You continue to pursue a debate where I've already told you we are talking about different things entirely Rishi.
Thanks for the information corElement. Never knew Jamo used to make AVRs. I know them as a loudspeaker company. It seems they never gained popularity selling AVRs, which questions the quality of their AVRs.
They were bought over by klipsch immediately after the release of their AVR line.
Anyway in order to know more I googled and your thread in this very forum came up:
Jamo Amp 693 Massive Transformer
Your Jamo Amp 693 Massive Transformer thread contains quite a bit of information regarding your AVR.
That review is years old, I'd edit it and update it if I could because I do not share the same views on things I do now, as I did back then, while I was "passionate" about it, my information was biased and not objective, it took me a long time to look at things more objectively in a dispassionate manner.
However as said by you the topic of this thread is whether AVRs are good for music listening or not. And the truth is they indeed are.
I never said they can't be, I defended why people recommend stereo amplifiers over AVR's and the reasons supporting that logic. I even mentioned in an earlier post if the AVR was from a higher price point than the stereo amplifier in question I'd consider it if it had synergy to the rest of the setup.
I personally own a US $4500 Yamaha DSP-Z9, a 9.1 channel AV amplifier which I and its previous owner found sonically superior than a US $2500 Musical Fidelity A5 stereo amp in pure direct stereo mode. And I am talking about really high standards of SQ here; you may even found your CA840 to be blatant in detailing in comparison to this DSP-Z9 Uber AV amplifier.
If I were looking at a $4500 budget, I wouldn't be caught anywhere near that EM field generator(sarcasm)class AB /B AVR. I'd probably be spending a lot of time looking at a pair of used Supratek Merlot Monoblocs or I'd do what FM Prem did on this forum by upgrading Viren Bakshi's SET 2a3 with custom transformers and controls (This is purely hypothetical as my present speakers will not benefit from the low output of the SET 2a3)
Now if you compare your mediocre Jamo AVR693 being quite light at 13.5 kilo (which you claim to have a massive power transformer, I dont know how) with an equivalently priced stereo amp, the stereo amp SQ is always going to be better.
As I said earlier, I would pay little heed to that review today. If possible I would delete it however since it has some factual information regarding the history of some speaker models it's probably going to be helpful to others. Don't go digging in closets, stick to information here.
You forget to take into account that any modern AVR handles 7.1 audio inputs so it has to handle 4x times the audio channels of your stereo amp. We are leaving a AVRs additional switching capabilities, video up scaling and many other features as of now. So when you compare SQ, please do these between a stereo amp and an AVR costing 4x as much.
What will this four times costlier AVR give in return compared to a stereo amp? Firstly apart from two dimensional stereo, it will open the door for you in terms of three dimensional multi-channel audio.
I guess that's what he did with the topping. Sadly, this context you're talking about is too open ended without any definition of class or specification of hypothetical amps and avr's and is a pointless debate.
You're trying to prove something's ability while I was trying to inform about the importance of pure amplification. They are two separate topics. Even now I would say the sheer amount of EM interference in your AVR itself would be something anyone who knows anything about preserving audio quality would say should be avoided at all costs. However practically this isn't always possible.
I have personally heard live orchestral composition in these 24bit/ 96 kHz 5.1 high quality DVD discs, and no stereo reproduction of the same will be able to provide the image, separation, depth along with all engulfing soundstage of these DVD discs. These DVD discs though very limited in number are much superior to there stereo counterparts.
Good for you. I have heard the same on my 5.1 setup. And once again, you're talking about the process and presentation of sound rather than sound itself. Try and please understand you're causing confusion in a thread where there is none. You're talking about processed sound presentation while I'm defending the integrity of a signal. In which case a stereo has 2 channels and in your context there are 7.1. In both situations there is a dedicated SIGNAL. I'm talking about that SIGNAL and the result of preserving their integrity. Not their presentation.
So now you have an added option to listen to music at a much higher level which was before impossible to attain in a stereo amp. Again will this 5.1 sound be processed? No. You can hear DVD multi channel audio in pure direct mode from any AVR, but high end AVRs will provide the finesse you are looking for.
lol you're still not understanding what I'm trying to say. I think it's best if you just emailed Mr Viren Bakshi and ask him what his views are on signal integrity. This is my last response to you as our debate is derailing this thread.
Anyway @Kaushik, all avr's are not bad for music however from a practical point of view, here are some reasons why your tripath may sound better if one ignores the power ratings.
1. There are many things that can afflict sound in an AVR where as the number of things that can possibly afflict sound in that little tripath are a lot lower.
It is undeniable fact lesser components in the signal path is better, period. There is no if's or but's about this.
2. The strength of EM field inside an AVR are many times greater than that inside a topping and shielding is usually quite poor in budget AVRs.
3. Class D is a very new type of amplification in comparison to class A B and A/B. The results of it's implementation dramatically varies across different brands and models. This often requires the parts used to be of a certain grade where mass production defects are likely lower in sheer numbers as compared to taken for granted class b / class A/b AVR's.
4. Class T is a highly efficient implementation of class D but at the same time has a certain degree of distortion. Often solid state distortion can add to the impact of music depending on the Genre however it usually does not benefit all types of vocal music. In your case your speakers are most likely
benefiting from the additional THD. Similarly in comparison a same level of THD on MY speakers would shred your ears. So it varies considerably.
I just had to get in on this because I really feel for Cor who has done a stellar job on trying to explain the difference between AVRs and Stereo amps.
