stereo amplifier vs AV receiver

[Goliath]

Hello,

I've heard from many people that a stereo amplifier (even an entry-level spec model) sounds more musical when playing stereo compared an AVR. Why is this? Is there some built in musicality or are AVR's just incapable?

 

[fmw]

Hello,

I've heard from many people that a stereo amplifier (even an entry-level spec model) sounds more musical when playing stereo compared an AVR. Why is this? Is there some built in musicality or are AVR's just incapable?

In general these are people reporting what they want to hear rather than what they actually hear. It is caused by hearing bias. Amplifiers without audible distortion produce the same results as long as they aren't overdriven. If these folks were to participate in a bias controlled test, they wouldn't hear any additional "musicality." There are a few a amplifiers with audible distortion. Those are normally very, very cheap or driven with vacuum tubes. Basically, solid state amplifiers used within their design parameters produce the same results.
Don't misunderstand, there is a lot of pleasure in owning and using a big, beautiful amplifier but it doesn't have anything meaningful to do with sound reproduction. My comments come from years of bias controlled listening tests, not my opinions.

 

[3db]

I would listen to fmw. Solid state is solid staate whether you stick it into an AVR or into a stereo amplifier. If teh AVR isdesigned properly and operated in its intended design envelope, there would be no difference in sound between a stereo amp and an AVR. The claims you have been reading that indicate otherwise IS subjective fluff with no measurements to back it up.

 

[cpp]

I would listen to fmw. Solid state is solid staate whether you stick it into an AVR or into a stereo amplifier. If teh AVR isdesigned properly and operated in its intended design envelope, there would be no difference in sound between a stereo amp and an AVR. The claims you have been reading that indicate otherwise IS subjective fluff with no measurements to back it up.

The only good thing about separates, is when your "pre-amp" or processor capabilities in your receiver DIE, your SOL..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hello,

I've heard from many people that a stereo amplifier (even an entry-level spec model) sounds more musical when playing stereo compared an AVR. Why is this? Is there some built in musicality or are AVR's just incapable?

I agree with the guys. You most likely will not notice any difference IF YOU BYPASS TONES (RC, EQ, DSP) in your AVR.

See, most stereo receivers and especially high-end class-A analog stereo preamps (like the $20,000 Mark Levinson) don't even have all these RC, EQ, DSP tones. So you pay MORE TO GET LESS FEATURES.

But if you use these TONES in AVR and compare to a stereo receiver that is basically in Direct mode (no RC, DSP, EQ), you may find that the stereo receiver will sound more "musical" because the stereo receiver is NOT using tones.

 

[Goliath]

One of the reasons why this topic came up is because I had a discussion with a friend of mine who is more to into stereo. He was saying that if you are listening to music and you have a receiver then you absolutely want a preamp with an SSP loop. as you can bypass the surround sound processor and play a proper stereo setup.

Now I don't know enough about these things, but he's view is that the DSPs in receivers affect the musicality. But I thought receivers had the option to bypass the DSP's, the processing effects? My receiver is an Onkyo NR616 and I'm sure I have a direct mode. Wouldn't that bypass the processor?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Now I don't know enough about these things, but he's view is that the DSPs in receivers affect the musicality. But I thought receivers had the option to bypass the DSP's, the processing effects? My receiver is an Onkyo NR616 and I'm sure I have a direct mode. Wouldn't that bypass the processor?

DSP absolutely affects sound quality. And yes, you have the capability to bypass the DSP, RC, EQ. So thus, it is the equivalent of NOT having DSP like a stereo preamp. The electrical measurements also show the equivalence (SNR, THD, Crosstalk, FR, etc).

 

[Goliath]

So if I select direct mode then it's basically a stereo preamp? Nothing else would affect the sound compared to a stereo amp - ie there isn't anything specific to a receiver that would affect things?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So if I select direct mode then it's basically a stereo preamp? Nothing else would affect the sound compared to a stereo amp - ie there isn't anything specific to a receiver that would affect things?

Exactly. If you use Direct Mode, it will be pure sound unaffected by DSP & EQ.

There is absolutely nothing magical about a stereo receiver over an AVR.

 

[Goliath]

In fact, this is what he said :

"if you want surround, then stick with your avr. but my conviction is that your front speakers can benefit from a decent amplifier that you can connect to your pre out. but if you want decent stereo and do not want to rely on the little opamp based preamp in the avr then i would get a preamp with a SSP loop. the SSP loop is basicly a input on the preamp that goes directly to the AVR. when you select other inputs you do not have the AVR in the system."

Now you are saying that bypassing the EQ, DSP means it's effectively a stereo amp. So then he doesn't know about modern technology or there is something about stereo amplifiers that are perhaps better built for stereo. Not sure what opamps are in amplifiers, but if you take 2 amps, one an entry-level receiver and an entry-level stereo amp, wouldn't the stereo amp be better built for the same money?

I don't know if there are any measurements of 2 ch amps and avr's so I can see the difference in measurements between the two? I know hometheater.com reviews AVR's and have test bench results but I don't see any stereo amp measurements. Would like to compare the two using same testing methodologies.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Do you think an entry level "stereo" receiver SOUNDS better than the $5,500 AudioControl AVR-1?

Compare your entry level AVR to this $5,500 AVR!

AudioControl Concert AVR-1 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures | Home Theater

This graph shows that the AVR-1’s left channel, from CD input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 101.8 watts and 1 percent distortion at 119.7 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 176.4 watts and 1 percent distortion at 197.8 watts.

Response from the multichannel input to the speaker output measures –0.02 decibels at 10 hertz, +0.00 dB at 20 Hz, –0.02 dB at 20 kilohertz, and –2.92 dB at 50 kHz. THD+N from the CD input to the speaker output was less than 0.013 percent at 1 kHz when driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load. Crosstalk at 1 kHz driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load was –77.46 dB left to right and –75.00 dB right to left. The signal-to-noise ratio with 2.83 volts driving an 8-ohm load from 10 Hz to 24 kHz with “A” weighting was –99.24 dBrA.

Or compare to a $5,000 Arcam AVR:

Arcam AVR600 A/V Receiver HT Labs Measures | Home Theater

I doubt a stereo receiver magically sounds better than these $5,000 AVR.

Now compare your entry level AVRs from Denon, Yamaha, Pioneer, HK, etc, to these two high-end $5,000 AVRs.

Lets see, how about a $400 entry level Yamaha RX-V473?
Yamaha RX-V473 and RX-V573 A/V Receivers HT Labs Measures | Home Theater

This graph shows that the RX-V473’s left channel, from Audio input to speaker output with two channels driving 8-ohm loads, reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 81.3 watts and 1 percent distortion at 96.5 watts. Into 4 ohms, the amplifier reaches 0.1 percent distortion at 126.5 watts and 1 percent distortion at 143.2 watts.

There was no multichannel input to measure. THD+N from the Audio input to the speaker output was less than 0.019 percent at 1 kilohertz when driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load. Crosstalk at 1 kHz driving 2.83 volts into an 8-ohm load was –74.29 decibels left to right and –73.69 dB right to left. The signal-to-noise ratio with an 8-ohm load from 10 hertz to 24 kHz with “A” weighting was –110.35 dBrA.


What the heck? Why, it looks quite similar, except the cheap Yamaha actually has better SNR by -10dB! What's going on here?

Bottom line, a $500 stereo receiver won't be better than the $5,000 Arcam or AudioControl, and the $5,000 Arcam & AudioControl won't even measure any better than a $400 AVR. So your buddy is just wrong.

X = Entry Stereo Receiver
Y = $5,500 AVR
Z = Entry AVR

If X = Y and Y = Z, then X = Z.

 

[fmw]

He is a hard core audiophile. I recognize it because I was one myself years ago. Like you and me, your friend suffers from hearing bias and allows it to influence his reaction to the sound. It is quite normal and human. I got over it through a long involvement in bias controlled listning tests. In an AVR, if you are listining to two channel music, then you are only using the two amplifiers that drive the main speaker pair. The other amplifiers aren't involved at all. Also understand that most modern amplifiers have performance specifications that go beyond audibility. So differences in the specifications are almost always beyond the threshold of audibility.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He is a hard core audiophile. I recognize it because I was one myself years ago...

Many of us were once like that. The difference is that some of us have evolved.

 

[ski2xblack]

The "little opamp based preamp in the avr" is probably better than he is giving it credit for. Opamps are often the misguided target of audiohpile ire. All that music in his collection? Yeah, it's been through all sorts of op amps, cheap cords, and other things that make the audiophile's skin crawl. And, yes, provided your avr has some sort of pure/direct mode, it is basically a stereo receiver with a bunch of extra stuff you don't use when in pure/direct mode. Given economies of scale, the AVR is the most cost effective route even for stereo rigs. If you use subs, or have digital sources, then it's even more of a no-brainer.

About the only thing in favor of two channel gear is amp power. For example, take the often recommended HK3490, which is a basic two channel receiver that happens to have a beast of an amp. I've seen them go for $300-$400 depending on the sales at the time. Compare to an AVR of similar power and low impedance drive capability, or one with pre-outs to allow use of external amplification, and you'll see that they are all mid-level or higher units.

 

[fmw]

Many of us were once like that. The difference is that some of us have evolved.

Mine wasn't an evolution at all. I was on an internet forum in 1998 and read a review of digital cables with the normal sonic adjectives - you know, pace, rhythm, musical etc. I asked how the connection could affect the sound since it wasn't waveforms but rather data that the cables were transmitting. It made no logical sense to me. I got the usual criticism about my ability to hear. So I put together a group of 10 audiophiles to pool equipment and conduct double blind bias controlled listening tests. After we eliminated the nonsense about audible digital cables we ended up spending a couple of years dealing with the rest of the components. I ended my audiophilia during that first ear opening test. None of the 10 engage in audiophilia any longer. I'm sure the audiophiles will say their ears are more golden than ours were. Not a problem as long as it makes them happy.

 

[Goliath]

He keeps on about the power supply sections. Saying the power supplies in an entry-level stereo amp like a NAD is much better than an entry-level receiver like, for instance, an Onkyo, as the Onkyo needs to has cater for 5 channels.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Mine wasn't an evolution at all. I was on an internet forum in 1998 and read a review of digital cables with the normal sonic adjectives - you know, pace, rhythm, musical etc. I asked how the connection could affect the sound since it wasn't waveforms but rather data that the cables were transmitting. It made no logical sense to me. I got the usual criticism about my ability to hear. So I put together a group of 10 audiophiles to pool equipment and conduct double blind bias controlled listening tests. After we eliminated the nonsense about audible digital cables we ended up spending a couple of years dealing with the rest of the components. I ended my audiophilia during that first ear opening test. None of the 10 engage in audiophilia any longer. I'm sure the audiophiles will say their ears are more golden than ours were. Not a problem as long as it makes them happy.

I consider guys like us the "converted audiophiles" and the other guys "old audiophiles".

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He keeps on about the power supply sections. Saying the power supplies in an entry-level stereo amp like a NAD is much better than an entry-level receiver like, for instance, an Onkyo, as the Onkyo needs to has cater for 5 channels.

Yes, but in Direct 2.0 mode, the Onkyo AVR becomes a 2 Ch preamp! The power OUTPUT increases when you go from 5Ch to 2Ch in the AVR.

 

[Steve81]

He keeps on about the power supply sections. Saying the power supplies in an entry-level stereo amp like a NAD is much better than an entry-level receiver like, for instance, an Onkyo, as the Onkyo needs to has cater for 5 channels.

I'm curious why he feels this is a problem; if the power supply of the Onkyo is built to handle the demands of 5 active channels, why is it going to fall apart when it only has to deal with two channels?

 

[ski2xblack]

He's correct as far as amps/power supplies go. Again using the HK3490 as an example, compare it's power supply and capacitance vs. that of similarly priced AVRs, and it's no contest. NAD is devoted to class G/H power supplies, which work great for producing ridiculous IHF ratings for their marketing department, and just happen to work pretty well for music reproduction. It is their dual/multi/variable rail setup that allows NAD to punch above what their continuous power ratings would lead one to expect. But let's not get lost in the weeds...It boils down to sufficient amp power for your particular use, which is a fundamental consideration regardless of number of channels, a more basic factor than AVR vs. stereo receiver. And as Steve and ADTG correctly point out, an AVR pushing only two channels does offer more power.

I look at system design starting from the room and speakers, and work back from there. That will determine just how much power you need. Once that is determined and appropriate contenders are narrowed down, then you can choose either AVR or stereo amp based on other features.

The thing that kind of seems silly to me is that AVRs that could benefit from external amps typically lack pre-outs, and the AVRs that have pre-outs are often powerful enough that external amps are unnecessary. Who's the big brain behind that?