i just want to share some of my personnel experiences , some of the statements in this discussions are very vague, someone commented "for 2ch listening the avr is crap"its completely baseless, it depends on which avr you r using. once i used intergra dtr10.5 avr strictly for 2 ch and it blows the very respected 2ch integreated amps( compared with some nads and arcam,krell i300) it all depends on the quality of the amplification, before giving any general statements just try some very respected avrs like yamaha dsp z9, onkyo 3010, sony stra da777es.
Is AV Receiver good for Music ?
- Thread starter Spinekar
- Start date
vinothkumar
Well-Known Member
Dear Krell,
The mentioned models are exceptional, I have heard both Z9 and da777 at a reseller's place, I agree with you on these AVRs, but the comparison is with modern-day AV receivers against IA in this thread.
Actually the op started a thread asking av receiver is good or not,he didn't mention any price range,but some of our members posted their openions as av receiver is crap,but the new bread of av receivers are very good at 2 ch performance,if someone want a solution of both requirement then they can buy a good av receiver and will be happy,at my friend's place we compare the onkyon3010 and nad S300 side by side and no doubt onkyo is the winner.
It all depends on the implementation.not any direct answer to this question.
Btw nad S300;is nothing but gryphon Tabu ($6000int),so it's a well respected int
vinothkumar
Well-Known Member
This is where the conversation all over conflicts throughout the thread. Convenience vs what works best for music. If convenience takes first place AVRs can be considered, If someone asks what works best, then surely not AVRs.
For pure stereo listening, AVRs can not come close (Again, talking about current-gen receivers) to a proper stereo setup, which again I am feeling that (I may be wrong with this assumption too) many have not listened to a proper stereo. Once they do, their questions themselves would be different from them, IMHO.
Hhhh,good .but i think i have a reasonable setup(tad evolution one,JBLL300,with krell amplification,but still i think a high quality avr definitely beat a low quality 2ch rig,,it's not about convenience it's all about implementation,even someone listen the proper stereo setup,if the avr 2ch implementation is superior,we have to accept it.i have done proper room treatment with medium quality gear(lumint1 as dac and rest of the chain had reasonable quality),but i am not able to accept 2ch gear is always right, musical tastes are different,no system satisfy everyone taste.i am happy with my 2ch rig,and at the same time i was happy with 2ch performance of respected avrs are better than some of stereo gear
amrutmhatre90
Well-Known Member
I am doing the same sir, same room houses a AVR, IA and separates with the treatment listed above. Infact my Denon x3700 is powered by IA, audiolab 6000a for front channels. Listening material is Tidal, DSD from a network connected drive.
80% of the gear is identical for both IA & AVR.
IAs or separates still have a edge atleast in my chain and room.
I am not saying AVR sounds bad, I like the way it sounds and I do listen music on it occasionally but the dynamics and musicality I get from IA or separates is missing in my AVR.
If I never had heard a IA or separate in my room on my setup, I would have been happy using the AVR. Its the best unit which can do all.
Like @krell said, there are AVRs which sound good for music and can compete or beat IAs but are super expensive for average joe like me.
vinothkumar
Well-Known Member
If I never had heard a IA or separate in my room on my setup, I would have been happy using the AVR. Its the best unit which can do all.
100%
Your points are still related to the old era of AVRs that have good power amp implementation, Surely, it's hard for the new-gen AVRs. Maybe one or two brands may offer decent like anthem and Arcam.
Just for the sake of discussion, my Marantz SR7010 has it's power consumption rating at 710w.
It's two channel rating is 120 per channel. At most times, normal listening level peaks might hardly cross 80 watts. So what exactly is lacking in this receiver ? With a sub in the equation, the dynamics can never be an issue. I am under the impression that an AVR is also an amp. Or am I wrong.
It's two channel rating is 120 per channel. At most times, normal listening level peaks might hardly cross 80 watts. So what exactly is lacking in this receiver ? With a sub in the equation, the dynamics can never be an issue. I am under the impression that an AVR is also an amp. Or am I wrong.
Last edited:
amrutmhatre90
Well-Known Member
Recently my friend had got hold of a Marantz sr8500 which sounded superb, old analogue marantz house sound. But, he was more used to the sound of new Marantz SR6014 and series and he sold the sr8500. It might be a thing of taste too.
I loved the sr8500 for the few hours I heard it, but it lacked new gen features. Upon dismantling it to clean it we saw it had a toroidal transformer.
Few months back when I was reading about types of transformers and use cases, I read toroidal transformers are better than EI transformers they bring a different sounding experience, and EI transformers are found in most AVRs. Bigger the toroidal, better the sound.
IAs use toroidal transformer and are used in few high end offerings in AVR too.
It may have to do with type of transformers used in AVR vs IAs
Someone with more in depth knowledge of this can shed some light.
There are a lot of integrated amps which may sound better for 2 channel listening. But as Krell says if the hardware implementation of the avr is good then it could sound better than some of the low to mid end stereo rigs. There is no hard and fast rule to thus.
In the past, we have had mid end integrated amps of yesteryears Pioneer SA 740 and Kenwood KA 5050. But the Marantz Avr SR 8200 bought in 2006 was much better than the 2 IA's for 2 channel. As a matter of fact even the current SR 7011 sounds better.
That cannot be an absolute truth in all cases as circumstances, preferences and the models in comparison would differ.
In the end everything boils down to personal preference.
In the past, we have had mid end integrated amps of yesteryears Pioneer SA 740 and Kenwood KA 5050. But the Marantz Avr SR 8200 bought in 2006 was much better than the 2 IA's for 2 channel. As a matter of fact even the current SR 7011 sounds better.
That cannot be an absolute truth in all cases as circumstances, preferences and the models in comparison would differ.
In the end everything boils down to personal preference.
I understand the points made but if any kind of transformer can supply enough current for the required normal volume that most of us listen to, why should a toroidal transformer make a difference to the sound ? Am just curious, that is all. Not meant to hurt feelings.
Toroidal transformers may have less magnet ins leakages than the ei core,but it alone can't decide the sound signature,there are thousands of components in an amp each play their roles,some are critical and some are not that significant,i see a lot of high end gear comes with EI core transformers.
amrutmhatre90
Well-Known Member
Not at all hurting feelings, a healthy conversation.
From what I know toroidal transformers handle the surges, peaks and deliver the power required in a better way, read faster when needed and can have more power than stated.
Decent AVRs have atleast 50-70wpc on tap when they play all channels, but the system gets alive even when you add a mere 50wpc power amplifiers and give it good juice. And many of these amplifiers have a toroidal instead of EI.
EI transforms are cheaper, smaller. For the price of toroidal transformer one can have higher capacity and more powerful EI transformer.
But a lot will go to make a product, this is just one component. Many other aspects also come into play.
There has to be a reason why most 2ch or power amplifier systems stick too toroidal than EI even though other is smaller and cheaper.
With two channels driven, my AVR has all the 120 watts on tap at 8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 0.05% .
Please don't get me wrong. I am still trying to figure out why forum members tell average joes like me asking if an AVR can be used to listen to music, that it cannot be done and that an integrated in the only way to go for listening to music.
amrutmhatre90
Well-Known Member
Watts don't matter in all scenarios, class A amp or a tube amp with 10 watts can drive most speakers and can be enjoyable listening experience.
Can you quote some one saying so?
Most of them are saying IAs are better than AVRs, even I do say that and I still listen and enjoy music on AVR from time to time.
Check the above quote, nobody is forcing you to get separates. If you are satisfied and loving your system, who are we to judge.
Ah, now that is a nice and passionate post. I like that.
An audio engineer explains why Dolby Atmos Music is “definitely going to supersede stereo”
Dean St Studios' Jan 'Stan' Kybert, who’s worked with Paul Weller and Oasis, on why Atmos could succeed where others have failed
www.musicradar.com
Donivlapog
Well-Known Member
My hospitalised dad says headphones are the best for music. He suffered a heart attack 5 days ago and has had a boring time at the hospital that my Sony CH700 headset soothes him more than the 7.2 i recently installed in my room. Here this is the need of the hour - something that does not disturb others.
Sorry to hear that... How is he doing now?
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
