Amps in AVRs Vs dedicated Amps

[sanjivg]

This might have been discussed before and I might be asking too many questions, but I am just trying to understand everything better about a hifi.
So here is the question:

AVRs do the amplification also. If I connect analog audio out from a DVD player to AVR , will it convert them again to digitial again or will just amplify the analog inputs?
If it just going to amplify only then how bad it would be in comparison to dedicated stereo amps? (I know dedicated amps are better).

 

[eloorarun]

it can do both...it depends on the sound mode..Eg: if its in pure direct,Stereo,Direct,along with the Auto EQ in OFF mode..it will feed the Ana signal directly to amp section..Once u select DSP modes ,PLII mode ,or audyssey /Auto EQ on ...it will do a A-D conv to do the process'ng and it will make d sound colored..!!!

 

[anilva]

If it just going to amplify only then how bad it would be in comparison to dedicated stereo amps? (I know dedicated amps are better).

Not always true. There can be lousy stereo amps and excellent av receivers.

 

[captrajesh]

Integrated Stereo Amp has to just amplify two channels and that's all and hence cheaper to build. AVR has to do much more than that and hence costlier to build. Moreover, since it needs to do multi-tasking, to optimise costs, manufacturers tend to take short cuts.

So for providing an 'X' SQ (Trying to quantify), you would require a much costlier Receiver to do the job.

As a comparative analogy, a mobile phone having 5 MP camara is much more costlier than a standalone 5 MP camera. Even then the PQ (for example with low level lighting) and VQ (video quality) of the camera would be inferior to that of the standalone camera.

 

[amystery]

So for providing an 'X' SQ (Trying to quantify), you would require a much costlier Receiver to do the job.

As a comparative analogy, a mobile phone having 5 MP camara is much more costlier than a standalone 5 MP camera. Even then the PQ (for example with low level lighting) and VQ (video quality) of the camera would be inferior to that of the standalone camera.

Super explanation to newbies like us...

 

[pannags]

My favourite topic and hence can't help but shoot

To add to Capt's cool (read cool capt's) analogy,

A dedicated Amp and AVR are like buying a Reva for city driving, and a swanky SUV for the highways only, respectively.

In most cases, a good sedan will do both(city and highways) sufficiently well, albeit with the added pressure of squeezing through congestion in the city, while on the highways you may find a speeding 4x4 leaving it gasping for breath.

Not everyone has 2 garages, the moolah and the "need" for 2 cars you see

 

[sanjivg]

The reason I brought this discussion up is that most people claim that a good stereo amp is much better for music than an AVR. But I think then you need a good DAC as well before you can feed the analog outs to dedicated amp.

So with that setup you need
1. A good DAC (a good CDP)
2. A good stereo Amp.

While an AVR has both the above (DAC + Amp), but then both the components may not be that good quality as dedicated components. But then an AVR can do video as well.

 

[pannags]

Excerpts from my earlier post ... did not know how to point to that thread alone:

Hi,

I have similar plans - I own an Onkyo TX-SR608 and plan to use it only in Stereo mode for the time being.

Even though I would have been better of buying a decent stereo Amp, that would seriously restrict my options to use a Sub, surrounds and a center, whenever I feel like doing so in the near future.

At the same time, video processing capabilities of an AVR can pretty much be made use of without opting for surrounds (upscaling, upconversion, audio return, DAC ...)

For varied reasons, not everyone would want to invest separately in an AVR and an Amp, and hence, IMHO, it makes sense to buy a balanced, sufficiently future-proof AVR - provided you have the budget for it - knowing fully well that its a jack of many trades.

Just my thoughts.

Pannags

 

[captrajesh]

did not know how to point to that thread alone

On the top right side of every post is a number; that is the hyperlink of that msg. Right click on that no. & select 'copy link loc' & paste it in ur present post.

 

[sydneyvj]

My $0.02 is that a to get really good 2 channel SQ in an AVR you will have to spend a lot more money that one would spend getting the same SQ compared to a 2 ch system. Amp section in a AVR will never be on par with a power amp. A good integrated 2 ch amp can cost more than a decent AVR. I went from using the amp in the AVR to a power amp and haven't looked back. The clarity, separation and dynamics one gets from a power amp is just not there in AVR. Unlike AVR's power amps don't get outdated. As eloquently put by the Capt it will cost you a lot more to get a pre/pro that has great SQ.It all comes down to how much one wants to spend. I have yet to come across a AVR that can deliver 4.2KW powerhyeah:.

 

[GeorgeO]

I second Anil's view. I had a mediocre AVR and then upgraded to separates for 2 channel audio and have never looked back.I am now building a 5 channel power amp for HT since i have a preamp processor. Bottom line there are good amps/AVRs out there.

 

[mvasu22]

I dont clearly understand the purpose of the question raised but here is my 2Cents of wisdom which many have already given in a better way than me.

Integrated stereo amps still offer the best amplification for stereo musical sources. AV amps need to process the audio signal more than a stereo amp and this processing has a detrimental effect on the resulting output.

1. AV amps also use longer signal paths than stereo amps
2. An AV amp also needs to use its power supply to power multiple amplification stages. (So the power isn't as easily kept as constant as it would be in a dedicated stereo amp.)
3. Cost: Consider decent power amp 7 channels of power amplification which are going to cost approx 3.5 times as much as a 2 channels of power amplification. If the same has to be put into an AV receiver with Stereo and 8 channels of AV, then it may need all of the extra decoding, processing, DACs, volume, plus video switching, transcoding, and others which I do not know...etc.

So once you start putting them all in a box, the power supply becomes a bottleneck. Hence we decide to have separate devices or each.

The point that I am trying to make is that to get comparable 2 channel performance on 7 channels, you can expect to pay some 3.5 times as much.

If you want a setup for both Music and AV, then here is my best choice.(Warning: Funds permitted)

1. Have the stereo amp to drive the front speakers
2. Have the AVR to drive the Centre and Surround + Sub Woofer

If you are worried about the front amps wasted in the AVR, then another solution would be to Bi-Amping the 2 amps such that for LF you use the stereo amp and for HF use the AVR.

All of these boil down to cost, so its more for theoretical purpose.

Hope this was useful or was I off track all the while.

Thanks
-Vasu

 

[vkhandelwal]

When used in pure mode or stereo mode or with little adjustment in EQ to match the speakers AVR can do decent sound amplification. not all have space and money for stereo AMP and separate set of speakers.
if the AVR in stereo mode sounds enough musical for your ears.. it does not make sense to look for a dedicated setup just because it is considered better, as there is no limit to betterment

 

[ajay124]

There is another option which people don't generally consider.And that is,to simply use your two channel setup hooked to a DVD player to watch movies.Why is it essential to have an AVR + 5.1 to watch movies?For a few gimmicky special effects?Are a couple of 'bullet shot' and 'creaking door' effects so important?My stereo amp and front speakers create a movie theater like 'holographic' sound in my 400 sq feet room.The sound is not localised to any one point.Rather it seems to emanate from deep within the 'scene' being played out.Dialogues,the sound of water,wind,thunder,bombs ..whatever... and the background score is amazingly realistic.Even if I had to buy gear,purely for the movies,I would still prefer the more real sound of a stereo amp and front speakers only.My current two channel set up gives better SQ and 'effects' and pleasure than my earlier AVR+FS+SUB+CENTER when watching a movie.Also less equipment means less cables(and better cables) and less clutter.
Since everyone agrees that the SQ for money paid is better with a stereo amp why not opt for a PURE two channel amp rather than using the compromised pure/direct option on an AVR.Also one saves the money which would normally go towards buying a sub/center/surrounds.Some of that cash could be used for buying both a DVD and a CD player.And more DVD'S and CD's.
For a 100K 'home theater' my outlay would be 5K for DVDP (10K if I wanted an entry level blue ray),10K for CDP,5K for the cables/IC's,45K for the front speakers,35K for the stereo amp.And I would look for demo/lightly used gear in order to move up the HIFI chain towards better brands which brand new would cost me 150K!
Hypothetical option for s-t-r-e-c-h-i-n-g your 100K for the best SQ.
Demo/Used(for all the stuff)
Arcam/Cyrus integrated amp 75 WPC/8 OHMS
Dali Ikon 6 or Quad 22L2 or Monitor Audio RS6
Chord Crimson IC's and Chord Carnival Silverscreen cables
Sony DVDP
Entry level Marantz CDP.
If you can work all that out for 100K then you have my vote for sensible audiophile and financial genius of the year!

 

[venkatcr]

There is another option which people don't generally consider. And that is, to simply use your two channel setup hooked to a DVD player to watch movies.Why is it essential to have an AVR + 5.1 to watch movies? For a few gimmicky special effects? Are a couple of 'bullet shot' and 'creaking door' effects so important? My stereo amp and front speakers create a movie theater like 'holographic' sound in my 400 sq feet room.The sound is not localised to any one point. Rather it seems to emanate from deep within the 'scene' being played out. Dialogues, the sound of water, wind, thunder, bombs ..whatever... and the background score is amazingly realistic.

Irrespective of you liking or disliking what you call gimmicky special effects, it will be incorrect to say that one can get a full cinema effect with a 2.0 system. If you are hearing 'holographic' sounds, it is because of reflection form the walls and the ceiling. Though this may sound nice, this is not what the director and/or editor envisaged. The sound comes with a delay, and you may even have lip sync issues. This will end up sounding like a bad recording.

If you set up proper room acoustics, a 2.0 system will fall flat when you play a movie. And, in such a room, a 5.1 system will sound completely different and engrossing. In addition, a 5.1 recording has frequencies a 2.0 system can never render. As you know there is the LFE that a 2.0 system cannot handle. If you talk about using a 2.1 system, then you are compromising the music part as well as the movie part. Music does not have the point 1.

Movies are recorded with multiple isolated mikes. Well known directors use 12 mikes or more. The sound recorded by these mikes are carefully edited and mixed with timing to match the action on the screen. Whether they use Dolby or DTS is immaterial. The fact is that you cannot expect to play 6 channels through 2 channels and say it is not a compromise.

Cheers

 

[malvai]

guys, Venkat is very correct....

If you are a movie buff, a good 5.1 or 7.1 dedicated to movies is the best bet.... most sound is embedded in a certain way that does not quite have the same effect on 2 channel....

however, for music, 2 channel systems are engineered to perfection for music...

In short, you'd do well to keep the two set-up's separate.

 

[dranil]

I am also supporting the views of venkat and malvai
Movie sounds recorded in 5 or 7 channels cannot be heard from 2 channels alone.

 

[ajay124]

Irrespective of you liking or disliking what you call gimmicky special effects, it will be incorrect to say that one can get a full cinema effect with a 2.0 system. If you are hearing 'holographic' sounds, it is because of reflection form the walls and the ceiling. Though this may sound nice, this is not what the director and/or editor envisaged. The sound comes with a delay, and you may even have lip sync issues. This will end up sounding like a bad recording.

If you set up proper room acoustics, a 2.0 system will fall flat when you play a movie. And, in such a room, a 5.1 system will sound completely different and engrossing. In addition, a 5.1 recording has frequencies a 2.0 system can never render. As you know there is the LFE that a 2.0 system cannot handle. If you talk about using a 2.1 system, then you are compromising the music part as well as the movie part. Music does not have the point 1.

Movies are recorded with multiple isolated mikes. Well known directors use 12 mikes or more. The sound recorded by these mikes are carefully edited and mixed with timing to match the action on the screen. Whether they use Dolby or DTS is immaterial. The fact is that you cannot expect to play 6 channels through 2 channels and say it is not a compromise.

Cheers

Technically what you are saying is spot on and I don't deny that.Separate 2 channel and multi channel set ups for music/movies would be the way to go. But compromises happen not out of choice but because of budget.Most audiophiles would find it hard to build one system leave alone two.And for that one music/movie system I would still contend 100K spent on a cd/dvd/fs/stereo amp/cables would provide better VFM than the same amount spent on dvd/avr/fs/rs/c/sub/cables.Please enlighten me if I am wrong but I believe a major compromise is in the choice of cables.Obviously a 5/7 channel set up requires huge lengths of cables,engendering the need to spend less 'per meter'.A lot of detail and clarity would be sacrificed in the process.
Also on a side note....
Perhaps our choice of cinema also influences our preferences.The cinema I like....Art House World Cinema circa 1925-1975 + a few 'contemporary' directors-Bela Tarr,Istvan Szabo,Zhang Yimou,Wong Kar Wai,Chen Kaige,Lars Von Trier,Michael Haneke,Pedro Almodovar,Alejandro Innaritu,Abbas Kiarostami,Emir Kusturica,Cristian Mungiu,Tom Tykwer....is more about imagination-the director,script writer,actor and mine.Neither the director nor the audience has a major interest in special effects.Although,at a comparitively smaller budget a Von Trier,Almodovar,Tarr achieve breath taking audio and visuals quite outside the 'expertise' of the majority of mainstream directors.Zhang Yimou of course is the master of 'grand' cinema. Where as the mainstream cinema that the majority of people watch is more about technology.The emphasis here is not on the 'imagination' but on providing sensory thrills through the use of virtual reality.Steven Speiberg/George Lucas changed mainstream cinema by pushing cinema from the 'real' into the 'virtual' zone.

 

[hemantwaghe]

Perhaps our choice of cinema also influences our preferences.The cinema I like....Art House World Cinema circa 1925-1975 + a few 'contemporary' directors-Bela Tarr,Istvan Szabo,Zhang Yimou,Wong Kar Wai,Chen Kaige,Lars Von Trier,Michael Haneke,Pedro Almodovar,Alejandro Innaritu,Abbas Kiarostami,Emir Kusturica,Cristian Mungiu,Tom Tykwer....is more about imagination-the director,script writer,actor and mine.Neither the director nor the audience has a major interest in special effects.Although,at a comparitively smaller budget a Von Trier,Almodovar,Tarr achieve breath taking audio and visuals quite outside the 'expertise' of the majority of mainstream directors.Zhang Yimou of course is the master of 'grand' cinema. Where as the mainstream cinema that the majority of people watch is more about technology.The emphasis here is not on the 'imagination' but on providing sensory thrills through the use of virtual reality.Steven Speiberg/George Lucas changed mainstream cinema by pushing cinema from the 'real' into the 'virtual' zone.

Too niche a choice of content.So 2 channel may be sufficient. Generally movie rig is considered for Hollywod or Bollywood or Regional cinema where as venkat sir says only 5.1 or 7.1 do the justice.If the movie is recorded in 5.1 ( right now even comparability lower budget marathi movies also remastered in DD) you need 5.1.Also movie is nt about effects.For dialouges in 5.1 or 7.1 a center speaker is given,which forms an important part of the system,

 

[ajay124]

Too niche a choice of content.So 2 channel may be sufficient. Generally movie rig is considered for Hollywod or Bollywood or Regional cinema where as venkat sir says only 5.1 or 7.1 do the justice.If the movie is recorded in 5.1 ( right now even comparability lower budget marathi movies also remastered in DD) you need 5.1.Also movie is nt about effects.For dialouges in 5.1 or 7.1 a center speaker is given,which forms an important part of the system,

I am in agreement with what you have written.My taste in cinema/music is off-mainstream.Just thought I would put my 'minority' viewpoint forward.Ultimately everyone should make a choice after looking at things from every possible angle.
Anyway,as I prefer the big screen,I do most of my film viewing at festivals and not at home.IFFI Goa(23/11-2/12) is what I'm looking forward to,at the moment.I would be watching something like 35-40 films in 10 days.Wouldn't be very interested in viewing films at home when I get back.