At VERY VERY low volumes there might not be any difference since you can barely hear anyway. But I think at about -35 to a 0 there are clear differences as far as what I've read from different amp owners.
Between what? Based on what evidence? When was the last time you heard a very well designed class A/B amp and a very well designed class A amp?
From what I've read, a owner of klipsch said there was a BIG BIG difference in sound moving from a Denon 7.1 reciever to the GLOW Amp One. What happnened was his friend left him the glow amp one because he left the country, and this guy had it in his closet for a year before trying t out... one day he was bored and tried it out and was "wowed". He said it addeded dynamics, bass, and clarity to a big degree.
Yes from what you've read, not experienced. And what you've read is a subjective opinion with no real proof.
From what I read from many owners switching from Denons and pioneers to a A-class amp, in the simplest form, the sounds from the speakers sound more lifelike and bigger in size, more presence.
Again, from what you've read. Plus your comparing AVR amp sections to Class A separates. Although no mention of what Class A amps you're talking about or what speakers or whether there are subs involved. Yet again, with subjective statements that are third party.
So when a T-Rex roars in jurrasaic park, you would actually hear a REAL LIFE-like dino roar in life size scale.
Just because the amp is Class A? Unlikely. Again, when was the last time you heard a big bada$$ Class A/B amp and a Class A amp? Again, do you know what a class A amp is?
One guy said he freaked out because when he was listening to Johnny cash on his GLOW Amp One (A-class) in the earky morning played through his AM Radio he thought he was hallucinating because that sh!t was 3d and he thought Johnny Cash was in his room so he immediately turned it off because he got scared lol..
Well that would have far more to do with the speakers and drugs than the amplifier.
There are so many shitty sounding recievers out there now that just pack it up in 7.1 with total **** components because the HIFI crowd goes with matrix code to listen to movies anyway. But for 2.1 analog listening to movies and music, I think amps and cables are pretty critical.
So based on your extensive experience with receivers and separates you're coming to this conclusion? What matrixed sound are you referring to? If the original track is in 5.1 or 7.1 there is no matrixing. You can even play the track with a "pure" or "direct" mode where the receiver does absolutely nothing to the signal. I'm not entirely sure what you'd want to downmix (ie alter the original signal) of a movie soundtrack, but hey whatever floats your boat.
Based on what personal experience are you basing these opinions on? What amps and cables have you compared that would lead you to believe that they make such a big difference? What science are these opinions based on?
Suppose one gets a DAC to decompress the digital mixes to analog for neutral and pure sound, amps get even more critical.
What is your obsession with DAC's? What makes leads you to believe there is going to be a night and day difference between the internal DAC in a good receiver and an aftermarket DAC? Third party opinions with zero scientific proof? How do you think the signal is getting to the speakers in a receiver? How do you think the signal is getting to an external amplifier from a receiver? An internal DAC. Before you say so, what makes you think the DAC in a well made receiver is inferior to an aftermarket one?
The above makes sense, but what you said also makes sense since 5.1 reciever would digitize and matrix that sh!t to a heavy degree. So in the end, it all sounds the same.( whichever reciever or whichever cable) but for those who want a purer and a more neutral sound from the source (way it was intended) amp and cables can make a diffence I think in analog mode..
I don't think you have any idea how a receiver works. At all. It also doesn't appear you're basing this on any personal experience. It's one thing for you to tell me you did this or that and you heard a difference. It's entirely another for you to read that someone said this or that and then tell me that there is difference.
Then do the digital mixes sound better than analog? Many if not all audiophilles would agree analog will always sound better to a heavy degree.
Depends on many different factors, none of which you appear to comprehend. To be clear, this is not an insult. This is telling you that you need to start reading more stuff that actually matters instead of all the subjective opinions. The subjective opinions will just leave you treading water and flailing about. If it really matters that much to you, take the time to learn the science behind this stuff instead of regurgitating all this half baked nonsense.
If you dont have the budget and dont have the time nor the interest in sound to an audiophille degree somewhat, the hifi market 7.1 recievers with a HTIB will do.
I'm pretty sure you've seen my system and I don't think I lack in high quality gear. This also doesn't encompass everything I've heard and had experience with either. I've also taken the time to listen to guys who know what they're talking about and can back it up with objective evidence. Then done my own research on this stuff to learn why this or that does or doesn't matter. Why "audiophile" more often than not refers to something backed up by pseudoscience and mumbo jumbo rather than facts. That people selling you on "audiophile" stuff more often then not are preying on those who don't know how the brain works and know that if you tell someone something sounds better enough they'll believe it because that's just how the brain works.
