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

[escksu]

When one has 4 JBL tower speakers (or is it more?) in surround sound with multiple dedicated Adcom amps it must sound pretty good compared to a lowly 2 ch stereo. Looking at you @Sal1950

That is a pre/power combo rather than AVR though.

 

[Sharpi31]

Much as I love stereo, to me the clarity and localisation of a central voice is fundamentally improved with a (well integrated) centre channel. This is particularly true when there are a number of seating positions (not just one chair in the sweet spot). For this reason I’ll always have an AVR in my living room, where I have my TV. My stereo kit is relegated to my small spare bedroom (= home office).

 

[escksu]

Much as I love stereo, to me the clarity and localisation of a central voice is fundamentally improved with a (well integrated) centre channel. This is particularly true when there are a number of seating positions (not just one chair in the sweet spot). For this reason I’ll always have an AVR in my living room, where I have my TV. My stereo kit is relegated to my small spare bedroom (= home office).

Actually with very good equipment, you can get extremely good stereo imaging and staging with just 2 speakers. I heard it with dynaudionand kef so i am very impressed with these 2 brands.

And no, you dont need to be in a single position to experience it. Its a sweet area instead of a single spot and its a pretty big area too.

The downside is good equipment is very expensive.

 

[tecnogadget]

Look, if you disregard all the SINADs, music with full dynamics can never be reproduced by AVRs. Low level listening… yeah, ma be.

I ran a FR sweep through my KEF R11s to get 105dB at 1 meter in room. My McIntosh MC462, which in most listening levels idles at 5-20 watts, maxed over 700 watts during the sweep. Good luck having this kind of response from an AVR.

I came to a realization that speaker FR can be corrected by EQ, but speaker compression and amplifier clipping/ headroom deficiency can never be corrected.

Music with full dynamics can never be reproduced by AVR's? That's a bold claim. Yamaha DSP-Z9 has 1500VA toroidal transformer, Nichicon 28.000uF/80v caps, and you can read on its back panel power consumption of 1000w. It has THX Ultra 2 certification and pass its 3.2 ohm torture test on all channels without any problems. Measured reported performance has been:
2-channel @ 8 ohm: 179.8 W p/channel 2-channel @ 4 ohm: 318.4 W p/channel 5-channel @ 8 ohm: 166.6 W p/channel 7-channel @ 8 ohm: 140.6 W p/channel.

Please explain to me how it won't make it as a stereo amp paired with the right speakers?
And I'm also very intrigued by the methodology to find out your amp was maxing at 700watts during the sweep

 

[tecnogadget]

Actually with very good equipment, you can get extremely good stereo imaging and staging with just 2 speakers. I heard it with dynaudionand kef so i am very impressed with these 2 brands.

And no, you dont need to be in a single position to experience it. Its a sweet area instead of a single spot and its a pretty big area too.

The downside is good equipment is very expensive.

Of course you can get amazing good stereo imaging and staging with just 2 speakers . There is a reason it is called "stereo" imaging.
Now for a second imagine you got your end game stereo speakers. Then just buy more units of the very same speaker and put them as center and surround channels, configuring 5 or 7 channel setup. It will be the same experience but just better. All this covered in Toole's book. If this wasn't true, then we shouldn't even listen to stereo, use mono and call it a day.

 

[escksu]

Of course you can get amazing good stereo imaging and staging with just 2 speakers . There is a reason it is called "stereo" imaging.
Now for a second imagine you got your end game stereo speakers. Then just buy more units of the very same speaker and put them as center and surround channels, configuring 5 or 7 channel setup. It will be the same experience but just better. All this covered in Toole's book. If this wasn't true, then we shouldn't even listen to stereo, use mono and call it a day.

This i do agree. But, 5 or 7 channel audio disc are extremely rare. Vast majority comes in stereo only.

 

[tecnogadget]

This i do agree. But, 5 or 7 channel audio disc are extremely rare. Vast majority comes in stereo only.

It still apply if using upmixer algorithms like Dolby Pro Logic II. For example, everything that is exactly the same for L and R channel, becaomes informstion that will be fed smartly to the Center ( you would have still felt the same content as coming from the center, because if both channels repeats the same info, will be heard centered as a phantom channel). Whatever that is not identical wont be fed to center, so you will still have panning effects and all sort of that. Of course im being oversimplistic of how it works.

 

[Chromatischism]

Much as I love stereo, to me the clarity and localisation of a central voice is fundamentally improved with a (well integrated) centre channel. This is particularly true when there are a number of seating positions (not just one chair in the sweet spot). For this reason I’ll always have an AVR in my living room, where I have my TV. My stereo kit is relegated to my small spare bedroom (= home office).

I'll buck the trend and be pro-AVR but with no center channel

The imaging that speakers with controlled directivity are capable of is spooky. You think the singer is just floating in front of you. If instruments are put there, you can picture them...they're very sharply defined.

And no, you dont need to be in a single position to experience it. Its a sweet area instead of a single spot and its a pretty big area too.

That's why you get a center speaker, if you can make it fit. Without it, it is indeed a sweet spot.

 

[gags11]

Music with full dynamics can never be reproduced by AVR's? That's a bold claim. Yamaha DSP-Z9 has 1500VA toroidal transformer, Nichicon 28.000uF/80v caps, and you can read on its back panel power consumption of 1000w. It has THX Ultra 2 certification and pass its 3.2 ohm torture test on all channels without any problems. Measured reported performance has been:
2-channel @ 8 ohm: 179.8 W p/channel 2-channel @ 4 ohm: 318.4 W p/channel 5-channel @ 8 ohm: 166.6 W p/channel 7-channel @ 8 ohm: 140.6 W p/channel.

Please explain to me how it won't make it as a stereo amp paired with the right speakers?
And I'm also very intrigued by the methodology to find out your amp was maxing at 700watts during the sweep

You are bringing an AVR example not made for more than 10 years, but that particular Yamaha was likely one of the best made.

Still driving large tower speakers, that have impedance dips and negative phase angles, to very high SPL levels, say playing rock very loud, can be really hard.

Here is an example of my mc462 powering relatively efficient KEF R11s. Listening to rock musics loud in my room. Imagine doing this with less efficient speakers.

 

[Chrispy]

You are bringing an AVR example not made for more than 10 years, but that particular Yamaha was likely one of the best made.

Still driving large tower speakers, that have impedance dips and negative phase angles, to very high SPL levels, say playing rock very loud, can be really hard.

Here is an example of my mc462 powering relatively efficient KEF R11s. Listening to rock musics loud in my room. Imagine doing this with less efficient speakers.

Power amps can be accommodated by many avrs....if needed. What does "large" tower have to do with power needs particularly? Why would one particularly want speakers with too low of an impedance for most amps let alone extreme phase angles?

 

[gags11]

Power amps can be accommodated by many avrs....if needed. What does "large" tower have to do with power needs particularly? Why would one particularly want speakers with too low of an impedance for most amps let alone extreme phase angles?

I do not really understand your question. No one wants an insensitive speaker or one with low impedance.

However, to achieve high SPL levels with very low distortion, larger speakers with multiple drivers is preferred I would assume. To achieve flat FR at the same time, complicated crossovers are incorporated into these speakers. At the end of the day, you end up with speakers with lower sensitivity than one would want and areas of impedance dip in the bass range.

lots of professional PA speakers are more efficient, but the FR is far from flat in those.

 

[pseudoid]

Why pay for 5 or more channels when I'm only going to use 2?

If you purchase a BSH (aka: brick outhouse) 5-channel power amp that is 'bridgeable': *You can have the flexibility of doubling the power when you feel raunchy, or *Add a center speaker if your ears are getting old, or *Hook-up a bottom-ported sub to pee-off the downstairs neighbor, or even *Pretend you are an eco-friendly kinda person on that hot date by droppping the hint that you have had the same BSH amp for over a decade (and keeping space in the landfill for your bs... instead of electronics).

 

[escksu]

No one wants an insensitive speaker or one with low impedance.

I would say speaking sensitivity or impedance is not really a problem. Manufacturers do design speakers and price them accordingly. Eg. budget and most mainstream speakers have rather high sensitivty (~88-90db) and 6-8 ohms impedance. You won't see 2-4 ohm or low sensitivity speakers at this price point. Many amps at this price point are not able to drive such speakers properly as well.

You will only find low sensitivity and low imepdance speakers at higher print point. But then, many amps at this prices have no problem usually have no problems driving these speakers as well. People mostly do not buy a $300 amp to use with a $5000 speaker and vice versa.

 

[gags11]

^Agreed!

 

[Putter]

THIS! I have a 10-year-old Pioneer budget AVR in my living room in a 5.1 set up with a pair of Elac Debut 2.0 B6.2s as the front L/R and a budget Elac subwoofer. It blows aways the fancy 2ch stereo I use for music in my bedroom (even tho I still love the 2ch and it's perfectly fine).

Oh and also the "faux surround" on the AVR, which is used when there isn't a native surround signal, beats actual stereo every time (i.e. if you take any recording and compare the "real" stereo to the "fake" surround).

I agree with Sal that it's a complete myth that stereo sounds better. I think this myth is perpetuated by the boomer crowd (aging Sterophile readers and/or new inductees in the "vinyl is the best format cause it has infinite resolution crowd)." I myself am a boomer and an EE, so I'm not just criticizing the old guys club, I'm a member (h/t hairclub for men).

I value Amir's SINAD measurements and in general believe that gear that measures better IS better 99/9% of the time. That said, my ears certainly can't tell the difference in real-world usage. Also, it's really nice to have that remote control and not to have to get up all the time to fiddle with settings and sources, etc.

I personally have had mixed results with multichannel upmixing. It generally works well with classical esp. orchestral and with instrumental jazz. I generally don't like what it does to vocals. They sound different apparently due to the processing. I suspect that I'm more used to the sound of the human voice and am bothered when it has added phasing to give it space. This might also be true to a musician who has a better sense of how a trumpet or other instrument sounds in real life.

 

[Chromatischism]

If you like your precision imaging, upmixing will present you with a slight trade off. And like was said, certain upmixers can add their own effects that works for some content and not for others.

 

[Chrispy]

I do not really understand your question. No one wants an insensitive speaker or one with low impedance.

However, to achieve high SPL levels with very low distortion, larger speakers with multiple drivers is preferred I would assume. To achieve flat FR at the same time, complicated crossovers are incorporated into these speakers. At the end of the day, you end up with speakers with lower sensitivity than one would want and areas of impedance dip in the bass range.

lots of professional PA speakers are more efficient, but the FR is far from flat in those.

Larger speakers tend to be more sensitive generally so that part didn't make sense to me. Plus even many large speakers just don't have the greatest bass response and subs are easily enough used anyways. Not sure why PA speakers come into the discussion particularly. PA speakers are for different purposes in any case and likely aren't close to full range either.

 

[David Harper]

I have a yammy avr with the pre-outs feeding a separate amp. The only difference I noticed is that when the avr amps were driving my speakers it would often overheat and shut down. Since adding the separate amp this doesn't happen anymore. The amp only gets warm, not hot. The avr used to feel like you could fry an egg on it.

 

[PierreV]

My AVR can't drive my Scala Utopias. That may be a myth, but it is a myth I have to live with. I wouldn't say it is audiophile delusion because the cheap, decisively "not audiophiles" NC400 kits drive them with ease. Yes, the boxes have a nasty impedance/phase angle combination in bass but I can assure you that I did not purchase them to make my AVR look bad.

On the practical side of things, I don't want to stare at an empty screen when listening to music and I don't want TVs in our living/music rooms.

Other than that, the AVR isn't particularly deficient within it's rated power envelope. It is just that the envelope is too small.

 

[MattHooper]

I have a room renovated for projection-based surround sound home theater which I adore. The speakers I chose for my L/C/R were one of my favorite "high end" speaker brands, Hales Transcendence speakers, which to my ears produce gorgeous, smooth, realistic instrumental tone and imaging. So I love the sound quality of my surround system not only for movies but for surround (and sometimes stereo) music as well.

And I haven't felt the need to upgrade my now very old Denon AVR (11 years old now) because everything hasn't stopped sounding great

All that said, I much prefer my 2 channel system for listening to music. It has a spooky 3D quality and density of imaging, an almost "wrap-around" stereo effect, and realistic timbre/texture, that makes it more compelling than even my surround system.