AVR's 2 Channel Musical performance Vs Integrated Stereo Amplifier's performance
- Thread starter ayushp306
- Start date
@Arun:
Actually that extra watt consumption is not for headroom but to compensate for the energy loss in amplification. Class AB amplifiers are around 50 percent efficiency. To output 50 watt, it ends up consuming around 100 watts. This loss gets converted into heat. That's why amplifiers need cooling and run hot.
Actually that extra watt consumption is not for headroom but to compensate for the energy loss in amplification. Class AB amplifiers are around 50 percent efficiency. To output 50 watt, it ends up consuming around 100 watts. This loss gets converted into heat. That's why amplifiers need cooling and run hot.
I recently bought a Marantz SR 7010, which is one of the best AVRs for two channel music. My previous Denon x2200w, Yamaha vx477 etc were pretty lacklustre as far as stereo performance is concerned. I was very much advocate of stereo amp for Music over AVR but this does music duties equally well too.
SR7010 has a great inbuilt DAC comparable to my Schiit Gungnir apart from other user friendly features like internet radio, tuner, USB port for a complete music playback device. Has a dedicated two channel music settings page where you can further tweak the performance according to your liking. It has a very good inbuilt phono stage as well, which I'm liking much more than Rega dedicated phono preamp. In fact its a sort of all in one solution for my audio amplification needs.
The sound leans towards a more digital signature than the analog feel of NAD. Especially the vocals are more lively with the NAD than on the Marantz AVR. But these are pretty critical observations, overall the two channel performance is much better over any of the AVRs I've used previously. The power is definitely lower than NAD or Onkyo amps I own, but much powerful than the Denon x2200w.
But the Marantz AVR is again a flagship product so a well balanced make is expected so is the performance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SR7010 has a great inbuilt DAC comparable to my Schiit Gungnir apart from other user friendly features like internet radio, tuner, USB port for a complete music playback device. Has a dedicated two channel music settings page where you can further tweak the performance according to your liking. It has a very good inbuilt phono stage as well, which I'm liking much more than Rega dedicated phono preamp. In fact its a sort of all in one solution for my audio amplification needs.
The sound leans towards a more digital signature than the analog feel of NAD. Especially the vocals are more lively with the NAD than on the Marantz AVR. But these are pretty critical observations, overall the two channel performance is much better over any of the AVRs I've used previously. The power is definitely lower than NAD or Onkyo amps I own, but much powerful than the Denon x2200w.
But the Marantz AVR is again a flagship product so a well balanced make is expected so is the performance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Marantz 7010 7 channels driven .1% THD 8 ohm loads - 83.2 watts. My quads are 6 Ohm speakers. Normal listening levels, will we be able to differentiate between this and a stereo amp ?
More importantly, the high distortion specs are at a very high volume which if one attempts to listen at in ones apartment, he will have more than distortion levels to worry about.
My personal opinion:
At normal (around 80 db or a bit higher) listening levels, a mid to high end AVR would not disappoint in two channel listening.
Channel separation is pretty good for a layman like me and well, soundstage, I would not be able to tell if one was handed to me on a platter :lol:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr7010-av-receiver-review-test-bench
More importantly, the high distortion specs are at a very high volume which if one attempts to listen at in ones apartment, he will have more than distortion levels to worry about.
My personal opinion:
At normal (around 80 db or a bit higher) listening levels, a mid to high end AVR would not disappoint in two channel listening.
Channel separation is pretty good for a layman like me and well, soundstage, I would not be able to tell if one was handed to me on a platter :lol:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr7010-av-receiver-review-test-bench
Last edited:
AVR vs Stereo is a topic that has been debated many times on internet forums. My reason for taking part in the discussions is that only when there are arguments for and against, will it help our members to arrive at decisions based on their needs. I would have liked more knowledgeable members to come out with their views on Receivers as the Stereo camp has quite a few knowledgeable members in our Forum.
It is not uncommon for many of us to buy a TOTL Receiver and then wonder if investing in a power amp would bring in drastic changes to the sound or if adding an integrated to the fronts would bring in drastic changes. Occasionally, I myself have had thoughts on these lines.
But as our hobby can get very expensive, I feel that money should be invested in areas that will bring in the best result especially seeing that most of us don't have the experience or ability to identify that perfect sound.
Am rambling. :lol:
Please take over Receiver experts.
It is not uncommon for many of us to buy a TOTL Receiver and then wonder if investing in a power amp would bring in drastic changes to the sound or if adding an integrated to the fronts would bring in drastic changes. Occasionally, I myself have had thoughts on these lines.
But as our hobby can get very expensive, I feel that money should be invested in areas that will bring in the best result especially seeing that most of us don't have the experience or ability to identify that perfect sound.
Am rambling. :lol:
Please take over Receiver experts.
Last edited:
AVR vs Stereo is a topic that has been debated many times on internet forums. My reason for taking part in the discussions is that only when there are arguments for and against, will it help our members to arrive at decisions based on their needs. I would have liked more knowledgeable members to come out with their views on Receivers as the Stereo camp has quite a few knowledgeable members in our Forum.
It is not uncommon for many of us to buy a TOTL Receiver and then wonder if investing in a power amp would bring in drastic changes to the sound or if adding an integrated to the fronts would bring in drastic changes. Occasionally, I myself have had thoughts on these lines.
But as our hobby can get very expensive, I feel that money should be invested in areas that will bring in the best result especially seeing that most of us don't have the experience or ability to identify that perfect sound.
Am rambling. :lol:
Please take over Receiver experts.
The reason why I posted is mainly because most AVRs in the entry to mid level segment (not $2k TOTL AVRs) do indeed have poor/weak power amp sections. I speak from personal experience. My Marantz slimline AVR was doing okay but really not great in driving my stereo floorstanders. When I used preouts from the AVR to feed it into an integrated/power stereo amp, the sound quality improved quite a bit.
I also see a lot of comments in stereo vs AVR discussions where only high end AVRs are considered in the discussion. My point is - any discussion should be done at certain budget ranges. It is pointless to mix and match - and it also pisses me off when reviewers do that. They will take a $200 speaker and drive it with a $10k amp, or the other way around. What's the point??
If you want to discuss high end AVRs and if it makes sense for stereo, perhaps it would make sense to do a face-off between:
1. A good quality high end AVR playing stereo music - priced at about $2k
2. An entry level AVR ($300-$500) with stereo preouts to a 2-channel power amp or 2 channel integrated ($300-$700) - total cost in the range of $700-$1k
3. An entry level pre-processor like Emotiva MC-700 ($600), paired with a multi-channel value-end amp like Outlaw Audio Model 5000 - 5 channel power amp ($600) or Model 7140 - 7 channel power amp ($1100) or Emotiva A-700 - 7 channel power amp ($600) - total cost $1200 - $2k
Just my two cents.
Good points and well taken. The Emotiva pre-pro looks excellent value for money.
For the sake of discussion, lets me continue.
The discussion I am proposing here is not if Stereo amp is better than an AV Receiver. Lets face it. If someone is going to listen to stereo only, he is not going to buy an av receiver.
The thought is, If someone has an av receiver how good is it for 2 channel stereo and if adding a comparatively equal stereo amp/power amp (for a 52000 receiver that would be an amp costing around 15000 or a 7 channel power amp costing around 45000 to 50000. Anything more than this and the comparison will not be fair) will drastically increase the sound quality of his setup.
AV Receivers, if you ask me are clever designs and clever compromises. They are aware that in a 7 channel receiver, not all 7 channels will be playing equally and drawing equal power from the amp. The greatest advantage of the Receiver is its ability to send the most demanding parts of the soundtrack (movies or music) to the sub. If configured correctly, most loads dipping to 4 ohms will be handled by the sub, thus taking the load of the receiver to a large extent.
This has to be kept in mind while thinking of the benefits of adding an integrated / power amp to the system.
Your thoughts please.
Last edited:
...
The discussion I am proposing here is not if Stereo amp is better than an AV Receiver. Lets face it. If someone is going to listen to stereo only, he is not going to buy an av receiver.
...
AV Receivers, if you ask me are clever designs and clever compromises. They are aware that in a 7 channel receiver, not all 7 channels will be playing equally and drawing equal power from the amp. The greatest advantage of the Receiver is its ability to send the most demanding parts of the soundtrack (movies or music) to the sub. If configured correctly, most loads dipping to 4 ohms will be handled by the sub, thus taking the load of the receiver to a large extent.
This has to be kept in mind while thinking of the benefits of adding an integrated / power amp to the system.
Your thoughts please.
Great perspective, and I agree with you.
Although there are also wierdos like me who want a 2.0 or 2.1 or 3.0 or 3.1 setup, essentially a stereo setup for both audio and video, but also want all the convenience of the front-end of an AVR or pre-pro. I absolutely want the HDMI switching and all the features and conveniences that an AVR gives. But I don't care that much for all the additional channels an AVR assumes I need. I am happy with my 2 channels and believe that with a good quality pair of speakers, I can get really good sound for both stereo audio and video.
I am a bit cynical about AVRs making intelligent compromises although your point about "not all channels driven all the time" is a valid one. My reasoning is that AVRs are caught up in a features arms race, and 99% of people who buy AVRs buy it on features alone and then look for the lowest cost option. This forces AVRs to go cheap on the actual audio amplification. Plus, AVRs become obsolete so soon! Imagine you had bought an AVR just 2 years ago. It would be absolutely obsolete as it no longer supports HDR. Any way, just my personal thoughts. I just feel that because the front-end becomes obsolete so rapidly, it makes a lot of sense to take a more modular component based approach to AVRs and go for the pre-pro + power amp route.
And I wish but have no hopes, that someone would make a simple AVR that does HDMI switching but gives me only 3.1 channels of good amplification with a nice toroid transformer. Or a pre-pro that does the same, instead of supporting bazillion output channels.
elangoas
Well-Known Member
I don't know if a pre-out signal from DAC/Stereo amplifier / AVR can be measured for freq resp before being fed to speaker.. If it is possible, then that would give more insights..
jigarpatel
Active Member
Reviving old thread.
Your thoughts on following for stereo 2.0 setup. which one is better
AVR (low end)-> front pre out -> 2 channel power amp ( example marantz nr 1508 + marantz 7025 )
OR
Integrated stereo amp ( example marantz pm 8005 )
Your thoughts on following for stereo 2.0 setup. which one is better
AVR (low end)-> front pre out -> 2 channel power amp ( example marantz nr 1508 + marantz 7025 )
OR
Integrated stereo amp ( example marantz pm 8005 )
Always stereo amp will be better route unless you want to use existing avr, then adding power amp will be good.
arunthegr8
Member
Well you cannot make a blanket statement saying a 2 Channel Integrated is better than an AVR. For example a good AVR like the Bryston SP3 which has Class A output stage and is fully differentially balanced from Input to output stage will beat a mid priced 2 Channel Integrated. Also the upper end prepress offer Room Calibration and multichannel processing. However if you are investing in a high-end 2 Channel Integrated like Audio Research VSi75 then they are in a different league. However if your speakers are power hungry then most integrated amps will not be able to play loud without distorting.
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
Similar threads
