Stereo Speaker Choice

[sdurani]

You are no getting the point doesn't the article mention that stereo cross talk is a problem with devices which have multiple channels and it is a no brainer that a AVR has at least 5 channel if no 6 or 8 channels than the two channels in a stereo amp.

Multiple simply means more than one. Anything that has more than one channel in the chassis can have leakage from one channel to another IF poorly designed. This can apply to stereo amps just as well as AV receivers. The Wiki article doesn't make any correlation between more channels (5,6,8) and more crosstalk vs fewer channels (2) resulting in less crosstalk. None.

Secondly good stereo amps have separate transformers, separate rectifiers and filtering capacitors sometimes even separate grounds thus behaving as two monoblocks for each channel which decreases the stereo crosstalk.

Any real world examples to support this assertion? Any examples of stereo amps with less crosstalk than AV receivers?

 

[doors666]

unless you are nuts about bass, ditch the idea of a FS and go for a bookshelf, you will save good amount of cash and probably will end up with a better speaker. check out the mezzo 2, they will trump the best aviano has to offer.

other bookshelves i liked are B&W 685 (yeah, people say they are overpriced, and then they cant recommend a single speaker that beats it at that inflated price), if you have more money, checkout the usher x-718. this one is kinda like a hidden secret, at this price, you just cant beat it. awesome drivers, great crossover design by a world renowned designer, 1.5" thick cabinets (usually at this price, you will find half inch chipboard cabs, with one fist full of polyfill) and to top it, its sexy looking.

later you can get a sub. Once you get a good sub, you probably wont upgrade it for a long time. just keep upgrading your bookshelves for lesser money than what you would've spent on upgrading floorstanders. Trust me, you will be upgrading soon, there is a thread on loudspeaker history, just see how many upgrades people do.

after buying your speakers, whatever money you have left, go get the best amp/avr you can get. dont worry too much about the amp. as long as you have good speakers, you will get very decent sound. Most of the people (not everyone, so dont flame me for this) that keep harping about integrated amps wont know if you swap an avr for their integrated in their own system in their own house. I saw a thread where people were recommending arcam, naim, and all sorts of upscale amp brands with jamo c405. whats the point of pairing a 300$ speaker with 1500$ amp?

Remember this rule - world's best amp with bad speakers will sound like shit. while world's best speakers with shit amp will sound heavenly. that doesnt mean you go buy a 5w amp with 80db speakers.

Here's the importance to the equipment in the chain:

Speakers
room
source
amp
.
.
.
.
cables

 

[sonosphere]

sorry, budget would be around 60K to 75K for the stereo setup. HT can follow.

Hi Beep,
I have following combo to suggest in your budget.

Usher V-601 Bookshelf speakers = 35k~
Music PC w/Asus Xonar ST OR Marantz 6003 CDP = 23k~
Marantz 5004 = 20k~

For Usher speaker demo at Chennai check with our fellow member "Raghunath" who represents the dealer "Decibels", or another member "Odyssey" who represents "ARN systems".

Considering your preference for music, you can't skimp on the expense of source and amp as suggested above. That leaves hardly 33k for speakers. Please audition BS also along with FS in this price range. You might find BS more musical than FS in this range.

I have Usher V-601's and have never felt lack of bass nor felt need for floorstander to get that sound with "authority".

Regds,

 

[captrajesh]

Though I can see that there are some sensible suggestions in this thread, making generalised sweeping statements can at best be viewed as spreading misinformation.

 

[manoj.p]

Now, that's something we can agree on.

 

[captrajesh]

Now, that's something we can agree on.

Good. Now that we have reached a common point, hope we can take it forward. Can we also agree that sound cannot be discussed on paper (or hot air to be more precise) and that we have to get on ground and use our ears.

 

[sdurani]

Now, that's something we can agree on.

I think he missed the sarcasm.

 

[BLASTO]

SDurani,

Please provide specifics on a 5.1 amp that sounds as good as a 25k marantz or NAD at the price range and I will happily take it.

In short, it does not exist.

As for the question on what is the differece, Why don't you people get out of your comfort zone and actually listen side by side to a 5.1 and a stereo amp and find out yourself?

Why do you expect people to 'write' the difference here? It is as good as asking someone to write a song's lyrics and reading it rather than actually listening to it.

If you are not sure of something, it is better to not discuss as if you know and confuse first time visitors.

Typically that's all it is. When people tell you that 2-channel amps have better sound quality than receivers or that all the features of a receiver compromise its sound compared to a 2-channel amp, try asking them for specifics and see what happens.

So, you mean a $300 AVR and a $1000 AVR sound the same?
If yes, Iam sorry Iam wasting time.

If no, the same difference exists in stereo amps too. A $300 stereo amp can concentrate on stereo specific capabilities and attain the $1000 AVR's stereo capability easily.

In what way will the stereo amp be "superior in SQ"? Frequency response? Audible distortion? Noise level (SNR)?

Dynamism, Soundstage, Instrument seperation, Imaging.

 

[sidvee]

Dynamism, Soundstage, Instrument seperation, Imaging.

I concur with blasto - things like soundstage depth and width or pinpoint imaging have no specific measurements. There are even more abstract things like air around instruments, decay of percussive sounds that all add to the feeling of listening to great sound. If measurements were the only way to compare the quality of audio amps. then by rights tube based amps. should be the worst (with high amount of measured thd etc), yet they are hot selling with consumers preferring these to solid state in actual listening tests (I personally have owned tube amplifiers for about 10 years and still prefer these many times to ss) and companies like Mcintosh, ARC, Conrad Johnson making them. I will conclude by saying that there are definite exceptions in the Multi Channel Receiver market, with some that sound quite good on stereo music with good portrayal of above characteristics, but by and large if you were to compare similarly priced components (multichannel receivers & stereo int. amps) both by specs. and audition then usually the stereo comp. will come out ahead.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[captrajesh]

Well said Blasto. The intention is to just to troll I guess. I don't know why mods are tolerating such trollers here.

For all the trollers here, OK here I stick out my neck and throw a challenge at you. As posted by someone, I'm ready for a double blind fold test. Take my amp out and in. Whosoever is proven wrong will have to eat the humble pie and promise not to spread misinformation in public forums such as HFV.

Ready for the challenge?

 

[sdurani]

So, you mean a $300 AVR and a $1000 AVR sound the same?

Never said all AVRs sounded the same, just questioning the claim that stereo amps sound better because they are... well, stereo. No one has shown any evidence to back up that assertion and seems to insist that it be accepted on faith.

Dynamism, Soundstage, Instrument seperation, Imaging.

Are you deliberately trying to name things that cannot be quantified or measured? Almost clever. By "dynamisn" do you mean dynamics, as in dynamic range? If so, then that is something that can be measured (signal to noise ratio is the best indicator of dynamic range).

For a real world example, we can use the Onkyo 609, which is the low priced version ($399 from Amazon) of the 809 mentioned earlier in this thread. It has a signal to noise ratio of 106dB. None of the stereo amps mentioned in this thread (Cambridge Audio, Norge, Marantz) are as quiet and as dynamic as that cheap AVR.

 

[sdurani]

The intention is to just to troll I guess. I don't know why mods are tolerating such trollers here. For all the trollers here...

Unable to support your claims with anything objective, you're now forced to resort to name calling and personal comments. For shame.

 

[captrajesh]

Unable to support your claims with anything objective, you're now forced to resort to name calling and personal comments. For shame.

I don't think you have read my post fully. No point of any argument because here we can argue the whole day without reaching anywhere. As stated by me before, specs do not reveal anything. I'm not sure how much experience you have; I don't claim to be an expert. I was happily living with a Denon Amp and old Kenwood monitors which were later modified to be small floor standers. Things changed for good when I joined HFV. I gained more knowledge by listening than reading. So I'm only sharing my experience here. I cannot spare enough time to search for the information to back up my experiences in the field of audio and hence say "Let the ears speak"

 

[captrajesh]

Unable to support your claims with anything objective, you're now forced to resort to name calling and personal comments. For shame.

What can these posts be termed as other than trolling

Now, that's something we can agree on.

I think he missed the sarcasm.

 

[BLASTO]

Never said all AVRs sounded the same, just questioning the claim that stereo amps sound better because they are... well, stereo. No one has shown any evidence to back up that assertion and seems to insist that it be accepted on faith.

So, what is the difference between a $300 AVR and $1000 AVR. Please write it.. Quantify it.. Show the evidence.. Then I will write the difference between a stereo amp and an AVR.

Are you deliberately trying to name things that cannot be quantified or measured? Almost clever. By "dynamisn" do you mean dynamics, as in dynamic range? If so, then that is something that can be measured (signal to noise ratio is the best indicator of dynamic range).

For a real world example, we can use the Onkyo 609, which is the low priced version ($399 from Amazon) of the 809 mentioned earlier in this thread. It has a signal to noise ratio of 106dB. None of the stereo amps mentioned in this thread (Cambridge Audio, Norge, Marantz) are as quiet and as dynamic as that cheap AVR.

The only thing you are proving again and again is that you haven't heard any stereo amps thinking that they dont provide room correction.

People are spending 'their' money. If it is as easy as to get a 5.1/7.1 which performs in the same way as a stereo amp AND can be expanded in the furure, why will they EVER buy a stereo amp? Faith? Are you kidding?

Many people here own BOTH of them.. If they sound the same, won't they sell the stereo amp and buy a better 5.1 amp?

But you have a point. If it is BASS, TREBLE and HF you are what the only aspects you are looking, you won't need a stereo amp ever. All I say is, go out and demo ANY of the above stereo amp with ANY of the same speakers against the onkyo and come back and we can have a meaningful discussion.

It is like me saying that if you connect 3 speakers each to the outs of a stereo amp, it sounds same as a 5.1 amp.. You dont realize but it is as absurd as this. sorry.

 

[sdurani]

things like soundstage depth and width or pinpoint imaging have no specific measurements

Wow, this is like being in the dark ages. Of course there are measurements for soundstage and imaging, whether it be in human hearing (binaural localization), speakers (dispersion, apparent source width), or electronics (inter-channel phase and level correlation). Without being able to reliably measure these things, how do you thing audio researchers have learned about human hearing or improved on audio products? Audio is science. Let's not turn it into some religious intangible.

For electronics, imaging is a result of how well correlated adjacent channels are. If you feed a pair of channels the same signal, the sound should imaging precisely between the respective speakers. If the levels and/or time alignment (in modern AVRs) is off, the image will pull to one side. If the two channels aren't in exact phase (polarity, not timing), then the image will broaden. That last item has been exploited by recording engineers for ages, allowing them to choose how fat they want the centre image to be (Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' is a good example of this).

What can these posts be termed as other than trolling

Humor. And unlike your posts, without any name calling.

So, what is the difference between a $300 AVR and $1000 AVR. Please write it.. Quantify it.. Show the evidence.. Then I will write the difference between a stereo amp and an AVR.

The $1000 AVR has two more channels (7 vs 5), more than twice the wattage (135 vs 65), almost double the headroom (300w vs 160w), almost one tenth the distortion (.08% vs .7%), is ten times quieter (110dB vs 100dB) and a much wider frequency response (5Hz-100kHz vs 20Hz-50kHz).

Your turn.

If it is as easy as to get a 5.1/7.1 which performs in the same way as a stereo amp AND can be expanded in the furure, why will they EVER buy a stereo amp?

That's the question I'm asking. Unfortunately, no one has been able to offer any tangible or quantifiable reason. Merely asking for something (anything) objective seems to be kryptonite for audiophiles.

As stated by me before, specs do not reveal anything.

Anything? In that case, on what basis is someone supposed to accept your claim that stereo amps sound better than AVRs? Because you said so?

 

[BLASTO]

The $1000 AVR has two more channels (7 vs 5), more than twice the wattage (135 vs 65), almost double the headroom (300w vs 160w), almost one tenth the distortion (.08% vs .7%), is ten times quieter (110dB vs 100dB) and a much wider frequency response (5Hz-100kHz vs 20Hz-50kHz).

Inyour own terms, nothing of this is audible?? (And there are 7.1 AVRs for $400 and 5.1 AVRs for $1000 too)

Your turn. That's the question I'm asking. Unfortunately, no one has been able to offer any tangible or quantifiable reason. Merely asking for something (anything) objective seems to be kryptonite for audiophiles.

How I wish you were in India? You should have got an invite already from some members with non-quantifiable setups which defy reason. Check Santi's setup thread..

 

[sidvee]

Wow, this is like being in the dark ages. Of course there are measurements for soundstage and imaging, whether it be in human hearing (binaural localization), speakers (dispersion, apparent source width), or electronics (inter-channel phase and level correlation). Without being able to reliably measure these things, how do you thing audio researchers have learned about human hearing or improved on audio products? Audio is science. Let's not turn it into some religious intangible.

Ok sdurani I admit I am wrong, I guess I am living in the dark ageshyeah:. So kindly guide me to any specification sheet of any amplifier that shows based on inter channel phase and level correlation:
1. How deep the soundstage depth is?
2. How wide the width is?
3. How high and exact location that an instrument in a specific track will be portrayed by their amp?
4. How many seconds of decay a cymbal hit will exhibit?
5. How much space in inches will be displayed around a voice in the soundstage?
6. How loud the subtle leg stomping of a blues guitar player will be?
7. How exactly a steel string guitar will be differentiated from a normal guitar?
etc

and how we use these specifications to compare whether a piece of equipment is good or bad.
When I said these cant be measured, I did not say absolutely. I meant in the context of this thread where specs. like cross talk, THD are being bandied about.
In-fact recently when I was auditioning the Harbeth SHl5, the dealer stated that in his room the soundstage depth was measured at upto 8' behind the speaker baffle. I don't recall seeing that specification in the Harbeth manual or any of the accompanying equipment manuals.

Originally Posted by BLASTO
Dynamism, Soundstage, Instrument seperation, Imaging.

Are you deliberately trying to name things that cannot be quantified or measured? Almost clever

BTW are you not contradicting yourself by saying that these cant be measured and then again saying that if they can't be measured then we are in plague ridden europe (at-least that is my understanding of dark ages).


I am not trying to disprove you maybe you are right and all the thousands of $ I spent on my stereo equipment was in vain:sad: - I should simply buy the best multichannel receiver there is - but in audio like in everything thing else (smoothness of the ride of a car for instance - for a guy with hemorrhoids even a rolls will feel like a pick up truck) there is an element of subjectivity that all the measurements in the world are not going to quantify. So my contention is that simply comparing measurements is not going to prove anything, proof lies in listening and then based on personal listening bias (can we measure & quantify that?) a choice is made (IMO more often than not stereo int. amp will be favored over similar priced Ht rcvr.). There are simply no absolutes - like stating that there will be no difference between a similar specd. and measured multi channel amp and stereo amp - without having listened to both - IMHO that is like living in the dark ages.
Cheers,
Sid

 

[captrajesh]

Humor. And unlike your posts, without any name calling.

Humor?? I didn't find anything humorous in them; If at all, I found them to be provocative and that's why I termed them trolling.

 

[sidvee]

As for which plays music worse, that's easy: Audyssey room correction on the Onkyo will minimize the room's unwanted contributions to the overall sound, so you hear less of the room and more of what was on the disc. The CA is impotent when it comes to addressing frequency response aberrations caused by the room.

BTW the Audyssey MultEQ and Dynamic Eq. implementation on my Denon 2310 is pure crap. I used it to balance channels and found them significantly off, and redid everything manually (probably because the mike they provided is some dollar store special and because they have to stuff some much into one box for the given price compromising the sound). Found the same thing on a friend's 4310 as well. Maybe Onkyo implements this better than Denon.
Cheers,
Sid