Is a Stereo Integrated Amplifier better choice than an AV Receiver? - Page 5 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 168Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 05:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
Alanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern California
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by smasher50 View Post
fwiw, the human brain is the most powerful thing on this earth.it can make you see, smell, feel, hear and taste things that are not there. it can be tricked very easy especially when any of the senses are mixed. so where am I going with this. it is so easy for people to be brain washed into anything that they know "nothing" about. that's what makes manufactures spend big money on marketing because the human brain is very easy to fool. just my 3 inflated cents
Can you elaborate and be more specific? or not.

7.4.6 system with Denon 8500, Additional Amps: Emotiva (front and center) and NAD (wide), classic Klipsch speakers.
Alanlee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 06:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CruelInventions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,533
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1202 Post(s)
Liked: 1390
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
You are doing a major disservice to someone you've never met. His expertise and credits go so far beyond that.
Perhaps so, and coming from you, someone I think is one of the better posters on this board, perhaps he does warrant more credit than I've given him.
On the other hand, as demonstrated by Scotth3886's subsequent posting highlights above, Grundman to me comes off as a bit more of the audio flake than you've allowed for in your estimation of the man. The negatives shouldn't and don't negate his positives, of course. But it does tarnish him, IMO.

Quote:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. ~ Richard P. Feynman
CruelInventions is online now  
post #123 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 07:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Class A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NH
Posts: 3,390
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 4272
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanlee View Post
Can you elaborate and be more specific? or not.
Forget it. I doubt your going to get a well thought out thesis on how the human brain functions. Probably just more inane cliches.

Last edited by Class A; 02-25-2016 at 07:30 PM.
Class A is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #124 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 08:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
Perhaps so, and coming from you, someone I think is one of the better posters on this board, perhaps he does warrant more credit than I've given him.
On the other hand, as demonstrated by Scotth3886's subsequent posting highlights above, Grundman to me comes off as a bit more of the audio flake than you've allowed for in your estimation of the man. The negatives shouldn't and don't negate his positives, of course. But it does tarnish him, IMO.

Why is the pocket protector set name calling toward who is arguably (as Jaddie has alluded to with "His expertise and credits go so far beyond that") one of the most, if not most, credible recoding engineer alive today (RIP Doug Sax)?



Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-25-2016 at 08:29 PM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #125 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 09:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Class A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NH
Posts: 3,390
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 4272
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Why is the pocket protector set name calling toward who is arguably (as Jaddie has alluded to with "His expertise and credits go so far beyond that") one of the most, if not most, credible recoding engineer alive today (RIP Doug Sax)?


https://youtu.be/MoFxWGgNGzo
Well he's only recorded minor talent such as Paul Simon, Michael Jackson, Carol King, Jackson Browne, Joan Baez, Steely Dan, Joe Cocker, The Carpenters, ETC. After all what's he done??

Last edited by Class A; 02-25-2016 at 09:13 PM.
Class A is online now  
post #126 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 09:05 PM
 
Alex F.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,256
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 870 Post(s)
Liked: 468
Steve (bluewizard): Post 120 is superb. Nice summation.
Alex F. is offline  
post #127 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 09:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
Perhaps so, and coming from you, someone I think is one of the better posters on this board, perhaps he does warrant more credit than I've given him.

On the other hand, as demonstrated by Scotth3886's subsequent posting highlights above, Grundman to me comes off as a bit more of the audio flake than you've allowed for in your estimation of the man. The negatives shouldn't and don't negate his positives, of course. But it does tarnish him, IMO.

Well time change and people change. My acquaintance with him goes back many years. My impression then is more than a little different than what I'm seeing now. Disappointing to say the least.

And yes, those do look like cable risers. I guess I should stop defending him.
jaddie is offline  
post #128 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 09:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
Well time change and people change. My acquaintance with him goes back many years. My impression then is more than a little different than what I'm seeing now. Disappointing to say the least.

And yes, those do look like cable risers. I guess I should stop defending him.

"Well time change and people change"


True, he learns too. Good for him even if he presented a trip hazard.

Funny that it would be none other than Michael Fremer who trips over them. Ironic!

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-25-2016 at 11:14 PM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #129 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 09:30 PM
Senior Member
 
romavictor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Is a stereo integrated amp better choice than an AV receiver?

YES


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
romavictor is offline  
post #130 of 362 Old 02-25-2016, 11:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"Well time change and people change"


True, he learns too. Good for him even if he presented a trip hazard.

Funny that it would none other than Michael Fremer who trips over them. Ironic!
Hey! What the....
jaddie is offline  
post #131 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 12:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
By and large -

If you want a Music system, then get a Music system, meaning a Stereo. It will still do a nice job for movies.

If you want a Movie system, then get a Movie system, meaning a Surround Sound system. It will still do a nice job for music.
This is incorrect. Music is mostly two-channel stereo, movies are mostly at least 5.1. You can play stereo on a 5.1 system, in stereo with two speakers, but you can't play 5.1 properly on a two-channel stereo system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post

Next, for a fixed amount of money, an AV Receiver is very high in features. But, you don't get something for nothing. The more items you get for a fixed amount of money, the less each item is worth.

A Stereo Amp is going to have fewer features. Definitely not Room Correction, extremely likely it will not have Electronic Bass Management, and a low probability that a Stereo will have Network Streaming.

These are all standard features on an AVR, but again, remember, you don't get something for nothing.


But my point is, you don't match your choice to some theoretical ideal, you match your choice to that which best serves your specific needs and circumstances. Your Preferences, your Priorities, your Budget, your Room, your Feature Requirements are the deciding factors, not simply stereo vs surround sound.

For myself, all things considered, I chose Stereo. My priority is music, though I do watch movies several times a week. And, though slightly unique, my Stereo does not leave me wanting with regard to any aspect of movie watching or music listening.

However, to a person more focused on movies, and for whom Surround Sound has a real appeal, I can't fault them for choosing an AVR. But that's just not me.

So, who are you? What are your preferences and priorities? Does you room and circumstance lend itself well to Surround Sound? Are movies the highest priority?

In terms of time, I spend more time watching movies, but in terms of personal priorities, music is highest which is precisely why I have a Music (stereo) system.
Well, that's a lot of words, but they aren't instructive at all. You've wished and washed both ways, without concluding anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Also keep in mind for a fixed budget in Stereo, to get the same value, you have to spend more on a AV System. Though this is derived through pure math, to equal a $500 Stereo, an AVR needs to be around $1500. More likely around a $1000 or more.

If we look at speakers, you can get two speakers for $1000 or you can get 5 speakers plus an expensive Sub for $1000. Which would logically be the better speakers?
Price is not a good metric with which to evaluate speaker sound quality. In fact, historically there have been many speakers that sound far better than anything in their class and above, as well as those extremely expensive, yet remarkably colored speakers that persist even today. Price as a quality metric isn't even a good generalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
So, indeed you can get an AVR/Surround system that is the equal of a Stereo, just not for the same price.
That concept only works if you use the exact same speakers for both systems. It's entirely possible to get a surround system that surpasses a stereo system at the same price by choosing speakers wisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
For AVR/Surround, you have to spend more money. How much more money is subject to debate, but I would say twice as much on the AVR, and about 2 to 4 times as much on speakers.
I would reject this as opinion without basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
What do you really want?

If you want a Stereo, then ...done... decision make.

If you absolutely want a Surround Sound system, then ...done... decision made.
There is no reason a surround system cannot do both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post

I know what I want. I would not consider a full surround sound system unless I had the very considerable money to create a dedicate home theater room.
Dedicated home theaters account for about 0.1% of all home sound systems. If everyone followed your lead, the AVR market would have died years ago. But, it didn't, did it? In fact, there are many times more AVRs sold than stereo systems. That's why they can have more features at the same price, it's economy of scale.

Would it surprise you to know that THX specifications for home theater equipment is targeted for that equipment to be used in non-dedicated rooms? Yes, even Ultra2 was designed for the typical room, not the specially designed one.

Why do you think AVRs now overwhelmingly dominate the market? It's because consumers want the immersive experience of surround sound. Nearly every film, and the majority of TV shows are now produced in 5.1. There just might be a little interest in hearing soundtracks as they were intended, bolstered by the desire to at least match with the channel count of the neighbors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
And even then, I would still have a Stereo. So, you see how my preference, priorities, and circumstances dictated the choices I made. This is right for me, that doesn't mean it is right of you or anyone else.
(my emphasis on the last sentence)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Certainly with an amp like the Yamaha AS801 you could build a system that would serve many masters. To equal that in a Surround system, I think you would need a higher end ($1500 to $2000) AVR and considerably more money for speakers. I would say at least double the money for speakers. That is, if you have $1000 pair of Front speakers in the hypothetical Stereo, then you would need another $1000 for Center, Surround, and Sub to flesh out the Surround Sound.

So, either budget goes up, or quality goes down
Again with the price metric. Really, quality and price don't couple that tightly in the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
As to the argument about Double Blind Tests, forget that. The odd of the average person ever being exposed to a Scientifically valid Double Blind Test are virtually ZERO.
You've missed the point again. The reference here to DBT is to underscore that within a given product category, amplifiers cannot be reliably distinguished from each other in a DBT. For the buyer that means something as far as decision making. Of course the average person won't be involved in an ABX/DBT, but he should be exposed to the knowledge of the outcome of those tests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
And for that Double Blind Test to included equipment you are specifically interested in is probably less than zero. And for you to receive the results of that test in a meaningful way are also less than zero.
You can't have probability of less than zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
You listen, and you like what you like or you don't. Then you move on.
This applies to advice in a free forum as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
In summary -
I'm not quoting your summary because these points have already been addressed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
It really is just that simple.
It might be, but advise like this doesn't help make anything simple.
jaddie is offline  
post #132 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 01:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,231
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 289 Post(s)
Liked: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
This is incorrect. Music is mostly two-channel stereo, movies are mostly at least 5.1. You can play stereo on a 5.1 system, in stereo with two speakers, but you can't play 5.1 properly on a two-channel stereo system.

Well, that's a lot of words, but they aren't instructive at all. You've wished and washed both ways, without concluding anything.
Price is not a good metric with which to evaluate speaker sound quality. In fact, historically there have been many speakers that sound far better than anything in their class and above, as well as those extremely expensive, yet remarkably colored speakers that persist even today. Price as a quality metric isn't even a good generalization.
That concept only works if you use the exact same speakers for both systems. It's entirely possible to get a surround system that surpasses a stereo system at the same price by choosing speakers wisely.
I would reject this as opinion without basis in fact.

There is no reason a surround system cannot do both.
Dedicated home theaters account for about 0.1% of all home sound systems. If everyone followed your lead, the AVR market would have died years ago. But, it didn't, did it? In fact, there are many times more AVRs sold than stereo systems. That's why they can have more features at the same price, it's economy of scale.

Would it surprise you to know that THX specifications for home theater equipment is targeted for that equipment to be used in non-dedicated rooms? Yes, even Ultra2 was designed for the typical room, not the specially designed one.

Why do you think AVRs now overwhelmingly dominate the market? It's because consumers want the immersive experience of surround sound. Nearly every film, and the majority of TV shows are now produced in 5.1. There just might be a little interest in hearing soundtracks as they were intended, bolstered by the desire to at least match with the channel count of the neighbors.
(my emphasis on the last sentence)
Again with the price metric. Really, quality and price don't couple that tightly in the real world.
You've missed the point again. The reference here to DBT is to underscore that within a given product category, amplifiers cannot be reliably distinguished from each other in a DBT. For the buyer that means something as far as decision making. Of course the average person won't be involved in an ABX/DBT, but he should be exposed to the knowledge of the outcome of those tests.
You can't have probability of less than zero.
This applies to advice in a free forum as well.

I'm not quoting your summary because these points have already been addressed above.
It might be, but advise like this doesn't help make anything simple.
IMHO, Steve's post was a wonderful one...

The only thing I didn't notice in this (your) post is any advise or recommendation... only lackluster counter-comments aimed to devalue Steve's post,

You simply miss the point completely... why wouldn't you play 5.1 material on a 2-Channel setup if surround sound is not your priority? Who determines what is good for you other than yourself?

On a personal note, I don't care about THX specifications simply because it changes very often and each new version makes you need more system resources (more speakers, more amplification... etc...)
I simply wonder how / why is it not so easy for many to see the parasitic business model behind all the constantly changing specifications?

The OP has been provided good advise in a few different versions on this thread,
Once again, good luck with your search...
balky is offline  
post #133 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 03:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
IMHO, Steve's post was a wonderful one...
Sorry, it's full of miss/diss-information and inaccuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
The only thing I didn't notice in this (your) post is any advise or recommendation... only lackluster counter-comments aimed to devalue Steve's post,
Just imagine the total Nubie reading that stuff and the confusion that he would take away and make part of his knowledge base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
You simply miss the point completely... why wouldn't you play 5.1 material on a 2-Channel setup if surround sound is not your priority? Who determines what is good for you other than yourself?
Ok, well, this must be the "2-channel is better" thing. Look, the only reason we have and are stuck with two-channel stereo is they couldn't pack 3 on a record in the 1950s. The original Bell Labs stereo research concluded that the absolute minimum channel count for realistic stereo is 3. Ok, we have two, but NOT because two is better. Film and video tracks are mixed to 5.1, and the most critical channel, and most used (80% of all sound in the room) is the center. Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice, but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
On a personal note, I don't care about THX specifications simply because it changes very often and each new version makes you need more system resources (more speakers, more amplification... etc...)
THX specifications haven't changed in years. The last significant change in the audio specs came with Select, which was a dumbing-down to get the logo on cheaper stuff targeted for smaller rooms. Otherwise, Ultra2 is the original Home THX specs from the 1990s, with some extremely minor tweaks.

There hasn't been a change in THX audio specs since Select2 and Ultra2, that's what, 8 years? You might direct your ire to the HDMI consortium instead, and their "standards" which change weekly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
I simply wonder how / why is it not so easy for many to see the parasitic business model behind all the constantly changing specifications?
There are many things wrong with the THX business model. However, it's not working anyway, as a company they've been on the edge of collapse for a decade. As stated, the Select and Select2 categories were added to get more affordable THX product into the market. Clearly, it didn't work. Find me a batch of THX Select2 or for that matter, Ultra2 AVRs in today's crop.

The point of THX in the home was to provide a certified quality level for consumer confidence. It failed because THX confused the market with a multiplicity of definitions of what THX is. For a "parasitic" endeavor, it's almost never been profitable.

My point in mentioning it was to reset perspective. Steve says he wouldn't get a surround system without a dedicated HT. That's great for Steve, but unrealistic for just about everyone else in the market. Even THX specifications were not targeted for the dedicated room. It's just an underscore.
fill35U likes this.
jaddie is offline  
post #134 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 03:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
smasher50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: right behind you
Posts: 6,242
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 22714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alanlee View Post
Can you elaborate and be more specific? or not.
what I was trying to say here was that most all people are acceptable to believe and trust in what others say if they have no knowledge of what they are doing or buying or etc.an example here is when someone who knows nothing about electronics comes to these forums and some member or members here that think they know because they heard it from someone else or read it in a magazine who then become brainwashed that this is the real answer then go and proceed to forward their mostly uninformed information to the op.i would say that most everyone that goes to best buy looking for a receiver gets mis informed to buy a receiver from some 18 yr. old who is never taking an a electronics course in his or hers life. just what he is told to tell the customer or read in the advertising pamphlet that came with the receiver.i could give many more examples but instead of making a longer story longer this is why dbt's and science try to eliminate the heresay from the truth . as for marketing just look at bose . bose spends astranomic amounts of money on it to sell their overpriced under performing products and are among the top sellers of electronics.its easy to be brain washed and taken when you know nothing about what your looking for.just my 3 cents.

i'm so laid back,i'm laid out
smasher50 is offline  
post #135 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 06:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
Sorry, it's full of miss/diss-information and inaccuracy.
Just imagine the total Nubie reading that stuff and the confusion that he would take away and make part of his knowledge base.
Ok, well, this must be the "2-channel is better" thing. Look, the only reason we have and are stuck with two-channel stereo is they couldn't pack 3 on a record in the 1950s. The original Bell Labs stereo research concluded that the absolute minimum channel count for realistic stereo is 3. Ok, we have two, but NOT because two is better. Film and video tracks are mixed to 5.1, and the most critical channel, and most used (80% of all sound in the room) is the center. Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice, but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center.
THX specifications haven't changed in years. The last significant change in the audio specs came with Select, which was a dumbing-down to get the logo on cheaper stuff targeted for smaller rooms. Otherwise, Ultra2 is the original Home THX specs from the 1990s, with some extremely minor tweaks.

There hasn't been a change in THX audio specs since Select2 and Ultra2, that's what, 8 years? You might direct your ire to the HDMI consortium instead, and their "standards" which change weekly.
There are many things wrong with the THX business model. However, it's not working anyway, as a company they've been on the edge of collapse for a decade. As stated, the Select and Select2 categories were added to get more affordable THX product into the market. Clearly, it didn't work. Find me a batch of THX Select2 or for that matter, Ultra2 AVRs in today's crop.

The point of THX in the home was to provide a certified quality level for consumer confidence. It failed because THX confused the market with a multiplicity of definitions of what THX is. For a "parasitic" endeavor, it's almost never been profitable.


My point in mentioning it was to reset perspective. Steve says he wouldn't get a surround system without a dedicated HT. That's great for Steve, but unrealistic for just about everyone else in the market. Even THX specifications were not targeted for the dedicated room. It's just an underscore.
"and the most critical channel, and most used (80% of all sound in the room) is the center. Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice, but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center."

I've got plenty of 'center' and center right and center left and everything front to back, side to side, beyond the sides, and top to bottom without that center speaker, which would go right where my turntable is.

"Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice"

Yes yes, I'm here. And thanks, we will. The only time 80% of mine is in the center is playing one of my 1947 monos, and even then I still have front to back depth.

"Bell Labs stereo research concluded that the absolute minimum channel count for realistic stereo is 3" "but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center"

Absolute CRAP. Especially, the last part, which ranks up there with the most wrong things I've read on these pages in my short time here.

Anyone here in the Columbus / Central Ohio area? I'll show you a 'center channel' and you won't find any center speaker, then you can report back to the masses here.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-26-2016 at 07:16 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #136 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 06:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
And to sweeten the offer, I'll see if I can arraign ten sets of Bernie Grundman autographed cable elevators and a brick for the first ten visitors .


Scotth3886 is online now  
post #137 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 07:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Ok, OKay, I'll make my offer more relevant.


How 'bout 10 personally autographed pocket protectors to the first ten visitors?
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #138 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 07:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"and the most critical channel, and most used (80% of all sound in the room) is the center. Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice, but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center."

I've got plenty of 'center' and center right and center left and everything front to back, side to side, beyond the sides, and top to bottom without that center speaker, which would go right where my turntable is.

"Two channelites may wish to ignore that, that's their choice"

Yes yes, I'm here. And thanks, we will. The only time 80% of mine is in the center is playing one of my 1947 monos, and even then I still have front to back depth.

"Bell Labs stereo research concluded that the absolute minimum channel count for realistic stereo is 3" "but you can't reproduce or even approximate the original mix without at least a center"

Absolute CRAP. Especially, the last part, which ranks up there with the most wrong things I've read on these pages in my short time here.

Anyone here in the Columbus / central Ohio area? I'll show you a 'center channel' and you won't find any center speaker, then you can report back to the masses here.
You have a virtual "center" when sit exactly equidistant between your two speakers. Any other seat, it's not there. I'd be happy to stop in on my next trip through, I get there pretty often. But I already know what I'll hear. You won't hear a virtual center if you aren't sitting in the actual center.

And, of course, the virtual center has that nasty little 2KHz dip caused by comb filtering at the interaural distance differential. Pretty much a fact of life (covered in several reference books, Toole for one). You don't get that with a real center. And there's the issue of phantom center solidity/palpability corrupted by room acoustics. You don't get that with a real center either. And all of that impacts the stereo downmix of 5.1.

Again, if you want to ignore those facts and enjoy your two-channel, go for it.
thehun and fill35U like this.
jaddie is offline  
post #139 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,630
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1331 Post(s)
Liked: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Ok, OKay, I'll make my offer more relevant.


How 'bout 10 personally autographed pocket protectors to the first ten visitors?
Now there's an offer I can't refuse. But why would I want your autograph on a pocket protector? I'm sure it would be worth almost as much as one without an autograph.
jaddie is offline  
post #140 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 07:51 AM
Advanced Member
 
Alanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern California
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by smasher50 View Post
what I was trying to say here was that most all people are acceptable to believe and trust in what others say if they have no knowledge of what they are doing or buying or etc.an example here is when someone who knows nothing about electronics comes to these forums and some member or members here that think they know because they heard it from someone else or read it in a magazine who then become brainwashed that this is the real answer then go and proceed to forward their mostly uninformed information to the op.i would say that most everyone that goes to best buy looking for a receiver gets mis informed to buy a receiver from some 18 yr. old who is never taking an a electronics course in his or hers life. just what he is told to tell the customer or read in the advertising pamphlet that came with the receiver.i could give many more examples but instead of making a longer story longer this is why dbt's and science try to eliminate the heresay from the truth . as for marketing just look at bose . bose spends astranomic amounts of money on it to sell their overpriced under performing products and are among the top sellers of electronics.its easy to be brain washed and taken when you know nothing about what your looking for.just my 3 cents.
Thank you for responding, and I agree with you which is why I like this forum. There are a great number of very knowledgeable people who contribute their time and experience. The rest of us have a great deal to learn from them. However it is very often the people who know very little and ask seemingly ridiculous questions that contribute even more because the answers they get help the rest of us learn. As for those people who in your words know "nothing about electronics," let us hope they eventually learn and pay their knowledge forward. I have a suggestion, and obviously you have no responsibility to take it, but.....why not just avoid reading those posts that frustrate you. The first few words will give you a clue as to the level of frustration you are going to experience. Move on because there are plenty of posts ahead that will answer the questions you are seeking. As for the 18 year-old at Best Buy, don't be to hard on him/her. Maybe you could suggest to him/her that they come to this forum and learn more about their trade.

7.4.6 system with Denon 8500, Additional Amps: Emotiva (front and center) and NAD (wide), classic Klipsch speakers.
Alanlee is offline  
post #141 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 07:56 AM
FMW
AVS Forum Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,480
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1653 Post(s)
Liked: 1707
[quote=Scotth3886;41864753]
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post


The claim was


"Remember, they failed the Carver Challenge."


"Stereophile have nothing at all to do with reality and are meaningless"


Has everything to do with their reality.


"Quoting Stereophile doesn't mean a thing to most of us"


Okay, cool, I'll quote Absolute Sound. Happy?

Sure, if it makes you happy. Just don't expect it to sway anybody's opinion.
FMW is offline  
post #142 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 08:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
You have a virtual "center" when sit exactly equidistant between your two speakers. Any other seat, it's not there. I'd be happy to stop in on my next trip through, I get there pretty often. But I already know what I'll hear. You won't hear a virtual center if you aren't sitting in the actual center.

And, of course, the virtual center has that nasty little 2KHz dip caused by comb filtering at the interaural distance differential. Pretty much a fact of life (covered in several reference books, Toole for one). You don't get that with a real center. And there's the issue of phantom center solidity/palpability corrupted by room acoustics. You don't get that with a real center either. And all of that impacts the stereo downmix of 5.1.

Again, if you want to ignore those facts and enjoy your two-channel, go for it.

"You have a virtual "center" when sit exactly equidistant between your two speakers"

Mostly true on electrostats as they are beamy, but that's where I listen anyway. Not so true on anything else I have or had in the last 20 or so years. Not even true on the Elacs. I have a soundstage, not a center per se. One can sit quite off equidistance and still have a soundstage.

I don't hear that on HT systems I've heard. Their HTs are fine for booms, tweets, explosion, etc., but on two channel the systems I've heard are a mess.

"But I already know what I'll hear"

Well, there you ago .... that open mind again!

"Again, if you want to ignore those facts and enjoy your two-channel, go for it"

"facts" Laughable, but otherwise, thanks for the permission!

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-26-2016 at 09:53 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #143 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 08:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
Now there's an offer I can't refuse. But why would I want your autograph on a pocket protector? I'm sure it would be worth almost as much as one without an autograph.

I didn't say mine. Maybe I can get your exulted Bernie Grundman to do the autographs or would you prefer Michael Fremer? Now, be careful with Fremer as he's getting clumsy in his old age and might trip over your cable elevators


"I'm sure it would be worth almost as much as one without an autograph."

And after yesterday, I'm sure yours has declined in value a bit too.



Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-26-2016 at 09:13 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #144 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 08:13 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,769
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3753 Post(s)
Liked: 2302
[quote=FMW;41924881]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post


Sure, if it makes you happy. Just don't expect it to sway anybody's opinion.

Opinion? Great, that's much better.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #145 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 08:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bluewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,673
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2272 Post(s)
Liked: 1504
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
This is incorrect. Music is mostly two-channel stereo, movies are mostly at least 5.1. You can play stereo on a 5.1 system, in stereo with two speakers, but you can't play 5.1 properly on a two-channel stereo system.

...
On all points ... way to miss the point.

I think I'll let the Original Poster decide whether I've added value to the discussion or not.

Steve/bluewizard
bluewizard is online now  
post #146 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 11:14 AM
 
Alex F.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,256
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 870 Post(s)
Liked: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_Montana View Post
Hello guys!

All this time i was thinking that stereo integrated receivers have more value than AV receivers for 2-Channel Audio.
Less inputs, less channels, less digital circuits, no room correction etc will allow companies to use better electronics,better analog circuits and more watts for the (only) two channels.
But reading specs from the manufacturer sites, it seems that there aren't any benefits.
Most of the times you buy the same (or less) watts for the same price.
So is there any benefit to buy a Stereo integrated Amplifier instead of an AVR for the same money?
(i.e. an Yamaha A-S501 instead of a RX-V679 or an A-S801 instead of a RX-A850, a Marantz PM8005 vs SR6010 etc)
Tony:

I posted your original query above because it remains unclear if you were asking a hypothetical question or are actively shopping for an AV receiver or a two-channel component. If you are looking to make a purchase soon, please indicate your requirements and approximate price range if you would like us to provide specific suggestions.
Alex F. is offline  
post #147 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 11:37 AM
FMW
AVS Forum Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,480
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1653 Post(s)
Liked: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by romavictor View Post
Is a stereo integrated amp better choice than an AV receiver?

YES


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In what way is it better?
FMW is offline  
post #148 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 12:46 PM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by balky View Post
only lackluster counter-comments aimed to devalue Steve's post,
You oppose devaluing someone who says 1+1=3, right?
LFEer is offline  
post #149 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 08:23 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Tony_Montana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaddie View Post
There is no reason a surround system cannot do both.
Dedicated home theaters account for about 0.1% of all home sound systems. If everyone followed your lead, the AVR market would have died years ago. But, it didn't, did it? In fact, there are many times more AVRs sold than stereo systems. That's why they can have more features at the same price, it's economy of scale.
It would be interesting to see statistics comparing AVR & Stereo Amps sales.
Do you have any reliable sources?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
On all points ... way to miss the point.

I think I'll let the Original Poster decide whether I've added value to the discussion or not.

Steve/bluewizard

Hello Steve,

I really found your post very interesting and i like your point of view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Also keep in mind for a fixed budget in Stereo, to get the same value, you have to spend more on a AV System. Though this is derived through pure math, to equal a $500 Stereo, an AVR needs to be around $1500. More likely around a $1000 or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluewizard View Post
Certainly with an amp like the Yamaha AS801 you could build a system that would serve many masters. To equal that in a Surround system, I think you would need a higher end ($1500 to $2000) AVR and considerably more money for speakers.
This is exaclty what i was asking when i wrote the first post.
Which Yamaha AVR is equivalent to Α-S801?
Price is almost the same with RX-A850, but will the SQ be the same too?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex F. View Post
Tony:

I posted your original query above because it remains unclear if you were asking a hypothetical question or are actively shopping for an AV receiver or a two-channel component. If you are looking to make a purchase soon, please indicate your requirements and approximate price range if you would like us to provide specific suggestions.

Hello Alex F.

There is always a possibility for a multichannel setup but not at the moment.
I am talking only for a 2-channel audio system. That`s why i posted here
Possibly Focal Arias 926 will be my next speakers. (2 x 6.5", 92db, 8Ω)
Ι would like to spend ~$1000 for Amp. Room is small and i am not going to listen at high volumes.
Yamaha A-S801 & Marantz PM8005 would be my first choices but i like a lot AVRs extra features
like the network functions (spotify connect, AV controller App etc) and the ability to use room correction (only for 2 channels).
A-S801/PM8005 have none of these extra features, but are they better amps than an RX-A850/SR6010?
More real watts? Less distortion? Better SQ? Maybe reliability cause of less digital electronics?
Unfortunately i can't find any measuraments of Integrated Amplifiers.
Tony_Montana is offline  
post #150 of 362 Old 02-26-2016, 10:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
Alanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Northern California
Posts: 791
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony_Montana View Post
Hello guys!

All this time i was thinking that stereo integrated receivers have more value than AV receivers for 2-Channel Audio.
Less inputs, less channels, less digital circuits, no room correction etc will allow companies to use better electronics,better analog circuits and more watts for the (only) two channels.
But reading specs from the manufacturer sites, it seems that there aren't any benefits.
Most of the times you buy the same (or less) watts for the same price.
So is there any benefit to buy a Stereo integrated Amplifier instead of an AVR for the same money?
(i.e. an Yamaha A-S501 instead of a RX-V679 or an A-S801 instead of a RX-A850, a Marantz PM8005 vs SR6010 etc)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NAD-316BEE-s...IAAOSwFNZWxQ80

http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

7.4.6 system with Denon 8500, Additional Amps: Emotiva (front and center) and NAD (wide), classic Klipsch speakers.
Alanlee is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 2-Channel Audio

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