A) Anthem MRX 510 (with Amp added later) or B) Outlaw 975/Emotiva UMC 200 with Outlaw 7125

[big O]

If they're operating within specified parameters, they should sound the same. Which is to say, they should have no sound. Or, there should not affect the signal other than to amplify it. The amp that does not meet this criteria is poorly designed and/or being driven beyond specified parameters aka. clipping.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/can-you-hear-a-difference-in-sound-between-audio-amplifiers/

I'll only ask you one questions.

1. Why can't amps sound different?

 

[big O]

It's okay to disagree 100%. But don't accuse people of lying for their own experiences. It's a 2 way street.

Perhaps you can hear the differences with your Klipsch and Emotiva. I couldn't hear the day-and-night astronomical unequivocal unbiased level-matched improvements among amps, preamps, pre-pros, and AVR in DIRECT MODE when I owned Revel Salon2, B&W 802 Diamond, KEF Reference 201/2, Linkwitz Orion 3.2.1, Philharmonic 3, etc.

Everyone may have a different experience. Every situation may be different.

Maybe. Just saying.

Awesome gear name dropping
so are you also saying preamps sound the same?

 

[Cos]

Thanks. I see that you have separates but you see little value and rather be with AVR? Also, I see that you have Triton ones. How do you like it? I am tempted to jump to Triton ones. Advice?

Does your set up have DTS:X? If not, how do you see your 'upgrade path' or do you think it is not worth it for now?

1. I already invested in Pre/Pro since 2006 so I have the amps, and kept buying separates. As for which sounds better, I am not sure, an Receiver allows you to put more money into the speakers, which is the most important piece.

2. I absolutely love my Triton 1s. The bass extension is excellent, and the HVFR Tweeter is detailed.

3. As for the DTS:X I have pre wired Golden Ear Invisa 7000 speakers into the ceiling for Dolby ATMOS. I did this understanding that DTS:X can work with your existing speaker set up. If you don't have the ability for in wall speakers you can go with 4x Superstat 30s.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Awesome gear name dropping
so are you also saying preamps sound the same?

Not the same. Just not a significant improvement when comparing the same setup. Not enough for me to justify the much higher prices.

But there is nothing wrong with wanting separates. I currently own the Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro.

 

[agarwalro]

Awesome gear name dropping

Is it considered name dropping if he actually owned them (most simultaneously) and eventually sold them. You should find his thread in Pros and Joes section.

 

[big O]

Is it considered name dropping if he actually owned them (most simultaneously) and eventually sold them. You should find his thread in Pros and Joes section.

note the smiley face. ITs all in good spirit man.

also, I forgot to agree with your comment about some speakers being more difficult to drive than others. Ive seen 8 ohm nominal speakers that dip below 4 ohms in certain frequencies. well, take an amp like my old sony thats not even rated to drive 4 ohm loads. how would it handle that speaker -probably not well.

 

[big O]

Not the same. Just not a significant improvement when comparing the same setup. Not enough for me to justify the much higher prices.

But there is nothing wrong with wanting separates. I currently own the Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro.

I see. thanks for the clarification. i find you can buy good amps and preamps on the used market for peanuts if you dont want the latest sound encoding that uses 18 speakers

matter of fact, yesterday I bought a new amp. so, I was able to swtich out the current amp driving my center speaker for another thx amp that I had been driving a subwoofer with. the thx stamped amp NOTICEABLY rolls off some of the highs and thats what I wanted so it ended up in a more pleasing sound (to me) from my center channel

 

[agarwalro]

I meant to reply quoting me previous post and accidently edited it. If a mod could reverse the edit of post #19, order will be restored. Thx!

This is the intended reply:

1. Why can't amps sound different?

Again a meaningless blanket statement.

Amps can sounds different. For example, tube amps can be intentionally made to sound different and do sound different based on speaker load affecting bias behavior. Solid State amps that cannot sufficiently drive the speakers may handle clipping differently and consequently can sound different (before one realizes they're clipping).

From before, for a good design, with competent implementation...

If they're operating within specified parameters, they should sound the same. Which is to say, they should have no sound. Or, there should not affect the signal other than to amplify it. The amp that does not meet this criteria is poorly designed and/or being driven beyond specified parameters aka. clipping.

 

[big O]

Actually,I wasn't making a statement,I was asking you a question, and it wasn't meaningless,-it was meant for you to tell me the science between how two different amps,wwith different components cannot sound different,eeven when used well within operating parameters

 

[agarwalro]

tell me the science between how two different amps,wwith different components cannot sound different,eeven when used well within operating parameters

Scientifically conducted, bias controlled (SBT-ABX perhaps) tests, fail to yield significant results in a listener's ability to prefer one amp over another. Many "objective" tests are conducted with poorly controlled biases. Sighed tests readily lend themselves to confirmation bias or Veblen Effect. Group settings lend themselves to Bandwagon Effect. Short term auditory memory creates its challenges. The effort needed to make these tests objective also make them very difficult/expensive to conduct. I'll look for examples from home today, though anecdotally, I know they're rare in AV.

Heck, manufacturers themselves have a tough time running such tests and getting resulted that can be unequivocally touted as a victory. From here, http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-myths-and-truths

Things get a bit unclear when listening tests are run by manufacturers whom all have a vested interest in their product. They want their product to "win" or, at the very least, to not lose. They'll take a tie, especially if it is a tie with a much more expensive speaker. This sets them up for a scenario where they can NEVER lose. At worst they will be “similarly good”. When you see this term “similarly good”, you should think we could not prove superiority of our product, so we changed the parameters of the test to make it harder to tell the competitors speaker was better so the detection would happen far less often. In this way we can assert a rough equivalence to a better product.

On the flip side, reviews/people that claim tonal difference in amps, are not backing them up with bias controlled tests.

 

[big O]

I saw one interesting sbt-abx test. I would not say it was without bias. The opposite would be far more true.

I also see some of these" bias free " tests with "acoustically transparent" screens, switchers etc that should not be in between the source and the listener in a true test so u can't place any faith in them.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is it considered name dropping if he actually owned them (most simultaneously) and eventually sold them. You should find his thread in Pros and Joes section.

Oh, how it pains me to think about the money I've spent!

 

[PENG]

separates are worth it!!!

not only do they sound better, but they also allow you to match your amp to your speakers. please DO NOT believe the lie that all amps sound the same. they do not.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about "All amps sound the same" as a blanket statement on this thread unless we take things out of context. We all have our own subjective opinions and I hope we can all respect each other. If one's opinion is not the same as yours, it does not mean one is telling a lie.

 

[agarwalro]

[QUOTE="big O, post: 1092271, member: 74272"I also see some of these" bias free " tests with "acoustically transparent" screens, switchers etc that should not be in between the source and the listener in a true test so u can't place any faith in them.[/QUOTE] The screen would ideally be of good quality and that not withstanding, it would equally affect all the devices under test. I don't understand why its presence nullifies a test. What do you propose, blindfolds?

 

[PENG]

Let's say if the OP ends up with a pair of Trinton 2, and pretend that competently designed amps do have their own signatures that sound audibly different as per big O. How could we know if the OP would prefer an Emo amp such as the XPA-5, ATI amp such as the ATI1805, Parasound A51? All 3 manufacturers would have undoubtedly claimed their amps were "transparent", with distortions and frequency response deviations within the audible range too low to be discernible by humans. They could possible back up their claims with bench test results, though many audiophiles believe bench tests don't tell the whole story. Further, if amp manufacturers all strive to make amps that are transparent, i.e. just amplify the input signal linearly otherwise leaving it unmolested, then how would they end up with audibly different sound signatures even when operating within their designed parameters? Amp designs are not rocket science, you don't need PhDs on staff to produce competently designed amps. I think I know part of the answers, but I could be wrong.

 

[Steve81]

1. Are AV separates worth it? Or better to go with good high end receivers? I can sink around $1500.

There are a couple sides to the question. Generally speaking you get much more for your dollar with a receiver than with separates. For $1,500 or less you can get an AVR loaded with all the latest features and a respectable amp section to boot. For comparison sake, to get a similar feature set, you'd need to look at a pre/pro like the Marantz AV7702, which retails for $1,999 on its own.

Conversely, a separate amp like the Outlaw 7125 has its advantages if you're the type to push things to the limits IME. Even a flagship level AVR can't match its output when driving 5 or 7 channels worth of complex loads at high levels. As for the UMC-200, it's a relatively bare bones pre/pro when compared with pretty much any AVR on the market. Still, it does bring a few useful features to the table that most AVRs don't boast. As Big O mentioned, you can manually apply up to 13 channels of PEQ to each channel plus an additional 3 to the subwoofer (and this can be done on top of EmoQ if desired). One other item that tends to get overlooked is the flexibility in setting up bass management, as you can set both frequency and crossover slope. That said, for a self described newbie/first time buyer, this may be deeper water than you'd care to tread. It requires a fair bit of knowledge and measurement equipment to use those features to their fullest potential.

3. DTS X or Atmos. Are these really worth? Or are they at least a few years away?

We're still a ways off from having a lot of content in either format; however, IMO they're worth keeping in the back of your head.

4, Also, I read that Yammy has presence speaker options. So, is that a worth feature to buy AV receiver?

No; most AVRs with the channel count to do it have similar options.

 

[big O]

http://www.cnet.com/news/do-separate-components-sound-better-than-av-receivers-part-2/

 

[PENG]

http://www.cnet.com/news/do-separate-components-sound-better-than-av-receivers-part-2/

I enjoyed reading that guy's articles, but mostly for fun. It seems to me he is one reviewer that do not have much technical knowledge on the electrical stuff, not even the basics. I have no trouble believing the Emo pair beats the 20 lbs Denon 1912 though, but some of the other things he said, were almost hilarious. I also just happened to agree the 1912 is excellent, the way he described it, that's amazing.. On the other hand, I wouldn't use it (the 1912) as my reference AVR. He said he used it as one of his reference receivers and that surprised me. To avoid taking things out of context, here's the full sentence:

"The Denon sounded excellent, that's why I've used it as one of my reference receivers for the last two years, but the UMC-200 and UPA-500 took the sound to another level."

Just want to make one more point, Denon AVRs typically have UL approval, not sure about the EMO, and Denon's mid range AVRs, even those below the 4520 (he said no 4ohm rating, but it is rated 4 ohms) had been bench tested for 4 ohm loads. You can read up on some of the results right here at AH.

Sorry, can't resist.

 

[big O]

i just re-read the title and the OP is contemplating the anthem with an added amp later, so it seems to me weve been debating a moot point all along since a separate amp is a given in both scenarios. we should be talking about preamp sections

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

i just re-read the title and the OP is contemplating the anthem with an added amp later, so it seems to me weve been debating a moot point all along since a separate amp is a given in both scenarios. we should be talking about preamp sections

I still don't think Emotiva separates sound any better than a Denon AVR in most situations.