I was reading discussion on other forum sites and it seems there's a heated debate between people who advocate for separates and those who don't see a need for it.
That's also a great question, and I can only offer my own observations on some underlying conditions, or possible factors causing such never ending debates/discussions.
First of all, be careful when some of those often cited the other side are those who believe in things like all amplifiers sound the same, when in fact I have been here for many years and I do not recall seeing (might have missed a few though, anything is possible
) any serious poster made any such blanket statements. If one/they would say something like that they would typically say so with some sort of qualifiers such as "well designed amps, operating well within their limits"...etc..
So yes, there are cases where someone going from an AVR to a "separate" AVP+Power amp would hear a difference, typically for the better.
Now, the long read that I hope you have time for, sorry I can't make it much shorter, tried that already.
@lovinthehd is good at that so may be he wouldn't mind simplifying it for me. Actually he sort of did, post#36.
You probably noticed that the majority (not a huge one I assume) of those advocating separates are those:
a) relatively new to the hobby/game.
b) have not owned "higher" end preamp, power amp, external dac before, and the "separates" they are currently advocating on may be, more often than not, are something that some of us would not actually consider "SOTA" gear when it comes to specs and measurements. For example, they might be owners of some power amps with rated output only 1 dB or so more than their AVR, at similar or worse THD+N levels as confirmed in some bench tests.
c) often referred to "separates" as AV preamp/processor + power amp.
d) some, the two channel people, often referred to "separates" as integrated amps, even those with build in DAC an streaming features.
e) would likely claim they heard more details, things they never heard before with the AVR alone, much better/huge sound stage, some even claimed night and day difference, wives asking what's happening etc.
Those who don't see a need for it based on the information provided by the posters... are often (that is, not always, there are exceptions..) those:
a) who usually had been there, done that, still doing, such as lovinthehd, adtg, pogre, ryan, killdozzer, highfigh, kew, and many more. In others words, they are doing it, but not necessarily for better sound quality as such.
b) often qualify their counter claim by stating some conditions, such as your actual power need based on seating distance, desired spl from mlp, speaker sensitivity, impedance/phase angle characteristics etc.
c) often pointed out the need to double the rated output to gain 3 dB, so if there is a real need, it may need more than paring a 120 W rated AVR with a 150 W rated power amp.
d) often suggested going with "separate" AVP if you are going to have long runs of interconnect cables, and/or you need/or just want externa power amp for all channels anyway.
e) May add/caution that you there may not be any audible sound quality improvements, and that there are other good reasons for going with "separates".
f) often suggest the alternative of using the AVR to power the surround/Atmos/height channels.
My point is, there are some believers who know what they are talking about, such as TLSG, but the majority are probably influenced by expectation, Placebo, that something that cost more, better build, look prettier?, have less parts jammed in one box must sound better.
So as soon as they got their new toys (AVP+Power amp, or even just AVR+Power amp) set up, they will make sure everything are done properly, nicely layout, connections all tight, may even have replaced some wires with thicker gauge, better shielding, more expensive ones. Then they would likely pull out their known best media contents whether they are their favorite BR disc or digital files, streaming source such as Tidal etc., and give it a test run. They would also likely be ready to listen hard for things they never heard (thought so anyway
)
I am not saying any of that group (the believers/dreamers
) would do any of or of such things but I admit, I had
. So once again been there, done that..
The thing is, regardless of how people tell you what they heard was real, it would be "real" for them but sooner or later, they may realize it was only real at the time.
Ask yourself the question, if the
total harmonic distortion is 0.005%, that means any of the harmonics, 2nd, 3rd, 5rd etc., would not be high enough for it to be above the threshold of audibility, especially when compared to a "separate" that offers 2X (0.01%) across the whole spectrum and power band. So all else being equal, SNR, DR, IMD, FR etc. etc., why would they sound so different? If not all else are equal, what kind of test results should people be analyzing to explain such obvious differences claimed, such as the "details" they suddenly heard? If a Denon, okay I should use Yamaha, say RX-A1080 as an example, spec'ed and measured better than a specific Arcam, Anthem, or NAD AVR (such example), why would it sound so worse?
It really boils down to "subjective" vs "objective".
Lastly, you may also ask yourself another question, that is, people often consider Dr. Toole, Dr. Olive audio gurus, why don't they listen to and/or believe their findings, that if the comparison is done such that the listeners knows which one they listen to, then it doesn't matter what they think?
