• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The Case For AVRs... Am I missing something???

Do you have more use for a good stereo amplifier or an AVR?

  • AVR

    Votes: 74 62.7%
  • Stereo Amplifier

    Votes: 44 37.3%

  • Total voters
    118

Sharpi31

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
125
Likes
305
I was disappointed with Amir’s measurements of the NAD T758 V3, as I’d recently bought one…… I worried that my knowledge of the poor measured performance would forever tarnish my enjoyment of TV & movies. But I use it everyday, and I love the sound it provides within my living room (far from an ideal acoustic environment).

The main lesson I’ve learned is that (for me, in my listening space) room correction can be enormously beneficial, and that it would be misguided (for me) to chase highest SINAD etc. without also aiming to optimise room acoustics and room/loudspeaker correction. Integrated subwoofer channel processing also lets me get the first few octaves under control (accurate, deep, controlled and EQ’d bass is very important for music, as well as video sound).

Right now, room/loudspeaker correction is more common in AVRs than traditional stereo playback equipment. My T758 V3 cost me £900 or so, provides 7 channels of amplification (+ line level sub output), 4K HDMI switching, Atmos decoding (and many other formats), plus Dirac Live….. It‘s also safe and easy for my kids to operate. To me, it’s a pretty compelling offering.

Hopefully I’ll upgrade in a couple of years, and get the same or improved features with far better measured performance. I respect different opinions, but I do find it strange that so may people remain unconvinced of the value of AVRs.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
There's no technical reason why an AVR can't sound as good as stereo separates. There probably are marketing reasons having to do with audiophile
assumptions about "high end" separates. And a lot of psychology at work. Even a relatively inexpensive AVR ($600 to $800) when matched with 2 good high efficiency speakers should have sq equal to that of so called "high end" separates.

Haha, there is no way AVR can match those pre/power combos, simply because there is not enough space in an AVR to squeeze in so many components. However, there are separates for AVR too, you can get an AV processor to pair with your power amp. The same goes for stereo. Integrated amps cannot match the performance of separates too.

Beyond technical issues, its also what people can accept. IF you sell an AVR/integrated amp for 10-15K, people rather go for separates instead.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
I am willing to guess that there is an order of magnitude more power amplifiers manufacturers (for sale) on the market than there are PreAmp/Processors (A + AV varieties)... which makes me wonder if the poll should have originally included a third choice... which makes me wonder if the poll should have also originally included being able to select more than one of the (3?) choices available... which makes me wonder if a PC should be considered as an AV Pre/Pro.... which makes me wonder if my mate is slipping me Ritalin...

You still need a preamp to control the volume, although some folks mentioned that it is possible to connect power amp directly to the PC. I personally do not think anyone should connect power amp directly to PC for safety reason. I am not sure what will happen if you accidentally slide volume to the max.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
I was disappointed with Amir’s measurements of the NAD T758 V3, as I’d recently bought one…… I worried that my knowledge of the poor measured performance would forever tarnish my enjoyment of TV & movies. But I use it everyday, and I love the sound it provides within my living room (far from an ideal acoustic environment).

The main lesson I’ve learned is that (for me, in my listening space) room correction can be enormously beneficial, and that it would be misguided (for me) to chase highest SINAD etc. without also aiming to optimise room acoustics and room/loudspeaker correction. Integrated subwoofer channel processing also lets me get the first few octaves under control (accurate, deep, controlled and EQ’d bass is very important for music, as well as video sound).

Right now, room/loudspeaker correction is more common in AVRs than traditional stereo playback equipment. My T758 V3 cost me £900 or so, provides 7 channels of amplification (+ line level sub output), 4K HDMI switching, Atmos decoding (and many other formats), plus Dirac Live….. It‘s also safe and easy for my kids to operate. To me, it’s a pretty compelling offering.

Hopefully I’ll upgrade in a couple of years, and get the same or improved features with far better measured performance. I respect different opinions, but I do find it strange that so may people remain unconvinced of the value of AVRs.

Regarding this, there were previous discussion and I would say that what measures well and what sounds good do not always correlate.
 

Sharpi31

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
125
Likes
305
Regarding this, there were previous discussion and I would say that what measures well and what sounds good do not always correlate.
I suspect that a well measuring [system + room] will sound good to most people. Incomplete system measurements (excluding the room) are less likely to correlate with subjective preference. I’m not an expert and could be wrong - this is my gut instinct based on my own experience.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
LOL. That sounds terrific. Now all you have to do is prove that it works that way in reality. (And yes, that means translate something like SINAD difference into blind listening test results)

I use my AVR(s) for 99% *music only* listening. I need an AVR because I have an extensive collection of 5.1 remixes. (Most are 'hi rez', btw). Not to mention that I get cool features like speaker setup, room EQ correction, dynamic loudness control, upmixing.... All are typically missing on stereo-only hardware, despite stereo-only setups benefitting from them too.

I often get the feeling that stereo-only listeners are living in some amusingly quaint bubble of the hobby, divorced from decades of progress in home audio. Your stereotypes of AVR owners and AVR use gave me that feeling again.

You raise a different issue, so not to conflate what I said with your query, these are two separate but related discussions:
1. My Point: AVRs spend their budget to optimize for the movie watching experience (surround sound, bass management, etc.) while stereo audiophile companies spend it on "pure" stereo listening objectives. AVRs have no reason to test their designs to meet the highest levels of signal measurements because the movie watching experience does not benefit from these highest quality audio signals that audiophiles treasure (super high SINAD). For example, I've only heard that the lossy DD+ Atmos sounds indistinguishable from lossless Dolby TrueHD, so clearly there's something to be said about our threshold of audibility when it comes to movie audio content.
2. Your Point. Stereotyping AVRs as not good enough for music listening compared to stereo specific products - so a double blind test is necessary to prove this position. I actually agree with your point.

Your point does not invalidate my point. I did not say that AVRs sound worse - it could be that AVRS sound indistinguishable from stereo audiophile components in a DBT. I simply made the point that AVRs are very much designed from the ground up to ensure the movie watching experience is immersive from the audio side - this is why measurements from AVRs are generally much worse than stereo specific components. However, do these inferior measurements translate to audibly worse sound? I don't know - I've never done a double blind stereo test between an AVR and a similarly priced stereo setup.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
You raise a different issue, so not to conflate what I said with your query, these are two separate but related discussions:
1. My Point: AVRs spend their budget to optimize for the movie watching experience (surround sound, bass management, etc.) while stereo audiophile companies spend it on "pure" stereo listening objectives. AVRs have no reason to test their designs to meet the highest levels of signal measurements because the movie watching experience does not benefit from these highest quality audio signals that audiophiles treasure (super high SINAD). For example, I've only heard that the lossy DD+ Atmos sounds indistinguishable from lossless Dolby TrueHD, so clearly there's something to be said about our threshold of audibility when it comes to movie audio content.

Which again makes the assumption that 'movie watching does not benefit from highest quality audio signals'.

And that you've 'heard' that lossy can sound indistinguishable from lossless (a not surprising claim), says nothing particular about movie content vs music. The same holds true for lossy vs lossless music.

2. Your Point. Stereotyping AVRs as not good enough for music listening compared to stereo specific products - so a double blind test is necessary to prove this position. I actually agree with your point.

Your point does not invalidate my point. I did not say that AVRs sound worse - it could be that AVRS sound indistinguishable from stereo audiophile components in a DBT. I simply made the point that AVRs are very much designed from the ground up to ensure the movie watching experience is immersive from the audio side - this is why measurements from AVRs are generally much worse than stereo specific components. However, do these inferior measurements translate to audibly worse sound? I don't know - I've never done a double blind stereo test between an AVR and a similarly priced stereo setup.

re: the part I bolded in red: Have you read the first post in this thread?
 

Benedium

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
343
Likes
255
Which has better accuracy?
1) Stereo amp without subwoofer
OR
2) AVR with subwoofer(s)
 

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
691
Likes
442
Location
Los Angeles
The problem with AVR is due to the DSP processing.
Once the processing is engaged, the measurements are going down in quality and the original sound clarity is gone.
But we do need DSP for room correction and movie soundtrack decoding.
Let us hope that the new generation of AVR will improve the DSP implementation.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
The problem with AVR is due to the DSP processing.
Once the processing is engaged, the measurements are going down in quality and the original sound clarity is gone.
But we do need DSP for room correction and movie soundtrack decoding.
Let us hope that the new generation of AVR will improve the DSP implementation.

DSP in AVRs can be anything from upsampling to volume control to 'room simulation'. Please show me where DSP must audibly change/degrade signal *beyond what its intended result is*.
 

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
691
Likes
442
Location
Los Angeles
"Please show me where DSP must audibly change/degrade signal"
From my understanding all Amir measurements are made with the DSP inhibited.
Let us just ask him why?

You have some (old) AVR (Yamaha) that have a direct mode that by-pass the DSP.
Toggling this mode when listening provides a proof that is easy to catch.
 

pseudoid

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,116
Likes
3,416
Location
33.58 -117.88
"You've got to ask yourself a question:..." (imitating DirtyHarry) >> Are we splitting hairs on the principal question?
Would this audio gear be considered a "receiver" since it has both volume/tone controls and a power amp?
 

Attachments

  • PreOrPowerAmp.jpg
    PreOrPowerAmp.jpg
    315.8 KB · Views: 66

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,168
Likes
3,712
"Please show me where DSP must audibly change/degrade signal"
From my understanding all Amir measurements are made with the DSP inhibited.
Let us just ask him why?

You have some (old) AVR (Yamaha) that have a direct mode that by-pass the DSP.
Toggling this mode when listening provides a proof that is easy to catch.


Easy to catch because of simple level difference? Or something actually bad?

You need to tell me what the "DSP" was being used for in the first place.
 

valerianf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
691
Likes
442
Location
Los Angeles
"You need to tell me what the "DSP" was being used for in the first place"
All the DSP from AVR that I have own: old Marantz, old Kenwood, Yamaha RX-V1400, Yamaha RX-A700.
Next one may be a Onkyo RZ50.

The only AV that I have own and got the best sound quality was a Marantz 2226B.
All the audio was designed using discrete components! No DSP.
wl2e.jpg
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
I suspect that a well measuring [system + room] will sound good to most people. Incomplete system measurements (excluding the room) are less likely to correlate with subjective preference. I’m not an expert and could be wrong - this is my gut instinct based on my own experience.

In this aspect. Yes, equipment that sounds good mostly have decent measurements (focusing on solid state here). You won't find an equipment that sounds very good yet measures poorly.

Btw, I have to say that measurement is objective but whats considered good or bad is entirely subjective and there is also dimishing returns. I always use THD as an example. 0.1% vs 0.001%, its 100x difference but you will actually find it hard to notice even a slight difference.

There is also that NAD amp which seems to measure poorly but sounds actually pretty good. I remember reading somewhere that the measurement of the NAD is actually not that bad. Its considered quite decent.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
In my experience the "problem" with AVR's is that they are too complicated and unreliable. I gave up on them after I had 2 top quality AVR's fail and due to lack of replacement parts were un-repairable after less than 5 years. I think they try to do too much. Stereo amps are much more simple and reliable and many have a multi-decade trouble free life span.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
re: the part I bolded in red: Have you read the first post in this thread?

Re-reading the OP, I am concluding there may be a misunderstanding of how we should be comparing AVRs with stereo systems. The Metric Value for AVRs is the DAC pre-out measurements but instead of comparing a stereo unit's DAC pre-out measurement, the OP instead is comparing a power amplifier signal which is not the same. Running this same comparison against the list of stereo multi-function DACs , the results confirm what I said "measurements from AVRs are generally much worse than stereo specific components."


Screenshot 2021-09-21 181527.png
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
In my experience the "problem" with AVR's is that they are too complicated and unreliable. I gave up on them after I had 2 top quality AVR's fail and due to lack of replacement parts were un-repairable after less than 5 years. I think they try to do too much. Stereo amps are much more simple and reliable and many have a multi-decade trouble free life span.

For this, yes, AVR are alot more complicated and is almost impossible to repair, esp. for input/DSP stage. Most of the time, the only way to repair is to swap out the entire circuit board.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,745
Likes
20,756
Location
Canada
In my experience the "problem" with AVR's is that they are too complicated and unreliable. I gave up on them after I had 2 top quality AVR's fail and due to lack of replacement parts were un-repairable after less than 5 years. I think they try to do too much. Stereo amps are much more simple and reliable and many have a multi-decade trouble free life span.
I can't count the hours I've spent repairing and re-soldering AVRs because they can't handle the heat. They used to be very profitable for service but of course now not so much.
 
Top Bottom