2 channel Stereo vs 5.1 Stereo - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 78 Old 10-03-2008, 01:23 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
woody1960's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What are your thoughts on the sound quality from a 2 channnel stereo receiver vs stereo from a multi-channel receiver. I'm interested in Onkyo's new TX-8555 stereo receiver. I mostly listen to stereo and I'm curious to know if a dedicated 2 channnel receiver would more than likely provide better sound quality.
woody1960 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 78 Old 10-03-2008, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:
I mostly listen to stereo and I'm curious to know if a dedicated 2 channnel receiver would more than likely provide better sound quality.

As a general matter, no. There are some caveats attached to that, but they probably don't apply in your case.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #3 of 78 Old 10-03-2008, 05:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
milaz001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't think you'll notice a significant difference between a stereo receiver and a multichannel receiver operating in 2-channel mode provided they are of equivalent power and can drive the speaker load you've chosen. I'd choose based on the application. Do you need a multichannel receiver if you're only interested in 2-channel stereo?

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
milaz001 is offline  
post #4 of 78 Old 10-03-2008, 07:24 PM
Member
 
Flt Simulation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philippines and Florida
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by milaz001 View Post

Do you need a multichannel receiver if you're only interested in 2-channel stereo?

That is the whole thing in a nut shell.

If your buying equipment to listen to music, and not hook the system to your TV to listen to DVD movies in surround sound, I can't see any reason to buy a multi-channel surround reciever and your basic 5.1 speaker arrangement.

The majority of the music you will be listening to would be either vinyl, store bought music CDs or home ripped MP3 CDs ... Maybe music from the radio (ie: a tuner) .... Well, in this case, I would think a 2 channel audio amp would be the best choice.

I am in this same boat ... I have a 42" plasma TV, but I don't watch that many DVD movies on it anyway (mostly just regular ol' TV), so I am very happy with a good quality 2 channel audio (HiFi) system when I want to turn that noisy TV off and listen to some nice music.

That's just me ...

BTW .. In my case, since I am now living in the Philippines, I find the best source for music is via peer sharing websites like Limewire. As long as you have a CD burner, you can download MP3 files of just about any song that has been recorded since biblical times! Most of the stuff I listen to is 60s and 70s stuff anyway ... Again the best place to find this is someplace like Limewire ... and it's FREE
Flt Simulation is offline  
post #5 of 78 Old 10-09-2008, 03:38 PM
Senior Member
 
exerciseguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ft. Hamilton, NY
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/391897.html

I started the above thread when I had a similar question.

I have found that their is no audible difference between a 5.1 and 2.0 CH receiver when listening to stereo recordings, at least as it relates to the above receivers. The Marantz in "Source Direct" mode did sound a bit more laid-back than the HK, but the HK is no slouch, and is a gem of a receiver at any price.
exerciseguy is offline  
post #6 of 78 Old 10-09-2008, 08:58 PM
Member
 
fox in socks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Seoul
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would say a 2 channel amp would almost definitely sound far better. Listen to a 1k receiver and a 1k integrated stereo amp. No contest, I would imagine.
fox in socks is offline  
post #7 of 78 Old 10-10-2008, 01:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Drew Eckhardt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sunnyvale, CA USA
Posts: 2,674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by milaz001 View Post

I don't think you'll notice a significant difference between a stereo receiver and a multichannel receiver operating in 2-channel mode provided they are of equivalent power and can drive the speaker load you've chosen. I'd choose based on the application. Do you need a multichannel receiver if you're only interested in 2-channel stereo?

You have a better potential for getting deeper lower distortion bass with more uniform frequency response when you use sub-woofers; and an AV receiver is probably the least expensive way to get a distortion reducing high-pass filter and time alignment for better integration when using sub-woofers.
Drew Eckhardt is offline  
post #8 of 78 Old 10-10-2008, 02:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jonomega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 3,518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post

You have a better potential for getting deeper lower distortion bass with more uniform frequency response when you use sub-woofers; and an AV receiver is probably the least expensive way to get a distortion reducing high-pass filter and time alignment for better integration when using sub-woofers.

Indeed. The major benefit to many multichannel receivers over stereo equipment is their bass management.
Jonomega is offline  
post #9 of 78 Old 10-10-2008, 05:32 AM
Senior Member
 
exerciseguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ft. Hamilton, NY
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No one is arguing that a multi-channel receiver isn't more flexible than a stereo receiver, the question as I understood it, is whether there is a difference between the two types as it relates to 2-channel, not 2.1-channel, listening. And it is my experience, not imagination, that there isn't, you may prefer the sound of one over the other, but a 5.1-channel receiver working in a 2-channel "source direct" mode is not hindered by the addition features, IMHO.
exerciseguy is offline  
post #10 of 78 Old 10-10-2008, 04:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by fox in socks View Post

I would say a 2 channel amp would almost definitely sound far better. Listen to a 1k receiver and a 1k integrated stereo amp. No contest, I would imagine.

"imagining" really doesn't accomplish much...

as others have pointed out, it's highly unlikely that the end user would notice the difference...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #11 of 78 Old 10-10-2008, 04:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sivadselim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: CO
Posts: 16,044
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Bass management would be irrelevant if we are strictly talking about 2-channel playback.

The only possible benefit of using an AVR for 2-channel would be when a digital connection of the input device (or devices) was, for some reason, desired or preferred. I realize that most people with a 2-channel setup would most likely utilize the DACs and output stage of their input device and connect it via an analog connection to their source of amplification. But with a digital connection of an input device to an AVR, one could focus attention upon the quality of the AVR and its DACs and output stage and could use a lesser quality input device since it would simply be used as a transport. With this sort of connection, one could also apply DSPs with the AVR, although I doubt anyone with a 2-channel setup would be interested in doing so. But I could envision a situation where someone might use a DVD player as their transport, connected via a digital connection to an AVR, used in a standard direct 2-channel stereo mode for music, but used in some sort of 2-channel virtual surround mode for movies.

I would not really have any qualms connecting a low-end DVD player via a digital connection to a high-end AVR, but I do not know how I would feel about connecting a high-end CD player to a mediocre 2-channel amp. Of course, there would probably be a happy medium somewhere, there. But I think it depends upon your budget and where you want to spend your money.

With a wireless setup I could also envision the need for DACs in the source of amplification. Although some of these devices, such as a squeezebox, have their own DACs, they also have digital outs. So, for example, someone may want to use the DACs in an AVR instead of their squeezebox's DACs. And with something as simple as an Airport, which offers both connection capabilities, one could utilize the DACs in an AVR.

Also, the remote control functions of an AVR's remote are often more substantial than those of a 2-channel amp, some of which do not even offer a remote control. Of course, if 2-channel reproduction is paramount, I doubt that the remote control features would be much of a concern or deal-breaker. But it is possible.

I think there might be some other benefits of an AVR we could come up with in this situation, none of which are really related to audio quality, but may come into play. I'll have to think a bit to come up with a few.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it."
sivadselim is offline  
post #12 of 78 Old 10-12-2008, 08:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
I see the op hasn't come back in 9 days.
But as for the question, some stereo receivers have a sub out, I had a Denon with a sub out and phono input. So one could go with either 2.0 or 2.1 speaker system, although one can still use a stereo receiver or amp w/o a sub connection and still use a sub via speaker line connections.
So with that type of stereo receiver having a MC receiver would be useless, for only two speakers.
So I'd only buy a stereo unit, if I was not going to use MC, a $1K stereo receiver or amp should be better than a $1K MC unit.
But another question comes up does it have enough power, that Denon I had was a bit lacking.
4DHD is offline  
post #13 of 78 Old 10-14-2008, 12:31 PM
Senior Member
 
zombywoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
One issue not mentioned is the current progression of speaker design. Today, there are some serious deals in the 2.1 listening category. The HT market has resulted in some great small bookshelf and micro speakers that can really shine when paired with a decent sub. Even with some floorstanders, freeing up headroom by adding a powered sub can really improve sound.

"I got a great big pointy fang, which is my zomby toof, my right foot's bigger than my other one is, like a regular zomby hoof."
zombywoof is offline  
post #14 of 78 Old 10-17-2008, 01:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
twitch54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SE Pa
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

I see the op hasn't come back in 9 days.
.


Exactly, sounds like a dud to me ! why start a thread, espescially when you're a newbie and the dissapear ???
twitch54 is offline  
post #15 of 78 Old 10-17-2008, 01:46 PM
Member
 
gychang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 58
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody1960 View Post

What are your thoughts on the sound quality from a 2 channnel stereo receiver vs stereo from a multi-channel receiver. I'm interested in Onkyo's new TX-8555 stereo receiver. I mostly listen to stereo and I'm curious to know if a dedicated 2 channnel receiver would more than likely provide better sound quality.

I was in a similar situation and I have been interested in good sound since I am an avid speaker builder. I was always biased toward a good stereo receiver but I made a "mistake" of buying a used Pioneer Elite HT receiver.

I was mildly shocked at a clean (absolutely no background noise) from an optical cable connection from my PC (flac file) to Pioneer HT receiver. I think in general recent receivers sound much better in my case HT receiver (5.1) sounded much improved...

gychang
gychang is offline  
post #16 of 78 Old 10-17-2008, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by gychang View Post

I was in a similar situation and I have been interested in good sound since I am an avid speaker builder. I was always biased toward a good stereo receiver but I made a "mistake" of buying a used Pioneer Elite HT receiver.

I was mildly shocked at a clean (absolutely no background noise) from an optical cable connection from my PC (flac file) to Pioneer HT receiver. I think in general recent receivers sound much better in my case HT receiver (5.1) sounded much improved...

gychang

There's still nothing like good separates, even vintage. I picked up late '70s HK Citation Eleven pre-amp and Citation 19 power amp. I use them to power my custom built L212s, which I built 5 years ago. The combo is by far better than any other gear I've used with L212s for 30 years.
I had bought a new Denon receiver, that had a phono input, but it just wasn't good enough for those L212s, I built the same type of crossovers for those speakers that JBL currently uses in their $30K speakers, so they really needed a much better front end.
4DHD is offline  
post #17 of 78 Old 10-17-2008, 03:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gychang View Post

I was mildly shocked at a clean (absolutely no background noise) from an optical cable connection from my PC (flac file) to Pioneer HT receiver. I think in general recent receivers sound much better in my case HT receiver (5.1) sounded much improved...

gychang

welcome to the dark side...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #18 of 78 Old 10-18-2008, 10:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Anode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's another perspective on the subject that I'd be very interested to see comments on -

I have always been a 2ch user. Surround sound never really appealed to me. But I have been contemplating an AVR receiver for a few reasons -

- an avr receiver opens up the possibility of having access to decent DACs, especially if you haven't invested much in your source - which probably might be a mass produced, yet decent, dvd or 'universal' player.

- an avr receiver would also allow hooking up to those DACs via HDMI, a great benefit over the coax and toslink, imho, especially if you are playing high resolution sources(sacd, dvd-a).

- if you are going to watch movies on this setup anyway, an avr receiver could also provide you the benefit of newer technologies like DTS-TrueHD and DTS-MA.

- another thing which may or may not be a big deal depending on your speaker setup/preference, but the provision for a "sub" output and the ability to set crossover points. But either way, it atleast allows you to keep the option of a sub open and available.

So right now I am leaning towards a good avr receiver which can provide the above mentioned benefits and yet serve only 2ch duty.


{edit:}
Oh one more thing - chances are that the downmixing of 5.1 or 7.1 audio of the movie to 2Ch would be much better in the avr than in the player.
Anode is offline  
post #19 of 78 Old 10-21-2008, 09:30 PM
Newbie
 
wiregauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anode View Post

Here's another perspective on the subject that I'd be very interested to see comments on -

I have always been a 2ch user. Surround sound never really appealed to me. But I have been contemplating an AVR receiver for a few reasons -

- an avr receiver opens up the possibility of having access to decent DACs, especially if you haven't invested much in your source - which probably might be a mass produced, yet decent, dvd or 'universal' player.

- an avr receiver would also allow hooking up to those DACs via HDMI, a great benefit over the coax and toslink, imho, especially if you are playing high resolution sources(sacd, dvd-a).

- if you are going to watch movies on this setup anyway, an avr receiver could also provide you the benefit of newer technologies like DTS-TrueHD and DTS-MA.

- another thing which may or may not be a big deal depending on your speaker setup/preference, but the provision for a "sub" output and the ability to set crossover points. But either way, it atleast allows you to keep the option of a sub open and available.

So right now I am leaning towards a good avr receiver which can provide the above mentioned benefits and yet serve only 2ch duty.


{edit:}
Oh one more thing - chances are that the downmixing of 5.1 or 7.1 audio of the movie to 2Ch would be much better in the avr than in the player.

Anode - I'm a late comer to all the HD, surround sound biz with a similar satisfaction with 2 ch. Due to the death of my old Sony tube tv, just upgraded to flat screen HDTV, blu-ray player etc, but with a bad room for multi-channel speaker set up. Have decent bookshelf speakers to pump audio to. Went and sprung for a Denon 2308ci avr 7.1, but it will go greatly under-utilized in the current room set up just using only 2 speakers. Hoping it will do simple stereo and downmixing for now. I'm only posting to second your post - no real experience yet on your comments/inquries to offer. Shoot, I am just trying to figure out which speaker outs on the new avr will best serve up 2 ch.
wiregauge is offline  
post #20 of 78 Old 10-22-2008, 06:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiregauge View Post

Hoping it will do simple stereo and downmixing for now. I'm only posting to second your post - no real experience yet on your comments/inquries to offer. Shoot, I am just trying to figure out which speaker outs on the new avr will best serve up 2 ch.

You always want to use the main L/R speaker outs for stereo. I'm using an old Marantz 880 dts/dd receiver in this room for 2.1. But I'm not using the sub out, as the sub is the original sub of all subs, a late '70s JBL B212 with only speaker line connections, with the mains wall mounted to each side of the computer screen.
4DHD is offline  
post #21 of 78 Old 10-22-2008, 09:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Anode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
if the downmixing parameters are properly setup in the avr I'd imagine you'd have to use the main/front outputs. all other channels should get disabled.

I thought about one more thing - Reserve Power.
With 5 out of 7 channels idling and not driving any load I'd imagine the psu would be very happy with that and the psu's headroom for transient reponse and current capability would greatly increase.

and a question -
generally do the stereo receivers have a completely different design than their avr counterparts from the same manufacturer ? Or the only difference is really the number of channels ? By 'design' I mean just the pre-amp and amp sections.
Anode is offline  
post #22 of 78 Old 10-24-2008, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Raymond Leggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anode View Post

and a question -
generally do the stereo receivers have a completely different design than their avr counterparts from the same manufacturer ? Or the only difference is really the number of channels ? By 'design' I mean just the pre-amp and amp sections.

yep.

One shall stand... One Shall Fall... - Optimus Prime
Raymond Leggs is offline  
post #23 of 78 Old 10-24-2008, 09:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Anode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: MN
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
sorry I am not quite clear - you mean different design ? or same design with just more number of channels ?
Anode is offline  
post #24 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 12:38 AM
Member
 
Flt Simulation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philippines and Florida
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
A few folks here have mentioned that a 5.1 AV reciever may be better suited to 2 channel Hi-Fi audio if you wanted to also use a subwoofer in the system.

I have a question: I bought an Onkyo A-9555 2 channel integrated amp that I will be powering 4 speakers with (2 floorstander fronts and 2 bookshelf rears) in the A/B mode. This is going to be just used for music from CD discs.

I would like to also include a powered subwoofer.

Here is a photo of the rear of the 2 channel Onkyo's rear panel that shows how a powered sub would be hooked up using long RCA patch cables from the amp's LFT/RT Line-Out to the powered subwoofer's LFT/RT Line-In. (I guess that is a "Line-Out on the amp's back panel where the arrow is pointing) ... Hope it's not a "Line-In")

Do you see anything wrong with hooking the sub into the system like this? .... The diagram in the lower photo is actually from the instructions included with the B&W subwoofer.

The reason I ask this is that others have said that the 5.1 AV recievers have a dedicated sub-output ... but wouldn't hooking up a powered sub to this amp like what is shown above acomplish the same thing:





Flt Simulation is offline  
post #25 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 07:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flt Simulation View Post

A few folks here have mentioned that a 5.1 AV reciever may be better suited to 2 channel Hi-Fi audio if you wanted to also use a subwoofer in the system.

I have a question: I bought an Onkyo A-9555 2 channel integrated amp that I will be powering 4 speakers with (2 floorstander fronts and 2 bookshelf rears) in the A/B mode. This is going to be just used for music from CD discs.

I would like to also include a powered subwoofer.

Here is a photo of the rear of the 2 channel Onkyo's rear panel that shows how a powered sub would be hooked up using long RCA patch cables from the amp's LFT/RT Line-Out to the powered subwoofer's LFT/RT Line-In. (I guess that is a "Line-Out on the amp's back panel where the arrow is pointing) ... Hope it's not a "Line-In")

Do you see anything wrong with hooking the sub into the system like this? .... The diagram in the lower photo is actually from the instructions included with the B&W subwoofer.

The reason I ask this is that others have said that the 5.1 AV recievers have a dedicated sub-output ... but wouldn't hooking up a powered sub to this amp like what is shown above acomplish the same thing:

That pair of rca jacks don't say in or out. But as it doesn't say "subout" I'm going to assume its not. But if, by chance they are outputs, you would have to use the sub's internal crossover. But you can always connect the sub through the speaker level input.

But using, or not using a sub has nothing to do with what kind of receiver or amp you use. Mostly what speakers you use and how low you want to go. If using full range speakers, that has a FR down to, say 40~28 htz its just a choice if to use a sub or not.
Quite often I listen to music through my 3-ways w/o the subs on, as they will play down to 40 htz. There are a lot of recordings that don't have real low sub output anyway.

Of coarse any receiver or amp doesn't have to work as hard if a sub is used.
4DHD is offline  
post #26 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 07:51 AM
Senior Member
 
HaroldTheBarrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The US of A
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fox in socks View Post

I would say a 2 channel amp would almost definitely sound far better. Listen to a 1k receiver and a 1k integrated stereo amp. No contest, I would imagine.

You would "imagine"?! Obviously, your imagination does not reflect reality.
HaroldTheBarrel is offline  
post #27 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 08:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
4DHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: sierra ecuadoriana
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaroldTheBarrel View Post

You would "imagine"?! Obviously, your imagination does not reflect reality.

Actually, that can be true. Two years ago I bought a Denon stereo receiver to use with a pair of vintage speakers and a TT. That receiver was sadly lacking in depth and detail, to say nothing of power. Replaced it with a pre-amp and power amp, big improvement.
4DHD is offline  
post #28 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 08:43 AM
Senior Member
 
HaroldTheBarrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The US of A
Posts: 289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DHD View Post

Actually, that can be true. Two years ago I bought a Denon stereo receiver to use with a pair of vintage speakers and a TT. That receiver was sadly lacking in depth and detail, to say nothing of power. Replaced it with a pre-amp and power amp, big improvement.

I don't find it the least bit surprising that replacing a poorly performing product with something better gave you an audible improvement. The fact that one was a receiver and the other was separates, however, almost certainly had nothing to do with it.
HaroldTheBarrel is offline  
post #29 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dsmith901's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 8,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaroldTheBarrel View Post

The fact that one was a receiver and the other was separates, however, almost certainly had nothing to do with it.


On what do you base that statement? I ask because it is contradictory to my personal experience and I would say (based on all my reading about audio) the experience of virtually everyone who has invested more than a moment and a pittance in the hobby of high fidelity audio, which I will assume you have not.

"The truth is out there!"
dsmith901 is offline  
post #30 of 78 Old 10-30-2008, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 260
Quote:


On what do you base that statement? I ask because it is contradictory to my personal experience and I would say (based on all my reading about audio) the experience of virtually everyone who has invested more than a moment and a pittance in the hobby of high fidelity audio, which I will assume you have not.

Then you aren't reading the right things. And spending money on a product doesn't make anyone a technical expert.

A separate power amp might sound better if it has more power, or is more capable of driving the particular speakers you are using at the volume you want. But that's because it's more powerful, not because it's a separate. (And for the typical speaker out there, most receivers have plenty of power and won't sound different from a separate amp, assuming you're comparing them on sound quality alone.)

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off