AVR vs Stereo amp for music

[Dimitrov]

I'm confused about something. Audiophiles on many forums often make the claim that stereo amps sound far superior to AVR's when playing music. I wanted to get your feelings on this topic.

On the surface the logic makes sense. Stereo amp is designed to reproduce music. That is the main function. AVR is designed to do many things. I can understand the surface level logic there.

But from a technical standpoint, is there any basis to this? Lower distortion perhaps on the preamp sections/amp side? The argument is that AVR's are the jack of all trades and master of none, and a stereo amp is designed to do one thing really well, hence music performance is superior while an AVR is a compromised solution trying to do too much.

What are your thoughts?

 

[AlmaAtaKZ]

Both can be designed to play perfectly

 

[RandomEar]

If you compare a mid-level AVR to a mid-level amplifier, the differences are modest. Is the crosstalk significantly worse on this specific AVR? Yes. Is SINAD worse? Also yes. But can you hear an overall degradation of about 5 dB at the levels we're talking about here (around 90 dB)? Very unlikely. Maybe there's a tiny difference in tweeter hiss.

However, if you consider that AVRs are much more expensive and start to price match the amp roughly, you're entering top level stereo territory. Is there a significant difference in measurements now? Absolutely. Distortion is about an order of magnitude better than on AVRs, noise is likely inaudible with your ears more than a couple of centimeters from the tweeter and so on. Also, much more power on tap. Would you be able to pass an A/B test now, compared to the same AVR in a normal stereo setup? If you can hear tweeter hiss at the listening position, you could use that as a tell. And if your speakers and ears survive pushing past ~180 W into 4 Ω getting the AVR to clip, then also yes. During normal listening and if you don't happen to hear any tweeter hiss at your listening position, you would likely still fail the A/B test between them.

From a technical point of view, people regularly fail to differentiate even modestly well performing stereo amps in level matched blind tests. They would therefore very, very likely fail those tests with stereo amps vs AVRs. I would still never buy an AVR for a stereo setup, unless I had a plan to upgrade to 5.1 in the near future. It's more expensive, there's more stuff in it which may fail and it performs slightly worse on paper.

 

[Dimitrov]

Are Amirs measurements applicable to both AVR and Stereo amps? I get that AVR's power-wise tend to fall short with multiple channels in bench testing. But if we compare a $1000 AVR vs a $1000 stereo amp, are you saying that the stereo amp is generally measurably superior? Just that the measurements probably won't be audible so don't matter?

 

[SHB]

An AVR is thoroughly capable of producing really good sounding music.

It gets down to what level of performance you’re looking for. If you’re looking for the ultimate, no AVR will provide that.

If you want some good sound in your living room for watching movies and general music listening, they’ll provide that, no problem.

Your choice of speakers and the integration of a subwoofer or two will be a lot more important than the AVR vs. separates debate.

 

[tineared]

The issue is not with the amps, although that can be a factor as well.
The issue is with the processor(s). Processing two channels is far cheaper and simpler than processing 8-16 or more channels.
AV producers are more concerned with bragging rights about how many channels their units will support rather than the quality of the processing itself.
Amir's testing is constantly calling out manufacturers to improve their specs, and to some extent they are. But they still have a long way to go.

 

[Oddball]

Are Amirs measurements applicable to both AVR and Stereo amps? I get that AVR's power-wise tend to fall short with multiple channels in bench testing. But if we compare a $1000 AVR vs a $1000 stereo amp, are you saying that the stereo amp is generally measurably superior? Just that the measurements probably won't be audible so don't matter?

The question is too general so difficult to answer. Measurably superior is a sign of good engineering, but good luck distinguishing a component with 80 SINAD and 110 SINAD. Does not mean I advocate producing 80 SINAD gear nowadays. Just the fact that I apparently don't have Elven ears. One can get past the SINAD sindrom with simple but effective Kippel test.

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

The right question would be I have such and such system, in a room of ZxY, and want to achieve whatever is that your are after.

Room correction should be the first to consider, before all the engineering marvels, at least IMO.

 

[Miker 1102]

If you compare a mid-level AVR to a mid-level amplifier, the differences are modest. Is the crosstalk significantly worse on this specific AVR? Yes. Is SINAD worse? Also yes. But can you hear an overall degradation of about 5 dB at the levels we're talking about here (around 90 dB)? Very unlikely. Maybe there's a tiny difference in tweeter hiss.

However, if you consider that AVRs are much more expensive and start to price match the amp roughly, you're entering top level stereo territory. Is there a significant difference in measurements now? Absolutely. Distortion is about an order of magnitude better than on AVRs, noise is likely inaudible with your ears more than a couple of centimeters from the tweeter and so on. Also, much more power on tap. Would you be able to pass an A/B test now, compared to the same AVR in a normal stereo setup? If you can hear tweeter hiss at the listening position, you could use that as a tell. And if your speakers and ears survive pushing past ~180 W into 4 Ω getting the AVR to clip, then also yes. During normal listening and if you don't happen to hear any tweeter hiss at your listening position, you would likely still fail the A/B test between them.

From a technical point of view, people regularly fail to differentiate even modestly well performing stereo amps in level matched blind tests. They would therefore very, very likely fail those tests with stereo amps vs AVRs. I would still never buy an AVR for a stereo setup, unless I had a plan to upgrade to 5.1 in the near future. It's more expensive, there's more stuff in it which may fail and it performs slightly worse on paper.

The Denon I use scores up there with the best integrated amps. It has low distortion, pre outs, and plenty of power. I also can use advanced room correction which has a significant impact on the sound quality. I do not buy this argument at all.
The question is really sbout choice and preference.

 

[Dj7675]

Are Amirs measurements applicable to both AVR and Stereo amps? I get that AVR's power-wise tend to fall short with multiple channels in bench testing. But if we compare a $1000 AVR vs a $1000 stereo amp, are you saying that the stereo amp is generally measurably superior? Just that the measurements probably won't be audible so don't matter?

A good example to compare would be a Denon X3800… I would take it all day long over a comparably priced stereo amp. You get …
See x3800 review here:

Denon AVR-X3800H Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Denon AVR-X3800H 9.4 Home Theater Audio/Video Receiver. It was kindly drop shipped to me by a member and costs US $1,699. Not much to say about the look of the unit as it is pretty much similar/same as last generations. Here is the back panel...

www.audiosciencereview.com

-If using in stereo, it can handle 4ohm speakers with peaks up to 250w
-Subwoofers-up to 4 outputs
-Bass management for
-EQ-Audyssey or Dirac. Both can work well
-HDMI-If you plan on having a Display
-Add a center channel now or later
-Expand to 5.1 now or later to take advantage of multichannel music, 5.1 movies,
-Dirac ART-Even if you listen in stereo, your subs, and/or surrounds/center can be used as support speakers to improve stereo listening
-Upmixing stereo- I just don’t listen to stereo in 2 channel anymore.
The 3800 is not a measurement king, but the modest SINAD just won’t matter much compared to the things above. Modern receivers are fantastic values for a music only system but can also be much more.

 

[twsecrest]

I'm confused about something. Audiophiles on many forums often make the claim that stereo amps sound far superior to AVR's when playing music. I wanted to get your feelings on this topic.

On the surface the logic makes sense. Stereo amp is designed to reproduce music. That is the main function. AVR is designed to do many things. I can understand the surface level logic there.

But from a technical standpoint, is there any basis to this? Lower distortion perhaps on the preamp sections/amp side? The argument is that AVR's are the jack of all trades and master of none, and a stereo amp is designed to do one thing really well, hence music performance is superior while an AVR is a compromised solution trying to do too much.

What are your thoughts?

I would guess a $500 stereo amp would more likely provide better audio, over a $500 5.1 (6-channel) AVR receiver.
Because the stereo amplifier could have two better quality amplifiers, over 6 lower quality amplifiers, for a given cost.

 

[delta76]

I'm confused about something. Audiophiles on many forums often make the claim that stereo amps sound far superior to AVR's when playing music. I wanted to get your feelings on this topic.

On the surface the logic makes sense. Stereo amp is designed to reproduce music. That is the main function. AVR is designed to do many things. I can understand the surface level logic there.

But from a technical standpoint, is there any basis to this? Lower distortion perhaps on the preamp sections/amp side? The argument is that AVR's are the jack of all trades and master of none, and a stereo amp is designed to do one thing really well, hence music performance is superior while an AVR is a compromised solution trying to do too much.

What are your thoughts?

Many integrated stereo amps from Denon, Marantz etc. are cut off version of their AVR, missing channel and features yet pretty same price. They are usual measured worse but those audiophiles will claim they sound better.
Go figures

 

[delta76]

I would guess a $500 stereo amp would more likely provide better audio, over a $500 5.1 (6-channel) AVR receiver.
Because the stereo amplifier could have two better quality amplifiers, over 6 lower quality amplifiers, for a given cost.

No. A proper stereo amp will have more power, maybe cleaner too.but you will be very hard pressed to hear the difference.
Avr has the benefit of economy at scale so they are cheap for what they do.

 

[peng]

On the surface the logic makes sense. Stereo amp is designed to reproduce music.

That may be true but not the logical reason for stereo amp to sound superior than AVR as AVRs are also designed for listening to 2 channel stereo music and often can do it better because they typically have bass management and/or room correction feature while stereo amps may or may not include such features.

That is the main function. AVR is designed to do many things. I can understand the surface level logic there.

AVR is designed to do many things, but it is illogical to say because of that, stereo amps will sound superior. Sound quality depends on many things, quality of the amplifier is important but the bar for transparency is not really that high any more. Cost/budget is also a key factor, it is probably logical to expect a $500 stereo amp to offer better sound quality than a $500 AVR as one poster mentioned.

 

[peng]

No. A proper stereo amp will have more power, maybe cleaner too.but you will be very hard pressed to hear the difference.
Avr has the benefit of economy at scale so they are cheap for what they do.

I think that may be why he included the key words "would more likely".

 

[RandomEar]

The Denon I use scores up there with the best integrated amps. It has low distortion, pre outs, and plenty of power. I also can use advanced room correction which has a significant impact on the sound quality. I do not buy this argument at all.
The question is really sbout choice and preference.

Even if you invest around 4-6 times the money that an excellent stereo amp would cost, you'd end up with mediocre measured performance in an AVR [1, 2]. Unless I'm overlooking some recently released Denon device, they just can't compete if you compare raw measurements; especially in the amp section (SINAD, distortion & crosstalk are easily 15-30 dB worse). Won't sound any worse in pretty much any scenario, but definitely measures worse.

However, the argument about room correction is 100% true: This will do more for the sound quality of your system than pretty much any amp upgrade ever could - maybe apart from retiring a bad tube amplifier. So if you're looking for a pure power amp without EQ or DSP, I'd say a stereo device wins simply because of price/performance. If you're looking to improve the sound of your system by using EQ/DSP, an AVR is a viable and sometimes superior option.

 

[popej]

Comparison between AVR and stereo amp is a tricky one. Usually it goes like that: ignore, what can't be compared and concentrate on the rest. This is what Amir is doing and this is maybe, what OP is looking for. The result is, that we can notice differences in basic measurements, but we can't hear differences in listening DBT.

Now real life is different. DSP in an AVR can make a great improvement in sound quality as compared to simple stereo amp. There exists stereo amps, that are based on AVR technology, which can provide similar improvements. Usually they look overpriced, when compared to an equivalent AVR. And AVR still brings more functionality, for example multichannel decoders.

 

[peng]

The Denon I use scores up there with the best integrated amps. It has low distortion, pre outs, and plenty of power. I also can use advanced room correction which has a significant impact on the sound quality. I do not buy this argument at all.
The question is really sbout choice and preference.

Good points, and I can quickly name a few AVRs, and AVPs that rivals 2 channel integrated amps listed for >$4,000. Denon: AVR-A1H, A10H, X6800H Marantz: Cinema 30, AV10, AV20, Yamaha RX-A6A, Anthem: MRX-1140, AVM70, AVM90, Yamaha: A8A, Onkyo RZ70. The AV10 specifically probably is comparable to integrated amps listed for up to $7,000 or higher. The bottom line is, it would be a myth if stated in a generalized way, the answer to the question is, it depends..

For example (comparing measured performance only, listening test results would/could be all over the map and likely be mostly subjective unless done blind):
$4,400 Anthem STR integrated vs $7,199 15.4 with 15 channels of power amps. The AVR arguably had lower distortions/noise at lower output levels.

Anthem Electronics STR D/A integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 4: Measurements I measured the Anthem STR using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system (see the January 2008 "As We See It"). Before I test an amplifier, I precondition it with both channels driving a 1kHz tone at one-third power into 8 ohms for an hour. This thermally stresses an amplifier...

www.stereophile.com

Or, never mind "Stereo amplifier" that I assume op meant for integrated amp, we can crank it up a notch and compared the $10,000 separate pair, the Anthem STR preamp and power amps, to the $14,000 Marantz AV10/Amp10 that is basically an AVR in two separate boxes.

The Marantz separate pairs does cost more, but for $4,000 more you get 19 channels of preamp/dac and 16 channels of power amps, vs stereo separates 2 channels, yet the AV pairs has better audio performance based on the bench measurements.

Anthem STR Preamp and Power Amplifier Review

The Anthem STR preamp and power amplifier emphasize fidelity first armed with the latest in 32 bit DSP, ARC room correction, and oodles of power reserves on tap. More details in our review so read on.

www.audioholics.com

Marantz AV 10 15.4CH 8K AV Processor Review!

The Marantz AV 10 15.4CH 8K AV Processor excelled in bench & listening tests. With unique bass management & room correction features, it's unmatched at its price. Long-term testing confirms its AV prowess.

www.audioholics.com

Marantz AMP 10 200 Watt x 16CH Amplifier Review!

The Marantz AMP 10 is a 200 watt x 16CH amplifier utilizing the ICE Edge Class D topology with a custom built SMPS power supply. I put the AMP 10 through exhaustive bench tests to gauge its performance.

www.audioholics.com

 

[Dimitrov]

That may be true but not the logical reason for stereo amp to sound superior than AVR as AVRs are also designed for listening to 2 channel stereo music and often can do it better because they typically have bass management and/or room correction feature while stereo amps may or may not include such features.

AVR is designed to do many things, but it is illogical to say because of that, stereo amps will sound superior. Sound quality depends on many things, quality of the amplifier is important but the bar for transparency is not really that high any more. Cost/budget is also a key factor, it is probably logical to expect a $500 stereo amp to offer better sound quality than a $500 AVR as one poster mentioned.

Thank you for explaining that. I've heard the opposite repeated so many times on multiple forums. I haven't done any extensive testing to confirm this, just the general opinion from people is that stereo amps are superior.

But that could be poorly done comparisons, or expectations or what have you. I have an AVR and music sounds fine to me. But I've heard people tell me "you're missing out so much" and "there is a world of difference" etc, etc. I'm split 50/50 music and movies, but it made me wonder, what the fuss was about hence the thread.

It would be great to do a blind test of stereo amps vs AVR's but that's not always practical.

 

[Ruediger]

I think to possibly hear a better measuring stereo amplifier the listener must be equipped with really good speakers. Have the listening room dialed. And more things.

As long as there is no mismatch in power/impedance or distortion at play it will be really hard.

What's easy to hear is "color" some amps produce or not. But that's a preference and no quality measure.

 

[Oddball]

I think to possibly hear a better measuring stereo amplifier the listener must be equipped with really good speakers. Have the listening room dialed. And more things.

As long as there is no mismatch in power/impedance or distortion at play it will be really hard.

What's easy to hear is "color" some amps produce or not. But that's a preference and no quality measure.

If the amp produces "color" probably time to look for a black and white one .