• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Are receivers considered audiophile grade?

62caddy

62caddy

Trust but verify
Subscriber
I've been perusing these forums for the last year or so and I've gotten the impression that receivers are sort of...well not quite accepted as "real" high-fi equipment in some circles. Personally, receivers have always been the heart of my audio systems and I've always liked them. My question is basically two part: Do you consider the receiver to be "real" high-fi component? And secondly, do you feel there is any inherent superiority in the sound quality of separates over a receiver of the same grade/manufacturer? I'd very much be interested in knowing the consensus of other AK members.
 
Register to hide this ad
No need to draw a line in the sand. Separates tend to be better because they tend to have been made for a higher-end market. Receivers tend to have smaller, shared power supplies, less room for isolating what needs to be isolated and for larger components, and including an analog tuner eats up a lot of the size and the price point.

You can come up with a lot of ideas on why separates might or might not be better in theory, but in practice it's as simple as saying yes, that set of separates that sold for 4x the price of that receiver is better than that receiver. There's certainly no shortage of receiver love on AK, though.
 
Last edited:
I have a Sansui G9000DB receiver that's 160wpc with a BIG power supply in it. It's a darn nice receiver and sounds wonderful but it still takes a back seat to my 3 sets of separates. Receivers can be nice, though.
 
I think a few receivers would be considered 'audiophile' grade?

There is a big, gorgeous REVOX out there, that I have been drooling over for years.

Steve
 
That depends on the audiophile i question.

Generalizations are always a bad thing. There are some receivers that beat the pants off some separates.

Also, consider that the main focus nowadays has been on HT receivers, not stereos. My above answer applys to vintage stereos.

But, the best separates can generally beat the best receivers, particularly when it comes to power amps.
 
62caddy said:
Do you consider the receiver to be "real" high-fi component? And secondly, do you feel there is any inherent superiority in the sound quality of separates over a receiver of the same grade/manufacturer? I'd very much be interested in knowing the consensus of other AK members.
Click to expand...

I owned both receivers and separates. Some receivers for the most part are the same quality as separates. But with separates one can mix and match components that will give you better performance than a receiver.
 
I have a 2010 Pioneer Elite SC-27 AV receiver that in direct-mode, 2-channel, will eat a lot of separates' lunch.

In general, its not that anything is or isn't audiophile. Its the execution of whatever it is that counts, and ultimately, the sound quality. If you buy something because you want music to sound better- whatever it is, its audiophile.

I would add, though, that I think its much easier to get better sound out of separates, and I don't care for most vintage receivers from a sound quality standpoint. Their are just a lot of inherent compromises in having the desire to squeeze everything in one box, and certain trends of receiver design in the late-70s, to my ears, were more about bling and bragging than good sound.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
I've been perusing these forums for the last year or so and I've gotten the impression that receivers are sort of...well not quite accepted as "real" high-fi equipment in some circles. Personally, receivers have always been the heart of my audio systems and I've always liked them. My question is basically two part: Do you consider the receiver to be "real" high-fi component? And secondly, do you feel there is any inherent superiority in the sound quality of separates over a receiver of the same grade/manufacturer? I'd very much be interested in knowing the consensus of other AK members.
Click to expand...

IMO, receivers from the likes of Outlaw Audio and Cambridge Azur can be considered "real" hi-fi. They feature fine quality parts and construction, and realistic published power output. I'm certain there are other fine brands out there. I moved from inexpensive HT separates from Harman Kardon and Adcom to AVRs years ago. I recently acquired a Marantz SR-19 AVR. It seems to mean serious business, weighing 50 lbs (compared to today's 29lb 100W x 7 AVRs of the same make), with substantial transformer, and jumpered preamp/main amp sections for all 5 channels -- rare in an AVR. It sounds so good on 2-channel material, I don't feel it gives up much to my dedicated 2-channel setup.
 
Last edited:
I have 3 systems of separates and a system with a tube separate oh yes an integrated amp too and no receivers at the moment. But I have had a Pioneer SX1980 X 2 a SX 1250 a Sansui 9090 - 9090db to name a few. Currently on the hunt for a Concept 16.5 and a Luxman R117. I make no designation between Rec/Sep With the ebb and flow of life and my efforts to aquire and try good equipment I will own a Rec again
 
JoeESP9 said:
We sure do. That's why there are things called tuners. My Accuphase T-101 is a tuner.:D
Click to expand...

:thmbsp: also have an Accuphase T100 and T101 and listen to 91.1 Jazz amongst a few others. These would be considered audiophile IMHO
 
I'll listen to FM radio on my late Father's old Sansui TU-7700 tuner.

Too bad the FM band here in Central/Northern New Mexico is....er....'lacking quality'?

Steve
 
Receivers are just fine. I wouldn't worry too much about what is behind your speakers/headphones, just worry about those (and your room setup) instead.

I've heard very expensive receivers/integrates (up to tens of thousands) against "cheap" ones ($200 to $1500) and there isn't much difference...if any. Nothing to make me want to pay more/"upgrade" anyway from what I have (and yes I easily could...that's not the issue here). Many hold that given the same amp specs there can't be any difference as a matter of physics/fact, no matter what the price difference, because with the same specs all amplification sounds the same. I lean that way myself, though I think there are subtle to somewhat significant flavors of amps in all price ranges...but then that's at least partly because I haven't heard many with the same specs back to back/AB'd, just different amps with different specs which thus should sound somewhat different. But take a $300 receiver against a $3,000 or even $30,000 integrated that are all supposed to have the same overall sound signature and there's little, if any, difference imo and experience.
 
That's a bit like asking whether a car is faster than a motorcycle. There are some cars that are faster than some bikes, and some bikes that are faster than some cars.

In general, the arguments favor separates over receivers. But there are exceptions within a large area of "overlap" in performance. A fully-restored SX-1980, for example, will out-perform a lot of mid-fi separates. But a really nice TOTL separates system will easily outperform almost any receiver. I'd view them as overlapping performance areas, with some separates extending past the end limits of receivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom