What are the benefits of using a music stereo amp with an AV receiver?

[Chin-Tuan]

Hi all,

Currently I have Tannoy DC6 Revolution Signature series for my LCR and Tannoy Mercury F1s for my surround sides powered using an Onkyo 606. I now have an opportunity to renovate my living room and going to upgrade my HT system. I am now looking at either Marantz 7010 or Denon 6200 or even Denon 7200.

The new set up that had been proposed to me by my local AV sales guy is as follows:

1. Keep the Tannoy DC6 as the LCR.

2. Transfer the Tannoy Mecury F1 from the Surround Sides to be used as Front Heights. (ps: I do not have the space for rear surrounds)

3. Purchase two pairs of in-ceiling speakers. One pair to replace the Tannoy Mercury F1 as Surround Side and the second pair as Atmos Speakers. (ps: I wanted to go for an Atmos setup)

4. As for my listening habits - I would say 70% HT and 30% stereo music.

My questions are as follows:

5. If I really want to go for quality stereo music. Am I better off buy a separate music stereo amp to pair with the Denon 6200? For example, would a Marantz stereo amp like the PM8005 be able to pair with Denon 6200?

6. How significant are the benefits of pairing a stereo amp with a mid-range AV Amp like the Denon 6200 or even Marantz 7010?

Thank you.

 

[ImcLoud]

I am not a fan of mixing HT and music systems for the "BEST" music sound. I prefer the shortest path possible for a music only system. SINCE you are talking about the best quality music system. I picture that with a preamp, source, and pair of mono block amps... Just what I picture and like.

NOW with that said, will you hear a difference between that and an AVR? I do, others dont and prefer the sound of an avr vs a stereo system??? Just all depends on your ears.. To me you can get a decent music power setup for under $1000, say a pair of outlaw 2200's and a parasound classic preamp, that will give you a nice music only platform, compare it to your avr and see what you like..

 

[PENG]

Hi all,

Currently I have Tannoy DC6 Revolution Signature series for my LCR and Tannoy Mercury F1s for my surround sides powered using an Onkyo 606. I now have an opportunity to renovate my living room and going to upgrade my HT system. I am now looking at either Marantz 7010 or Denon 6200 or even Denon 7200.

The new set up that had been proposed to me by my local AV sales guy is as follows:

1. Keep the Tannoy DC6 as the LCR.

2. Transfer the Tannoy Mecury F1 from the Surround Sides to be used as Front Heights. (ps: I do not have the space for rear surrounds)

3. Purchase two pairs of in-ceiling speakers. One pair to replace the Tannoy Mercury F1 as Surround Side and the second pair as Atmos Speakers. (ps: I wanted to go for an Atmos setup)

4. As for my listening habits - I would say 70% HT and 30% stereo music.

My questions are as follows:

5. If I really want to go for quality stereo music. Am I better off buy a separate music stereo amp to pair with the Denon 6200? For example, would a Marantz stereo amp like the PM8005 be able to pair with Denon 6200?

6. How significant are the benefits of pairing a stereo amp with a mid-range AV Amp like the Denon 6200 or even Marantz 7010?

Thank you.

If you believe a more expensive stereo integrated amp will sound better then go for it. Pairing the PM8005 with the 6200 is not going to help. The 6200, when powering only two speakers, will actually beat the PM8005 in power output. The DC6s are not hard to drive, but if you insist on giving them more power than they need, just get a two channel power amp.

 

[herbu]

would a Marantz stereo amp like the PM8005 be able to pair with Denon 6200?

Yes, but it would be insane.
An AVR has built-in amps. The number of amps determines the number of channels. For example, the Denon AVRX6200W has 9 amps driving 9 channels. Each is 140wpc.

In addition to built-in amps, higher end AVRs have pre-outs. These are outputs taken before any amplification, (thus they don't use the built-in amps). These are what you use it you use a separate amp or amps.

So if you pair a 6200 with an 8005, you will bypass the built-in 140wpc Denon amps to use the separate 70wpc amps in the Marantz. Why would you do that for your Front Left/Right channels?

Traditionally, people with an AVR will use an external amp(s) for more power. There are several benefits in doing this. I cannot think of a single benefit using an external amp for less power. And though some people believe they can hear a difference between a good AVR and a good stereo setup, I don't think most people can.

 

[Swerd]

My questions are as follows:

5. If I really want to go for quality stereo music. Am I better off buy a separate music stereo amp to pair with the Denon 6200? For example, would a Marantz stereo amp like the PM8005 be able to pair with Denon 6200?

6. How significant are the benefits of pairing a stereo amp with a mid-range AV Amp like the Denon 6200 or even Marantz 7010?

I'd consider the Denon AVR-X6200W more as a high-end receiver than a mid-range AVR. It has a powerful amplifier section, plenty of capability, and it's retail price is $2200.

I agree with Peng & herbu in that the Denon is probably more powerful than the Marantz you mentioned. Considering that your speakers are not hard to drive, I think the Denon 6200 AVR will be excellent.

So my answer to question 5: you are better off with the Denon AVR alone for both 2-channel music or HT. And to question 6: the benefits of adding an external stereo amp to an AVR only come if the stereo amp is much more powerful than the AVR.

A reminder about power ratings, at least in the US market. In the US, federal law requires that amplifiers and receiver power must be rated while driving an 8 ohm load, measured over the full audio range of 20 Hz - 20 kHz, at a specified percent of total harmonic distortion (such as 0.05% for the Denon), while two channels are being driven. Under those conditions, the Denon AVR is rated at 140 W/channel, and the Marantz PM8005 is rated at 70 W/channel.

Understand that when more than two channels are being driven, the Denon will deliver less than 140 watts per channel. But even so, it is probably more powerful than the Marantz.

 

[Chin-Tuan]

Hi all,

I would like to really thank you all of you who had put in time to explain the issue to me. Really pardon my noobness. I have learnt quite a fair bit from your inputs as it serve to correct some of my wrong perceptions after trawling the internet. My current understanding is heavily influenced by these articles
(1. www-dot-hifihunter-dot-com/articles/improving-stereo-performance-surround-sound-setup-part-2/
2. www-dot-avforums-dot-com/threads/how-to-connect-a-stereo-amp-to-my-receiver) (edit - so sorry did not realise that I could not post www links as I have less than 10 posts so have to use some bypass!)

The trouble is that even within these articles there are many comments and views that about the setups that got me confused and hence I came into this forum to seek some clarifications.

I had the this notion that a relatively cheaper (comparing the PM8005 to the Denon 6200) stereo amp would provide a better musical performance compared to just using the Denon alone and hence wanted to examine this concept of using a music stereo amp and an AV amp. Now I can see where you guys are coming from.

In addition, I think I only have a very fuzzy understanding of a pre-amp vs an integrated AV Amp vs an integrated Stereo Amp. May I clarify with you guys further that:

Scenario 1.

Can I connect a stereo sources to a stereo pre-amp and then use a Marantz AV (7010) or Denon (6200 or 7200) as the AV amp to power the main speakers? Would this give me an improved sound quality over just using the 7010/6200/7200 alone? If so, what kind of stereo pre-amp do one need to consider before there is a significant improvement (assuming speakers do not need to change)?

Scenario 2.

So based on the feedbacks so far, I would only get the benefit of using an additional music stereo if I were to pair a high-end music stereo with budget AV amps (ie Onkyo 444 or 545, Marantz 5010 etc)? So in such a setup one will probably compromise on the HT experience and use the money saved to buy a better music stereo for a better music experience?

Your views are much appreciated.

 

[tyhjaarpa]

Hi all,

I would like to really thank you all of you who had put in time to explain the issue to me. Really pardon my noobness. I have learnt quite a fair bit from your inputs as it serve to correct some of my wrong perceptions after trawling the internet. My current understanding is heavily influenced by these articles
(1. www-dot-hifihunter-dot-com/articles/improving-stereo-performance-surround-sound-setup-part-2/
2. www-dot-avforums-dot-com/threads/how-to-connect-a-stereo-amp-to-my-receiver) (edit - so sorry did not realise that I could not post www links as I have less than 10 posts so have to use some bypass!)

The trouble is that even within these articles there are many comments and views that about the setups that got me confused and hence I came into this forum to seek some clarifications.

I had the this notion that a relatively cheaper (comparing the PM8005 to the Denon 6200) stereo amp would provide a better musical performance compared to just using the Denon alone and hence wanted to examine this concept of using a music stereo amp and an AV amp. Now I can see where you guys are coming from.

In addition, I think I only have a very fuzzy understanding of a pre-amp vs an integrated AV Amp vs an integrated Stereo Amp. May I clarify with you guys further that:

Scenario 1.

Can I connect a stereo sources to a stereo pre-amp and then use a Marantz AV (7010) or Denon (6200 or 7200) as the AV amp to power the main speakers? Would this give me an improved sound quality over just using the 7010/6200/7200 alone? If so, what kind of stereo pre-amp do one need to consider before there is a significant improvement (assuming speakers do not need to change)?

Scenario 2.

So based on the feedbacks so far, I would only get the benefit of using an additional music stereo if I were to pair a high-end music stereo with budget AV amps (ie Onkyo 444 or 545, Marantz 5010 etc)? So in such a setup one will probably compromise on the HT experience and use the money saved to buy a better music stereo for a better music experience?

Your views are much appreciated.

I would say no in both cases. You are much better of getting good AVR like those you mentioned in first post (Marantz 7010/Denon 6200/Denon 7200) and use the money somewhere it really matters, like speakers / sub(s).

 

[herbu]

I only have a very fuzzy understanding of a pre-amp vs an integrated AV Amp vs an integrated Stereo Amp....

Can I connect a stereo sources to a stereo pre-amp...

Chin-Tuan,
There are 3 things you need to hear music/tv/movies from your speakers.
1. Source
This could be an MP3 player, a radio tuner, a CD/DVD/Bluray player, a TV, etc. This is the actual source of your sound.

2. Processor
This takes the signal from your source(s) above, and turns them into an analog signal. This "analog" signal is the format your speakers require. So the output of your processor is in the right format for your speakers, but it is not strong enough.

3. Amplifier
This takes the signal from your processor and amplifies it to a level strong enough for your speakers. Wires run directly from your amp outputs to your speakers.

You need all 3 elements above to hear anything from your speakers. An "AVR" takes care of #2 and #3. And it can have a radio tuner so maybe it does a little of #1. Usually for #1, you'll need some other stuff, like a TV, a CD/DVD/BD player, and an internet connection for stuff like Pandora.

Or, instead of an AVR that does all of #2 and #3, you can get separate components. A Pre-amp, or Pre-amp Processor will do #2. It will take all your digital inputs, (radio/tv/cd/etc), and turn their signal into the analog format. Then a separate Amp will take the ouput from your Pre-amp and do #3.

Since an AVR does both Pre-amp and Amp function, you don't need an AVR and a Pre-amp, or an AVR and an Amp.

Like I told you earlier, some AVRs have outputs, "Preouts", that are taken before the AVR's amp section. Essentially they let you bypass the AVR's amp section and use your AVR like a Pre-amp. So you CAN use an AVR and a separate amp if you want.

One more thing. You mention "stereo" several times. "Stereo" simply means 2 channels. MOST music is produced in 2 channels. MOST TV and movies are produced in 5 channels.

So a "Stereo" pre-amp simply means it can only handle 2 channels. A "Stereo" amp simply means it can only handle 2 channels. A "Stereo" AVR, (if there is such a thing), simply means it can only handle 2 channels.

But it is entirely possible and reasonable to only use 2 channels for music listening through your 5/7/9/11 channel AVR, Preamp or Amp. In fact, most of us do. For music listening, we simply select "Stereo" on our AVR. This makes the AVR process all input into 2 channels, and provides output to 2 channels. Changing from Stereo to multi-channel is usually a 1 button click on the remote.

 

[Chin-Tuan]

Once again thank you all for the valuable insights. What remains now is for me to do auditions for Denon 6200 vs Marantz 7010. Currently the price difference between the two of them at my local dealer is less than a USD$100.

 

[Swerd]

I would like to really thank you all of you who had put in time to explain the issue to me. Really pardon my noobness. I have learnt quite a fair bit from your inputs as it serve to correct some of my wrong perceptions after trawling the internet. My current understanding is heavily influenced by these articles

http://www.hifihunter.com/articles/improving-stereo-performance-surround-sound-setup-part-2/

The trouble is that even within these articles there are many comments and views that about the setups that got me confused and hence I came into this forum to seek some clarifications.

I had the this notion that a relatively cheaper (comparing the PM8005 to the Denon 6200) stereo amp would provide a better musical performance compared to just using the Denon alone and hence wanted to examine this concept of using a music stereo amp and an AV amp. Now I can see where you guys are coming from.

I read the first article you mentioned and I think it deserves some comment. It's wrong, and in my opinion, it's a disservice to all newcomers to audio such as yourself. The major error in that article begins where it says this:

Integrated amplifiers
Looking back at the signal chain music must pass through, the next area to consider is the pre-amplifier. A stereo integrated amplifier is essentially a pre-amp and power amp in one box. By using a stereo integrated amplifier, you can route all stereo sources through it, completely bypassing the AV receiver and take advantage of the better quality pre/power stages within the integrated amplifier.

The part that I marked in bold italics is where it goes wrong. It has several mistaken assumptions.

• There is no evidence that any stereo integrated amp (where 2-channel pre-amp and amplifier sections are combined within one box) provides better sound quality than a multi-channel AV receiver.
• Nor is there any evidence that a separate stereo pre-amp and a separate stero amplifier, provides better sound quality than an integrated pre-amp/amplifier, regardless of how many channels there are.
  
• Finally there is no evidence that a separate 2-channel amplifier provides better sound quality solely because it has 2 channels rather than 5, 7, or more.

The article goes on to say "A dedicated stereo amplifier will give a cleaner sound, due to it containing less electronics that can cause interference." This is also an unfounded assumption. Modern AV receivers are a major development over the older stereo receivers. They handle incoming digital sound sources, such as from CD, DVD, or Blu Ray, as digital signals. This includes all the tone and volume controls plus the decoding of those audio digital sources. After that processing, they then convert the audio signals to analog for amplification to drive the speakers.

As a result, one can argue the modern digital AVRs represent the entire research & development effort of the audio industry for at least the past 25 years, while the development of analog-only stereo systems essentially stopped about 30 years ago. Its difficult to believe an argument that digital processing is inferior to analog processing because it involves "more electronics and could cause interference". If anything, it might be an improvement over the 30-year old analog methods.

Yes, it is true that audio sources that are inherently analog, such as vinyl records or FM radio, are first converted to digital signals by modern AVRs, and later reconverted to analog. But there is no evidence to believe that this produces inferior sound. It stems from a questionable willingness to believe that Old Is Better only because it is old.

 

[PENG]

Once again thank you all for the valuable insights. What remains now is for me to do auditions for Denon 6200 vs Marantz 7010. Currently the price difference between the two of them at my local dealer is less than a USD$100.

There is a convenient comparison at Crutchfield, click at the end of the comparison table for more details.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-QcT5KlOamqs/compare_033AVX6200_642SR7010/Denon-AVR-X6200W-vs-Marantz-SR7010.html

Between the two you can almost base your decision on their looks, prices, and/or where they are made. The Denon is made in Japan. Denon typically tested better on the bench in the past. The 6200 does have more robust amp but that's marginal. Marantz is supposedly better for music according to hearsay but I think that's BS.

If you need the multichannel analog inputs you have to go with the Marantz.

 

[herbu]

If you need the multichannel analog inputs you have to go with the Marantz.

Chin-Tuan,
Do you understand what this means?
I really, really don't think you'll need this. We talked about getting an AVR and a separate amp, and bypassing the amp section of your AVR.

But multichannel analog inputs on your AVR means you can get a separate Pre-amp or a $1k Bluray player, and bypass the pre-amp portion of your AVR. Frankly, this is pretty unusual, and I don't think it's even worth considering at this point.

Bottom line, selection between the Denon and Marantz is a toss-up. (You do know they're the same company, right?) Both of these AVRs are high-end and will likely do EVERYTHING you want without worrying about a separate pre-amp or amp.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

For a long time, I thought that "dedicated" analog stereo preamps were "BEST" for music. So I went crazy and got FOUR Analog Class-A Stereo Preamps + FOUR analog Amps.

When I only wanted just 2Ch Music, I would turn off 3 of the preamps and used only 1 preamp. When I wanted 7.1Ch, I would use all 4 preamps.

Then along the way, I compared stereo preamps + amps to pre-pros + amps to AVRs. I'm talking Mark Levinson, Krell, Bryston stereo preamps (some were $20K - $30K ).

And what I've found is that separates don't sound ANY BETTER AT ALL when you are comparing in DIRECT modes (bypass Tones or EQ). At least NOT Significantly better.

Along the way, I've also owned Revel Salon2, B&W 802 Diamond, KEF Reference 201/2, Linkwitz Orion, Philharmonic 3, and now RBH Reference.

Speakers, Subwoofers, & EQ (like Audyssey Dynamic EQ) make the most significant difference to me, not amps and stereo preamps.

I do own a $7500 Denon AVP-A1HDCI pre-pro and 4 ATI amps.

But I think realistically, just a single AVR is all most people "need".

However, there is no harm for anyone to DESIRE and WANT separates - stereo preamps, pre-pros, and amps.

 

[Irvrobinson]

For a long time, I thought that "dedicated" analog stereo preamps was "BEST" for music. So I went crazy and got FOUR Analog Class-A Stereo Preamps + FOUR analog Amps.

When I only wanted just 2Ch Music, I would turn off 3 of the preamps and used only 1 preamp. When I wanted 7.1Ch, I would use all 4 preamps.

Then along the way, I compared stereo preamps + amps to pre-pros + amps to AVRs. I'm talking Mark Levinson, Krell, Bryston stereo preamps (some were $20K - $30K ).

And what I've found is that separates don't sound ANY BETTER AT ALL when you are comparing in DIRECT modes (bypass Tones or EQ). At least NOT Significantly better.

However, there is no harm for anyone to DESIRE and WANT separates - stereo preamps, pre-pros, and amps.

I agree with these sentiments, and regarding sound quality, audio ICs have gotten a lot better over the past ten or fifteen years, and this has made much of the common wisdom from the 1990s and earlier regarding pre-amps obsolete. Nowadays I think ICs beat discrete circuits in performance. DACs and top-line line-level ICs are now so good that, when used in properly designed circuits, audible differences are a thing of the past. For modern IC technology, audio circuits are a trivial problem, even 24/192 DACs. Now you get eight or more DAC cores on a chip, and for stereo you run them in so-called "quad-balanced mode", just because you can.

Class A and AB amplifiers are still different, because the output stages use discrete components and power supplies are expensive, but IMO you need really outstanding speakers in a large room to have a shot at hearing audible differences, if you ever do.

I also agree with ADTG that there is value to having well-built, luxurious components. Control ergonomics, control feel, accuracy and linearity, quality of connections, and for BD/DVD/CD players mechanical sophistication, and even appearance, are worth something to a lot of people, and I'm one of them. I really despise junky construction and cheap feel. That's what turns me off about some Emotiva components I've used and seen.

 

[Chin-Tuan]

Swerd, I did not expect anyone to go through the links. But your clarifications really helped me to be more discerning.

Peng, appreciate your inputs especially on the DC6s. To be really honest, I bought them 5 years ago on impulse as I browsed the local audio dealers for my very first HT system. I did not do much research back then other than to buy a couple of whathifi magazines.

herbu, your writeups are clear and concise. Now I understand better the differences between the pre-amps and amps. And you are right, I do not need a multi-channel analog inputs except for bragging rights!

AcuDefTechGuy, wow.... amazing setup. I don't think I will be going there anytime soon. I appreciate the effort that you went through to illustrate that I really do only need a single AVR!

Irvrobinson, thank you for your views on DACs. Frankly I read so many reviews about the different DACs on different AVRs that I got totally confused. The only question that popped in my mind when I read your views on DACs is - 'What's so great about the much talked about Marantz's Hyper Dynamic Amplifier Module?'. I had requested my local dealer to set up the 7010 and 6200 with the Tannoy DC6s (if he is kind enough to dig out his old set from the warehouse) for an audition next week.

Well.. what's next? My original budget to upgrade my system is about $4k to $5k ($3k for amps, $2k for in-ceiling speakers for atmos). I think I will be saving the money on the pre-amps and I am now considering if the money saved should go towards a 2nd sub instead.

 

[PENG]

Peng, appreciate your inputs especially on the DC6s. To be really honest, I bought them 5 years ago on impulse as I browsed the local audio dealers for my very first HT system. I did not do much research back then other than to buy a couple of whathifi magazines.

DC6s are made by Tannoy, so no research necessary. Seriously I don't believe one can go wrong with Tannoy speakers.

 

[herbu]

herbu, your writeups are clear and concise.

Thanks. Imagine a professional sports team with a staff of coaches. Then there's the guy w/ season tickets that really enjoys watching the games. The analogy is that many of the guys here are on the coaching staff. I'm the guy w/ season tickets.

My explanations are simple because that's what I understand. That, and 37 years in business taught me that a presentation geared toward an engineer, is only effective when given to an engineer. Sometimes we tend to forget the primary purpose of our answer should be to answer the Original Poster's question in a way the OP understands, and we get into a coaches discussion.

I think I will be saving the money on the pre-amps and... go towards a 2nd sub instead.

Outstanding decision! I suspect it is what 99.9% of the coaches would do. Me too.

 

[PENG]

My explanations are simple because that's what I understand. That, and 37 years in business taught me that a presentation geared toward an engineer, is only effective when given to an engineer. Sometimes we tend to forget the primary purpose of our answer should be to answer the Original Poster's question in a way the OP understands, and we get into a coaches discussion.

You simplified things for me multiple times, thanks.

 

[Chin-Tuan]

Hi all,

Just a quick update. I finally went with the Denon 6200. It came in last night. In addition, I added 4 x in-ceiling speakers (you can see one of the white circular speakers at the top right corner of this picture). I also transferred the existing sound surround (old Tannoy mercury speakers) as Front Heights. I had managed to spend less than what I intended.

I have not yet configure the system as I am still waiting for the rest of the furniture to come in. But according to my wife (probably more important than mine), it was a huge improvement over the previous 5.1 system. The dialogue and clarity of the old concert dvd disc was so much clearer even though the CLR speakers were still the same ones.

Once again, thanks for all the help and advice.

 

[PENG]

Yes, it is true that audio sources that are inherently analog, such as vinyl records or FM radio, are first converted to digital signals by modern AVRs, and later reconverted to analog.

I thought with some AVRs you can have the analog input signals bypass the A/D conversion. The older ones did anyway, but may be some of the newer models still do but I would have to dig deeper. Regardless, I also believe it won't make any audible differences.