• 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?

Permanent Waves said:
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.
Click to expand...
If by specs, you mean EVERY amplifier test produces the same results on two different units, sure, most likely. Good luck finding two different amplifiers that are that similar, though. Who are these many? Seems like a weird point to make, unless you're doing a bob carver style experiment of trying to match one amplifier's output to another.
 
Really have no recommendations, but certainly nothing at all wrong with a nice reciever. Not even sure why, but always just gone the seperates route. Certainly have no regrets in doing this though, as sometimes run my system pretty hard, and the the amps dont even come close to breaking a sweat. Think thats the biggest difference, as many recievers trip out on thermal, long before that.
 
Permanent Waves said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite. Name names.
'Cause I can't think of any $300 receiver that would sound like a $30,000 integrated. And the fact that I can't think of any $30,000 integrated at the moment is beside the point :D
 
Thanks for the many interesting responses. The reason I submit this question is due to the reactions of several audiophile-acquaintances upon hearing the news that I just purchased a receiver to replace another receiver. (One of whom is a relative) It is a McIntosh 4300V and it was fairly expensive (to me at any rate). Their reaction was, "...for that kind of money, why didn't you just get separates?" From what I understand, the MAC 4300V is basically a MC 754, a C 31V and a MR 7083 (which are all pretty much excellent units) all in one chassis. The specifications are virtually identical for everything in that package to those of the 4300. There might be a gain of a few extra features on the separates. The price however, would have been at least twice the cost, probably more. Three units might be more impressive to look at but I seriously doubt whether going that route would have resulted in any real sonic benefit. The responses in this thread generally confirmed my original hypothesis. I sometimes wonder if the placebo effect plays a role in what certain members of the audiophile community believe. The other item that had also been mentioned is the "notoriously poor quality of their [receivers'] tuners" and "crosstalk problems" inherent with receivers. I personally never found an issue with either of those two items. And since nobody in this forum even addressed either of those two alleged weaknesses either, I would think it's safe to categorize them as "myths".
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
From what I understand, the MAC 4300V is basically a MC 754, a C 31V and a MR 7083 (which are all pretty much excellent units) all in one chassis. The specifications are virtually identical for everything in that package to those of the 4300.
Click to expand...
I would expect a difference in power supply if nothing else, but maybe not, or maybe not a significant one.

The other item that had also been mentioned is the "notoriously poor quality of their [receivers'] tuners" and "crosstalk problems" inherent with receivers. I personally never found an issue with either of those two items. And since nobody in this forum even addressed either of those two supposed weaknesses either, I would think it's safe to categorize them as "myths".
Click to expand...
Hold on now. Crosstalk is measurable, as is tuner performance. You not finding either to be an issue in an expensive McIntosh receiver hardly makes it a myth.
 
62caddy said:
And since nobody in this forum even addressed either of those two supposed weaknesses either, I would think it's safe to categorize them as "myths".
Click to expand...

It was mentioned by an earlier poster, and there's no reason to think its a myth. You simply can not electrically shield the components inside of a receiver in the way you can by simply putting each component in a separate box.

What this forum believes, and what the audio community at large believes, are often two different things. Ask another forum, and you're likely to get different responses, for better or worse. And asking about receivers on AK is like going into a dunkin donuts and asking if donuts are better than apples. :)
 
It's a "nice" enough receiver but, not knowing what you paid for it, I think you're paying a lot for the panache that comes with the name. The days of Mc's performance superiority had been gone years before that.

Just guessing, but my spidey sense tells me you probabl could have gotten better real-world bang for the buck with either a well-mainteined vintage receiver or even separates.

...and I like receivers.
 
Last edited:
Beg pardon. I did not mean to imply that crosstalk is never an issue with receivers. My point was simply that it's not an issue with ALL receivers. Nor is a tuner necessarily inferior because it's in a receiver. Point taken with the power supply and design limitations for obvious reasons. Thanks. -Eric
 
JohnVF said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

There was clearly a lot of gear from that era where the target was better specs, no better sound. This seemed more true of receivers than of separates for whatever reason.:yes:
 
While receivers can sound good they aren't exactly representative of the purist audiophile approach.
 
When I was young I used to have a bias that no receiver was stereophile quality. As a somewhat older and maybe wiser geezer I'm less biased.

Upper tier:
Sony STR6060FW, STR6120 and STR6200 (this one from reputation and statements of others who have had the 6200).

Marantz 18 and just by a thread the 19

Sherwood SEL-200

My sleeper: Philips 797 and presumably the 787 that use the same circuits.
 
Back in the day I thought receivers were "audiophile grade". Then I got my first separates. I still have some receivers but they're used pretty much for what they are; all in one convienence units.
 
JohnVF said:
I have a 2010 Pioneer Elite SC-27 AV receiver that in direct-mode, 2-channel, will eat a lot of separates' lunch....
Click to expand...

I have the earlier baby brother to the 27 - the Elite SC-05 and could not agree more. This was the first receiver I had ever owned of this caliber and was blown away the first time I heard 2-channel direct mode. (I actually prefer Pure Direct mode.) And that was thru a very cheap set of bookshelf speakers. I have since stepped up to the Energy RC series being used with my SC-05. All I can say is wow!

But, I am also enjoying music via my vintage rig and a recent pair of HPM-100s that have been recapped. Either way, the music is pretty sweet.
 
Absolutely. :banana: There are some fine receivers. I had a big 4ch Marantz once that was excellent. As I have said about many things...now, I wish I had kept it. Mine had pre-outs, so I could add whatever amps I wanted to it, and still have the use of the tuner. :yes:
 
And don't forget... those $300, 3-foot interconnects are sure to sound better than that 2" signal path in the receiver. No doubt about it.
 
JohnVF said:
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.
Click to expand...

thank you very much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom