Are receivers considered audiophile grade?

[rcspkramp]

I agree with donberry here. There are some speakers out their, that if you want to use, you will have to go beyond the reciever market.

I ran a set of Koss stats for 30 years and during that time they ate two very nice, powerful amps. These speakers were known to drop to 1 ohm. I thought the amps did good to last as long as they did.

A reciever with these speakers would not have lasted an afternoon under max playing conditions.

So it really depends on how far you want to go down the audio road. Recievers will only take you so far.

Jim, I sold those Koss electrostats. Indeed, they would eat many a receiver and spit them out in no time. After a while we learned our lesson and rather than keep blowing up inventory, we started driving them with our Citation 16s
SAE Mark IIIC or the Dunlap Clarke 500. Always loved the sound of those stats. Some of the best bass I've ever experienced.

 

[melofelo]

i came late to the receiver party..mostly because in my teens( mid 80's)...receivers were generally not as widely available as they were in the 70s.In more recent years i Have experimented with a few which were around before i was old enough to have a disposable income and i've been pleasantly surprised to find that, in general, sound quality can be every bit as good as a separate component.
Not too long ago I got my hands an an akai aa-1175 which sounds rather good as both an amplifier and tuner..and even prior to that i found a now unfashionable 3-1 cassette receiver made my aiwa..which was also a bit of a sonic surprise.Not only was it very well made but considering it dates from about 1978 the analog tuner section gives my hitachi ft-5500 mkII a hard time when compared side by side..in fact the aiwa is better at pulling in low signal than the hitachi..and even on strong signals...it has just that tad more 'live' quality and depth that the hitachi seems unable to convey on a good broadcast...even the phono section sounds good enough to warrant a decent turntable.


if i was looking to build a sytem from scratch..i would have no problem using something like a sansui 9090 as the heart of my system if it was in good working order..

i tend to favour the source first-amplification second approach to system bulding anyway ..so give me 50 clean watts..be it from a cassette receiver,receiver,pre/power combo or integrated amplifier...and i'm a happy camper:thmbsp:

 

[deeslexia]

I wonder if a Linn Classik Movie counts ?
Mine is a Mk 1 , ex-dem @ £400 which sound fine to me once warmed up overnight , but my other Heybrook amps are circa 1980s .
Of course , this is cheating somewhat because it's unlikely I would have found separates CD / FM / Amps and free DVD at anywhere near what I paid .

 

[kevzep]

I think the Sansui G-22000/33000 is as good a design with not a lot of compromises, apart from them having to split it in two because it is too heavy as one unit for a human to possibly even think about lifting......

The power-amp, has two completely independent supplies with their own toroidal transformers, the 33K packs a whopping rail voltage and has as enough output devices to deliver fairly high current.....and an extensive supply design, and some great protection......

They developed a really low distortion fast switching driver stage, and the pre-amp uses the same topology to achieve what I believe to be incerdible performance, even by todays standards.
I like the design and more importantly the sound of these amps, and even though my pride of the fleet is the G-9000DB it will soon be joined by a G-22000 next week.....Even the G-9000DB I think can hold its own...

I always have people comment on just how incredible my system sounds, and this is with the G-9000DB.......

But is the G-22000/33000 really a receiver, or is it a separate?

Phenomenal achievement from Sansui I believe.......They put the best of everything into that receiver IMO

In fact theres a thread going in the Sansui forum where a member has just bought a CA-2000 and a BA-2000 only to be disappointed with the sound of it compared to his G-9000.........

So I suppose its horses for courses, and apples for apples.......

I bought a G-22000 after spending a summer with the G-9000DB and just falling in love with the sound of it......
I like the look of these things, yeah they have analogue meters, and they are big and silver...."blinged" to the max, but thats what I like about them, you cant just walk past one and ignore it, no matter what you think of them...

 

[Mr. Lin]

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.

Everything is relative in this question. I've never heard of a truly high-end audio receiver, but that doesn't mean you can't get good sound out of some receivers. I happen to own an Outlaw 2150 receiver, it was the first "hi-fi" amp I ever purchased. It does sound nice, but I have to say every other integrated amp I've used thereafter has been sonically superior by far.

And at $650, the Outlaw is very much at the entry-level end of modern hi-fi.

 

[jimfet]

Jim, I sold those Koss electrostats. Indeed, they would eat many a receiver and spit them out in no time. After a while we learned our lesson and rather than keep blowing up inventory, we started driving them with our Citation 16s
SAE Mark IIIC or the Dunlap Clarke 500. Always loved the sound of those stats. Some of the best bass I've ever experienced.

They do have some great bass. Each speaker had a total of 15 sq. ft. of membrane for the bass alone. The four bass panels were dual panels.

 

[RamblinE]

While receivers can sound good they aren't exactly representative of the purist audiophile approach.

I'm not knocking your receivers, I'm saying that they don't fit into the purist school of thought. It's just the same as saying that my car doesn't fit into a drag racing school of thought. However, if you have a fine car that's fast in a straight line and you love it than I'll appreciate it. Separates with barely more than a volume control is just the route that I've decided to take with my own hobby. There's many separates that don't quite qualify as purist either. We're all different people who have come to our own conclusions about this hobby through different experiences. While I see many things on this forum that I myself think is silly mumbo jumbo, I rarely go out of my way to say so. So, thanks!

 

[Tom Brennan]

I will just answer your question by naming three receivers:

Sonys: 6200, 6120, 6060F

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[SoCal Sam]

Most receivers are not that good compared to seps when it comes to signal reproduction. There are cost considerations and the power needs of the pre and tuner that preclude fitting over sized transformers such as found in the better seps.

However, there are some very inexpensive receivers that will pass a signal better than "boutique" amps. For example, most HK receivers from the early Eighties are excellent performers in the square wave test. IMO, HK receivers will beat many BIG BUCK amps in a true blind test. Problem with HK receivers is they are poorly made and you will not score points in the BIG BOY department.

 

[Pyrrho]

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.

I think Markw gave the right answer. Putting junk in more boxes does not make it better, and one can put good things all in one box together. However, if one wants a lot of power, the one box typically would have to be rather large, which makes it an undesirable approach. And so manufacturers don't do that, which means that to get the most power possible, one has to go with separates. But a manufacturer could put those same power amps all into one box together with a preamp and tuner, if they wished to do so.

Indeed, you could make your own receiver if you wanted, by buying each separate that you like and building a large box to house them all. They could all be plugged into your choice of power strip, so you could turn it all on with one button as well. With some choices, the receiver you would end up with would be ridiculously huge, but it could be done if desired.

In other words, there is absolutely no theoretical reason why a receiver would be either better or worse than separates; it is all a question of what manufacturers choose to make. So, the proper question is not whether receivers are better or worse than separates, but whether a particular receiver is better or worse than some particular separates.


But, there are many audiophiles who are stupid, and so some of them judge sound quality by counting the number of boxes used to create the sound. Thus, the ultimate for some would be a separate phono preamp (if a turntable is used), a separate d/a converter (if a CD player is used), and mono power amps.

 

[whoaru99]

IMO, HK receivers will beat many BIG BUCK amps in a true blind test. Problem with HK receivers is they are poorly made and you will not score points in the BIG BOY department.

IMO, the most likely result in a true blind test of amps (and other electronics) is no clear winner.

 

[Pyrrho]

My favorite amp weighs 125lbs. If I stack my favorite preamp (35lbs) and tuner on (apx 20lbs), and duct tape it all together, I end up with a receiver that tips the scales at 180lbs.

Which is another argument for separates. Ouch.

But it could be done, which shows that your separates are not better than the appropriate theoretical receiver. It is a choice for the manufacturers to not make that 180 pound receiver, but they could choose to make it. Being in separate boxes or not does not make the equipment sound better or worse.

(For those who will now mention the idea of shielding one part from another, receivers commonly have separate boxes inside for that purpose.)

Now, I do agree that it would be better to have those things in separate boxes, as I would prefer moving the lighter boxes than one very heavy one. But that "better" is a matter of convenience, not of sound quality.

 

[RamblinE]

I think Markw gave the right answer. Putting junk in more boxes does not make it better, and one can put good things all in one box together. However, if one wants a lot of power, the one box typically would have to be rather large, which makes it an undesirable approach. And so manufacturers don't do that, which means that to get the most power possible, one has to go with separates. But a manufacturer could put those same power amps all into one box together with a preamp and tuner, if they wished to do so.

Indeed, you could make your own receiver if you wanted, by buying each separate that you like and building a large box to house them all. They could all be plugged into your choice of power strip, so you could turn it all on with one button as well. With some choices, the receiver you would end up with would be ridiculously huge, but it could be done if desired.

In other words, there is absolutely no theoretical reason why a receiver would be either better or worse than separates; it is all a question of what manufacturers choose to make. So, the proper question is not whether receivers are better or worse than separates, but whether a particular receiver is better or worse than some particular separates.


But, there are many audiophiles who are stupid, and so some of them judge sound quality by counting the number of boxes used to create the sound. Thus, the ultimate for some would be a separate phono preamp (if a turntable is used), a separate d/a converter (if a CD player is used), and mono power amps.

Is the word 'stupid' even necessary? The only 'stupid' in this room is all of these vast generalizations of a very very complicated topic.

 

[Brian]

Tom, from my experiences with the 6060 and 6120, I suspect that he is saying yes. The 6200 is supposed to be better sounding than the 6120. The 6060 is in a class by itself imho, a beautiful sounding and built receiver. For those in the no control camp, the 6060 may be their receiver as the secondary controls are hidden behind a panel so on the front it looks devoid of almost anything but the barest necessary controls such as tuning, function and volume.

 

[JohnVF]

But, there are many audiophiles who are stupid, and so some of them judge sound quality by counting the number of boxes used to create the sound. Thus, the ultimate for some would be a separate phono preamp (if a turntable is used), a separate d/a converter (if a CD player is used), and mono power amps.

There is one giant problem in your argument. You made an argument on what is possible in theory, then passed judgement on people who made decisions on what is done in reality. In other words, your logic is flawed.

Sure, theoretically, a manufacturer COULD take the best amp, the best tuner, and best preamp, and best phono stage, give them separate power supplies, and then shove them into one giant box. But they don't. So it isn't stupid to pursue separates that are of a quality that is better than that in any receiver. Because almost all receivers, even some giant like an SX-1980, has compromise built in so that it can all be in one box. Because that box can only be so big, so something has to give.

 

[Pyrrho]

There is one giant problem in your argument. You made an argument on what is possible in theory, then passed judgement on people who made decisions on what is done in reality.

Sure, theoretically, a manufacturer COULD take the best amp, the best tuner, and best preamp, and best phono stage, give them separate power supplies, and then shove them into one giant box. But they don't. So it isn't stupid to pursue separates that are of a quality that is better than that in any receiver. Because almost all receivers, even some giant like an SX-1980, has compromise built in so that it can all be in one box. Because that box can only be so big, so something has to give.

You are not reading my argument carefully enough. It is false to say that all separates are better than all receivers, and it is false to say that all receivers are better than all separates. So simply counting boxes is not going to get one the best sound; that must be determined in some other way.

Now, it is true that the very best equipment, in fact, is separates. But not all separates are the best. Some receivers are better than quite a few separates. It is stupid to assume that gear must be better because it is separate.

And as for compromises, anyone who is not infinitely rich must make compromises in the selection of equipment; one can only buy what one can afford. In many instances, I think that a receiver will be better due to budget considerations, as when one cannot afford very good separates, and a good receiver is better than poor separates. Of course, on the used market, anything might be had for little money, and so two people with the exact same budget may end up with very different choices due to what deals are available to them.

 

[sssmokin99]

Much of it is simply marketing. I will put my Marantz receivers, especially the 2275 and 2325, up against just about anything from the same time period and even beyond. Plenty of transformer/power supply there; in fact, much more than many separates. In the end, if the sound pleases you, that is all that counts. I never give much thought to what anyone else thinks about my systems- although it is funny to see the reaction on the face of certain people who have just referred to my receiver as "antique" or something similar when I turn it on and crank it. The conversation usually turns to "can you rebuild one for me and make it sound that good?"

 

[JohnVF]

You are not reading my argument carefully enough. It is false to say that all separates are better than all receivers, and it is false to say that all receivers are better than all separates. So simply counting boxes is not going to get one the best sound; that must be determined in some other way.

Now, it is true that the very best equipment, in fact, is separates. But not all separates are the best. Some receivers are better than quite a few separates.

I completely agree with that. I was just reading more into the 'stupid' remark than you probably intended. Yes, I agree that some people automatically think that if its in a separate box, its better. Which isn't true- there are some great receivers, and I think there are also a ton of excellent integrated amps. I even have a 'preceiver' here from Sony that's a preamp, phono stage, and tuner in one receiver-sized case, but without a power amp. And it basically their TA-2000f preamp and 5130 tuner in a common housing, and sounds pretty much like exactly that.

 

[Jeffery]

If nothing else, I've learned that I'm stupid for not preferring a receiver.

 

[reggaenaut]

I'm not knocking your receivers, I'm saying that they don't fit into the purist school of thought. It's just the same as saying that my car doesn't fit into a drag racing school of thought. However, if you have a fine car that's fast in a straight line and you love it than I'll appreciate it. Separates with barely more than a volume control is just the route that I've decided to take with my own hobby. There's many separates that don't quite qualify as purist either. We're all different people who have come to our own conclusions about this hobby through different experiences. While I see many things on this forum that I myself think is silly mumbo jumbo, I rarely go out of my way to say so. So, thanks!

I hereby crave the indulgence of the moderator:

My use of "mumbo Jumbo" was not aimed at you. I guess I was just annoyed by a term which has invaded our very subjective hobby. A term which unfortunately by its very definition implies a "knock". I am so sorry for the misunderstanding.