Which has better accuracy?
1) Stereo amp without subwoofer
OR
2) AVR with subwoofer(s)
I would say it largely depend on what speakers you are using.
Which has better accuracy?
1) Stereo amp without subwoofer
OR
2) AVR with subwoofer(s)
You're missing a critical variable: DSP bass management or not? Bass accuracy requires some sort of bass management room correction, so if the AVR has Dirac and the stereo amp does not have something similar or Lyngdorf/Trinnov, then the AVR wins on accuracy due to this one feature. Bass accuracy is 100% dependent on room interaction which means bass management is a must if you want accuracy below 200Hz (or below your room's transition frequency).Which has better accuracy?
1) Stereo amp without subwoofer
OR
2) AVR with subwoofer(s)
If I want LFE then the AVR for sure.Which has better accuracy?
1) Stereo amp without subwoofer
OR
2) AVR with subwoofer(s)
In my experience the "problem" with AVR's is that they are too complicated and unreliable.
I think this is in the minority of what consumers want. Even amongst audio enthusiasts, how many want to sit in dedicated media room with a giant screen, surrounded by speakers, and listen in stereo? While I would love to see cheaper and more readily available digital audio extraction options, it is ultra niche. The broader market seems to be moving away from AVRs anyway. How many people who owned AVRs in the 5.1/6.1/7.1 days have stuck with what they have or even downsized? I think room correction has helped persuade many to upgrade, and that's a big can 'o worms above the transition zone. Atmos might continue for a while because Apple and streaming services are promoting it, someone with Airpods Max may think that's immersive audio, and the Atmos sound bars and tower speaker add-on modules, etc. might give others enough of an effect to be satsified. But, how many people have experienced immersive audio in a nice home theater with at least 9 objectively high-performing speakers in the proper locations, driven with ample headroom? And of those who have or otherwise want that experience at home can actually do it? It's an investment in money, space, and decor--let alone time and effort if DIY. Stereo is so inherently compromised compared to the sound at a live performance, but it is a lot simpler, cheaper, and for most people, easier to live with in the home. Plus, the resurgent interest in vinyl might be driving more interest in stereo, which seems to be leading to more product offerings.AIOs (all-in-ones) and the kitchen-sink approach to home-audio (=AVRs) is a great concept for the disposable society that we have become.
And why not? It seems to work for most people, who seek "immersive" audio-for-video.
I am getting the itch to update my A/V system in a way which totally puts a controlled-firewall between the A and the V sections; yet still resolves the audio down to L/R channels.
Unfortunately, in the Atmos standard and the streaming services that are pushing this "Immersive" sound for video; 'stereo downmix' is but an 'optional' audio stream.
I was forced to retire my last AVPre, strictly because the HDMI1.4b became a relic, when I was stepping-up to an OLED.
I know that HDMI2.1 will also become a relic in the next few years, and my current AVPre will need to be retired again.
I was most interested in @amirm shaking down the HDMI Audio Extractor (Audiopraise VanityPro Review) and I hope more devices like this are reviewed at ASR.
To what?The broader market seems to be moving away from AVRs anyway.
Have you ever switched between the electronics on the same pair of speakers using the same setup parameters (EQ off, etc) or is this is in different rooms and comparing Audyssey vs RME?The clarity difference between these two setups is quite recognizable.
Well it is different because to do a really good job you need delay control and room correction.Alot of talk about "needing" an AVR for proper sub integration.
It really depends on the sub that is being integrated.
I use on older preamp, I simply split the pre-outs with an old fashioned y cable and run the RCA's to the sub. Then set the cross over frequency on the sub and dial it in to where I "feel" it then just back the level off a tad till it disappears.
Easy peasy!
My .02c is not much different from my old Marantz 7015 w/audyssey.
Alot of talk about "needing" an AVR for proper sub integration.
It really depends on the sub that is being integrated.
I use on older preamp, I simply split the pre-outs with an old fashioned y cable and run the RCA's to the sub. Then set the cross over frequency on the sub and dial it in to where I "feel" it then just back the level off a tad till it disappears.
Easy peasy!
My .02c is not much different from my old Marantz 7015 w/audyssey.
Have you ever switched between the electronics on the same pair of speakers using the same setup parameters (EQ off, etc) or is this is in different rooms and comparing Audyssey vs RME?
That’s fixable. Audyssey’s default target curve sounds worse in most rooms than no EQ.… they sounded horrible after Audyssey screwed with the FR. The F328Be has a wonderful downward sloping curve and Audyssey flatten everything which killed the beautifully designed F328Be crossover. REW displayed the difference before and after Audyssey. It was significant. The original slope was missing.
Just to be clear, the speakers have a flat response. I believe you are referring to an in-room response being sloped downward as measured by an omnidirectional mic to include all of the reflections.When I first got the Revel F328Be I powered them with the Denon 4700. I calibrated the F328Be with Audyssey but they sounded horrible after Audyssey screwed with the FR. The F328Be has a wonderful downward sloping curve and Audyssey flatten everything which killed the beautifully designed F328Be crossover. REW displayed the difference before and after Audyssey. It was significant. The original slope was missing. I ran the F328 in Pure Direct Stereo Mode which sounded better but it still didn't have the clarity I was looking for.
I called Benchmark and talked to their tech. I explained I was using the 4700 with a Purifi amp and wondered if the Benchmark amp might offer the sound I was looking for. He believed I would notice more difference getting the Benchmark LA4 and taking the F328Be off the Denon receiver. He believed the Denon was the limiting factor. I though about his comments and did some research. The ADI-2 had a powerful preamp and a good DAC so I thought I would try it. When the ADI-2 arrived I was totally acclimated to the Denon in Pure Direct mode. I plugged in the ADI-2 and a few things happened.
1. The clarity with the F328Be was there. It was like a thin sheet was lifted from the speakers. The sound was awesome!
2. The ADI-2 had a HUGE amount of additional gain for driving the Purifi amp. It opened up the spigot like I had never heard before. The Denon couldn't come close to driving the Purifi amp like the ADI-2.
I A/B'ed the two setups several times by switching back and forth between the two. The clarity of sound with the ADI-2 was exactly what I was looking for. I still try the F328BE on the Denon 4700 now and again but my preferred configuration continues to be the ADI-2/Purifi and F328Be. Your taste may be different but I certainly found what I was looking for.
How about sighted listening?I would like to know what contributed to your perception of clarity.