Why Avr so bad for music?

[kaushik]

Last night my DIY tripath amp died...it does not hurt much 200Rs for a chip replacement..
most components on board are failure proof types .


so i connected AVR Yamaha rxv 361, my old friend.

Well i knew this will happen .

same dac -> same cable->Avr :Really bad SQ in fact it was like some one took my speakers and fitted with Garden speakers.

the AVR sound: very poor separation,sound stage, mechanical kind of sound.
30% of details were gone !
It was like speakers covered with thick blanket .

This anyways reconfirms that the TRIPATH was way better than entry AVRs

 

[pranavkumar]

hey Kaushik,

i have the RxV-671 mated to Mourdaunt Short avaino 6's and the others as surround speakers. and frankly i face the same problem.

I recently made a Transmission line FSs and they sounded literally weird with the AVR as compared to a good old stereo amplifier.

Having some knowledge about analog and digital signals.. i can say that an AVR deals with a hell lot of digital equalization and signal processing before it is converted to an analog signal which you feed into your speakers. And whatever you hear, even with pure direct ON is not the PUR"EST" form of an analog signal, hence this difference.

The Tripath amp that you used is also a Class D chip (if i'm not wrong) but the digitization in the case of a tripath is very much different from what goes around inside the AVR.

The best way to enjoy music on a HT would be to find, 5.1 or 7.1 (Whatever have you) encoded music and play it on all the 6 speakers.
Still, i would prefer a simple two-channel amp with a line preamplifier to listen to music !

Hope this helps
Cheers !

 

[ukjeyaraj]

hey Kaushik,

Having some knowledge about analog and digital signals.. i can say that an AVR deals with a hell lot of digital equalization and signal processing before it is converted to an analog signal which you feed into your speakers. And whatever you hear, even with pure direct ON is not the PUR"EST" form of an analog signal, hence this difference.

But OP has told he is using DAC, and probably connected analogue-in to AVR. Will the AVR still do conversion and processing?

 

[spirovious]

Well AVR come with a lot more circuits than basic stereo amp.Also for cost cutting,entry level AVR will have average parts & poor design.
If AVR says 100w & if you check manual,you will notice,total power consumption is only 400w or less.So less power is output to speakers.Where as stereo amp with 50w power consumes upto 150w power as total.This can be analoge reason.
When Yamaha says Burrbrown chip for DAC,it will be a basic chip rather than highend.
When you think of soundstage,3 speakers(front,centres) are place near by & so AVR may not have designed for big wide soundstage so that it can achieve good surround effect(mixing between 2 speakers)
We have discussed in past that AVR power ratings are actually poor than that of stereo amp.

 

[doors666]

dont you have a pure direct mode.

 

[corElement]

Sell it off instead of hoarding it

 

[elangoas]

Last night my DIY tripath amp died...it does not hurt much 200Rs for a chip replacement..
most components on board are failure proof types .


so i connected AVR Yamaha rxv 361, my old friend.

Well i knew this will happen .

same dac -> same cable->Avr :Really bad SQ in fact it was like some one took my speakers and fitted with Garden speakers.

the AVR sound: very poor separation,sound stage, mechanical kind of sound.
30% of details were gone !
It was like speakers covered with thick blanket .

This anyways reconfirms that the TRIPATH was way better than entry AVRs

I beg to differ here. There are many on this forum who recommend stereo amplifier to Receivers for music listening. I have a Marantz SR 5200 receiver. I use it with a WD TV Live Hub Media player (with mostly Flac files ) and connected it thru Optical to the receiver with Wharfedale diamond 9.2 speakers powered by Sonodyne stereo power amplifier SPA202. The level of detail is superb than the one that my younger brother has (Nad C326 stereo Amp + Nad C 521 CD Player + Mission M35i). It easily beats the stereo amplifier. The NAD stereo amplifier C326 has heavy bass even though the tone defeat function is engaged. May be the level of details retrieved by NAD C521 is spoilt by NAD C326.

I think it is the D/A that makes the difference. But the Marantz setup that i have is very musical that i haven't heard in any other receivers so far.

 

[corElement]

I beg to differ here. There are many on this forum who recommend stereo amplifier to Receivers for music listening. I have a Marantz SR 5200 receiver. I use it with a WD TV Live Hub Media player (with mostly Flac files ) and connected it thru Optical to the receiver with Wharfedale diamond 9.2 speakers powered by Sonodyne stereo power amplifier SPA202. The level of detail is superb than the one that my younger brother has (Nad C326 stereo Amp + Nad C 521 CD Player + Mission M35i). It easily beats the stereo amplifier. The NAD stereo amplifier C326 has heavy bass even though the tone defeat function is engaged. May be the level of details retrieved by NAD C521 is spoilt by NAD C326.

I think it is the D/A that makes the difference. But the Marantz setup that i have is very musical that i haven't heard in any other receivers so far.

The recommendations stem out of 1 pure fact. Less is better. Everything else is perception.

Take for example Viren Bakshi's SET 2a3 tube integrated amplifier. It is barebones with some wires inside instead of transistors or circuits and just 3 watts but probably amplifies sound in it's purest sense better than anything else on the market. How one finds the sound of that is an entirely different subject.

An amplifier's job is nothing but amplification. Everything else is an interference, to a good extent that includes even the wire and solder.

However in the real world to build such a setup is not practical if not impossible without wires. But the logic behind it is make the amplifier nothing but an amplifier if one wants the truest sound to arrive from the source.

An AV receiver uses integrated circuits and digital signal processing which technically rips the signal apart and rearranges it. It's the furthest thing you can get from the truth, the truth being the original signal.

What you hear and like is a matter of personal choice and preference. There is nothing wrong with that. It's what the entire industry revolves around, preference.

However in one's aim if one does not try to keep a signal pure then what's the point?

 

[Vijay_s]

I have same experience with Denon AVR
Denon 3312 have 135W discreet power output and this model have stereo, direct & Pure direct modes. I connected it with Logitech SQ touch>> Denon 3312>> Focal 816 or Direct streaming from PC>>Denon 3312 >>Focal 816. A 40% volume is more than enough to listen music in higher volumes(in my listening levels).

Still I feel Marantz 7004 (less than half the price and only 80W) at 9'0 clock position give more power to the speakers and better music quality that we expect from an AMP. But my opinion was different when I was using Basic Onkyo receiver.

 

[pranavkumar]

The recommendations stem out of 1 pure fact. Less is better. Everything else is perception.

Take for example Viren Bakshi's SET 2a3 tube integrated amplifier. It is barebones with some wires inside instead of transistors or circuits and just 3 watts but probably amplifies sound in it's purest sense better than anything else on the market. How one finds the sound of that is an entirely different subject.

An amplifier's job is nothing but amplification. Everything else is an interference, to a good extent that includes even the wire and solder.

However in the real world to build such a setup is not practical if not impossible without wires. But the logic behind it is make the amplifier nothing but an amplifier if one wants the truest sound to arrive from the source.

An AV receiver uses integrated circuits and digital signal processing which technically rips the signal apart and rearranges it. It's the furthest thing you can get from the truth, the truth being the original signal.

What you hear and like is a matter of personal choice and preference. There is nothing wrong with that. It's what the entire industry revolves around, preference.

However in one's aim if one does not try to keep a signal pure then what's the point?

Cannot agree more, even while building an amplifier, choosing the lesser components in the signal path is better ! Fewer the components lesser will the distortion, losses and processing that they would involve.

Only way to get closest to an analog signal using an AVR is to find music which is sampled at high rates (96kHz or 192KHz). Higher the sampling rate, closer you get to the original analog wave form.

 

[pranavkumar]

But OP has told he is using DAC, and probably connected analogue-in to AVR. Will the AVR still do conversion and processing?

well you can't really say if the AVR is processing the signal then. I think, the pre stage of a AVR involves digital signal. and the signal is amplified/processed digitally.
The power stage mostly involves MOSFETs, which are analog devices and hence the signal passes through a D/A before being fed into the power amps.

There is theoretically no use of a DAC before an AVR, it itself is a DAC involving small signals.

A DAC before a stereo amplifier is much recommended. !

 

[kaushik]

hey Kaushik,

i have the RxV-671 mated to Mourdaunt Short avaino 6's and the others as surround speakers. and frankly i face the same problem.

I recently made a Transmission line FSs and they sounded literally weird with the AVR as compared to a good old stereo amplifier.

Having some knowledge about analog and digital signals.. i can say that an AVR deals with a hell lot of digital equalization and signal processing before it is converted to an analog signal which you feed into your speakers. And whatever you hear, even with pure direct ON is not the PUR"EST" form of an analog signal, hence this difference.

The Tripath amp that you used is also a Class D chip (if i'm not wrong) but the digitization in the case of a tripath is very much different from what goes around inside the AVR.

The best way to enjoy music on a HT would be to find, 5.1 or 7.1 (Whatever have you) encoded music and play it on all the 6 speakers.
Still, i would prefer a simple two-channel amp with a line preamplifier to listen to music !

Hope this helps
Cheers !

I agree fully . I have used a DAC who sings very well . In the chain only I swapped the AMP. Unless i revive the tripath , my bad habit of not casing other AMPs left only the AVR as my buddy.

The AVR i took in 13K..selling will be hassle and i am keeping for a basic 5.1 when i will move in new apartment .

 

[doors666]

Use external decoder inputs, that gets the preamp circuit out of the way. Use the pure direct mode, that switches off all the digital circuitry. Only two channels are being used, you will get decent power also as the trafo can handle the load.

After doing all this, only the analog amplifier in an AVR is functional. Its not all that hard to make a decent amplifier. check out some of the chipamp designs, you can make them on a breadboard. Topping itself is a cheap amp, so the cost cutting argument doesnt really hold good. Unless its an absolute pits rock bottom avr, you will get very decent sq. not unlistenable as its made out by a lot of people on a lot of forums.

If an AVR is all that unlistenable, i wouldnt wanna watch movies also on it. time to get a new one.

I have topping tp20 and yamaha rxv663. i dont find topping all that superior, maybe just a wee bit better. i have no issues listening to either one of them.

 

[SatSon]

+100 doors666, I've always felt this distinction people say between AVR's and stereo amps to be bit over the top.
AFAIK, when AVR is switched to 2 channel and direct, only two channels are working and whole 5 channels don't come into picture. That time the transformer definitely should be able to give enough power for these 2 channels.

And the cost cutting argument as you said - the Tripath that sells at 2k definitely will have less quality components than a receiver that retails for 22k that too from reputed brands like Yamaha /Denon etc. And these AVR's dont use mass market STK chips or so..

 

[doors666]

the key to the amplifier lies in the design, not in the quality of components. Quality of components can give you further refinements only, they cant alter the basic nature of the amp sound. Components bought in bulk are dirt cheap anyway. Most of the big guys have good pcb designers also.

An F5 with SP road resistors will still be an f5, dale resistors might bring in slight improvements. The advantages probably might also be there when pushed hard. You probably might not get the best out of the first amp, That doesnt make it a bad amp.
Edit: both my comments are generic in nature and not directed at the OP. I am sure he already knows all this.

 

[hifipal4all]

The level of detail is superb than the one that my younger brother has (Nad C326 stereo Amp + Nad C 521 CD Player + Mission M35i). It easily beats the stereo amplifier. The NAD stereo amplifier C326 has heavy bass even though the tone defeat function is engaged. May be the level of details retrieved by NAD C521 is spoilt by NAD C326.

Well that bcoz the sound signature of all the components (CDP/Amp/Spks) in your bro's system are laid-back/warmth and Mission M34i's are slightly bass dominated.

To get a considerable difference in this setup the following changes have to be done.

1) Silver based interconnect & speaker cables should be used to balance the setup (between warmth and brightness)

2) CDP or AMP (preferably the CDP) has to be replaced with a Marantz gear.

Cheers

 

[ranjeetrain]

same dac -> same cable->Avr :Really bad SQ in fact it was like some one took my speakers and fitted with Garden speakers.

the AVR sound: very poor separation,sound stage, mechanical kind of sound.
30% of details were gone !
It was like speakers covered with thick blanket .

I am sure you don't know how to use that AVR. Have you read the manual that came with it? Try reading it, you will learn a lot of things you don't know yet.

same dac -> same cable->This anyways reconfirms that the TRIPATH was way better than entry AVRs

How many amps have you compared the Tripath amps to? Have you only compared it to AVRs or also to Stereo amps? Can you list them here, so that we know what is the basis of your such a profound discovery?

 

[ranjeetrain]

Having some knowledge about analog and digital signals.. i can say that an AVR deals with a hell lot of digital equalization and signal processing before it is converted to an analog signal which you feed into your speakers. And whatever you hear, even with pure direct ON is not the PUR"EST" form of an analog signal, hence this difference.

The Tripath amp that you used is also a Class D chip (if i'm not wrong) but the digitization in the case of a tripath is very much different from what goes around inside the AVR.

Pranav,

You seem to have a profound knowledge on the subject. But you have made some very broad generalizations here. I am trying to understand your basis behind such bold generalizations. I have highlighted three parts in your post. Can you please clarify:

(1) What are those digital equalization, and why can't they be removed from signal path?

(2) How does the "Pre direct mode" of an AVR works?

(3) What digitization does the Tripath do and how is it different from an AVR?

 

[diplomat]

even I never felt of any degradation of quality in marantz direct mode with wharfi combo, for stereo input through optical cable.....
may be it matters from company to company in AVR like how much they address this in design to listen two channel format... certainly marantz is the king in this regard

 

[rishiguru]

+1 with ranjeetrain. It would be great pranav, if you kindly clarify what ranjeetrain had asked for.

The thread seemed so oddly named to me "Why Avr so bad for music?". I fill pity that the OP came to this conclusion after comparing the worst AVR Yamaha have ever made, that too one made specifically for Asian markets.

I have heard some top AVRs with excellent SQ. Personally I believe one who compares an AVR with a stereo amp with near identical price has to be one of the biggest nerd in the world.

The AVR is undoubtedly the centerpiece of home theatre capabilities though it is usually thought of simply an audio component that just performs various advanced functions. In fact, these functions demanded of an audiovisual AV amplifier that gets more complex every year. It has to decode the multi-channel audio signals from Blu-ray discs and DVDs as well as digital broadcasts and other sources, properly assign these to multiple surround speakers, and offer video signal processing as well. If one compares the entire home theatre to an orchestra with a configuration of various instruments, the AV amplifier is the conductor who brings it all together. In the end the ability of the conductor will greatly affect the musical as well as visual experiences of the listener.

For identically priced equipments a stereo amp will generally.. in fact always be superior sonically. But as I said above an AVR will give you so much more than a similarly priced stereo amp in terms of connectivity and features.

In the end it is a balancing act, you want stereo sound and are in a low budget go for stereo amps. Else go for AVRs.

And if you want both with superlative SQ nothing less than an Uber AV amplifier will satisfy your lust. Anybody who has heard a Denon AVC-A1SRA Uber AV amplifier will confirm this.