Originally Posted by m. zillch
I was addressing the OP, not people with multiple rooms:
of multiple rooms, is why do you even waste everyone's time with conspiracy NONSENSE
such as "one for 2 ch audio and a different one for 5.1 (or more) was invented by an industry that wants to sell you as much gear as possible.
To pull a wikipedia: [[Citation]]
To quote the late Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Do the Math:
* A 5.1 $1000 AVR, let's be extremely generous and say, has roughly 75% of circuity for audio. That's $125 of parts/channel dedicated to audio.
* Now compare and contrast to a two channel $1000 amp which has 100%
of circuity for audio. That's $500 of parts/channel. The fact that the circuit designer doesn't have to worry about "video noise leakage" means the (audio) quality _should_ be better. This isn't rocket science, just basic engineering.
I had a chance to listen to the Cambridge Audio CXA80 and Yamaha A-S801 this week. Immediately I could tell that the A-S801 was "brighter". That wasn't my cup of tea, but that's why we have coffee, water, etc. drinkers. Not everyone has the same preference(s).
For 2 channel music I can understand why some go separates -- they want quality, convenience, coloring, etc.
Now I agree the monkey wrench is DSP room correction -- but some people DON'T want their music "colored".
Second, even IF the industry wanted to sell you as much gear as possible, THEN no-one would even produce an AVR -- everyone would "conspire" to sell only separates which is clearly not true.
Can this year's AVR beat last decade's 2ch Amp? Probably. But it isn't always so clear cut.
Like I said, context
is important. _Which_ variables_ are the person trying to optimize for?
Separates exist to solve _real_ problems, not manufactured, nor "invented" ones.