Separates are no better than AV Receivers, Objectively

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I haven't listened to or enjoyed my system for 2 channel music playback in a good six years when I swapped my 2.0ch separates setup out for a 5.1 receiver(s). Right away I could notice the difference. The sound is much thinner/hollow, less dynamic (playing the same CD the difference between the loudest passage to the quietest sounds more compressed on the receiver compared to my separates.)...should I consider searching for a used Sunfire Ultimate Receiver then I would have everything I like and need all in one box? I really wish I could get back to the level of 2 channel music playback I used to have where now it sounds so horrible in comparison (weak, compressed, dull) I never listen to just music anymore - and I miss it. It's one thing to not have the best and be happy with it, but it's another thing to be at one level and drop down to a lower one. I really feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I hear you, man. This was my EXACT thoughts!

I've been searching for an all-in-one or even a pre-pros that might be able to match my Class-A analog stereo preamp in terms of 2Ch music reproduction.

I've been asking myself WHY wasn't I able to get the same clear sound from a receiver or pre-pros?

So that's when I started looking at the specs - crosstalk, THD, frequency response, SNR, etc. I thought there must be something in the spec that would give it away.

Yes, I've read that THD of 1% is "good enough"...that frequency response of +/-3dB is "good enough"...that SNR of -80dB is "good enough"...that crosstalk of -20dB is "GOOD ENOUGH"??? Good enough that we "should not" be able to distinguish?

But are they really "GOOD ENOUGH"?

And good enough for WHOM?

But maybe it is something entirely different -- not within the specifications. But where?

See, in my own personal A/B comparison ($550 HK247 vs. $1,500 Pioneer Elite pre-pros vs. $800 Acurus RL-11 analog stereo preamp using the SAME SPEAKERS AND 200WPC AMPS), I have heard over and over again the difference in sound clarity. I felt that the receiver and pre-pros sounded "compressed" too, but I thought it was JUST ME -- that it was all in my head.

But looking at all these specs of $2,500 - $10,000 pre-pros, $300 - $600 receivers, and also comparing some stereo preamps, I just don't see "the light at the end of the tunnel".

Could it be simply the crosstalk?

I'm hearing from a few people that, NO it is not simply the crosstalk.

That's why I came up with the idea of using THREE analog stereo preamps. I thought that if receivers and pre-pros could not satisfy my 2Ch music, then why not just use 3 preamps?

But honestly, I've been telling myself that if the Denon 5808 or Yamaha Z11 or Onkyo 1000+ models had phenominal specifications (crosstalk -110dB, frequency response +/-0.0dB, THD 0.001%, SNR -120dB, etc.), that I would sell all my separates and buy one of them.

 

[cfrizz]

Sorry FMW, but this is where you & I & people like cbraver, & Emig5m part company. If you choose to go by only what the specs & meters say that is your business. But to try to tell the 3 of us that we are basically mishearing things is just wrong and the only right way to do it is with some scientific instrument test.

There is a lot more to it than just volume that's affected. Now the exact changes that take place due to what factor may never be known, but there IS a difference.

And what is especially telling to me & is what Gene has said on page 4. This is the first time I have read any editor or reviewer make this statement

"Cool post. For many many moons we've said that it's often best to get an AV receiver with the preamp functions you want and add an amplifier to get more power and control from your speakers.

Several of our reference systems do just that."
__________________
Clint DeBoer
Editor in Chief

Now maybe if he & other editors of this forum would spend more time explaining the benefits of separate amplification in language everyone can understand especially when it comes to HT applications some of this constant debating between the 2 different camps would subside.

Are you going to call Gene crazy & just hearing things as well FMW?

Understand that your ears are a notoriously inaccurate gauge of amplifier sound unless you were involved in a bias controlled objective listening test.

 

[cbraver]

Sorry FMW, but this is where you & I & people like cbraver, & Emig5m part company. If you choose to go by only what the specs & meters say that is your business. But to try to tell the 3 of us that we are basically mishearing things is just wrong and the only right way to do it is with some scientific instrument test.

Well, I'm a mechanical engineer. I believe that just about anything can be described with science (I want to say everything, but I doubt women can be, haha). But, as any researcher will tell you, you have to ask the right questions.

I'm a big believer in the placebo affect, but I'm not sure that's the answer in this case. Dynaudio owners, for example, that try larger power generally comment on a huge improvement. Same with M&K and some other brands (typically 4-ohm 80-something sensitivity speakers). Others, you don't hear about it that much. The companies tell you that too, which makes me believe there is some merit to it. When a company like Crown says 1.6-2.5 your IEC, I'm hesitant to believe them because they SELL POWER. But, my personal experience and the opinion of some other companies and people I trust say the same thing. I can't really back up my claim with science though.

There is a lot more to it than just volume that's affected. Now the exact changes that take place due to what factor may never be known, but there IS a difference.

And what is especially telling to me & is what Gene has said on page 4. This is the first time I have read any editor or reviewer make this statement

"Cool post. For many many moons we've said that it's often best to get an AV receiver with the preamp functions you want and add an amplifier to get more power and control from your speakers.

Several of our reference systems do just that."
__________________
Clint DeBoer
Editor in Chief

Now maybe if he & other editors of this forum would spend more time explaining the benefits of separate amplification in language everyone can understand especially when it comes to HT applications some of this constant debating between the 2 different camps would subside.

Are you going to call Gene crazy & just hearing things as well FMW?

I don't think FMW's intentions are to rag on us or call us crazy, we are just having some conversation. I'd like to see what they have to say on the matter also, and what they mean by more control. My understanding is that control is lost when an amplifier starts to clip.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...But looking at all these specs of $2,500 - $10,000 pre-pros, $300 - $600 receivers...

Oops. I meant $300 - $6,000 receivers.

...and I did notice that super high-end stereo preamps do have crosstalk of -130dB, frequency response of 20Hz-20kHz +/-0.00dB, THD of 0.001%, and SNR of -120dB.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Oops. I meant $300 - $6,000 receivers.

...and I did notice that super high-end stereo preamps do have crosstalk of -130dB, frequency response of 20Hz-20kHz +/-0.00dB, THD of 0.001%, and SNR of -120dB.

Well, those vanishingly low numbers can be seductive and costly

 

[wire]

Yamaha RX-V1800 Output (1 kHz into 8/4 ohms):
1 channel driven: 158/281 W (22/24.5 dBW)*
5 channels driven (8 ohms): 103 W (20.1 dBW)
7 channels driven (8 ohms): 55 W (17.4 dBW)
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2708/test-bench-yamaha-rx-v1800-av-receiver.html


Emotiva MPS-1 (specified as 200WPC x 7)
Actual measurement: 210 watts RMS into 8 ohms x 7.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_1/emotiva-dmc1-ssp-mps1-amp-3-2006-part-4.html


NAD M25 Amplifier (specified as 160WPC x 7)
Actual measurement: 231 watts RMS into 8 ohms x 7
http://hometheatermag.com/preampprocessors/107nad/index2.html

Wow, looks like NAD really under-spec their amps!

Ever since ive know NAD , they have been like this . There head room is very good . Powerful amps section in them .

 

[wire]

I haven't listened to or enjoyed my system for 2 channel music playback in a good six years when I swapped my 2.0ch separates setup out for a 5.1 receiver(s). Right away I could notice the difference. The sound is much thinner/hollow, less dynamic (playing the same CD the difference between the loudest passage to the quietest sounds more compressed on the receiver compared to my separates.)

When I had my separates I never used any EQ, no bass boost, no treble boost, nothing - everything sounded great from a sweet sounding top to the deepest bottom end with all flat EQ settings. With the receiver I notice I have to boost the bass and treble slightly to get the same tonal output. Since I really enjoy the immersion of surround sound in movies, I would never drop back to a higher quality 2 channel setup however, and a separate surround system would be a little out of my price range that I'm willing to pay for sound gear (and admittedly, I like the idea of having everything all in one nice convenient little box, I'm not much for cumbersome anymore).

My speakers don't require a lot of power to run (102dB 1w/m) but my one theory why I noticed such a drastic decrease that's noticeable right away as soon as I made the switch is that since they are 4ohm speakers the 'wimpier' amps in the receiver probably can't provide the current of the separate higher quality amp? It's really frustrating since I've tried a few receivers (from Sony, Onkyo, and Harmon Kardon) and none of them could match the sound quality of my separate amp which wasn't even close to being considered "high-end", it was just a plain ole Carver TFM35x. The Sony receiver sadly is the closest (it does have a 4ohm switch on the back) and the Harmon Kardon was the worst which is really sad since I used to have a old Harmon Kardon Citation 12 power amp that I liked a lot so I had much higher expectations for something made by Harmon Kardon.

Since to my ears the Carver was a match made in heaven to my speakers, and I like having surround sound plus the convenience of having everything all in one box, should I consider searching for a used Sunfire Ultimate Receiver then I would have everything I like and need all in one box? I really wish I could get back to the level of 2 channel music playback I used to have where now it sounds so horrible in comparison (weak, compressed, dull) I never listen to just music anymore - and I miss it. It's one thing to not have the best and be happy with it, but it's another thing to be at one level and drop down to a lower one. I really feel like I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I still run alot of my equipment 2 channel . 1 system for movies .
I love my music 1st , still and it has to be 2 channel ( so far ) . when you talk about flat settings , I don't touch my bass , treble or midbass all left flat and it sounds the best that way .
I understand the hollowness in not enough power also , I really notice it my Polk SDA's , if there not powered properly , ouch , no bass or midbass . I had to go 2 weeks without my 4b ( for servicing on the 20 years aniversery ) . I now have a TFM35 for a backup for the Bryston and Polks .

 

[wire]

I don't think FMW's intentions are to rag on us or call us crazy, we are just having some conversation. I'd like to see what they have to say on the matter also, and what they mean by more control. My understanding is that control is lost when an amplifier starts to clip.

I agree with that , Clipping your amp is bad thing .

 

[wire]

Understand that your ears are a notoriously inaccurate gauge of amplifier sound unless you were involved in a bias controlled objective listening test.

Accually , the TFM 35 comes with alittle chip ( to make it sound close to the Carver Tube amp Silver Seven ) , that makes it sound abit different than a conventional amp . The new Sunfires also have it but it is optional to use it or not .

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I still run alot of my equipment 2 channel . 1 system for movies .
I love my music 1st , still and it has to be 2 channel ( so far ) . when you talk about flat settings , I don't touch my bass , treble or midbass all left flat and it sounds the best that way.

Same here.

I use 2Ch preamps for both movies and music.

For 2Ch CD Music, I use ONE 2Ch preamp.

For 5.1 Movies and 5.1 DVD-A, I use THREE 2Ch preamps.

And I definitely don't mess with treble & bass -- well, because there are none to mess around with on the RL-11s.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, those vanishingly low numbers can be seductive and costly

I here you. I wish I had the budget for three Mark Levinson analog stereo preamps.

Keep on dreaming: crosstalk -130dB, freq. resp 20Hz-20kHz +/-0.00dB, THD < 0.001%, SNR > 130dB...Keep on dreaming.

 

[3db]

Difficult loads can be an issue with separates as well if that amp is not rated for such loads, or, not an issue with receivers that are rated for some difficult loads.
As to slew rate, I have read in the past where beyond a certain amount, it is useless like some other specs beyond a point.

ps:

not sure how well this will work but..

here is a ling to Richard Pierce, another audio pro to listen to, on his postings about slew rate.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:DPierce@world.std.com+slew+rate&qt_s=Search

I agree with that. I'm sure a point of diminishing return kicks in there as with any other spec.

 

[3db]

Any Japanese made flagship / high model receiver has my vote for a few reasons.

1. If the receiver weighs between 35 and 50lbs. It has a pretty high current, high rail voltage amplifier output section, and probably robust heatsinks and massive 22,000uF high audio grade caps. (Kinda like a separate)?
2. One piece of gear to replace, so if you get sick of hearing the same amp after time like me, when you purchase again, you replace the entire pre-amp section as well as the ampifier section. (This is a lot more expensive habbit with separates)!
3. The market leans toward the receiver for the newest features and video switching options, to my knowledge the manufacturers of separates are usually behind the times, or it costs a rediculous amount of $$ to get the latest features.
4. It's just more fun IMO to get a new receiver and figure out all the functions / settings.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the newer Integra/Onkyo, etc. stuff that looks like a dam receiver doesn't count right? cause they are just splitting a receiver in half and charging 4 times the price IMHO.

A REAL set of separates is to my knowledge, simplisitc and overbuilt but not very feature rich, and tend to have less inputs and such.

Nakamichi ca7/stassis / Yamaha C series pre and M series amps / Kenwood C1 and M1 or whatever it was called...
These are the separates that come to mind when I hear the word.

You obviosuly haven't played with an Anthem Pre/Pro yet.

 

[fmw]

Sorry FMW, but this is where you & I & people like cbraver, & Emig5m part company. If you choose to go by only what the specs & meters say that is your business. But to try to tell the 3 of us that we are basically mishearing things is just wrong and the only right way to do it is with some scientific instrument test.

Don't feel bad. The entire high end audio communitay disagrees with me. You are mistaking what I'm saying, however. A listening test doesn't use instruments. It uses ears. All we want to do is to remove the human biases by making the comparison level matched (that requires a volt meter) and by doing it in such a way that the listener doesn't know which one he is hearing at a given time. It is still a listening test. It just doesn't allow for the power of suggestion, preference, bias etc.

There is a lot more to it than just volume that's affected. Now the exact changes that take place due to what factor may never be known, but there IS a difference.

I would say the electrical engineers understand the factors quite well and that all the factors are quite measurable, including suggestion, preference, bias etc. If there is an audible difference, then there is a measurable difference every single time.

And what is especially telling to me & is what Gene has said on page 4. This is the first time I have read any editor or reviewer make this statement

"Cool post. For many many moons we've said that it's often best to get an AV receiver with the preamp functions you want and add an amplifier to get more power and control from your speakers.

Several of our reference systems do just that."
__________________
Clint DeBoer
Editor in Chief

Now maybe if he & other editors of this forum would spend more time explaining the benefits of separate amplification in language everyone can understand especially when it comes to HT applications some of this constant debating between the 2 different camps would subside.

Are you going to call Gene crazy & just hearing things as well FMW?

I don't know the situation. Clint, just like you and me is subject to placebo effect so he can be affected by bias like anyone else. I know I am. There are all kinds of things that can cause a real audible effect, but adding additional power that is unused is not one of them. How do I know? I've done the bias controlled listening tests. My suspicion is that what listeners hear and report is caused primarily by mismatched levels and secondarily by placebo effect. Unused overhead by itself isn't going to make a difference. It can't.

If an amplifier is being overdriven, then adding power and overhead will make a very noticeable difference - VERY. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about adding power that is not used - in other words, applying the same number of undistorted watts but with an amplifier that has the capacity of delivering more. Could we be arguing two different things?

 

[fmw]

I don't think FMW's intentions are to rag on us or call us crazy, we are just having some conversation. I'd like to see what they have to say on the matter also, and what they mean by more control. My understanding is that control is lost when an amplifier starts to clip.

My intent is to help. We all talk about listening tests and comparisons. Even though placebo effect is well known, surprisingly few people have actually conducted bias controlled listening tests. I don't know why. But I've conducted them.

For some reason, people fight what I'm saying. I'm just describing human nature. Perhaps ego gets in the way of people being willing to understand how some aspects of their humanity works. The fact that many audible differences disappear in bias controlled listening tests isn't a bad thing. It is just a fact. It doesn't make the reproduction of recorded music any worse. It just explain some of the details involved in it.

I'm not against having powerful amplifiers. I don't use a very large fraction of the amplifier power I have myself. I'm just trying to help people avoid following other people's biases when their own biases are hard enough to understand. People who have never experienced bias controlled listening tests aren't in a very good position to argue against them. Do the bias controlled tests. Then come back and tell me I'm wrong. That's all I'm suggesting.

 

[zhimbo]

are mistaking what I'm saying, however. A listening test doesn't use instruments. It uses ears. All we want to do is to remove the human biases by making the comparison level matched (that requires a volt meter) and by doing it in such a way that the listener doesn't know which one he is hearing at a given time. It is still a listening test. It just doesn't allow for the power of suggestion, preference, bias etc.

I've never understood why this point is so hard to get across. It's all about what you hear - not what you "know". Good tests are the purest form of listening, because they make sure you aren't being persuaded by non-auditory factors.

 

[B3Nut]

I think the big obstacle in conducting bias-controlled testing is the amount of work involved. Subjectivist hi-fi reviewing is a lazy activity, there is no discipline or scholarship involved (indeed, such concepts are viewed with ridicule by many of the prominent magazine wags!) Also, in the absence of an ABX box (a bit hard to come by I'd wager) you need some extra bodies on hand, without an ABX comparator it's pretty much impossible to do it solo.

But it is absolutely true that sighted listening tests are hopelessly flawed. Bias and placebo effects are demonstrably real, and there is a vast corpus of empirical evidence going back decades to back it up, it's simply not a topic of debate in psychological circles, it's as much of a given as gravity or e=mc². Some sort of level-matched blind methodology is vital. How many times have we seen someone claim differences between components or even recording processes when *all* the other variables were radically different? It boggles the mind...it's as though high-end audio is a belief system rather than a science...with the Stereophile Priesthood <VVBG!> making the equivalent of arguments against a spherical Earth...

 

[cbraver]

I'm not against having powerful amplifiers. I don't use a very large fraction of the amplifier power I have myself. I'm just trying to help people avoid following other people's biases when their own biases are hard enough to understand. People who have never experienced bias controlled listening tests aren't in a very good position to argue against them. Do the bias controlled tests. Then come back and tell me I'm wrong. That's all I'm suggesting.

Well, no offense, but, you have to understand that we have no way to know that you know what you're doing with those tests. Why do all these companies mentioned recommend larger power?

Like that JBL article, which says to double the IEC for studio monitoring... If these guys are sitting so close to the speakers, surely they are averaging low watts ... but JBL must figure their peaks are significantly greater to recommend that.

I mean, if you say that you've only seen 20watt peaks on your speaker... then try hooking up a 20watt amplifier and powering them and see what happends.

 

[WmAx]

Well, no offense, but, you have to understand that we have no way to know that you know what you're doing with those tests. Why do all these companies mentioned recommend larger power?

Like that JBL article, which says to double the IEC for studio monitoring... If these guys are sitting so close to the speakers, surely they are averaging low watts ... but JBL must figure their peaks are significantly greater to recommend that.

I mean, if you say that you've only seen 20watt peaks on your speaker... then try hooking up a 20watt amplifier and powering them and see what happends.

The signal dynamics in studio use is so far removed from commercial music playback use, that the two can not even begin to be compared. In the studio, you can often start out with un-compressed closed miced tracks of instruments, and such tracks typically may have 30dB dynamics, and can have 40 dB dynamics in some cases. Commercial music releases average around 15dB dynamics, with newer pop releases coming close to 10dB dynamics. In the 80's, better dynamic examples will have 25dB dynamics, such as would be found on Steel Dan music from that era. This is also the approximate dynamic range for most classical music with good recording quality. In some very rare instances, 30+dB dynamics can be found in some classical pieces - these are exceedingly rare.

-Chris

 

[fmw]

Well, no offense, but, you have to understand that we have no way to know that you know what you're doing with those tests. Why do all these companies mentioned recommend larger power?

If you have never been involved in bias controlled listening tests then how does that put you in a strong position to argue against it? Go do the tests. Then you will know for yourself.

What manufacturers? Larger power than what?

Like that JBL article, which says to double the IEC for studio monitoring... If these guys are sitting so close to the speakers, surely they are averaging low watts ... but JBL must figure their peaks are significantly greater to recommend that.

It isn't that complicated. In most recorded music the volume peaks will require about 10 times the average amplifier power output. If your average is 1 watt then you would need about 10 watts for the peaks. If your average is 100 watts then you would need 1000 watts for the peaks. This is true for JBL and everybody else. I think more dynamic range than that is possible with digital recordings but very rarely encountered.

I mean, if you say that you've only seen 20watt peaks on your speaker... then try hooking up a 20watt amplifier and powering them and see what happends.

I've done that. As I explained earlier, I have actually done the bias controlled listening tests. I'm not giving you opinion. I'm giving you test results.