• Hello and Welcome to HiFiVision.com - an online community for the home entertainment and tech enthusiasts!

    If you would like to ask a question, participate in a discussion and view attachments please Register yourself.

Question on stereo setup - AVR i/o Amp

HiFiMART.com

argho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
612
Points
63
Location
Chennai
Looking to put together a budget stereo setup for a friend.
Total budget around Rs 40~45 K.

What struck me was that decent CD players cost ~ 15K at least, whereas a DVD player costs only Rs 5K. I know, this is not an earth shattering revelation.

My question is, if I take that 10K saving, and use it to buy an AV receiver (which will have an in-built good quality DAC), and use HDMI or optical cable to connect the DVD player to the AVR :
- will I get good quality sound ?
- will it be comparable to a pure stereo setup ?

Of course, will be using the AVR only in stereo mode, so looks like a bit of a waste. But the cost seems to work out.

An example of what I am thinking about is given below (am using Denon + Polk for the examples because I am familiar with the prices).


Example 1 (CDP + stereo amp) :

CD Player - Denon DCD-510AE - Rs 17.9 K
Amplifier - Denon PMA-510AE - Rs 17.9 K
Speakers - Polk RTiA1 - Rs 16K

Can bargain and get the bundle for Rs 45 K.


Example 2 (DVDP + AVR) :

DVD player - Philips - Rs 5 K
AVR - Denon 1610 - Rs 26 K
Speakers - Polk RTi A1 speakers - Rs 14 K

Total also Rs 45 K.



Will the stereo performance from both setups be the same ?
If not, why ?
- Does the Denon CDP have a better DAC than the Denon AVR ?
- Does the Denon stereo amp have better SQ than the Denon receiver ?


The advantages that I see in DVDP + AVR setup is as follows :

1. The CDP is usually the first component to start giving trouble (after a few years). A cheap DVD can be easily replaced every 2 - 3 years. But not an expensive CDP.

2. The AVR has a higher power rating

Let me know what you guys think.

Am new to this, so may be am missing something basic.
 
Last edited:

svenkateshsmart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
1,120
Points
63
Location
Chennai, TN
Hi,

I am no expert but would like to say a few things. I let our experts to take care of the rest.

But I thnk you should also let us know about your friend's his preference, i.e., music or movies, or both. Stereo setup will be most suitable for music and an HT setup which includes AVR is good for movies.

So, the your first examples with stereo amp and CDP will be good for music and the second one will be a good HT and suitable for movies.

Cheers!
 

S.P.KRISHNA

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
337
Points
28
Location
HYDERABAD
You are Quoting MRP OF Denon 510 A.E which at vectors Hyderabad is 14k .

Go for Denon 710 AE which is 23K. Buy Sony C.D player . Good one cost 3k . Speakers wharfedale 9.2 for 13 k.Total 39K which set up has real worth to listen.

An AVR can never equal to Sterio Amp & vice versa since each is used for different purpose.
 

argho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
612
Points
63
Location
Chennai
Hi,

I am no expert but would like to say a few things. I let our experts to take care of the rest.

But I thnk you should also let us know about your friend's his preference, i.e., music or movies, or both. Stereo setup will be most suitable for music and an HT setup which includes AVR is good for movies.

So, the your first examples with stereo amp and CDP will be good for music and the second one will be a good HT and suitable for movies.

Cheers!

This is purely for music - a stereo setup.
 

argho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
612
Points
63
Location
Chennai
An AVR can never equal to Sterio Amp & vice versa since each is used for different purpose.

I understand that is the advice usually given on this board.
Would like to understand why.

Why does/should a dedicated CDP+Amp give better SQ than a DVDP+AVR ?

Is the DAC better ? Is the amp circuitry better ?
 

svenkateshsmart

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
1,120
Points
63
Location
Chennai, TN
I understand that is the advice usually given on this board.
Would like to understand why.

Why does/should a dedicated CDP+Amp give better SQ than a DVDP+AVR ?

Is the DAC better ? Is the amp circuitry better ?

Actually, assuming your reference to better SQ of CDP+amp is "music", a stereo amp beats a mid-range AVR in music. Because of its simple circuitary and the less complications involved, you get a clear sound, i.e., "music" out of it. The same is the reason for better performance of tube amps.

But while talking about AVR's circuitary, it is far more complicated than a stereo setup which compromises its ability to deliver clear music when compared to a stereo amp. Having said that, stereo amp cannot beat AVR for movies where a complicated circuit as AVR is required.

Hope I have given you a bit of insight!

Coming to your question, if your friend's preference is music, then you must go with your initial setup, i.e., stereo.

Cheers!
 

argho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
612
Points
63
Location
Chennai
Let us assume the prices you've quoted are correct. Let us also assume manufacturers make no profit. Though not true, it will work for the explanation.

If I had the same quality of amplification (without any extras) in the AVR, I would have to spend 18/2 x 5, which is 45K. If it is a 7-channel amp, that's another 18K - so 63K

Now that is still without counting for the digital circuitry, license fees for Dolby and DTS, and that big funky display up front, so add another 15K to the cost. We're already at 75K+.

You see where this is going?

Cranky, that's a smart way of looking at it.

But there could be other factors :
- AVRs sell in much larger numbers than stereo amps, so manufacturing costs could be lower
- margins on AVRs could be lower

Just curious to compare the 2 setups and see how much difference is discernible. Anyone here who has actually done a side by side compare ?

I have a Denon 1910 AVR and find the stereo sound for music to be excellent. Wonder how much better it would sound with a dedicated stereo amp, but same speakers.
 

S.P.KRISHNA

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
337
Points
28
Location
HYDERABAD
It is a little bit advise to Mr. Argho if he pardons me. Definitely sterio Amps are superior than AVR . Compare both at entry level\middle level\high end level.You find the difference. You can try for your self between your Denon 1910AVR & Denon
sterio amp 710AE on same speakers at same place . Just in the morning I had auditioned between Onkyo AVR 606 with Denon 710AE and Marntz SR 4021 sterio amps on Diamond10.2.
Though the AVR has higher out put rating than those two , the sound pressure level with high tonal clarity of these sterio Amps is superior.
 

unleash_me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
2,247
Points
113
Location
Nostalgia
Sometime back I had a Denon 4306 avr paired with 1920 dvdp. IIRC its 2 channel performance was a lot better than entry level stereo combos from CA, Denon or Marantz. However, when compared to my then hifi setup of Marantz 15S1 combo, the 2 channel sonic qualities of an otherwise excellent avr couldn't stand a chance.

My point being, getting decent enough stereo from an avr is 'possible' but it can never compare to the sound from a dedicated hifi system. If you want the best of both worlds, try the hi-end Arcams or Lexicons. If budget is a constraint then avrs from CA or Marantz could be a decent start - if you put music over movies. IME Denon make the best all-rounders.

Ask your friend to borrow an integrated amp and CDP from a friendly shop for a home demo at your place and you guys can see it for yourself. If you cant hear any difference with your 1910 and dvdp, stick with the avr. After all, its he who has to live with it; if he is happy, i suppose nothing else matters then.

Happy auditions.
 

suri

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
2,259
Points
0
Location
kannur
All right, we were at 75K, let's take 50% off that. Make it half - sounds reasonable? Not to me, but we'll allow it.

That makes it 37K, still more than the asking price of the 26K AVR.

I don't want to be argumentative, but it's not possible for an entry level AVR to match an entry level stereo amp (15-20K for amp vs. 20-30K for AVR).

Once you start moving up the AVR ladder things get better. Then of course, there are licensing fee increases for HD audio upgrades and all sorts of processing as well. The manufacturers never do charity, you need to believe that. So there may be compromises elsewhere. I found, for example, the sound from a 1507 to be far better than a 1509. Since the latter had a few other bells and whistles, they decided the amp could do without reproducing them well enough through the speakers.

You're correct that margins on stereo amps are higher for sure, they are less efficient to make and need to meet tighter specs and sound better. Chassis costs are fixed, as are (within reason) power supplies and heatsinking so there's not much efficiency obtained from dropping to 2 channels from 5. But it not even close to twice as expensive.

Here's a simple test. Take any AVR up to the 50K budget mark (hell, even take the MM8003 from Marantz). Look at the quoted power per channel, and add it up. Let's call this X. Now look at the back of the AVR (a picture will do, most manufacturers post one). See the power consumption - let's call this Y.

In 10 cases out of 10, Y will be lower than X, which makes your purchase not an AVR, but an energy generator.

Now, do the same for any stereo amplifier in the 50K range and see the difference.

This is only one example of how an AVR will have compromised design over a stereo amp. The highest cost of any amplifier is the design and research, the chassis, power supply and heatsinks, all of which have a fixed low end on their cost. Everything else in an amp is actually junk, not worth its weight in mud.

and, if there was this much clarity, there would be much less discussion, and a focus on what must be done
 

Raghav

New Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
537
Points
0
Location
Mumbai
Well I had done this on many AVRs and most of them have Y=0.5X

However, I have found Marantz to be much more honest about power ratings
Marantz SR5004 is rated 90W X 7 = 630W
Power consumption given at the back is 650W
Y > X = surprise.

Stereo Amp PM5003 costs half of the AVR. Here I get a feel that the AVR will do as good with music as the AMP.
Power consumption = 110W
Rated Power = 40 X 2 = 80W

Interesting to note that the higher series in AVRs (SR6004) and AMPs (PM6003), have the same power consumption as the SR5004 and PM5003, but rated power is 20% more in both cases. How SR6004/PM6003 have more power than SR5004/PM5003 stumps me a little .


Here's a simple test. Take any AVR up to the 50K budget mark (hell, even take the MM8003 from Marantz). Look at the quoted power per channel, and add it up. Let's call this X. Now look at the back of the AVR (a picture will do, most manufacturers post one). See the power consumption - let's call this Y.

In 10 cases out of 10, Y will be lower than X, which makes your purchase not an AVR, but an energy generator.

Now, do the same for any stereo amplifier in the 50K range and see the difference.
 

argho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
612
Points
63
Location
Chennai
All right, we were at 75K, let's take 50% off that. Make it half - sounds reasonable? Not to me, but we'll allow it.

That makes it 37K, still more than the asking price of the 26K AVR.

I don't want to be argumentative, but it's not possible for an entry level AVR to match an entry level stereo amp (15-20K for amp vs. 20-30K for AVR).

Once you start moving up the AVR ladder things get better. Then of course, there are licensing fee increases for HD audio upgrades and all sorts of processing as well. The manufacturers never do charity, you need to believe that. So there may be compromises elsewhere. I found, for example, the sound from a 1507 to be far better than a 1509. Since the latter had a few other bells and whistles, they decided the amp could do without reproducing them well enough through the speakers.

You're correct that margins on stereo amps are higher for sure, they are less efficient to make and need to meet tighter specs and sound better. Chassis costs are fixed, as are (within reason) power supplies and heatsinking so there's not much efficiency obtained from dropping to 2 channels from 5. But it not even close to twice as expensive.

Here's a simple test. Take any AVR up to the 50K budget mark (hell, even take the MM8003 from Marantz). Look at the quoted power per channel, and add it up. Let's call this X. Now look at the back of the AVR (a picture will do, most manufacturers post one). See the power consumption - let's call this Y.

In 10 cases out of 10, Y will be lower than X, which makes your purchase not an AVR, but an energy generator.

Now, do the same for any stereo amplifier in the 50K range and see the difference.

This is only one example of how an AVR will have compromised design over a stereo amp. The highest cost of any amplifier is the design and research, the chassis, power supply and heatsinks, all of which have a fixed low end on their cost. Everything else in an amp is actually junk, not worth its weight in mud.

Tks Cranky. Very clear answer.

The only guess I can make for why Y is lower than X, is that the AVR designers must be assuming that all channels will never draw full power at the same instant in time.

Which I guess is a reasonable assumption to make for most movie soundtracks, and is therefore used to reduce costs on lower end AVRs.

The higher end AVRs, I suppose, do not make such assumptions / compromises and are designed to simultaneously produce full power on all channels if ever required.
 
Top