AVR vs Stereo amp for music

[peng]

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.

Yep, there are no shortages of forum hearsay, it is great to know that I am not the only one to mention "logic". Most of those forum talk/claims are not based on logic and are often just as you said, opinions, and I would say opinions based on beliefs, misconceptions etc.

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.

As mentioned, it really depends on a few things, such as the specific equipment/devices, the user's listening habits etc. For example, I don't know which AVR you have, but if you have something like the lowest Yamaha, Onkyo, or even Marantz models (such as the NR series), and have not too easy to drive speakers and you listen to moderately loud levels, then you most likely "are missing out.....", by not using a good integrated amp such as the Yamaha A-S1000 series AVR, or the equivalent (in price for example) Marantz integrated amp. If you are already using a midrange to upper midrange AVR such as the RX-A6A, Denon AVR-X4800H or Marantz Cinema 40, that I would bet 10 to 1 you are not missing anything. Stereo amp is one component in a hifi system, other key factors are obviously contributors, and that include speakers, room/placements, room correction, media players, contents, and more...... So, people who make general statements like what you might have been referring to, cannot be taken seriously, though sometimes I read those (plenty of those on AVS forum, I guess because there are huge number of posts so they have the benefits of volume) and ASR too those harder to find lol) for entertaining.

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

Agreed, that is very difficult to do, I have done it in single blind but not double blind.

 

[Dimitrov]

Sorry, but you keep on asking same question over and over again. And get same answers over and over again.

Only you can make the final decision that satisfies you. Perhaps play safe and buy both!

I'm not asking the same questions over and over - I'm asking for more clarity on the questions I have asked. I just would like to understand the technicals a little bit better. I have an AVR, I have no desire to buy a stereo amp. I just wanted to learn the reasons why or why it wouldn't be superior based on what I've read on several other forums.

Trying to get that kind of info seems difficult without someone chiming in and saying stuff like "I'm asking the same questions over and over".

But anyways, that's it from me. I won't inconvenience you or anyone else asking questions.

 

[Dimitrov]

Yep, there are no shortages of forum hearsay, it is great to know that I am not the only one to mention "logic". Most of those forum talk/claims are not based on logic and are often just as you said, opinions, and I would say opinions based on beliefs, misconceptions etc.

As mentioned, it really depends on a few things, such as the specific equipment/devices, the user's listening habits etc. For example, I don't know which AVR you have, but if you have something like the lowest Yamaha, Onkyo, or even Marantz models (such as the NR series), and have not too easy to drive speakers and you listen to moderately loud levels, then you most likely "are missing out.....", by not using a good integrated amp such as the Yamaha A-S1000 series AVR, or the equivalent (in price for example) Marantz integrated amp. If you are already using a midrange to upper midrange AVR such as the RX-A6A, Denon AVR-X4800H or Marantz Cinema 40, that I would bet 10 to 1 you are not missing anything. Stereo amp is one component in a hifi system, other key factors are obviously contributors, and that include speakers, room/placements, room correction, media players, contents, and more...... So, people who make general statements like what you might have been referring to, cannot be taken seriously, though sometimes I read those (plenty of those on AVS forum, I guess because there are huge number of posts so they have the benefits of volume) and ASR too those harder to find lol) for entertaining.

Agreed, that is very difficult to do, I have done it in single blind but not double blind.

I have a fairly old AVR, the Marantz SR-5012. I think it was a good model at the time it came out, but I'm sure performance has improved since then. BTW, the comments I refer to are from AVS as you correctly note, as well as from AVforums.com and Reddit. This is definitely a more technical, science-minded forum which I like. Less dubious subjective terms thrown around and more technical explanations.

 

[peng]

I have a fairly old AVR, the Marantz SR-5012. I think it was a good model at the time it came out, but I'm sure performance has improved since then. BTW, the comments I refer to are from AVS as you correctly note, as well as from AVforums.com and Reddit. This is definitely a more technical, science-minded forum which I like. Less dubious subjective terms thrown around and more technical explanations.

what’s your typical max volume setting when you listen to music?

 

[Dimitrov]

what’s your typical max volume setting when you listen to music?

Using an SPL meter at the seat, loudest is 90-93 dB SPL peaks. Haven't checked the average levels, but if I were to guess probably in the high 60s. Not exactly super taxing SPL levels.

I don't listen crazy loud.

 

[Spkrdctr]

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.

You are not missing out on so much. That is a bald face lie. Please don't listen to people telling you this anymore. The room correction (if any), speaker placement and the speakers themselves have far more to do with your listening that extremely high end measurements. Go with whatever unit fits what you want. Want an AVR, then get one, want a stereo unit then get one of those. Don't bother diving way down into the weeds on specs. Dive enough to just make sure your not buy garbage and the have fun.

 

[peng]

Using an SPL meter at the seat, loudest is 90-93 dB SPL peaks. Haven't checked the average levels, but if I were to guess probably in the high 60s. Not exactly super taxing SPL levels.

I don't listen crazy loud.

The SR5012 does not have the SOTA kind of extremely low THD+N but low enough to put it well within the transparent range, such that in a double blind listening tests, most people with normal hearing will unlikely be able to tell your AVR and those integrated stereo amps (example: Yamaha A-S801, Marantz PM8004 etc., in the <$2,000 range apart. If you have the itch to go with a separate stereo amp, do it for different reasons but don't expect sound quality you have been used to would improve significantly or even just noticeable.

 

[Dimitrov]

The SR5012 does not have the SOTA kind of extremely low THD+N but low enough to put it well within the transparent range, such that in a double blind listening tests, most people with normal hearing will unlikely be able to tell your AVR and those integrated stereo amps (example: Yamaha A-S801, Marantz PM8004 etc., in the <$2,000 range apart. If you have the itch to go with a separate stereo amp, do it for different reasons but don't expect sound quality you have been used to would improve significantly or even just noticeable.

Thanks for your response. I'm quite happy with the sound, was just curious if I was missing anything but you answered my question. Thanks again.

 

[Dimitrov]

Thanks everyone for the responses and advice.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Ultimately, the performance of audio systems is determined by several factors, including the number of components, the number of potential degradation paths, and the quality of those components. Generally, fewer components, reduced interactions between them, and higher-quality components lead to improved results with reduced distortion and noise.

An integrated amplifier, for instance, receives signals from a limited number of digital or analog sources, converts them to analog, passes them through a preamplifier, and amplifies them in two channels. This simplified design and minimal circuitry contribute to its superior performance.

In contrast, an AVR (Audio/Video Receiver) receives signals from multiple channels and various standards (Atmos, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). To accommodate these signals, AVRs require multiple stages and often incorporate a digital signal processor (DSP) to organize the signal assignments. This complexity, coupled with the additional circuitry, results in increased electromagnetic noise generation, necessitating the inclusion of a Direct function in many AVRs to minimize noise and reduce the number of signal processing steps. This function typically achieves a noise reduction of approximately 10 decibels.

Economies of scale also play a role in the market dynamics. While more AVRs are sold than amplifiers, this allows manufacturers to incorporate more advanced technology at a lower cost compared to systems with lower sales volumes.

While it is challenging to generalize across all cases, the principle that a simpler and more direct electromagnetic signal path results in reduced distortion holds true. Consequently, a stereo system at the same price point should generally deliver superior performance.

Technological advancements continue to enhance the ability to mitigate induced noise, but the quality of components remains crucial for effective shielding of wiring and components.

Furthermore, the context of music production is important to consider. If a source has been produced in two channels, upmixing it to five or more channels through post-editing may not always yield an improvement in the signal quality. Conversely, if a song was intended to be experienced in Atmos, a stereo system may miss subtle details and spatiality.

In my personal opinion, an amplifier is preferable for music playback. This preference stems from the fact that, beyond the argument of simplifying the audio signal path, the majority of music is produced in two channels. This production assumes that the music is intended to be presented in front of the listener. Forcing rear channels can significantly impact the directionality of the sound. Music typically reflects the stage in front of the listener; therefore, the singer’s voice or bass sounds are not typically required to originate from behind.

 

[Rick63]

In my personal opinion, an amplifier is preferable for music playback. This preference stems from the fact that, beyond the argument of simplifying the audio signal path, the majority of music is produced in two channels. This production assumes that the music is intended to be presented in front of the listener. Forcing rear channels can significantly impact the directionality of the sound. Music typically reflects the stage in front of the listener; therefore, the singer’s voice or bass sounds are not typically required to originate from behind.

+1

 

[morphemes]

Upmixing stereo to multichannel is its own thing. Vinyl is better for it because the side cancels. The ±90 region is where the full range surround gets encoded so having it cancel when you sum L&R is beneficial. We don't want the upmixer to hear the side if the source isnt 90/90 encoded, the decoder gets confused and hisses a little. Stereo music content isn't Dolby stereo. There's no monophonic side channel there but the decoder gets mixed signals from fully discreet stereo.

Personal, i prefer multi-channel but it peaked on a nimbus. They should just bring back 4 track analog inputs and support everything. Like a retrotink for the last hundred years of stereo. There's the puffin.. That's pretty decent but .. I want A/B format. Live soundfields. 3D movies for blind people. I crave the return of radio drama in spades. You ever play this game called hyper rogue? I want to play it blindfolded. Could be swimming around in that kind of thing. Would be different. Might be able to create some supplementary eyes for people who don't have working ones.. being able to have different sounds represent barriers.. like the Bose quiet comfort underwater effect closing in on you.. There's one kind of wall right there.. could make it good enough for everyone to be able to see like a bat. Augmented hearing for all perhaps better hearing for people who don't have any Just knowing how to interface with the brains 3D systems... Might improve some kind of cybernetic implant.

Anyway the processing is getting too complicated for its own good it never needed to be as complicated as it's getting. The WXYZ 4.0 slice affords an arbitrary number of speaker positions but we are still limited by their discrete speaker placement paradigm. Feels like a bug. You didn't even need a center channel. High rear center is better for most people it would make more sense up there high on the wall, to the rear, pitched down. Front center on the floor pitched up. But you can't just do that. In wanted stacked 5 channel rings but i want them counter posed..

 

[Oddball]

Ultimately, the performance of audio systems is determined by several factors, including the number of components, the number of potential degradation paths, and the quality of those components. Generally, fewer components, reduced interactions between them, and higher-quality components lead to improved results with reduced distortion and noise.

An integrated amplifier, for instance, receives signals from a limited number of digital or analog sources, converts them to analog, passes them through a preamplifier, and amplifies them in two channels. This simplified design and minimal circuitry contribute to its superior performance.

In contrast, an AVR (Audio/Video Receiver) receives signals from multiple channels and various standards (Atmos, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). To accommodate these signals, AVRs require multiple stages and often incorporate a digital signal processor (DSP) to organize the signal assignments. This complexity, coupled with the additional circuitry, results in increased electromagnetic noise generation, necessitating the inclusion of a Direct function in many AVRs to minimize noise and reduce the number of signal processing steps. This function typically achieves a noise reduction of approximately 10 decibels.

All I can say is that I am completely lost in the argument. I have no idea what you are talking about .

 

[Dimitrov]

All I can say is that I am completely lost in the argument. I have no idea what you are talking about .

Then why did you like his message?

 

[Dimitrov]

Ultimately, the performance of audio systems is determined by several factors, including the number of components, the number of potential degradation paths, and the quality of those components. Generally, fewer components, reduced interactions between them, and higher-quality components lead to improved results with reduced distortion and noise.

An integrated amplifier, for instance, receives signals from a limited number of digital or analog sources, converts them to analog, passes them through a preamplifier, and amplifies them in two channels. This simplified design and minimal circuitry contribute to its superior performance.

In contrast, an AVR (Audio/Video Receiver) receives signals from multiple channels and various standards (Atmos, 5.1, 7.1, etc.). To accommodate these signals, AVRs require multiple stages and often incorporate a digital signal processor (DSP) to organize the signal assignments. This complexity, coupled with the additional circuitry, results in increased electromagnetic noise generation, necessitating the inclusion of a Direct function in many AVRs to minimize noise and reduce the number of signal processing steps. This function typically achieves a noise reduction of approximately 10 decibels.

Economies of scale also play a role in the market dynamics. While more AVRs are sold than amplifiers, this allows manufacturers to incorporate more advanced technology at a lower cost compared to systems with lower sales volumes.

While it is challenging to generalize across all cases, the principle that a simpler and more direct electromagnetic signal path results in reduced distortion holds true. Consequently, a stereo system at the same price point should generally deliver superior performance.

Okay, so stereo amps produce lower noise and distortion and electrically the signal is more "pure" to the speakers. But what happens once that signal reaches the speaker? It escapes into the room. This is an issue for both the AVR and integrated amp. So the superior performance is contaminated by the rooms distortion.

If a room has several peaks in the bass, 60 Hz, maybe 6 dB, 80-120, maybe 4 dB and the bass rings, the integrated amp can't help with that. If the bass sounds boomy, that's it. You live with it. I've heard that boomy bass can mask lower-midrange and higher frequencies too.

The AVR has room correction. So I could create a more linear bass response that can reduce the severity of these issues. I could be wrong, but.... as you said, the AVR is not as competent as the stereo amp electrically and measurably, but acoustically? Don't the acoustical issues in the room dwarf the electrical issues in the AVR? If my AVR has flattened out and created a more linear, controlled bass response, one that opens up the mids and highs, which technically is the better performer?

Does audio fidelity end at the speaker terminals or the room? I figure probably the room. And the integrated can't do diddly squat about that. Can it?

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Indeed, room correction is a crucial aspect of audio equipment. While it may impact the signal, effective room correction can significantly enhance the perceived sound quality. In my setup, I utilize a MiniDSP Flex digital unit as a bridge between the streamer and the DAC, serving dual purposes of room correction and subwoofer integration.

 

[Oddball]

Okay, so stereo amps produce lower noise and distortion and electrically the signal is more "pure" to the speakers. But what happens once that signal reaches the speaker? It escapes into the room. This is an issue for both the AVR and integrated amp. So the superior performance is contaminated by the rooms distortion.

It really depends on stereo amps. Mine are doing only 80dB sinad, so arguably worse than AVRs.

If a room has several peaks in the bass, 60 Hz, maybe 6 dB, 80-120, maybe 4 dB and the bass rings, the integrated amp can't help with that. If the bass sounds boomy, that's it. You live with it. I've heard that boomy bass can mask lower-midrange and higher frequencies too.

That is why you need effective EQ. Some integrated amps have EQ but at this point only AVRs have Dirac ART which is the ultimate tool to address the issues if there are sufficient resources to do that.

The AVR has room correction. So I could create a more linear bass response that can reduce the severity of these issues. I could be wrong, but.... as you said, the AVR is not as competent as the stereo amp electrically and measurably, but acoustically? Don't the acoustical issues in the room dwarf the electrical issues in the AVR? If my AVR has flattened out and created a more linear, controlled bass response, one that opens up the mids and highs, which technically is the better performer?

I can't really understand this point. But 3800H with full DIRAC pack will likely sound way better than pre-pro without any EQ that hits 120dB sinad.

Does audio fidelity end at the speaker terminals or the room? I figure probably the room. And the integrated can't do diddly squat about that. Can it?

Absolutely right. It all ends in the speakers and the room. EQ can still do a whole bunch for the case.

It is a busy post so I will respond in line above.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Typically, in non-acoustically treated rooms, room correction can enhance the acoustics of the listening area. Conversely, in well-treated rooms, the purest sound chain is the preferable choice.

AVRs are versatile and suitable for various driving conditions, but they may not always compare favorably to certain stereo amplifiers in other aspects. Factors such as soundstage width and depth, instrument definition, bass tightness, and overall clarity are some of the advantages that can be achieved when the room is not adversely affecting the sound.

 

[Chanur]

The biggest benefit is that many stereo amps look better than an AVR.

Not sure any other benefits are audible but we listen with our eyes too.

 

[thcdru2k]

There are some edge cases ... Very difficult to drive speakers, high SPL requirement for very large rooms, and very sensitive horn speakers that would benefit from dedicated clean amps.