Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why do people use AVRs for stereo? (Read 30914 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #25 –
Quote from: ktf on
Quote from: Yahzi on
Why would an AVR sound as good for stereo as a dedicated stereo amp designed for that job?

Why wouldn't it? It's not terribly difficult to make a good amplifier, is it?

Quote from: Yahzi on
If you scour the internet and read what people post, you'll find the overwhelming majority of people online are disappointed with their AVRs if used in a purely two channel role compared to dedicated stereo equipment.

If I scour the internet I can find a great many things. However, when I find opinions, they are often biased. That's why I read Hydrogenaudio.

Really, there is no reason why an AVR can't have a decent set of amplifiers sections built-in.


Yes, there is no reason why they can't perform well for music, but most just don't seem to perform well at all for music. You just can't have all the features and functions of a modern receiver and not expect zero signal degradation.

As I said, why even make two channel amplifiers? If AVRs are sonically just as good as a good stereo amp, why not do away with stereo amps? Virtually no person prefers an AVR over a good stereo amp for music. Find me an anecdote anywhere on the web, other than a biased, objectivist.

But what's the point even having this conversation? You are biased to believe that amplifiers all sound the same, so there is no changing your mind as it has already been made up.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
You just can't have all the features and functions of a modern receiver and not expect zero signal degradation.

Yes, I can. As a matter of fact, I do.

Quote
As I said, why even make two channel amplifiers?

For the same reason $1000/m cables exist, or myths like marking the edges of a CD with green improves sound, or any other audio-voodoo for that matter. People are gullible. And of course because there are people that haven't got more than two speakers: it's cheaper to buy a decent two-channel amp than buying a 5.1 amp of the same quality. Finally, I like having no features that I do not use: if I had only two speakers, I'd prefer a stereo amp just so there are no amplifiers consuming power while not in use, ever. Integrated stereo amps are quite often smaller too, because they don't need as much connectors at the back side. Reasons enough to buy a stereo amp!

Quote
You are biased to believe that amplifiers all sound the same

Apparently as much as you are biased that there is a reason they can't or shouldn't. Moreover, I didn't say all amplifiers sound the same, I only said there is no reason to believe that those amps cannot sound the same.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
I guess because that's why stereo amps exist, to handle only stereo, whereas AVRs must do so many different things. At some point you have to sacrifice quality for quantity.


You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there is any sort of fixed or linear relationship between production expense and selling price. 

The fact of the matter is that selling price is determined by what the market will bear.

Your (apparent) belief that a 2 channel receiver should offer more "quality" per dollar spent when compared to a 5.1 channel receiver because the 5.1 channel receiver is "more complicated" is predicated upon this mistake.

Creature of habit.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Yahzi on
I guess because that's why stereo amps exist, to handle only stereo, whereas AVRs must do so many different things. At some point you have to sacrifice quality for quantity.


You appear to be under the mistaken impression that there is any sort of fixed or linear relationship between production expense and selling price.


Where did I mention selling prices? All I'm saying is that AVRs are designed to fill specific needs that are different from dedicated two channel amplifiers and according to the vast majority of people, perform worse for music than dedicated two channel gear. This is not my opinion, but it's pretty much universal wherever you go ...

Quote
Your (apparent) belief that a 2 channel receiver should offer more "quality" per dollar spent when compared to a 5.1 channel receiver because the 5.1 channel receiver is "more complicated" is predicated upon this mistake.


The parts used in receivers are often of poorer quality. Flimsy power supplies, for example.

Cutting all the unnecessary crap out of receivers that may influence sound quality seems to improve sound quality, which funnily enough appears to be the case for the overwhelming majority of people who offer any opinion on the topic.

So right now there is a small subset of people who think AVRs are now the best thing since sliced bread and should be used in dedicated two channel set ups, and the rest of the population vehemently disagree that AVRs are any good in terms of music playback. You think they're all wrong?

All of them are biased to agree on the same outcome?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Yes, there is no reason why they can't perform well for music, but most just don't seem to perform well at all for music. You just can't have all the features and functions of a modern receiver and not expect zero signal degradation.


Why not?

Quote from: Yahzi on
As I said, why even make two channel amplifiers? If AVRs are sonically just as good as a good stereo amp, why not do away with stereo amps? Virtually no person prefers an AVR over a good stereo amp for music. Find me an anecdote anywhere on the web, other than a biased, objectivist.


Because some people only want stereo amps. Where's your evidence of "virtually no person"?

Quote from: Yahzi on
But what's the point even having this conversation? You are biased to believe that amplifiers all sound the same, so there is no changing your mind as it has already been made up.


I don't believe I said that anywhere in anything I've said. Please provide the quote where I said it.

You're the one with the pre-conceptions as this post and the previous one I referenced clearly show.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Where did I mention selling prices? All I'm saying is that AVRs are designed to fill specific needs that are different from dedicated two channel amplifiers and according to the vast majority of people, perform worse for music than dedicated two channel gear. This is not my opinion, but it's pretty much universal wherever you go ...


The vast majority of people believe all sorts of things.  A univeral opinion still doesn't rise to the level of fact.


Quote from: Yahzi on
The parts used in receivers are often of poorer quality. Flimsy power supplies, for example.

Evidence?
Quote from: Yahzi on
Cutting all the unnecessary crap out of receivers that may influence sound quality seems to improve sound quality, which funnily enough appears to be the case for the overwhelming majority of people who offer any opinion on the topic.

"Seems"?  Again evidence requested.  Again opinion != fact.
Quote from: Yahzi on
So right now there is a small subset of people who think AVRs are now the best thing since sliced bread and should be used in dedicated two channel set ups, and the rest of the population vehemently disagree that AVRs are any good in terms of music playback. You think they're all wrong?

All of them are biased to agree on the same outcome?


"All"?

If there isn't an internal bias based on price going on here, then I must ask.  Are you suggesting that adding capabilities must degrade audio quality?
Creature of habit.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #31 –
Quote
The vast majority of people believe all sorts of things.  A univeral opinion still doesn't rise to the level of fact.


No, but it does raise the argument that perhaps AVRs are not the magic bullet that some here make them out to be.  The fact that virtually all audiophiles pick stereo amps over AVRs for music duties just raises more doubts... that perhaps you don't know what you are talking about?

Quote
Evidence?


Open the lid of any entry-level or mid-range AVR and look at the power supply section. Compare it to an equivalently priced integrated and then get back to me.

Quote
"Seems"?  Again evidence requested.  Again opinion != fact.


Seems more convincing than your non-answers.

Quote
"All"?


Yes, all. I've browsed most of the popular audio forums, read the replies, and guess what, you don't find many audiophiles in disagreement over this subject. It's always a small group of outsiders who think there is no actual problem and that one box solutions offer comparable performance.

Quote
If there isn't an internal bias based on price going on here, then I must ask.  Are you suggesting that adding capabilities must degrade audio quality?


Are you suggesting that adding features does not degrade audio quality? If so, what evidence do you have to support that view?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #32 –
No, I'm not suggesting adding features does not degrade audio quality.  I'm stating as a fact that adding features need not degrade audio quality.  You do realize that unused DSP functions are literally not in the signal path?

Pretty nice little argument you have there where you can make positive assertions w/o offering evidence yet feel compelled to turn the question around on others.  Have fun in your world where a preponderance of opinion rises to the level of evidence.

/ploink
Creature of habit.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #33 –
Quote
No, I'm not suggesting adding features does not degrade audio quality. I'm stating as a fact that adding features need not degrade audio quality.


So now opinion = fact? Where is the evidence for this claim?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
So now opinion = fact? Where is the evidence for this claim?


Are you asking for evidence that DSP functions not in the signal path don't degrade quality?  You really do set a high bar.  I don't have any evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either.
Creature of habit.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Yahzi on
So now opinion = fact? Where is the evidence for this claim?


Are you asking for evidence that DSP functions not in the signal path don't degrade quality?  You really do set a high bar.  I don't have any evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either.


And how do you know the DSP is not in the signal path?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Now show me evidence that "audio features do not degrade audio quality" as you have so stated as fact, otherwise it's just an unsupported claim.


Fix your English parser.  As you are making a false quote of what I said.
Creature of habit.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #37 –
We seem to have a white-black discussion where the answer is obviously grey.

None on this forum suggested that AVRs are always better than stereo amps, audio quality wise, whatever their price.
You almost suggested that stereo amps are always better than AVRs, audio quality wise, whatever their price.

It is absurdly easy to prove that the second sentence is false. Do you really want to go that path?


Also, the term "audiophile" here at Hydrogenaudio is not necessarily a good term.
If used in a relaxed way, it means someone that cares about sound reproduction, (cares to listen, to maintain, to preserve..).
When used in a somewhat stronger position ( like in your sentence "virtually all audiophiles" ), the term mutates to its bad meaning, which is people that is obsessed with audio gear and not with sound reproduction. I.e. People that prefer equipment by the looks, by the brand or by the dollar.
We are almost sure that the people of this second meaning of "audiophile" prefer stereo amps before any other "modern" hardware, just like they probably prefer vinyl to CD audio, and whatnot.

Already in my first post, i said that the intended usage matters to choose one type of equipment versus the other. If you simply have analog sources and have two good speakers, an AVR does not fit.
If you start to add digital audio into the mix, you either need to buy more and more equipment, or centralize it into an AVR.  You should then think if having a good stereo amp and a good AVR is better than a very good AVR, in the context of a home  (It is usual to have separated power amplifiers in clubs and discos, so those don't count).



Just to give you more examples of things that should make you think twice:

- Laptops are said sometimes to have bad audio quality, but nowadays you will be hard pressed to find an audio related event (concert, music festival with DJ's, etc..) where an apple laptop doesn't make an appearance.
- 96kbps is said to be low quality for lossy codecs, but the Multiformat test at 96kbps that is going on right now here is giving quite a different view (you're open to test it by yourself).

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Yahzi on
So now opinion = fact? Where is the evidence for this claim?


Are you asking for evidence that DSP functions not in the signal path don't degrade quality?  You really do set a high bar.  I don't have any evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either.


And how do you know the DSP is not in the signal path?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #39 –
Quote
It is absurdly easy to prove that the second sentence is false. Do you really want to go that path?


What do you mean by "it is absurdly easy to prove"?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Yahzi on
Now show me evidence that "audio features do not degrade audio quality" as you have so stated as fact, otherwise it's just an unsupported claim.


Fix your English parser.  As you are making a false quote of what I said.


You said and I quoted :

Quote
I'm stating as a fact that adding features need not degrade audio quality.


QED.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #42 –
If I say "the day will never end", I just need to wait until the night comes to disprove it.

If i say " A is always better than B", I just have to show one, a single example where A is not strictly better than B to disprove it.

Which way do you want me to show that? 

Should we start by your first post in this thread, where you asked why the AVR was showing somewhat better specs than the stereo amp?

May I simply look at the cheapest stereo amp that I can find selling in internet versus a several thousand dollars AVR and compare by the spec sheets (skipping any audio test)?

Or may we have to search harder so that we compare apples to apples (as in finding a x Watts stereo amp to compare to an x Watts into two channel AVR, which they are competently designed) and then try a listening test (not a measurement test) on them?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Quote from: Soap on
Quote from: Yahzi on
Now show me evidence that "audio features do not degrade audio quality" as you have so stated as fact, otherwise it's just an unsupported claim.


Fix your English parser.  As you are making a false quote of what I said.


You said and I quoted :

Quote
I'm stating as a fact that adding features need not degrade audio quality.


QED.


You are 100% completely and utterly wrong here.  Go back and read what Soap is saying.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #44 –
In software it is a matter of a simple if-statement to skip processing of a feature, which the user disabled, and leave the audio (and therefore audio quality) untouched.
"I hear it when I see it."

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Yahzi on
Are you suggesting that adding features does not degrade audio quality? If so, what evidence do you have to support that view?


Well, considering the general purpose computers which store and play most of my music are capable of more features than any AVR ever made in the history of man kind, and that the vast majority of music these days is recorded, mixed, and mastered on general purpose computers, and that none of this "feature capability" impacts the audio quality we can get from those computers, I'm going to disagree.

Are there poorly designed AVR's out there which audibly degrade quality? Yes. Do the vast majority of them out there fall into that category? No. Are there poorly designed "audiophile" amps out there which audibly degrade quality? Yes. Do the vast majority of them do so? No. In general is there an audible gain in quality which is possible in a $4000 amp that isn't possible in a $400 AVR? No.





Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #46 –
My receiver has a button called "source direct". One of its effects is that it bypasses the buttons for tone/balance and loudness.

Its only sonic effect sounds like a tiny volume boost of maybe 1dB in the lower regions. That's probably because the bypass lets the current go through fewer components, increasing its output very slightly.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #47 –
Its time to resurrect my old CRT TV. My new 3D HDTV has many additional functions that may be degrading the picture quality.

By the way, where is my Nokia 1100?

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #48 –
Actually quite a number of AVRs offer such a "Direct" function, basically making them work like a plain ol' analog unit when enabled. You may find features like room correction too useful to do so, however.

As far as pricing of AVRs vs. stereo gear goes, there are two effects counteracting each other:
1. A stereo unit needs fewer power amplifiers and such, potentially allowing it to use better-quality parts. That being said, some manufacturers also base stereo units on their AVRs with few modifications and call it a day.
2. AVRs are generally made in greater quantities than stereo units --> economy of scale allowing lower unit price. Margins are pretty slim these days, too - hence why manufacturers have been going back to stereo lately.

I've seen some pretty questionable construction like suspect biasing schemes straight from the '70s in modern AVRs, but that should affect reliability most of all, not sound quality. A number of them also get rather hot. Output power transistors tend to be sized just about as large as they absolutely have to be (also seen in budget stereo units though) - 2SC5198/2SA1941 on +/-55 V is bordering on irresponsible. And do I need to mention the HDMI board issues that plague several generations of Onkyos? But like I said - reliability, not sound.

Why do people use AVRs for stereo?

Reply #49 –
I would be interested in what are the thoughts of the forum readers on [a href="http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/technical-articles-and-editorials/technical-articles-and-editorials/options-by-supplier-and-price.html" rel="nofollow"]Dr. David Rich's Article[/a] which concludes:

Quote
Even a low-cost stereo integrated amplifier will offer better performance in its analog input to its preamp output than an AVR in direct mode, since stereo products are made from SSI chips and, occasionally, relays. Value-priced stereo preamps with exceptional internal parts quality, including the electronic volume control chip, such as the Emotiva XSP-1 recently reviewed in Secrets (link shown below), will reveal any coloration of the LSI chip in the AVRs in direct mode.
. 

Dr. Rich, formerly of the Audio Critic, is very critical of the parts used for modern AVRs in this series of articles.

Cheers.