Within a given price range, is an audio-only receiver always preferable to an A/V receiver for music listening?

[Des Esseintes]

Hi,

Supposing my priority is music listening in stereo, is it a given that an audio-only receiver would give me better results than an A/V (home theater) receiver?

For example, between the Yamaha R-N1000A (A only) and the Denon AVC-X4700H (A/V) (similar price where I live), is the Yamaha necessarily better than the Denon for two-channel music listening?

Or at a slightly higher price range, can we extend the comparison, say between the Yamaha R-N2000A and the Denon AVC-X6800H or the Marantz SR8015 or any other A/V amp in that price range?

This is assuming the speakers the amp is being paired with are not overly difficult to drive (like, above 90 dB).

 

[JeremyFife]

Hi (caveats follow ) If two amplifiers are operating within spec: not driven to clipping or into protection, not seriously load dependant and the load is not difficult - they can provide enough current - and any amplifier noise or distortion is below audible... then they will sound the same. The amplifier doesn't care what labels you put on the box

AVRs are amplifiers, plus some other stuff. There's no magic.

Interestingly, some of that other stuff is bass management, room correction, DSP and that really will make a big (positive) difference to the sound.

 

[JeremyFife]

Sorry... didn't actually answer - no, it is not a given that one amp will give better results

 

[twsecrest]

Supposing my priority is music listening in stereo, is it a given that an audio-only receiver would give me better results than an A/V (home theater) receiver?
For example, between the Yamaha R-N1000A (A only) and the Denon AVC-X4700H (A/V) (similar price where I live), is the Yamaha necessarily better than the Denon for two-channel music listening?
Or at a slightly higher price range, can we extend the comparison, say between the Yamaha R-N2000A and the Denon AVC-X6800H or the Marantz SR8015 or any other A/V amp in that price range?
This is assuming the speakers the amp is being paired with are not overly difficult to drive (like, above 90 dB).

If you have no need for the extra features of an A/V receiver, than just go for the audio only unit (my two cents).

 

[Des Esseintes]

If you have no need for the extra features of an A/V receiver, than just go for the audio only unit (my two cents).

Yes but why?

I have marginal interest in the extra features of an A/V receiver. Hence the question.

 

[A Surfer]

Yes but why?

I have marginal interest in the extra features of an A/V receiver. Hence the question.

You have already answered your own question. Because it is a waste to pay for unnecessary features.

 

[sergeauckland]

It used to be the case that an AV amplifier cost more to make, and therefore an audio-only amplifier costing the same as an AV amp was likely to be better. That's no longer the case as with automated assembly and higher manufacturing volumes for AV products over audio only, there's a possibility that the AV amp is actually cheaper to make, so the extra video facilities come 'for free' with no performance penalty over an audio only amp.

Consequently, buy on the facilities you need and can reasonably anticipate, as there won't be a performance difference.

S

 

[raindance]

The receiver with the best implemented room EQ should win regardless of the quality of it's internals. This is because room effects swamp everything else.

 

[twsecrest]

Yes but why?

I have marginal interest in the extra features of an A/V receiver. Hence the question.

If your only doing 2.0 channel audio, you have little need or use of extra features.

 

[Des Esseintes]

You have already answered your own question. Because it is a waste to pay for unnecessary features.

That's what I used to think. I was under the impression that to fit 9 (!!!) amplifiers in one box, the Denon AVC-X4700H would necessarily have cut costs on component quality where it matters compared to the Yamaha R-N1000A. But someone explained to me that since audio-only amps are now a bit niche, the economies of scale made on AVRs make them more competitive than pure audio receivers

 

[Des Esseintes]

If your only doing 2.0 channel audio, you have little need or use of extra features.

I plan on using the amp both for music and movies. 95% of my blu-ray/UHD collection is mono or audio. The "marginal use" is for the remaining 5% which are 3.1, 5.1 or 7.1.

What I don't understand is why extra-features are necessarily bad if I use them only very occasionally.

 

[A Surfer]

That's what I used to think. I was under the impression that to fit 9 (!!!) amplifiers in one box, the Denon AVC-X4700H would necessarily have cut costs on component quality where it matters compared to the Yamaha R-N1000A. But someone explained to me that since audio-only amps are now a bit niche, the economies of scale made on AVRs make them more competitive than pure audio receivers

I'm not even suggesting a direct comparison. It is almost an absolute certainty that if you just need adequate 2 channel audio that you will always save a little bit of money as compared to a similar level AVR.

If you aren't likely to use the AVR then don't bother even comparing. That is a waste of your time. Just decide on your budget and needs and find the best 2 channel fit for your needs. Problem solved.

 

[A Surfer]

I plan on using the amp both for music and movies. 95% of my blu-ray/UHD collection is mono or audio. The "marginal use" is for the remaining 5% which are 3.1, 5.1 or 7.1.

What I don't understand is why extra-features are necessarily bad if I use them only very occasionally.

What do you want mate? You have to pick a lane to drive in.

 

[Des Esseintes]

The receiver with the best implemented room EQ should win regardless of the quality of it's internals. This is because room effects swamp everything else.

Of the ones I listed, which one would that be?

 

[A Surfer]

And while the room has a significant amount of influence, the hard reality is that very often you can't do much about the issues unless they are simple fixes via equalization. Almost nobody ever modified their room and or adds room treatment.

Clearly some do, and while I clearly can't back my claims up with evidence, I still feel it is extremely reasonable to suggest that maybe 5% of people adapt their room or change it dramatically to accommodate issues. Sure people will do EQ tweaks, but still, the speakers matter quite a bit and getting those right are far easier than stressing out over the room.

Saying that, heck if someone is inclined to and can do it, accommodation for the room is clearly very helpful.

 

[Des Esseintes]

Hmm. Seems like there's no real consensus then.

 

[A Surfer]

Hmm. Seems like there's no real consensus then.

The difference will be quite minor to nonexistent probably for 2 channel audio. If you don't want to add a bunch of complexity and rabbit holes to go down, find a good 2 channel amp and sit back and enjoy the music.

 

[Astoneroad]

Ask Dylan, the owner @Buckeye Amps that have been measured by Amir. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...uckeye-nc252mp-stereo-amplifier-review.48196/

 

[Marc v E]

There was one experience I had that blew me away. It was with a moderately priced avr and calibrated speakers. Budget speakers too. That experience taught me something.

That's why I would say an avr and similar priced stereo amp sound the same without eq. With eq the avr wins easily.

 

[Astoneroad]

Wiim Amp Pro has peq, 2 channel, basic room correction, $379 and passed Amir's high standards. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-pro-streaming-stereo-amplifier-review.57257/