Bench test measurements such as THD, THD+N, SINAD, SNR/DR, Cross talk, FR etc., what else should we focus on?

[PENG]

Preamble: I am not suggesting SINAD, or the equivalent THD+N are the only thing we should care about, in fact I am saying we should not. There seems to be a belief that ASR is all about SINAD, that isn't quite true either. While many of the posts there likely have created such an impression, the person who took most of the measurements did try multiple times to make clear that SINAD is just one of the metrics (sometimes 10 or more) he measured. He did however, mention (at least once, if I remember correctly) that if the device measured well on SINAD, chances were good, they tended to (not always obviously) do good in other measured metrics too, based on the many devices tested/measured.

What prompted me to start this thread is the recent measurements of a phono stage:
Classic Audio MC Pro Phonostage Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum




I picked this one as an example just to show SINAD <75 dB can be considered good, and recommended by the reviewer (Amir), if the measurements of some other important metrics are good. In this case, distortions are actually extremely low, for a phono stage anyway. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that THD are rarely measured, understandably, and that created some of the confusion, or misconception, that THD is not important. The fact is, while it has been shown many people are not bothered by distortions level as high as -40 dB/1%, many are bothered by noise, so THD+N, or SINAD of +/- 75 dB could be bad news to many who are very sensitive to noise in their music/even movies listening environments.

Another recently measured device that did do all that well on SINAD (below 80 dB), also made it to his recommended list:
Bluesound Powernode Edge Streaming Amp Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

As Gene said in one of his recent videos, "Don't chase SINAD"! Keep in mind, he never said it wasn't an important metric either. I fully agree with the notion that we shouldn't get fixated on one single number. To me, we should also look at the associated, collaborative data, not a single number such as -100 or -75 dB THD+N, measured only at 1 kHz, 100 W (power amp output), or 2 V (preamp output). I am sure that's what Gene meant by don't chase SINAD, I trust he would correct me if I misunderstood his point. Examples of the other important measurements, that are typically included in Gene's battery of measurements are the FFTs, FR, cross talks, frequency dependence, multichannel performance, and output impedance (though only very occasionally).
An excellent example of hare SINAD/THD+N were measured, along with other important metrics and dependencies is the most recent comprehensive review/measurements of the AV10:

Marantz AV 10 15.4CH 8K AV Processor Bench Test Results | Audioholics

The other point I would like to make is, for those who insist on not paying attention to any of those measurable specs, but trust your ears, while what one perceives is obviously more important that what those numbers show, it is also important to realize different people may perceive very differently when listening to the same setup under even 100% identical conditions.

On the other hand, if the device simply reproduces the input signal as it, but at a higher output level, then regardless of our ears, the device is doing what it is design to do, regardless of what our ears and brains tell us. I suppose we can take our pick on such a basis. < -100 dB THD+N (such as what the AV10 achieved) is likely considered by many experts including Gene, as well below the threshold of audibility. However, it still does not mean output = input, and that's where I think we need to understand more, about what really is our so call threshold of audibility in a more absolute sense, not just by consensus of audio experts. Aside from that though, I would think that it is undisputable that -100 dB is relatively much closer to transparency than -75 dB. In that sense, unless a manufacturer can show the reasons why their exotic, or expensive products, such as their high end flagship level amplifiers will "sound better" than another manufacturer's lower priced product with comparable specs and features, when they both bench measured with -100 dB or lower distortions plus noise, flat frequency response from 20-25,000 Hz, output impedance <0.01 ohm etc.

Also, if we don't believe any of those measurements are more important than trusting our ears, then,

a) Are we to try and audition a ton/or dozens of the device, again say a power amplifier, to find one that we perceive as superior sounding?
b) Do manufacturers (D+M/Masimo claimed they did) really hire sound masters and let him/her dictate to their electronic designers/engineers how to tweak the devices in development to the "sound" they deemed the best achievable.
c) If b) is real/true, then how come those products, such as D+M also measured with virtually flat FR, THD+N well below threshold of audibility, low output impedance?
d) Where are all those related research paper on such topics, is it because research on such hobby related studies/topics considered not important enough to quality for PhD students?

I know any debate on subjective vs objective measurements will not end well and one side cannot convince the other, so again, I just hope we won't get into any such debates, but through general discussions and exchanging ideas and possibilities, we can all learn something new and useful regardless.

 

[TLS Guy]

Preamble: I am not suggesting SINAD, or the equivalent THD+N are the only thing we should care about, in fact I am saying we should not. There seems to be a belief that ASR is all about SINAD, that isn't quite true either. While many of the posts there likely have created such an impression, the person who took most of the measurements did try multiple times to make clear that SINAD is just one of the metrics (sometimes 10 or more) he measured. He did however, mention (at least once, if I remember correctly) that if the device measured well on SINAD, chances were good, they tended to (not always obviously) do good in other measured metrics too, based on the many devices tested/measured.

What prompted me to start this thread is the recent measurements of a phono stage:
Classic Audio MC Pro Phonostage Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

View attachment 62897


I picked this one as an example just to show SINAD <75 dB can be considered good, and recommended by the reviewer (Amir), if the measurements of some other important metrics are good. In this case, distortions are actually extremely low, for a phono stage anyway. In my opinion, it is unfortunate that THD are rarely measured, understandably, and that created some of the confusion, or misconception, that THD is not important. The fact is, while it has been shown many people are not bothered by distortions level as high as -40 dB/1%, many are bothered by noise, so THD+N, or SINAD of +/- 75 dB could be bad news to many who are very sensitive to noise in their music/even movies listening environments.

Another recently measured device that did do all that well on SINAD (below 80 dB), also made it to his recommended list:
Bluesound Powernode Edge Streaming Amp Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

As Gene said in one of his recent videos, "Don't chase SINAD"! Keep in mind, he never said it wasn't an important metric either. I fully agree with the notion that we shouldn't get fixated on one single number. To me, we should also look at the associated, collaborative data, not a single number such as -100 or -75 dB THD+N, measured only at 1 kHz, 100 W (power amp output), or 2 V (preamp output). I am sure that's what Gene meant by don't chase SINAD, I trust he would correct me if I misunderstood his point. Examples of the other important measurements, that are typically included in Gene's battery of measurements are the FFTs, FR, cross talks, frequency dependence, multichannel performance, and output impedance (though only very occasionally).
An excellent example of hare SINAD/THD+N were measured, along with other important metrics and dependencies is the most recent comprehensive review/measurements of the AV10:

Marantz AV 10 15.4CH 8K AV Processor Bench Test Results | Audioholics

The other point I would like to make is, for those who insist on not paying attention to any of those measurable specs, but trust your ears, while what one perceives is obviously more important that what those numbers show, it is also important to realize different people may perceive very differently when listening to the same setup under even 100% identical conditions.

On the other hand, if the device simply reproduces the input signal as it, but at a higher output level, then regardless of our ears, the device is doing what it is design to do, regardless of what our ears and brains tell us. I suppose we can take our pick on such a basis. < -100 dB THD+N (such as what the AV10 achieved) is likely considered by many experts including Gene, as well below the threshold of audibility. However, it still does not mean output = input, and that's where I think we need to understand more, about what really is our so call threshold of audibility in a more absolute sense, not just by consensus of audio experts. Aside from that though, I would think that it is undisputable that -100 dB is relatively much closer to transparency than -75 dB. In that sense, unless a manufacturer can show the reasons why their exotic, or expensive products, such as their high end flagship level amplifiers will "sound better" than another manufacturer's lower priced product with comparable specs and features, when they both bench measured with -100 dB or lower distortions plus noise, flat frequency response from 20-25,000 Hz, output impedance <0.01 ohm etc.

Also, if we don't believe any of those measurements are more important than trusting our ears, then,

a) Are we to try and audition a ton/or dozens of the device, again say a power amplifier, to find one that we perceive as superior sounding?
b) Do manufacturers (D+M/Masimo claimed they did) really hire sound masters and let him/her dictate to their electronic designers/engineers how to tweak the devices in development to the "sound" they deemed the best achievable.
c) If b) is real/true, then how come those products, such as D+M also measured with virtually flat FR, THD+N well below threshold of audibility, low output impedance?
d) Where are all those related research paper on such topics, is it because research on such hobby related studies/topics considered not important enough to quality for PhD students?

I know any debate on subjective vs objective measurements will not end well and one side cannot convince the other, so again, I just hope we won't get into any such debates, but through general discussions and exchanging ideas and possibilities, we can all learn something new and useful regardless.

I can tell you what should be focused on is: -

1). Reliability.

2). Cosmetic design. The lack of it is s huge resistance to entry.

Reliability of electronics and especially receivers really needs attention. In fact this issue is a good reason to make them obsolete.

I often refer to Peter Walker. He considered reliability the number 1 core function of a piece of equipment.

In 1964 transistor amps started to proliferate and blew up more often that not and got a bad reputation.

The came the Quad 303, unconditionally stable and highly reliable. I would bet most are still working. This amp is so robust you can just parallel the outputs and use them as mono-blocks!

I still have two tucked away.

The other issue is cosmetics. For most current equipment it is appalling. It is a huge barrier to acceptance. If you look at pictures here, you see those ugly shelf racks stuffed with ugly boxes. Most home owners are not going to settle for that and opt for a sound bar.

We need to do much better. Receivers are not only ugly, but blow up far too regularly and are unacceptably fragile. AVPs could be made neat and small and either drive active speakers, or be connected to power amps out of sight. Obviously AVPs could be made much cheaper than receivers, not only neater and much easier to incorporate in elegant design plans.

These are the issues to adoption resistance, and not SINAD etc. This needs serious attention from the industry. I think there needs to be a return to simplicity. We don't need all these Eq. systems adding cost. Most rooms with good speakers have no need for them. I am not convinced they are anything other than quality spoilers when all is said and done.

Unless these issues are attended to HT and even high quality home audio will die. We need to return to the ethic of our foundations in the fifties and sixties, when good home systems were far more prevalent than they are now.

 

[shadyJ]

Also, if we don't believe any of those measurements are more important than trusting our ears, then,

To address some of your points in order:

a) Are we to try and audition a ton/or dozens of the device, again say a power amplifier, to find one that we perceive as superior sounding?

Anyone who auditions dozens of amplifiers for a superior-sounding one is completely off their rocker. You will only need a few to understand the idea of transparency. Anyone who doesn't get that is listening to the sound of their own imagination. The thing to do is learn how measurements translate into audible experience. THD+niose is important until it's not.

b) Do manufacturers (D+M/Masimo claimed they did) really hire sound masters and let him/her dictate to their electronic designers/engineers how to tweak the devices in development to the "sound" they deemed the best achievable.

If D+M really does this, they are as dumb as a post. Sound engineering is an entirely separate discipline from sound reproduction. I have heard accounts of frightening ineptitude about sound engineers with regard to the technical side of sound reproduction. Just keep them at the mixing boards and don't let them anywhere near pre-amps, amps, or speakers.

c) If b) is real/true, then how come those products, such as D+M also measured with virtually flat FR, THD+N well below threshold of audibility, low output impedance?

I would gues the answer is because b) is not true. D+M can't be that dumb. No one can.

d) Where are all those related research paper on such topics, is it because research on such hobby related studies/topics considered not important enough to quality for PhD students?

There isn't much research in this area because there is no money going toward it. I would guess that postgraduate thesis work for EE students are in areas where there is heavy-investment, and that isn't hi-fi audio, which is a small, niche industry. It doesn't help that there is so much flaky snake oil in the hi-fi world which de-legitimizes it in the wider consumer electronics industry. It's where crackpots go to rip off the gullible.

 

[PENG]

If D+M really does this, they are as dumb as a post. Sound engineering is an entirely separate discipline from sound reproduction. I have heard accounts of frightening ineptitude about sound engineers with regard to the technical side of sound reproduction. Just keep them at the mixing boards and don't let them anywhere near pre-amps, amps, or speakers.

I don't think they know how to do the mixing boards. Apparently they are not sound engineer, but sound master, whatever that means though, so, who knows.. Sadly, based on some forum posts, it seems obvious that a lot of people believe in such claims, that each has its own "sound" that the sound master make sure is there, sort of he has to approve the final design/implementation.. We know that's just their claims, based on marketing strategy, but again, people bought in to that, and thought that's a better indicator of bench measurements.

Here's one who tune Marantz, Denon supposedly use a different master but no pictures on their websites.

Explorations in Sound with Marantz™ Sound Master Yoshinori Ogata | Marantz™ Canada

 

[PENG]

I can tell you what should be focused on is: -

1). Reliability.

2). Cosmetic design. The lack of it is s huge resistance to entry.

Reliability of electronics and especially receivers really needs attention. In fact this issue is a good reason to make them obsolete.

I often refer to Peter Walker. He considered reliability the number 1 core function of a piece of equipment.

In 1964 transistor amps started to proliferate and blew up more often that not and got a bad reputation.

The came the Quad 303, unconditionally stable and highly reliable. I would bet most are still working. This amp is so robust you can just parallel the outputs and use them as mono-blocks!

I still have two tucked away.

The other issue is cosmetics. For most current equipment it is appalling. It is a huge barrier to acceptance. If you look at pictures here, you see those ugly shelf racks stuffed with ugly boxes. Most home owners are not going to settle for that and opt for a sound bar.

We need to do much better. Receivers are not only ugly, but blow up far too regularly and are unacceptably fragile. AVPs could be made neat and small and either drive active speakers, or be connected to power amps out of sight. Obviously AVPs could be made much cheaper than receivers, not only neater and much easier to incorporate in elegant design plans.

These are the issues to adoption resistance, and not SINAD etc. This needs serious attention from the industry. I think there needs to be a return to simplicity. We don't need all these Eq. systems adding cost. Most rooms with good speakers have no need for them. I am not convinced they are anything other than quality spoilers when all is said and done.

Unless these issues are attended to HT and even high quality home audio will die. We need to return to the ethic of our foundations in the fifties and sixties, when good home systems were far more prevalent than they are now.

I agree 10% reliability is an important one to focus. It would be nice if Gene can start developing and implementing a few things that can be measured on his test bench that can be used to assess or even predict reliability. I can think of some sort of carefully designed temperature rise, specs and performance characteristics of the output devices, capacitor temperature ratings of the PS block/storage caps used, transformer VA and temperature rise specs etc., so it will be a mixed of digging into the parts/components that tend to be the weak links, and a bunch of measurables.

Agreed with the point on cosmetic too, but that is probably a separate topic that don't perform to this thread, that is about lab/bench measurements.

 

[MrBoat]

Before all of these measurements became accessible, or even possible/understandable technologically speaking, when much of the population was new to electronics and engineers were relatively rare among the populace, we bought excess headroom to pretty much cover our butts across the board. These days, the efficiency heads keep trying to get away with giving us no more than exactly what we pay for and no more than exactly what we need.

This has pretty much left me completely underwhelmed with regard to power, and speakers, for that matter. At least with considering affordable equipment. Most likely because so much of the population doesn't have enough common, or electronic sense in which to self regulate without blowing up their gear, so they need to be saved from themselves by strict limitations. I could go the rest of my life without ever touching, or hearing about another 50 watt amp or 4Ohm ratings as the dominant spec, or any product that struggles to make a solid 100WPC/8Ohm.

I look inside class D amps, the sparse amount of components on relatively tiny circuit boards and it instantly occurs to me that these new found efficiencies don't really make anything more affordable to the consumer, than it does to the manufacturer. To me, it looks dumb putting these otherwise tiny circuits into a full sized enclosure because they would have a more difficult time selling a more truthful sized chassis for the same money. Just slap a couple heavy toroidal transformers in there to make people think they are buying old fashioned quality instead.

Anymore, when I see a new 2 channel amp being offered, first thing I end up looking for is a picture of the back panel for a sub out, instead of wading thru an entire review article waiting for the reviewer to mention it as a feature. Next thing I look for is the output specs. If I have to start nailing down the distortion knee measurement hovering anywhere near my performance range, I will never give it another look.

About the only relatively affordable 2-channel amp I would even consider for my use these days, outside of DIY, is the Yamaha A-s801.

 

[TLS Guy]

Before all of these measurements became accessible, or even possible/understandable technologically speaking, when much of the population was new to electronics and engineers were relatively rare among the populace, we bought excess headroom to pretty much cover our butts across the board. These days, the efficiency heads keep trying to get away with giving us no more than exactly what we pay for and no more than exactly what we need.

This has pretty much left me completely underwhelmed with regard to power, and speakers, for that matter. At least with considering affordable equipment. Most likely because so much of the population doesn't have enough common, or electronic sense in which to self regulate without blowing up their gear, so they need to be saved from themselves by strict limitations. I could go the rest of my life without ever touching, or hearing about another 50 watt amp or 4Ohm ratings as the dominant spec, or any product that struggles to make a solid 100WPC/8Ohm.

I look inside class D amps, the sparse amount of components on relatively tiny circuit boards and it instantly occurs to me that these new found efficiencies don't really make anything more affordable to the consumer, than it does to the manufacturer. To me, it looks dumb putting these otherwise tiny circuits into a full sized enclosure because they would have a more difficult time selling a more truthful sized chassis for the same money. Just slap a couple heavy toroidal transformers in there to make people think they are buying old fashioned quality instead.

Anymore, when I see a new 2 channel amp being offered, first thing I end up looking for is a picture of the back panel for a sub out, instead of wading thru an entire review article waiting for the reviewer to mention it as a feature. Next thing I look for is the output specs. If I have to start nailing down the distortion knee measurement hovering anywhere near my performance range, I will never give it another look.

About the only relatively affordable 2-channel amp I would even consider for my use these days, outside of DIY, is the Yamaha A-s801.

Everything you say is correct.

I would make these points.

Peter Walker showed years ago the "Golden Eared" listeners could not distinguish 0.1% THD from 2% THD. So what is the point of measuring these distortions? It is not for the reason you think. Finding the knee of the curve where distortion takes off is where the output devices really start to heat, and will fail, if you keep it up. It is like running an engine with the tach in the red zone and throwing a rod through the side.

All this is otherwise largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that all AVRs are big boxes and AVPs are the same size. So we are in an age of inelegant design, and wasteful to boot.

I know, I know, that the marketers and pencil sharpeners will drone on about economies of scale. However they are wrong and can't see the wood for the trees.

Most of the public are smart enough to know, that it is a waste to have 11 channels and they will only use two or three. If you then told them that at best their speakers would waste at least half that power and usually more in the speaker crossover, they would be even more upset.

The result is consumer resistance on a massive scale. Marketing types are actually very, very stupid. They only look at the people buying, not the ones who don't.

I bet my experience is the same as the rest. Before AV almost every middle class home had a reasonably passable audio system. Not now. However almost everyone I know has at least one sound bar and many two or three. Often there is a small sub laying on the floor. Only two of my children own receivers, and three of the four use sound bars. The only friends we know who have a multichannel system are the ones we sold our lake home to, and I installed the system.

If you think this is great marketing then you definitely have blinkers on.

So this afternoon I will start a new thread were Masimo have given every last marketer a pink slip, and hired innovative engineers and designers, especially software developers and associated disciplines. This will be an out with the old, in with the new thread. Without some urgent redirection home AV will die.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Peter Walker showed years ago the "Golden Eared" listeners could not distinguish 0.1% THD from 2% THD. So what is the point of measuring these distortions? ...

To make sure it is not above 2%.

 

[TLS Guy]

Everything you say is correct.

I would make these points.

Peter Walker showed years ago the "Golden Eared" listeners could not distinguish 0.1% THD from 2% THD. So what is the point of measuring these distortions? It is not for the reason you think. Finding the knee of the curve where distortion takes off is where the output devices really start to heat, and will fail, if you keep it up. It is like running an engine with the tach in the red zone and throwing a rod through the side.

All this is otherwise largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that all AVRs are big boxes and AVPs are the same size. So we are in an age of inelegant design, and wasteful to boot.

I know, I know, that the marketers and pencil sharpeners will drone on about economies of scale. However they are wrong and can't see the wood for the trees.

Most of the public are smart enough to know, that it is a waste to have 11 channels and they will only use two or three. If you then told them that at best their speakers would waste at least half that power and usually more in the speaker crossover, they would be even more upset.

The result is consumer resistance on a massive scale. Marketing types are actually very, very stupid. They only look at the people buying, not the ones who don't.

I bet my experience is the same as the rest. Before AV almost every middle class home had a reasonably passable audio system. Not now. However almost everyone I know has at least one sound bar and many two or three. Often there is a small sub laying on the floor. Only two of my children own receivers, and three of the four use sound bars. The only friends we know who have a multichannel system are the ones we sold our lake home to, and I installed the system.

If you think this is great marketing then you definitely have blinkers on.

So this afternoon I will start a new thread were Masimo have given every last marketer a pink slip, and hired innovative engineers and designers, especially software developers and associated disciplines. This will be an out with the old, in with the new thread. Without some urgent redirection home AV will die.

Here is a link to the post I promised.

 

[PENG]

Before all of these measurements became accessible, or even possible/understandable technologically speaking, when much of the population was new to electronics and engineers were relatively rare among the populace, we bought excess headroom to pretty much cover our butts across the board. These days, the efficiency heads keep trying to get away with giving us no more than exactly what we pay for and no more than exactly what we need.

This has pretty much left me completely underwhelmed with regard to power, and speakers, for that matter. At least with considering affordable equipment. Most likely because so much of the population doesn't have enough common, or electronic sense in which to self regulate without blowing up their gear, so they need to be saved from themselves by strict limitations. I could go the rest of my life without ever touching, or hearing about another 50 watt amp or 4Ohm ratings as the dominant spec, or any product that struggles to make a solid 100WPC/8Ohm.

I look inside class D amps, the sparse amount of components on relatively tiny circuit boards and it instantly occurs to me that these new found efficiencies don't really make anything more affordable to the consumer, than it does to the manufacturer. To me, it looks dumb putting these otherwise tiny circuits into a full sized enclosure because they would have a more difficult time selling a more truthful sized chassis for the same money. Just slap a couple heavy toroidal transformers in there to make people think they are buying old fashioned quality instead.

Anymore, when I see a new 2 channel amp being offered, first thing I end up looking for is a picture of the back panel for a sub out, instead of wading thru an entire review article waiting for the reviewer to mention it as a feature. Next thing I look for is the output specs. If I have to start nailing down the distortion knee measurement hovering anywhere near my performance range, I will never give it another look.

About the only relatively affordable 2-channel amp I would even consider for my use these days, outside of DIY, is the Yamaha A-s801.

Interesting that you would consider the A-801. It is one integrated amp that I would not considered at all. I wouldn't mind the much older A-S700, that is more like a traditional real integrated amp, with great bench test results.

The 801 measured well enough, but if you look through the service manual, based on the parts used, may as well just grab an AVR. It does look attractive on the outside.

 

[MrBoat]

Interesting that you would consider the A-801. It is one integrated amp that I would not considered at all. I wouldn't mind the much older A-S700, that is more like a traditional real integrated amp, with great bench test results.

The 801 measured well enough, but if you look through the service manual, based on the parts used, may as well just grab an AVR. It does look attractive on the outside.

I'm not really particularly fond of the Yamaha, but there just isn't a lot of choices in the affordable range. The sub out is important, being they have us all hooked on subwoofers now.

The other choice would have to be something like the Outlaw retro (2160?) looking one. This, if I was buying one at all. I would rather use a dated AVR, which is what I do and I have two of the (3805) damn things. I still use the AVRs because the newer, more affordable amps seem comparatively feeble, like they are hanging onto their specs by a thread.

Overall, I'm just not compelled to spend money on the newer tech or the more expensive class D stuff.

I do have all the parts for the "Honey Badger" from diyaudio.com, but then would be drawn to building some 15" 3-way speakers to cancel out any desires for subs for the long term.

Otherwise, I'm nuts. I really don't need anything else. This is just the perils of having nothing left to add to my system talking.

 

[PENG]

I'm not really particularly fond of the Yamaha, but there just isn't a lot of choices in the affordable range. The sub out is important, being they have us all hooked on subwoofers now.

The other choice would have to be something like the Outlaw retro (2160?) looking one. This, if I was buying one at all. I would rather use a dated AVR, which is what I do and I have two of the (3805) damn things. I still use the AVRs because the newer, more affordable amps seem comparatively feeble, like they are hanging onto their specs by a thread.

Overall, I'm just not compelled to spend money on the newer tech or the more expensive class D stuff.

I do have all the parts for the "Honey Badger" from diyaudio.com, but then would be drawn to building some 15" 3-way speakers to cancel out any desires for subs for the long term.

Otherwise, I'm nuts. I really don't need anything else. This is just the perils of having nothing left to add to my system talking.

I understand your point now that you explained. In fact, I am also looking for a two channel with subout solution, but I would only go for one if it truly has 2.1 capability because:

1) The so called 2.1 (okay they don't all call it that but some do..) has a subout that is really a mixed L,R channel one, that is not independent.
2) It has no bass management, though from the SM, it seems that it does have a LPF of 100 Hz.

So, you can't set a crossover for the mains (L,R channels), the very similar (near identical in many areas) R-803 stereo receiver measured quite well, probably as good as the A-S801, and you can have some bass management as well as a limited YPAO version and may be cheaper too though I haven't checked its current price.

The A-S801 uses an AVR chip to control volume and that sets the performance limit for the preamp section as it's specs is not as good as the DAC chip and the opamps used in the preamp/DAC section. It's predecessor it sort of analog all the way, no volume IC used, and it measured very well. This is not to say the A-S801 would not sound good, I am sure it will sound as good as many "real" hi end integrated amp, but it just lacks the features that we can only get from AVRs, even Marantz slimline AVRs. If you look at its schematics, it supposedly has pre outs, but we both know it has none, so I can only guess that, they crippled the design for marketing reasons, before it went to the production line. I know lots of forum people like the A-S801 as it does look good and people assume it is superior to AVRs in terms of sound quality. I just want to share my knowledge about this thing, and not meant to be negative about it.

Also, I (actually others too) have had some lengthy discussion of eargiants (who no longer post on AH for whatever reason, probably got mad at us telling him his claim of the night and day better sound he heard was just all in his head...lol). He posted part of the service manual and asked for opinions, including why the amp sounds so good, I guess..., so many of us have seen the circuitry and the ICs used in that integrated amp.

If you are interested in seeing the schematics he posted, you can search for that thread, assuming it's still searchable.

So, imo you will be right if you think something like the AVR-3805 is a better choice. I used my AVR-3805 for two channel purposes for a while, it is more powerful than many integrated amps such as Yamaha's and has an independent suwoofer channel. I only gave it to one of my friends who was just starting to get into home hifi. I wish I had kept it for use with Dirac Live DLBC.

I am still looking for a real 2.1 receiver, integrated amp, or streamer so that I can upgrade my Dirac Live license to use DLBC, but there is nothing on the market, go figure!

 

[MrBoat]

I understand your point now that you explained. In fact, I am also looking for a two channel with subout solution, but I would only go for one if it truly has 2.1 capability because:

1) The so called 2.1 (okay they don't all call it that but some do..) has a subout that is really a mixed L,R channel one, that is not independent.
2) It has no bass management, though from the SM, it seems that it does have a LPF of 100 Hz.

So, you can't set a crossover for the mains (L,R channels), the very similar (near identical in many areas) R-803 stereo receiver measured quite well, probably as good as the A-S801, and you can have some bass management as well as a limited YPAO version and may be cheaper too though I haven't checked its current price.

The A-S801 uses an AVR chip to control volume and that sets the performance limit for the preamp section as it's specs is not as good as the DAC chip and the opamps used in the preamp/DAC section. It's predecessor it sort of analog all the way, no volume IC used, and it measured very well. This is not to say the A-S801 would not sound good, I am sure it will sound as good as many "real" hi end integrated amp, but it just lacks the features that we can only get from AVRs, even Marantz slimline AVRs. If you look at its schematics, it supposedly has pre outs, but we both know it has none, so I can only guess that, they crippled the design for marketing reasons, before it went to the production line. I know lots of forum people like the A-S801 as it does look good and people assume it is superior to AVRs in terms of sound quality. I just want to share my knowledge about this thing, and not meant to be negative about it.

Also, I (actually others too) have had some lengthy discussion of eargiants (who no longer post on AH for whatever reason, probably got mad at us telling him his claim of the night and day better sound he heard was just all in his head...lol). He posted part of the service manual and asked for opinions, including why the amp sounds so good, I guess..., so many of us have seen the circuitry and the ICs used in that integrated amp.

If you are interested in seeing the schematics he posted, you can search for that thread, assuming it's still searchable.

So, imo you will be right if you think something like the AVR-3805 is a better choice. I used my AVR-3805 for two channel purposes for a while, it is more powerful than many integrated amps such as Yamaha's and has an independent suwoofer channel. I only gave it to one of my friends who was just starting to get into home hifi. I wish I had kept it for use with Dirac Live DLBC.

I am still looking for a real 2.1 receiver, integrated amp, or streamer so that I can upgrade my Dirac Live license to use DLBC, but there is nothing on the market, go figure!

Mostly I looked at 2.1 integrated because it seemed like an obvious way around buying all the added amplification of a surround amp. You would think there should be substantial savings but they're really not. Any company that offers such a product, one may instead think it must be a dreadful inconvenience for them to go off of their AVR path.

Honestly, it's beginning to look like it would be easier to convert automotive equipment to get more tuning and power options. Especially if we are to start talking in 4Ohm terms.

It's no real problem for my main system because my LR speakers have a sensitivity of 98db and even my little 8WPC MOSFET amp pushes them to dangerously loud levels, and even works with my JBL S38 speakers. Otherwise, it's the woefully inefficient bookshelf designs I own that provide the biggest amplification challenge, which is odd to me, considering how many inefficient bookshelf designs that are being pushed these days.

My main hurdle is that I prefer listening at levels of 80-90db for just about everything as I always have, 40 years on. I am not a fan of quieter ambient music just to have something breaking up the quiet. I'm also not a fan of including all of the bass in a 2-way speaker of any kind, and feel they all need a sub woofer, or two.

When I go to set my bookshelf speakers up for more portable, near field experience, using an amp that is safely rated for these wimpier, inefficient speakers, has the volume knob cranked to 3/4 or more of it's capability. I'd rather use a more powerful amp at no more than 1/2, instead. It feels as if I am pushing my luck with regard to clipping when a good song comes on and the volume just needs to be a little more.

Even if it can be concluded that I obviously need more sensitive BS speakers for my needs, this tends to indicate the need for a sub, along with more comprehensive bass management, even more. On one desktop system I have with an underpowered amp with a plain sub out, I have a passive LPF in line. While I haven't had the chance to fully try this out, it just goes to show what I am up against with this quest for a more powerful, affordable amp. It just seems like it should be easier than this come 2023.

 

[PENG]

Mostly I looked at 2.1 integrated because it seemed like an obvious way around buying all the added amplification of a surround amp. You would think there should be substantial savings but they're really not. Any company that offers such a product, one may instead think it must be a dreadful inconvenience for them to go off of their AVR path.

Honestly, it's beginning to look like it would be easier to convert automotive equipment to get more tuning and power options. Especially if we are to start talking in 4Ohm terms.

It's no real problem for my main system because my LR speakers have a sensitivity of 98db and even my little 8WPC MOSFET amp pushes them to dangerously loud levels, and even works with my JBL S38 speakers. Otherwise, it's the woefully inefficient bookshelf designs I own that provide the biggest amplification challenge, which is odd to me, considering how many inefficient bookshelf designs that are being pushed these days.

My main hurdle is that I prefer listening at levels of 80-90db for just about everything as I always have, 40 years on. I am not a fan of quieter ambient music just to have something breaking up the quiet. I'm also not a fan of including all of the bass in a 2-way speaker of any kind, and feel they all need a sub woofer, or two.

When I go to set my bookshelf speakers up for more portable, near field experience, using an amp that is safely rated for these wimpier, inefficient speakers, has the volume knob cranked to 3/4 or more of it's capability. I'd rather use a more powerful amp at no more than 1/2, instead. It feels as if I am pushing my luck with regard to clipping when a good song comes on and the volume just needs to be a little more.

Even if it can be concluded that I obviously need more sensitive BS speakers for my needs, this tends to indicate the need for a sub, along with more comprehensive bass management, even more. On one desktop system I have with an underpowered amp with a plain sub out, I have a passive LPF in line. While I haven't had the chance to fully try this out, it just goes to show what I am up against with this quest for a more powerful, affordable amp. It just seems like it should be easier than this come 2023.

Would a B stock Marantz NR1200 plus a buckeye NCx500 do the trick for you. It will probably cost >$1500 but it can do a lot, and sound quality won't be a concern ar all. In terms of measurable performance, those Hypex amps are are to beat, very low THD, high SNR, XT, very high DF, flat FR.

 

[MrBoat]

Would a B stock Marantz NR1200 plus a buckeye NCx500 do the trick for you. It will probably cost >$1500 but it can do a lot, and sound quality won't be a concern ar all. In terms of measurable performance, those Hypex amps are are to beat, very low THD, high SNR, XT, very high DF, flat FR.

I have looked into the Hypex stuff and have been interested in that as a possibility. Was going to let them get a couple more years to see where class D tech goes from here. I do have an Icepower module kit that sounds pretty good, but without sub outs.

I meant to mention about the Hypex as I have looked into those quite a lot via the DIY stuff I get into.