Why Avr so bad for music?

[manoj.p]

Fully agree. Ascend speakers are uber expensive and sure must be sounding great.

I fully respect your judgement in selecting what appealed to you and wish you years of musical bliss.

I was just trying to present a different perspective about stereo sound which comes out not from any super expensive equipment but from simple vintage equipment and technology which is so magical that one has to hear to believe what it is.

It is purely a matter of one's own choice whether to be open to new ideas or stick to one's own.

yes, Ascend speakers are very nice. They are very accurate and natural. The ones I listen to were the new towers, at proto stage. They still sounded very nice. But I wouldn't call them uber expensive as the amount of money people spend on speakers/amp/other gear.

The stereo perspective is correct and I was also into it. Most of the time, I use to play my Onkyo AVR in stereo mode for music. But I was seating about 17 ft away from mains, which were 12 ft apart. That was a narrow cone. Then I heard a well setup multi-channel 7.1 setup and it opened up my perspective. I was lacking the wide soundstage due to very narrow listening cone. These deficiencies were removed in my setup as I went with multichannel music. So much so that another person also went with multi-channel music after listening to the same 7.1 setup (not mine). May be I need to do some more writeup on that.

 

[manoj.p]

Test 1,2,3 were supposed to sound same as the chain is same except 1,2 (variable:amp).

Well, this is the whole crux of this thread. Most commented here that if AVR is ran in pure direct mode, then it should not make much difference against the stereo amp, just like you mentioned here. OP made one change in the chain and replaced AVR with an Topping amp and got huge difference. He did not say whether he ran it with DSP, any processing or in Pure direct mode. But pretty soon the discussion went about how the stereo amp itself makes the difference compared to AVR.

Anyway, I just stated my experience. Glad those results made sense to you. But not everyone will agree to it and that's perfectly fine.

 

[cmsajith]

Well, this is the whole crux of this thread. Most commented here that if AVR is ran in pure direct mode, then it should not make much difference against the stereo amp, just like you mentioned here.

Manoj, you yourself know what i was trying to say, by quoting something in between the lines, it will not change that. You should have read the remaining sentences also.

...Test 1,2,3 were supposed to sound same as the chain is same except 1,2 (variable:amp). (as per the discussions) but as per my experience ....

I had tested Emotiva XPA 5 channel power amp with 2 channels for music, heard a big difference to Quad 909. Today also I heard it as I had set it up for one of my friend's HT along with UMC1 paired w/ B&W speakers, even without a A/B test I can clearly feel the difference. Test 4 difference is due to the change in DAC b/n a DVD player to AVR and processing.

This test is different than the avr test in whatever mode, it cannot bypass pre section i am not aware of any avrs that can skip it. To me each and every component was making some difference.

I am also stating from my experience, donno about others.

 

[rishiguru]

@Rishi, From your writeup, it is very clear that you are a specialist. A surround sound specialist.

Nope.

I am a music lover and a generalist. I hear stereo, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1, .. in every format music comes with.

On the contrary you and other stereo lovers are specialist, you guys only listen to stereo and do not like other formats of music.

Here is a picture of a mono block amplifier. Only one channel. Just to give you an idea about what the other camp is drooling about

[/URL][/IMG]

I find nothing to drool about in this mono amp. It seems super clunky having extremely dated hardware and very very impractical. No idea about its price.

To me an amplifier is just an amplifier. It amplifies.

I walk with time and do not look back. I believe science and technology improves with time and not the other way round. So, if my great grandfather used to own one of these, I would have been glad to replace this super-oldie inefficient Class-A amp with something modern of Class-D type below:

Yamaha MX-D1 [US $5000, 500 + 500 Wpc]

Here is a review: Stereophile: Yamaha MX-D1

Here is an excerpt from Michael Fremer's above review that I really liked:

"A guy's gotta carry a cow across a river. He's not strong enough, of course, so the only way he can do it is to cut the cow into pieces, carry them across a few at a time, and re-assemble the beast on the other side. When he's finished, he's got a cow on the other side of the river, but it's not exactly the same cow."

I forget who told me that parable at the 2005 Consumer Electronics Show, but the context was the analog vs digital debate, which in the audiophile community often takes on the tone of holy war. However, as big an analog devotee as I am, when it comes to audio, I don't buy the cow routine. Yes, it has proven to be mostly true with respect of digital audio for the past 25 years or so, but as sampling rates increase, bit words lengthen, and processing attains levels of finesse that only time and experience can buy, digital sound has improved to the point where in some cases it's almost the same cow. DSD recording at 1 bit/2.83MHz, for instance, can be about as true to a live source as I've heard. Using studio-quality converters the likes of which most of us can't afford, I wouldn't want to have to choose which was which in a blind test.

 

[doors666]

People keep telling that topping at 4k is beating a 20k AVR. What they very conveniently forget to add that the same topping, being a giant killer, is also beating the crap out of 20k stereo amplifiers, some of which are running in class A mode upto a certain wattage. While the topping is in class D. So much for class A amps that it gets its ass whipped by a 1/5th cost class D amp. Talk about double standards.

 

[corElement]

Well, this is the whole crux of this thread. Most commented here that if AVR is ran in pure direct mode, then it should not make much difference against the stereo amp.

The difference will depend model to model, can't generalize like that

 

[manoj.p]

Manoj, you yourself know what i was trying to say, by quoting something in between the lines, it will not change that. You should have read the remaining sentences also.

...Test 1,2,3 were supposed to sound same as the chain is same except 1,2 (variable:amp). (as per the discussions) but as per my experience ....

I had tested Emotiva XPA 5 channel power amp with 2 channels for music, heard a big difference to Quad 909. Today also I heard it as I had set it up for one of my friend's HT along with UMC1 paired w/ B&W speakers, even without a A/B test I can clearly feel the difference. Test 4 difference is due to the change in DAC b/n a DVD player to AVR and processing.

This test is different than the avr test in whatever mode, it cannot bypass pre section i am not aware of any avrs that can skip it. To me each and every component was making some difference.

I am also stating from my experience, donno about others.

Sajith,

I am not misquoting you. I just quoted that line because want to highlight that. If we can't skip the pre-amp AVR, then at least one of the test should have sounded different if pre-amp is in the picture. But you said they should sound same because just the amp is the variable. May be you missed that there was AVR also involved. Hopefully I am able to understand this correctly from your different posts.

I do get the part where DAC, its implementation and pre-amp section should make a difference and make the overall system sound different. It could be that the Sherwood and Marantz DAC implementation is either very similar or accurate, thats why there is not huge difference. Can't compare on pre-amp because Marantz do not have one.

 

[square_wave]

We all have our preferences, likes, opinions, opinions mixed with facts etc. But making tall claims like this is really not helping.


I understand there will be differences in these equipments and people will choose based on which sound they prefer. But to make a generalized statement that a Stereo amp WILL ALWAYS beat an AVR/Processor/separates is far from truth. The only way to take the subjectivity out is the blind testing with A/B. But you guys again frown that. So what should we judge based on? Just the word from the guy who is making the tall claim? someone makes a claim that they can hear 1db difference. someone else can identify the amp vs avr from the next room. I guess we all have to simply bow down and take their word for it.

Because we are talking about amps here, I would like to point people to a blind tests of amps. Amplifier Sound Quality | Amplifiers | HomeTheaterFocus.com

The internet is full of blind tests and their results are out there. matrixhifi.com is one such a site. I am sorry but that's the only way to differentiate products, because the subjectivity plays a very important role into what we hear and how we perceive it. Ever wondered why all this voodo does not show up in video as much? How much people all of sudden do not see the details, contrast, punch, veils being lifted out of the picture but only use these superlatives with audio?

PS: I have listened to AV7005/amp combo. Its very good, no doubt. But I wouldn't just write off the Z9 without listening to it and doing A/B comparison. Same with I won't write off any stereo equipment of amp for that matter. BUT I would not go making the tall claims about it either.

No offense meant to references here, just wanted to highlight these.

Blind testing has been discussed a lot on the forum

I dont think sensible audiophiles have a problem with blind testing. It is the usual protocol that creates the problem. Technically , there are various ways one can do blind testing. We are open to alternatives.

See discussion here:

http://www.hifivision.com/av-lounge/25117-practical-blind-test-just-kicks.html

 

[manoj.p]

There was NO comparison between my avr in pure direct mode and my stereo amplifier (both were from similar priceband). The difference was greater going to stereo amp than going from 5.1 to pure direct on avr.

And I don't question that. It could be very much possible. All I wanted to highlight that point of this thread was OP replaced the avr with an amp, and in my case I did not notice the difference in pure mode. So, it could be case different from equipment to equipment.

My one test or experience does not prove anything, and so is OP's or anyone else's. that we need to be careful of.

 

[manoj.p]

Blind testing has been discussed a lot on the forum

I dont think sensible audiophiles have a problem with blind testing. It is the usual protocol that creates the problem. Technically , there are various ways one can do blind testing. We are open to alternatives.

See discussion here:

http://www.hifivision.com/av-lounge/25117-practical-blind-test-just-kicks.html

That seems an interesting protocol. Although, I believe there should be atleast minimum as below.
* Blind tester is familiar with music, knowing it very well how its supposed to sound.
* Keep one equipment as different. If too many variables involved, can't tell which one is causing issue.
Only then he can pickup more subtle details.

But your is an interesting twist, and may be more helpful to compare systems itself. Did you ever got to try it out with anyone? (Sorry did not read through entire thread)

 

[corElement]

Nope.

I am a music lover and a generalist. I hear stereo, 2.1, 5.1, 7.1, 9.1, .. in every format music comes with.

On the contrary you and other stereo lovers are specialist, you guys only listen to stereo and do not like other formats of music.

Wow, more personal attacks?? This truly is your personal crusade where you say in one post to each their own then in another you criticism them for it.

I seriously request mods to lock this thread because it's gone completely off topic.

I find nothing to drool about in this mono amp. It seems super clunky having extremely dated hardware and very very impractical. No idea about its price.

clunky? dated hardware? impractical? price?

A master of sound > a jack of all trades.

To me an amplifier is just an amplifier. It amplifies.

Wow :lol: you say this here, another thing entirely in your next paragraph.

I walk with time and do not look back. I believe science and technology improves with time and not the other way round.

So, if my great grandfather used to own one of these, I would have been glad to replace this super-oldie inefficient Class-A amp with something modern of Class-D type below:

Yamaha MX-D1 [US $5000, 500 + 500 Wpc]

Since we're generalizing here, I would like to say the following:

you say class a is inefficient, I say it's distortion free
You say class d is efficienct, I say class D is this

Class D amplifiers change the output voltage of the amplifier according to the input voltage by switching its output transistors on and off quickly for various lengths of time. In a class A amp it is constantly on and generates a tremendous amount of heat. This is a side effect and why class A amps are heavy, bulky, inefficient and impractical. The result? Better sound.

Class AB, runs in class A at low output but inherently generates greater distortion at high levels than a pure Class B design.

Class D has nothing working for it other than efficiency. If you want huge sound that's the way to go. However a sine wave is a sine wave, a class A SET would tear a class D amp apart when it comes to musicality. Musicality or huge sound. take your pick.

But like I said.... since we're generalizing

Here is an excerpt from Michael Fremer's above review that I really liked:

"A guy's gotta carry a cow across a river. He's not strong enough, of course, so the only way he can do it is to cut the cow into pieces, carry them across a few at a time, and re-assemble the beast on the other side. When he's finished, he's got a cow on the other side of the river, but it's not exactly the same cow."

I forget who told me that parable at the 2005 Consumer Electronics Show, but the context was the analog vs digital debate, which in the audiophile community often takes on the tone of holy war. However, as big an analog devotee as I am, when it comes to audio, I don't buy the cow routine. Yes, it has proven to be mostly true with respect of digital audio for the past 25 years or so, but as sampling rates increase, bit words lengthen, and processing attains levels of finesse that only time and experience can buy, digital sound has improved to the point where in some cases it's almost the same cow. DSD recording at 1 bit/2.83MHz, for instance, can be about as true to a live source as I've heard. Using studio-quality converters the likes of which most of us can't afford, I wouldn't want to have to choose which was which in a blind test.

The truth of a review lies in it's observations, not it's assessment.


Mods, please lock this thread. It's turned into a personal crusade. It is no longer on topic.

 

[doors666]

@Rishi,

From your writeup, it is very clear that you are a specialist. A surround sound specialist. So you have setup which provides special quality to your chosen hobby and acceptable quality for the other.

Folks on the other boat will do this the opposite way.

Here is a picture of a mono block amplifier. Only one channel. Just to give you an idea about what the other camp is drooling about

[/URL][/IMG]

That cant possibly be a purist design. Going by that logic, an avr might be more pure than that and hence better.:lol:

 

[corElement]

That cant possibly be a purist design. Going by that logic, an avr might be more pure than that and hence better.:lol:

Quite true, that does not look like a purist design, but who knows whats inside it.

 

[manoj.p]

The difference will depend model to model, can't generalize like that

and so shouldn't have the stereo camp, from the beginning. :yahoo:

But I wasn't making a generalization. cause, i said umpteenth time, it does not prove anything.

 

[rishiguru]

...a class A SET would tear a class D amp apart when it comes to musicality.....

Got our point.

Don't know how you will prove it though. Mind you, your own assessments are reserved for you.

They may not work for me.

 

[corElement]

and so shouldn't have the stereo camp, from the beginning. :yahoo:

But I wasn't making a generalization. cause, i said umpteenth time, it does not prove anything.

Don't worry not criticizing you about it I've already said before I would gladly take an AVR if it matched my sound preference and had synergy with the rest of my setup.

My theoretical point of view was just that preserving a signal is important for good sound. Does not mean it has to be enforced.

 

[corElement]

Got our point.

Don't know how you will prove it though. Mind you, your own assessments are reserved for you.

They may not work for me.

I was simply talking on theory, on theory all this is already proven. End of the day the design of an amplifier and it's sound quality / synergy overrule any theory, which is why practically like I've said before, I would take anything that matches my sound preference and has synergy. But most above all, it has to fit within my budget. Just because a 3 watt SET amp is more musical does not automatically mean I'll pick it. It would have to meet the demands of everything else in the chain.

 

[rishiguru]

...a class A SET would tear a class D amp apart when it comes to musicality.....

Got our point.

Don't know how you will prove it though. Mind you, your own assessments are reserved for you.

They may not work for me.

I was simply talking on theory, on theory all this is already proven. End of the day the design of an amplifier and it's sound quality / synergy overrule any theory, which is why practically like I've said before, I would take anything that matches my sound preference and has synergy. But most above all, it has to fit within my budget. Just because a 3 watt SET amp is more musical does not automatically mean I'll pick it. It would have to meet the demands of everything else in the chain.

Hmm... I wonder if this the same person who said:

.....

clunky? dated hardware? impractical? price?

A master of sound > a jack of all trades.

you say class a is inefficient, I say it's distortion free
You say class d is efficienct, I say class D is this

Class D has nothing working for it other than efficiency. If you want huge sound that's the way to go.

However a sine wave is a sine wave, a class A SET would tear a class D amp apart when it comes to musicality. Musicality or huge sound. take your pick.

I am in a confusion now of whether you are a purist or not. While I stay to my point, I find all your posts very vague in nature.

 

[corElement]

Read what I wrote, I said "since we're generalizing" as everything said before mine was a generalization.

I never said I was a purist. If you assumed so, you're in for a big surprise from generalizations like that. I believe each setup / system has their own application. The context of this thread was "musicality" and my posts were done accordingly. If the context was setting up a private home theatre I would have replied accordingly. They do not have to mean I belong to that school of thought.

Theory and practical application are two halves of the same coin. However theory is often overruled by emotion, which is why synergy plays a greater role, but regardless both have to work together and one has to be objective about both .

If there's no way to audition something, theory + observations from a review can help form a basis of understanding. Which is why the truth of a review lies in it's observations, not the assessment of the reviewer.

 

[rishiguru]

I never said I was a purist.

Thanks for the clarification.