Are receivers considered audiophile grade?

[Brian]

The compromise is usually the power supply that limits the power output. There are few receivers comprised of the circuits used by the separates from the companies so very difficult to really make the comparisons. The Marantz 18, 19 and Sherwood SEL-200 are the only ones I am aware of. These would be the ones to stack up against their individual components to compare.

While there are other receivers that might or might not be stereophile quality the above would be those to determine if a receiver is a compromise over the separates.

 

[62caddy]

I suppose the arguement can be made that some degree of compromise is attendant with any component, including separates. Price being the ultimate limitation. The question then becomes how much superior performance is to be gained at what cost. This is where the issue becomes extremely subjective. Speaking strictly for myself, I like receivers because of the level of performance they yield relative to cost of separates. However, I would never question the judgement of one who chooses separates and as such, I reasonably expect the same consideration in kind. I do not mean to vent here but I deeply resent the implication from some audiophile snobs to the effect that "...if you have a receiver, you don't have a real system..." I chose my system with much care and thought. And I take my setup as well as my music as seriously as anybody else.

 

[whoaru99]

I suppose the arguement can be made that some degree of compromise is attendant with any component, including separates. Price being the ultimate limitation. The question then becomes how much superior performance is to be gained at what cost. This is where the issue becomes extremely subjective. Speaking strictly for myself, I like receivers because of the level of performance they yeild relative to cost of separates. However, I would never question the judgement of one who chooses separates and as such, I reasonably expect the same consideration in kind. I do not mean to vent here but I resent the implication from some audiophile snobs to the effect that "...if you have a receiver, you don't have a real system..."

There are always such implications in area of subjective value. One man's (or woman's) night and day difference is anothers "Mehhh....", and how much the night and day vs Mehhh... is worth to any given person is, well, personal. Lots of people pay big money for what I consider small differences, but they consider them large differences and well worth it.

 

[Markw]

I have to go along with you here.

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.

It seems that the only time the term "Audiophile" is used, it's to look down on equipment or people that don't meet that quite nebulous standard.

As such, agnozing over having "audiophile equipment" sure seems like someone is trying to claim/attain that coveted status.

I do think a definition would be welcomed and might put an end to this bickering over what's what and what isn't.

 

[chicks]

The compromise is usually the power supply that limits the power output.

Usually...

 

[Jeffery]

I deeply resent the implication from some audiophile snobs to the effect that "...if you have a receiver, you don't have a real system..."

Yet if you don't use a receiver, you're stupid.

 

[JohnVF]

Usually...

Just wanted to give some perspective

 

[reggaenaut]

Usually...

Chicks, that is a nice one!

 

[reggaenaut]

Just wanted to give some perspective

What can I say?

 

[mhardy6647]

Just wanted to give some perspective

Plus, there's no tuner and its pilot lamps to siphon off a bit of juice in your example as opposed to the hk930 ;-)

 

[Mister Pig]

Two Lines that Are Worth Mentioning

Were the Tandberg recievers for one. They were not cheap, but offered quality sound for their time period. Heck they are still quite respectable, and I surely wouldn't turn my nose up at one.

Another was the Kyocera line of receivers. Very nciely built, excellent power supplies and internal shielding. I wouldn't mind owning any of them either.

As a general rule a receiver is going to offer convenience, affordability, and space saving options....but theya re not going to offer the same level of performance as high quality amp/pre/tuner. But they don't cost like a high performance stack does...not that either of the examples I listed are cheap by any means.

I would gladly own a Tandberg or Kyocera.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[RamblinE]

I will argue that we are comparing apples to oranges here and nobody is greater or lesser for their preference. That's the part that's peeving me about this entire thread, people assuming that one route or the other is better and that one follower of a certain ideology is perceived to be dumber than the follower of the opposite ideology (STRICTLY in reference to receivers vs. separates). Arguing the finer technical points of receivers vs. separates vs. what makes a piece of gear 'purist' or 'audiophile' is fine but not when judgments are passed upon the owners of such gear.

 

[Isotonic]

Yep, I have receivers and separates that I love and would not part with, and I have sold off some of both which did not impress me. Sometimes receivers, with their limitations, just put out a pleasing sound. Like the Pioneer SX 950 for example. I never get tired of listening to it.

 

[grillebilly]

I do think a definition would be welcomed and might put an end to this bickering over what's what and what isn't.

here it is, from Merriam- Webster
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

so EVERYONE here is an audiophile and ALL our gear is :yes:

 

[kirk57]

here it is, from Merriam- Webster
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

so EVERYONE here is an audiophile and ALL our gear is :yes:

yeah it seems obvious to me that people who are hanging out at AK are all audiophiles, but for some reason some are loath to admit it...

 

[JoeESP9]

As far as which sounds better, that's something you decide for yourself.

Separates offer more flexibility. I use a hybrid preamp driving bi-amped speakers. Tubed mono blocks drive my esl's and bridged SS amps drive my subs. Receivers can't easily (if at all) accommodate this kind of system.

There is also one other benefit of separates. For example, if my tuner breaks I disconnect it and fix or have it repaired. While it's down I can still use the rest of my system. If your receiver goes down you have nothing to listen to.

I have (IMO) one good system. I'm not a gear collector with several receivers to swap in and out. I do have a spare preamp and several power amps just in case.

 

[Markw]

I'll accept that as it applies to a person.

here it is, from Merriam- Webster
: a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction

so EVERYONE here is an audiophile and ALL our gear is :yes:

But, as in the context of the OP's question, how does it apply to the actual, physical gear?

Does that mean that any gear that anyone who calls themselves and audiophile owns qualifies?

If so, I'll accept that.

But, from the responses in this thread, it ain't quite that simple.

So, the quetion remains on the table.

 

[SoCal Sam]

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

If this is true, then a cheapo HK receiver can substitute for a boutique amp and you would never know...unless you looked behind the curtain.

 

[JohnVF]

But, from the responses in this thread, it ain't quite that simple.

So, the quetion remains on the table.

I don't remember a single response in this thread that suggested anything that anybody here owns isn't audiophile. There are a number of posts that say if you want the least compromise, a good bet is to go with separates. How is that wrong, and why does everybody that runs a receiver take offense at that? Nobody is saying 'receivers suck', they are pointing out the fact that, do to what they are, they might -though not always- have to cut corners, which in the end, might not even matter in the sound of the unit.

 

[whoaru99]

If this is true, then a cheapo HK receiver can substitute for a boutique amp and you would never know...unless you looked behind the curtain.

I didn't say it's true, only my opinion, but I think more often than not it would be the case. Blind tests are notoriously brutal for not showing audible differences which is why most audio buffs, reviewers, and mfgs. avoid them like the plague. Whether the tests are flawed or whether the results are meaningful is a whole different topic we should just agree to avoid because everyone's mind is pretty much made up one way or the other.

The only way to possibly change minds in this regard is to get together to actually do it on common, agreed grounds and that's unlikely to happen in most cases for any number of reasons including geographical limitations.