integrated amplifier advice needed, please!

[mtrycrafts]

j garcia, no offense but give me a little credit here. Your buddy brings his speakers to your listening room, the change in rooms, listening environment, time,etc. renders the whole point of your story as mute as I well know and I have to think you do too.

Nick

Not to mention the lack of any basic controls.

 

[j_garcia]

j garcia, no offense but give me a little credit here. Your buddy brings his speakers to your listening room, the change in rooms, listening environment, time,etc. renders the whole point of your story as mute as I well know and I have to think you do too.

Somehow I don't think that the room made the speaker have more depth to the midrange.

Why is this so hard to believe, especially when you don't seem to have done any comparison of your own?

That would also be moot, not mute.

Mrty, what I would like to hear from you is some actual personal listening experiences where you compared some dissimilar products in either (or both) a controled or completely subjective test. I want to know what you hear.

 

[Sleestack]

Check out the Denon PMA IVR 2000. Not many people even know about this piece, but it is an excellent integrated amp. Great construction. It even has a good phono stage. It will run you around $1K new. Not that easy to a find a used one. I got rid of all my solid state and tube gear (and replaced it with TACT gear) except for the PMA IVR2000. Its my standby amp when anything goes down.

 

[j_garcia]

That thing is a beast. I was reading about it a few months ago. Not exactly attractive, but that's not why it was designed.

 

[Sleestack]

That thing is a beast. I was reading about it a few months a go. Not exactly attractive, but that's not why it was designed.

It is a beast. I hate moving it. It actually looks very nice in person. More of a retro look and feel.

 

[j_garcia]

It is a beast. I hate moving it. It actually looks very nice in person. More of a retro look and feel.

It is attractive in a brute sort of way Spartan, industrial and purposeful. Not so much an aesthetic way to me.

 

[just_visiting]

I've been reading about that Denon last month. Since an integrated amp is better, how would I added to my existing system? Or is it necessary since my Denon 3805 has pure direct mode for 2 channels? I only have 1 set of speaers.

 

[j_garcia]

Rather than use an integrated with the 3805, I'd probalby just get an external amp. You can however hook the R&L preouts to that guy for HT use and then have your music source connected directly to the integrated for when you listen to music; that way the speakers are always connected to the integrated and get power from it. When using the 3805 as the source, it functions as an amp, and when you use it with your music source it functions as an integrated only. The only issue you will have is the abitlity to control volume because the remote codes will almost certainly be the same for both the 3805 and the IVR2000.

I felt my integrated sounded better than my receiver, but when I added the monoblocks, they became a lot closer. At low volume, the 7200 still sounds better (operating in class A mode).

 

[46minaudio]

Somehow I don't think that the room made the speaker have more depth to the midrange.

Why is this so hard to believe, especially when you don't seem to have done any comparison of your own?

That would also be moot, not mute.

Mrty, what I would like to hear from you is some actual personal listening experiences where you compared some dissimilar products in either (or both) a controled or completely subjective test. I want to know what you hear.

While at ARs forum maybe 2004(before blind testing chat was banned)I level matched and compared a Rotel RC 1070 2ch pre and the Direct stereo on a Yamaha AVR 1400 using a Acurus 200WPC amp for both.Nobody could pick a winner.I have also done the same with a GFP 750 Adcom 2ch pre/,IMO if he wants to make a real difference,Buy a nice sub...

 

[Nick250]

Somehow I don't think that the room made the speaker have more depth to the midrange.
Why is this so hard to believe, especially when you don't seem to have done any comparison of your own?

hear.

It seems to me that the testing protocol is seriously flawed here. Let's go over this again. Your friend brings his Studio 20s to your house and your listening room. You connect them up (did you use the AudioQuest speaker cables too?) to what I suspect you have probably told him (or at least he thinks) is a great piece of hardware (your integrated) and "WOW" his speakers have more depth to their mid-range than he remembers from his house, thereby proving beyond all doubt that inexpensive integrateds have better sound than mid level AV receivers. Have I got this right? That speakers and their interaction within a give room are not the paramount factors to impact what we hear?

PS you only get to use the poor grammar argument once per thread.

 

[j_garcia]

If you use the same amp, you are only comparing between pre stages not the amplification stages also, so that is not quite the same thing as comparing a receiver to an integrated amp.

There was no testing protocol. He wanted to hear my new amp, and decided to bring his speakers over also so he could get an idea of how it sounded with his speakers. We didn't level match, we didn't DBT, we didn't pull out any meters or calculators or spreadsheets. Just listened. If that makes it invalid in your eyes, then I don't know what else to say. I didn't come up to him and say "Hey, moron, I spent 1/3 the money you did and it sounds better than your receiver. Why don't you come listen to it and see what you're missing out on you fool?" I simply asked a friend who likes music if he wanted to listen to the amp. I don't have a problem if you don't believe what I say because you don't like how I don't do it in an anechoic chamber, I'm just relaying thoughts and opinions about what I hear; ignore it or do as you like with it.

Yep, used Audioquest interconnects. Does that have any bearing? They make quality products, I just won't and don't pay their retail price for them...

 

[The13thGryphon]

Ok, I can keep an open mind on this. Lets take this to the next step then. What would be an example or two of the integrated amps that would sell for two thirds the price of my receiver and provide superior sound. I will keep an eye open for them and do an audition if possible and report back my findings. Since I paid $1000 for the 3806 that would put us around $650 - $700, maybe a bit more since the $1000 for the 3806 represents a $300 discount.

Regards, Nick

Okay, if you truly want to test my assertion, then given the $1,300 price of your AV receiver, we should be looking for integrated amps in the $800 to $900 range. Therefore, I’d recommend listening to the NAD C372 ($899), Rotel RA-1062 ($699), Creek A50i ($795), Rega Mira ($895), Onix A-120MKII ($695), Audio Analogue Pucinni ($795), or if you really want to hear a revelation, and would allow me to push the price up just a tad, look for the Musical Fidelity X-150 ($995) or Audio Refinement Complete ($1,050).

However, I’d even go so far as to stay that the following less expensive integrated amps ($600 to $700) will indeed best your typical $1,000 to $1,300 AV receiver in terms of good old stereo sound. To verify this try listening to the NAD C352 ($599), Rotel RA-1062 ($699), Arcam A65 Plus ($599), Music Hall A25.2 ($600), or the Jolida 1501A ($750), among others.

You might not like every single one, and some will mate better with some speakers than others... but in general they will all provide a more realistic and convincing approximation of music, and will provide a wider and deeper soundstage and better image placement than the typical AV receiver.

 

[PENG]

As I posted before, the first time I compared my Denon receiver with and without an amp I thought I heard better bass, more detailed highs, better sound stage etc., just as others have claimed. A few months later I decided to really take the time to do more critical listening comparison, using Stereo CD's only. Thank goodness I only have to deal with 2 channels. Still it was a pain to keep connecting and disconnecting those wires. To my surprise, I came to the conclusion that the 110W X 7 Denon on its own was just as good, even at reference level as the 200W X2 and 350W X 2 amps. I tried all sorts of 2 channel CD's including concertos, symphonies and some bass heavy materials. All my listening tests were done with the Denon set to pure direct mode, without the subwoofer.

I even measured the current with a true rms meter that can measured accurately signals up to a few thousand hertz. The Denon receiver had no trouble delivering the same currents as the amps (I tried two amps) did. That's when I realized I was not immuned to the Placebo effect. I then did a comparison between my two amps. To minimize the time in switching between the two amps, I pushed in the mono button on the 2 channel preamp, and used the balance button to switch between the two amps but with no level matching. To my surprise, this time I was able to hear a subtle difference, but the difference was so small that I was almost certain that I would fail a blind test. Also, while I was confident that I heard a slight difference, I could not say which one sounded better. I would like to believe the more expensive one (3 times more) sounded better though. This test made me think that perhaps the preamp had a significant effect on sound quality.

I am posting some my experience again, in the hope that people may be convinced to accept the fact that not everyone are gifted to hear those often claimed major, huge, day and night difference between amps (power or integrated), receivers, and amps. Moreover, we (I assume I am not the only one) don't just base our comments on published specs, we do based our comments on our listening experience.

In my opinion, if you can hear those difference, good for you, but please recognize the fact that not everyone are gifted the same way. I have no problem accepting your claims, but I hope you would also accept ours. People are going to ask the question "Will I hear a difference/improvements in sound quality.........", or something to that effect. Let's don't assure them they will or will not... They really need to find out for themselves, we can only offer comments based on our own experience.

As an aside, I do like amps, they are usually nicely built, good looking, heavy, and the preamps have buttons to play with. However, I would definitely upgrade my speakers first, before I spend more money on amps. The reason is simple, I have no trouble hearing the difference between speakers, and I know which one sounds better. The B&W 802D comes to mind, time to dream..............

 

[mtrycrafts]

Somehow I don't think that the room made the speaker have more depth to the midrange.

Why is this so hard to believe, especially when you don't seem to have done any comparison of your own?

That would also be moot, not mute.

Mrty, what I would like to hear from you is some actual personal listening experiences where you compared some dissimilar products in either (or both) a controled or completely subjective test. I want to know what you hear.

It is irrelevant what I hear. I am sure I am deaf, really, and my acoustic memory is very short.

What matters is what the claimants can really hear, not perceive something that may be imagined only.

and, acoustic space can indeed alter the sound of speakers most notably. But, what would I know, I only rely on real researchers in the field.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There was no testing protocol. He wanted to hear my new amp, and decided to bring his speakers over also so he could get an idea of how it sounded with his speakers. We didn't level match, we didn't DBT, we didn't pull out any meters or calculators or spreadsheets. Just listened. .

Well, it had/has value for the both of you, it seems. As to others who may be interested in objective answers, it has none.

 

[mulester7]

Well, it had/has value for the both of you, it seems. As to others who may be interested in objective answers, it has none.

.....Mtry, your constant cries for objectivity makes me wonder why you spurn subjectivity....do you lack skills in selectivity?....you throw cold water, in any way you can, to the bitter end, you never quit, doesn't matter what's said, yes, cold water, on any report of what someone hears, who's talking about a piece of audio equipment and what they heard from it compared to other pieces of audio equipment....someone who has usually been studying audio at different sites, who actually loves music, seeks "sound quality", can't help being at the level of experience they are, but at least, they are making their way with their ears doing the deciding, down with tin-earred allegiance, doing just like JGarcia and just listening, what a great post........Mtry, we ain't stewpid, we're not dumb cattle, we don't need a programmed robot, and you're acting like a republican......

 

[jaxvon]

I think what Mtry is getting to here is that people go around posting their personal experience and parading it as fact. There's nothing wrong with sharing opinions or listening experiences, but it should be very obvious as so. When trying to make any claim about "better" without a true scientific test, then all you've gotta do is say "I think" or "I believe" or "To my ears". The problem is, too many people simply post an opinion without noting it as so, and then it ends up becoming fact down the line, and that's just bad information (portrayed as such). Most people here will value another person's opinion on audio gear, so long as it stated as an opinion and not as a "fact".

 

[PENG]

I think what Mtry is getting to here is that people go around posting their personal experience and parading it as fact. There's nothing wrong with sharing opinions or listening experiences, but it should be very obvious as so. When trying to make any claim about "better" without a true scientific test, then all you've gotta do is say "I think" or "I believe" or "To my ears". The problem is, too many people simply post an opinion without noting it as so, and then it ends up becoming fact down the line, and that's just bad information (portrayed as such). Most people here will value another person's opinion on audio gear, so long as it stated as an opinion and not as a "fact".

Thank you so very much. You summarized what I was trying to say, in one paragraph. I always enjoy mulester7,s posts but I also have great respect for Mtry.

 

[The13thGryphon]

I think what Mtry is getting to here is that people go around posting their personal experience and parading it as fact. There's nothing wrong with sharing opinions or listening experiences, but it should be very obvious as so. When trying to make any claim about "better" without a true scientific test, then all you've gotta do is say "I think" or "I believe" or "To my ears". The problem is, too many people simply post an opinion without noting it as so, and then it ends up becoming fact down the line, and that's just bad information (portrayed as such). Most people here will value another person's opinion on audio gear, so long as it stated as an opinion and not as a "fact".

It may surprise you to know that I don't disagree with your statement that what I've posted thus far in this thread is indeed just my opinion. It is my belief, or my opinion, and nothing more... to that I would agree without reservation. It is, however, my opinion based upon selling high fidelity audio/video in an audio salon to put myself through college. It is my opinion as a lifelong guitar player. It is my opinion given a 30+ year passion for music, and a 25+ year fascination with audio/video gear. However, as you point out, it is without a doubt wholly and solely my opinion.

If you look back to my very first post in this particular thread you will undoubtedly note that I began the first sentence of my first paragraph with “IMHO”… that does still stand for “In My Humble Opinion” does it not? In the middle of the second paragraph of that same post I again state “in my opinion”.

In j_garcia’s first post of this thread he states “IMO, the 4801 is a solid receiver too, but my integrated cost 1/3 the price and actually yields as good or better musical performance.” I believe that “IMO” does indicate “In My Opinion”? Yes? In his post of 1:17 p.m. yesterday he states “I felt my integrated sounded better than my receiver…” Note the use of “I felt”. In his post of 4:16 P.m. yesterday he states “I'm just relaying thoughts and opinions about what I hear; ignore it or do as you like with it.” Please indicate how either of us have attempted to “parade our personal experience as fact” jaxvon?

In my post of 04-20-2006, 08:32 PM I discussed power supplies and output transistors, and I asked the reader to make a direct comparison themselves. I did not provide an absolute and definitive decree… I asked the reader to do their own research and homework, and make the final determination themselves. In my post of 7:24 p.m. yesterday I again challenge the reader to test my assertions, and I offer a number of possible units to go out and listen to and make comparisons against mass-market AV receivers. Again, I’m not telling them to not think, not listen, not try it for themselves… but just the opposite.

I would point out that in re-reading every post connected to this thread I have yet to see a single documented set of facts. Everything I’ve read, from all sides of this discussion, appears to me to be opinion.

Unfortunately, contrary to jaxvon’s statement that “Most people here will value another person's opinion on audio gear, so long as it stated as an opinion and not as a ‘fact’ “… I do not feel particularly valued for my opinions, even though I believe that I have made every attempt to note them for what they are… my personal observations and opinions.

Do me a favor and climb down off your high horse and follow your own advice. You’re statements are simply your opinions (unless and until you provide documented scientific analysis to the contrary), as are mine.

 

[mulester7]

When trying to make any claim about "better" without a true scientific test, then all you've gotta do is say "I think" or "I believe" or "To my ears"

.....one short rebuttal respectfully given, Jaxvon, and I'm done with it....how many listening reports "haven't" had some form of "this is what I heard" somewhere in it?....would that be a good ground rule?.....