bit of grain to some, not all, vocals, but has more "punch"... I also noticed the Pioneer was more clear for dialogue when functioning in surround mode. Now, which one is "BETTER" is a whole other question, and not one that can be definitively answered, but through those speakers, in my room, I preferred the Pioneer for the sound that I was after. They're both good. But, I returned the Marantz, and kept the older Pioneer, for these particular speakers. If I was using other speakers, in another room, then my conclusion may have turned out differently.

That said, I did discern a difference in sound character. Chasing better QUALITY by going up further in price though is generally more difficult... the point of diminishing returns hits hard once you're in about $1500 range, maybe even lower.

Interestingly, I'm thinking that an Onkyo, perhaps the new rz50, might "split the difference" between the Marantz and Pioneer, and clean up that ever-so-slight-but-hearable graininess without softening things up too much...

There are tweaks that can be made. But spending $8000 on a McIntosh receiver? I'm sure it'd be super nice, and beautiful to look at and listen too... HOWEVER: Probably be better off going w the Onkyo and putting the $6500 difference into mutual funds, instead, and build financial security, which makes EVERYTHING seem better, lol...

I have discerned differences before, too, with other amps and speakers: my vintage Harmon Kardan certainly sounded different than my vintage Marantz, (which both sounded better, definitely better, than my cheap old Goodwill Sony...) but I sold them both once I heard the little new Marantz nr1200 through the same speakers (Epi 100s, in this case)... and the new nr1200 was less expensive than the vintages, as well... Again, though, that's w my speakers, my ears, my room.

 

[lovinthehd]

I cannot agree that amps make no difference, as I've heard them myself.

I used to be a skeptic, but there is a different sound signature between, for example, my Pioneer Elite receiver from 2006 and the Marantz sr7015 receiver that I recently compared back to back. Through my speakers (Klipsch Heresy - IV, in this example), there were differences on several counts, even to my 60 year old ears... It's difficult to describe, definitively, but here's a go: the Marantz was "smoother" to the point of being "soft"... the Pioneer maybe has a bit of grain to some, not all, vocals, but has more "punch"... I also noticed the Pioneer was more clear for dialogue when functioning in surround mode. Now, which one is "BETTER" is a whole other question, and not one that can be definitively answered, but through those speakers, in my room, I preferred the Pioneer for the sound that I was after. They're both good. But, I returned the Marantz, and kept the older Pioneer, for these particular speakers. If I was using other speakers, in another room, then my conclusion may have turned out differently.

That said, I did discern a difference in sound character. Chasing better QUALITY by going up further in price though is generally more difficult... the point of diminishing returns hits hard once you're in about $1500 range, maybe even lower.

Interestingly, I'm thinking that an Onkyo, perhaps the new rz50, might "split the difference" between the Marantz and Pioneer, and clean up that ever-so-slight-but-hearable graininess without softening things up too much...

There are tweaks that can be made. But spending $8000 on a McIntosh receiver? I'm sure it'd be super nice, and beautiful to look at and listen too... HOWEVER: Probably be better off going w the Onkyo and putting the $6500 difference into mutual funds, instead, and build financial security, which makes EVERYTHING seem better, lol...

I have discerned differences before, too, with other amps and speakers: my vintage Harmon Kardan certainly sounded different than my vintage Marantz, (which both sounded better, definitely better, than my cheap old Goodwill Sony...) but I sold them both once I heard the little new Marantz nr1200 through the same speakers (Epi 100s, in this case)... and the new nr1200 was less expensive than the vintages, as well... Again, though, that's w my speakers, my ears, my room.

Describe your comparison setup especially the blind, quick switching and level matched parts....

 

[Curtdr]

Describe your comparison setup especially the blind, quick switching and level matched parts....

Listen for a while, switch it out, listen for a while, back and forth a bit over the course of a few weeks. Various volumes, soft to loud, etc, various music and film. I don't have a laboratory. I didn't do scientific double blind testing. I'm only reporting what I discerned, my recent experience.

The Pioneer Elite came off as more lively, the Marantz more subdued. I was looking for lively, with the Heresy-4, so I went with the Elite.

The two amps are both in the same ballpark, costwise. The Elite went for $1500 list in 2006, the sr7015 about $2800 list today.

I didn't start out biased against the sr7015, and in fact had intended it to be my new central amp, but after my trial period, I concluded that I preferred the sound signature of the older Elite. I wasn't alone in noticing the difference, either. A non-audiophile friend also noticed, immediately in his case, and commented on it.

The new nr1200 vs the vintage (professionally recapped, etc.) Marantz was closer to "instant switching" but the difference was utterly clear. In fact, once I made the heartbreaking decision to sell that gorgeous museum piece vintage and put nr1200 in as the driver in my living room, one of my casual poker buddies, who is also a professional musician, on a Thursday poker night asked me out of the blue what I had done because the sound seemed so much better, more clear. I then pointed out the new nr1200 and he was surprised he heard that much of a difference. That was with the Epi 100 speakers.

I think it has as much to do with speaker-matching, ear-matching, and intention-matching, than with "quality," when comparing what are clearly high-quality components.

 

[lovinthehd]

Listen for a while, switch it out, listen for a while, back and forth a bit over the course of a few weeks. Various volumes, soft to loud, etc, various music and film. I don't have a laboratory. I didn't do scientific double blind testing. I'm only reporting what I discerned, my recent experience.

The Pioneer Elite came off as more lively, the Marantz more subdued. I was looking for lively, with the Heresy-4, so I went with the Elite.

The two amps are both in the same ballpark, costwise. The Elite went for $1500 list in 2006, the sr7015 about $2800 list today.

I didn't start out biased against the sr7015, and in fact had intended it to be my new central amp, but after my trial period, I concluded that I preferred the sound signature of the older Elite. I wasn't alone in noticing the difference, either. A non-audiophile friend also noticed, immediately in his case, and commented on it.

The new nr1200 vs the vintage (professionally recapped, etc.) Marantz was closer to "instant switching" but the difference was utterly clear. In fact, once I made the heartbreaking decision to sell that gorgeous museum piece vintage and put nr1200 in as the driver in my living room, one of my casual poker buddies, who is also a professional musician, on a Thursday poker night asked me out of the blue what I had done because the sound seemed so much better, more clear. I then pointed out the new nr1200 and he was surprised he heard that much of a difference. That was with the Epi 100 speakers.

I think it has as much to do with speaker-matching, ear-matching, and intention-matching, than with "quality," when comparing what are clearly high-quality components.

It may have as much to do with your assumptions, hard to know. Doubt there's any significant difference in any case if the gear is functioning properly.

 

[Curtdr]

It may have as much to do with your assumptions, hard to know. Doubt there's any significant difference in any case if the gear is functioning properly.

My assumption used to be that amps don't make a difference.

My assumptions going in were the new Marantz sr7015 might be better, but it was not. I had also expected the vintage Marantz to be superior, more "robust" or something, to the nr1200, but it was not. So, in my limited testing, my assumptions were not borne out. What I did discover was that amps can sound DIFFERENT from each other.

Which actually goes to point, and to the original posters question: would the new sound better?
The answer is probably not better... maybe different, though.

 

[lovinthehd]

My assumption used to be that amps don't make a difference.

My assumptions going in were the new Marantz sr7015 might be better, but it was not. I had also expected the vintage Marantz to be superior, more "robust" or something, to the nr1200, but it was not. So, in my limited testing, my assumptions were not borne out. What I did discover was that amps can sound DIFFERENT from each other.

Which actually goes to point, and to the original posters question: would the new sound better?
The answer is probably not better... maybe different, though.

Differences don't particulary mean "better" tho and fully depend on specifics of room/setup/comparison details or what the hell are you comparing particularly except perhaps a preference?...

Who knows what he might feel "sounds" better even if its technically worse?

 

[Curtdr]

Differences don't particulary mean "better" tho and fully depend on specifics of room/setup/comparison details or what the hell are you comparing particularly except perhaps a preference?...

Who knows what he might feel "sounds" better even if its technically worse?

I didn't claim that difference means better. In fact, I argued the opposite (except in the case of the cheap old Sony, which I do claim was not only not as technically good but also was less preferable in sound character compared to the other five receivers I played with). I also acknowledged my rooms, my setups, my ears, my purposes, my preference.

I certainly didn't claim the Pioneer Elite was technically better than the Marantz sr7015. They're both good. And I don't know, but I'd suspect the Marantz might "measure" better in some regards... but that's not my concern.

I don't sit around and obsess over the technical measurements of gear, because that's not the endgame for an audio-phile (lover of sound)... tech measures might be the endgame for a techno-phile, though (lover of tech).

I only observed that I did hear differences in the sound signatures, and found that I had preferences.

And, I was not alone in hearing differences. And, the differences were obvious enough that even casual, non-audiophiles noticed spontaneously, without being "coached" by me.

I also found that I was surprised by the findings I experienced, but was willing to acknowledge that my previous assumptions were wrong. My previous assumptions were that there would be no discernible differences, or clearly preferable sound-signatures... preferable to me, in my circumstances, with my other gear. I found that there were discernible differences in sound character, not that one was technically better than the other except that one's sound character matched my preferences, my goals with my gear, better than another did.

It had been a long-cherished BELIEF of mine that amps really don't make a difference in how a system sounds; but my own belief was challenged by my own recent experiences, and now I have to discard my old belief which I now believe to be incorrect. I now believe that there can be, indeed are, differences in amps' sound characters... at least some amps. Discernible generally as technically better one way or another, once a certain level of overall quality is attained? Of that I remain skeptical. Sound character, sonic signature or whatever... yes, differences. At that point, subjectivity reigns, and it's a matter of preferences. Different amps for different speakers in different rooms and different configurations and different goals and for different ears, yes, differences and subjective preferences.

That's it.