High end av receiver vs. mid-tier stereo amplifier?

[jhaider]

I would take an AVR with Dirac/Trinnov/room Perfect over any stereo amp.

I would add Audyssey (with the iOS app) and ARC Genesis as well.

Audyssey is…not great for a modern audio system with bass management and multiple subwoofers. But for a simple system with a stereo pair of speakers, when Audyssey’s initial voicing mistakes are corrected with the iOS app it provides everything needed to offer much higher fidelity than basic “hifi” gear: accurate channel matching and equalization that can be limited to the modal region and below.

 

[JktHifi]

In what way are AV receivers not hifi components? Do they not cost enough? Is that the problem?

My Wharfedale speakers much more punchier when connected to Onkyo amp than to Yamaha AVR. Sold my AVR replaced with Yamaha soundbar and now more space in TV area and better integration to the TV and reduce the electricity cost.

Those products are built for different purpose. From the begining, power supply, main board, capacitors, etc are all different design. So why doesn’t Cambridge Audio produce AVR if all audio are the same? It only attach the HDMI passthrough in its amp.

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I suspect it wouldn't be so easy. One could use test tones.But I would bet w/o DSP and in the listening sweetspot speakers will perform similarly after differences in dispersion are accounted for. Intuitively it would seem how coherently the wave pattern is launched. I believe this is reflected the improvement DSP can add. And what's critical is getting a good impulse response first, then tackle room effects. At least IME this seems to tighten focus and anchor the soundstage. May all be my imagination however.

Yes it would be.
What you state is completely irrelevant since these effects are room and transducer related.

If the room and the transducer stay the same and only the amplification is switched, nothing you mention would matter. Naturally such tests would be done w/o DSP, since you want to establish the baseline for the electronics.

Seriously, dude. Stop acting as if audio-electronics are some kind of voodoo magic humans can't understand. Electronics in audio have been a solved problem for at least a decade, if not longer. These days, even low cost gear can be audibly transparent. Even AVRs with measurements that make ASR members riot and post headless panthers are basically transparent in 99.99% of real life listening scenarios.

The real improvement can be had in the transducer and room treatment realm. Forget DACs, AMPs and Source devices. They do not deserve that much attention anymore, past the point of being able to drive the speaker load in a linear fashion.

My Wharfedale speakers much more punchier when connected to Onkyo amp than to Yamaha AVR.

Sounds like an output impedance issue. Possible that the older AVR had a higher one, that can lead to less control over the drivers and resonances coming through, thus exaggerating and "muddying" the bass response. I heard this effect when my buddy compared his Pioneer AVR to a Cambridge audio stereo amp. It was quite subtle though.

 

[voodooless]

My Wharfedale speakers much more punchier when connected to Onkyo amp than to Yamaha AVR.

Replace it with a random other stereo amp and the result might have been the other way around. Hardly an argument to not call it HiFi.

 

[JktHifi]

The stereo amp is Onkyo A-9010 which is $200 and the Yamaha AVR (forgot the type) around twice the price of the HiFi. There are 2 terminal for front speaker A and B (bi wiring my Wharfedale speakers) in the back of the AVR and it can handle from 4 ohm to 16 ohm.

Replace it with a random other stereo amp and the result might have been the other way around. Hardly an argument to not call it HiFi.

 

[Beave]

The stereo amp is Onkyo A-9010 which is $200 and the Yamaha AVR (forgot the type) around twice the price of the HiFi. There are 2 terminal for front speaker A and B (bi wiring my Wharfedale speakers) in the back of the AVR and it can handle from 4 ohm to 16 ohm.

How did you level-match for your comparison? How did you switch back and forth between the two products?

And, for more giggles, why are you bi wiring?

 

[Beave]

My Wharfedale speakers much more punchier when connected to Onkyo amp than to Yamaha AVR. Sold my AVR replaced with Yamaha soundbar and now more space in TV area and better integration to the TV and reduce the electricity cost.

Those products are built for different purpose. From the begining, power supply, main board, capacitors, etc are all different design. So why doesn’t Cambridge Audio produce AVR if all audio are the same? It only attach the HDMI passthrough in its amp.

Cambridge Audio used to make AVRs. If they stopped making them, it was probably due to poor sales or poor profit margins versus competitors, not any audio reasons.

 

[JktHifi]

How did you level-match for your comparison? How did you switch back and forth between the two products?

And, for more giggles, why are you bi wiring?

I play music from Sony DVD Player connecting coaxial input both the stereo amp and the avr. I only connect/disconnect speaker cable from both. I didn’t move any except the speaker cable moved from the terminal from both.

Bi wiring is the best thing you can do if you have capable speaker and avr so I can maximize the capabilites of the AVR, right?

 

[Chrispy]

I play music from Sony CD Player connecting coaxial input both the stereo amp and the avr. I only connect/disconnect speaker cable from both. I didn’t move any except the speaker cable moved from the terminal from both.

Bi wiring is the best thing you can do if you have capable speaker and avr so I can maximize the capabilites of the AVR, right?

Why would capable speakers need to be bi-wired (or rather passively bi-amped, as you seem to be doing)?

 

[JktHifi]

Why would capable speakers need to be bi-wired (or rather passively bi-amped, as you seem to be doing)?

I’ve tried the result is worst from connecting only to A

 

[Chrispy]

I’ve tried the result is worst from connecting only to A

Shouldn't be an issue just using A. The amp is only a 2ch amp in any case, perhaps the lower impedance load does something you like.

 

[voodooless]

The stereo amp is Onkyo A-9010 which is $200 and the Yamaha AVR (forgot the type) around twice the price of the HiFi. There are 2 terminal for front speaker A and B (bi wiring my Wharfedale speakers) in the back of the AVR and it can handle from 4 ohm to 16 ohm.

Again not a single argument to make one HiFi, and the other not..

 

[Galliardist]

Cambridge Audio used to make AVRs. If they stopped making them, it was probably due to poor sales or poor profit margins versus competitors, not any audio reasons.

The usual reason for a company getting out of AV products is the licensing maze and accompanying software issues keeping it all together, isn’t it?

 

[JktHifi]

Again not a single argument to make one HiFi, and the other not..

Those manufacturers categorized Stereo amp as Hi-Fi product. I can not find AVR inside Hi-Fi product category.

 

[voodooless]

Those manufacturers categorized Stereo amp as Hi-Fi product. I can not find AVR inside Hi-Fi product category.

No, they are in the AV category, that doesn’t mean it’s not HiFi. There categories are for convenience and product differentiation, nothing else.

 

[Chrispy]

Those manufacturers categorized Stereo amp as Hi-Fi product. I can not find AVR inside Hi-Fi product category.

Who is doing the categorizing? Hifi just means high fidelity. AVRs are high fidelity.

 

[JktHifi]

Who is doing the categorizing? Hifi just means high fidelity. AVRs are high fidelity.

you can visit their websites. I only follow them. I don’t know why they do that. You can ask them

 

[voodooless]

you can visit their websites. I only follow them. I don’t know why they do that. You can ask them

Simple answer, it’s called: marketing.

 

[jhaider]

Those products are built for different purpose.

I’m confused. Are you claiming only some audio amplifiers are built to take an incoming audio signal and increase its amplitude?

The sad fact today is, with few exceptions, the path to higher fidelity at home is with “AV” electronics. The “hifi” 2-channel industry is largely stuck in the last century, offering basic products that do nothing to address the big fidelity problems of audio in small rooms. The good news is, at least for 2.0 channel listening some less expensive AVRs work great. Their room correction tools work well for this purpose, and can be appropriately limited in bandwidth. Additionally, if you don’t care about the video whatever, you can find older models with everything needed on the audio side.

 

[JRS]

Yes it would be.
What you state is completely irrelevant since these effects are room and transducer related.

If the room and the transducer stay the same and only the amplification is switched, nothing you mention would matter. Naturally such tests would be done w/o DSP, since you want to establish the baseline for the electronics.

Seriously, dude. Stop acting as if audio-electronics are some kind of voodoo magic humans can't understand. Electronics in audio have been a solved problem for at least a decade, if not longer. These days, even low cost gear can be audibly transparent. Even AVRs with measurements that make ASR members riot and post headless panthers are basically transparent in 99.99% of real life listening scenarios.

The real improvement can be had in the transducer and room treatment realm. Forget DACs, AMPs and Source devices. They do not deserve that much attention anymore, past the point of being able to drive the speaker load in a linear fashion.


Sounds like an output impedance issue. Possible that the older AVR had a higher one, that can lead to less control over the drivers and resonances coming through, thus exaggerating and "muddying" the bass response. I heard this effect when my buddy compared his Pioneer AVR to a Cambridge audio stereo amp. It was quite subtle though.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I addressed the implausibility of an amplifier cause by addressing the one possiblity (assuming a flat FR) that phase issues were to blame, and even then it would be a stretch given the general inaudibility of phase issues, but in theory you might get some high frequency effects large enough to sense (interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or so).
Later you ignored the context in which my comments were made--which was a far more general consideration of how well imaging could be measured. I simply took issue with on and off axis FR curves as a guide to how well a speaker images. This had nothing to do with upstream electronics.
Far from believing in voodoo, I lambast the general foolishness of the "proof is in the listening" crowd and lack of critical judgement and skepticism one needs to properly pursue perceived differences in tonality due to electronics or the cables that connect them.

My apologies if that wasn't clear in my remark about those measurements likely being insufficient to judge imaging to which I also opined that a very good impulse response may also contribute to spooky good imaging. That's it. The expensive amp providing more solid imaging is a bats in the belfry proposition, and expectation bias the likrly culprit.