Are receivers considered audiophile grade?

[JohnVF]

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.

Depending on the boutique amp and the receiver, It could be an easy blind test if the units were attached to certain Acoustats or Infinity Kappa 9s. It would go like this:

sound. (switch) sound-pop (switch) sound (switch) silence. (switch) sound (switch) silence (switch) etc. etc. etc.

 

[Markw]

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.

While many responses were quite sane, there are more than afew that aellude to some "superiority" in non-specific areas. Reread this thread with a bit more care.

Personally, I rile when I hear people referring to their gear as "audiophile quality". Now, do admit some gear is better than others (duh!), but where those that do make that "audiophile" distinctiion draw that line,

 

[kirk57]

Depending on the boutique amp and the receiver, It could be an easy blind test if the units were attached to certain Acoustats or Infinity Kappa 9s. It would go like this:

sound. (switch) sound-pop (switch) sound (switch) silence. (switch) sound (switch) silence (switch) etc. etc. etc.

you forgot the sound of the owner's swearing, sometime shortly after the 'pop'.

 

[DVjorge]

People, it is easy. There aren't ultrahigh end receivers for those considered audiophiles who are able to spend $ 50 000 in ultra high end gear (Levinson, Krell, VTL, etc) If we think about ultra high end separates, of course they are better than receivers but there isn't a general rule because some high quality vintage receivers from Sansui, Marantz, Mc Intosch, etc sound better than many mass market separates from Yamaha, Sony, Kenwood and even Adcom, Rotel, and Nad. So, there isn't a definitive answer. It all depend what gear are you comparing. I will put a sansui G-9000 or 9090 or a Marantz 2325 against many pre/amp from Sony, Kenwood, Pioneer, Yamaha, HK, Nad, Rotel, Adcom, etc. I am sure those high quality receivers sound better than many separates.

 

[rcspkramp]

Can we stop arguing now? Here's an audiophile receiver:

http://magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

But wait! It might not pass muster in an A/B/X test. Sorry my bad.

 

[rfolden]

Can we stop arguing now? Here's an audiophile receiver:

http://magnumdynalab.com/2-channel-audio-receiver-md209.htm

But wait! It might not pass muster in an A/B/X test. Sorry my bad.

But they had to go and ruin the thing and put those neighborhood thuggee blue meters and highlights on it. Screams of some crappy "Pyle-esque" junk you'd pick up at Happy's flea market. Stop that immediately, y'all.

 

[just dave]

Just wanted to give some perspective

Nice lookin amp there John.And I'm sure that it'll beat the pants off most receivers but at less than ear-splitting volume say 10 to 20 watts would you be able to tell the difference? And does going down to 2ohms means it sounds better?

 

[Anubis]

IMO I think it could be a matter of preference. There is some merit to the difference between seperates and receivers, especially for 2.0 applications.
I personally feel that seperates perform better in that regard. Do I have seperates? Nope. Reason: I'm 85% music and 15% HT and wanted something a but more convienant so I went with a receiver. Are receivers considered "high-end"? Absolutely, but it depends on the receiver. There are some good high-end receivers out there such as Integra for one example. Really, though from market view any receiver that has 100WPC or better, true THX processing, a phono amp and is updatable is considered "high-end".
However, I view it as marketing and don't take too much stock in the term. It's really about performance and meeting your needs. If you look at specs and functions between receivers you'll see which ones stand out from the crowd, those would be your high-end ones.
The other nice thing about seperates is that you don't have to spend high-end bucks to get high-end sound, etc. That's because the way seperates act. Any time you have dedicated power supplys and amps and such, your improving sound and performance. Whereas high-end recievers can cost more to give the same performance as middle-end seperates costing a bit less. Again, it depends on what you need and want. There are good units on both sides.

 

[audiomaster]

All AVR receivers are not created equal. Many manufactures flagship AVR models can provide you with comparable sound quality to that of entry level separates. I would say that most the entry and mid level AVR receivers that I have auditioned fall short of the mark in the ability of good stereo reproduction. You should note that several manufactures offer integrated amplifiers that offer excellent sound quality for music reproduction. The versatility of component interchangeability is what makes separates preferable over AVR receivers for stereo reproduction.

 

[JohnVF]

Nice lookin amp there John.And I'm sure that it'll beat the pants off most receivers but at less than ear-splitting volume say 10 to 20 watts would you be able to tell the difference? And does going down to 2ohms means it sounds better?

At normal listening levels, it doesn't sound any louder- what it does is have noted lack of compression to the sound. Which, actually, makes it kind of sound LESS loud, in comparison to my smaller amps, with its amount of headroom allowing unrestricted and very quick changes in volume to be quite surprising and unrestricted. Its a bit counter-intuitive, and that affect is carried through regardless of volume.

Going down to 2ohms doesn't mean it sounds better, but it is rather unaffected by impedance swings and sounds really nice on my Quad ESLs, which I wouldn't put my Sansui 9090db on, as much as I like that receiver. It could probably handle them but were they to trip them, the protection circuit on the ESLs could very easily knock out the 9090db, whereas the Levinson pictured would play right through it or at worst, just shut off. So, yes, it would sound better in that it would still make sound. It would also play speakers like my friend's Apogees which are noted amp killers.

But the differences aren't night and day- they're just differences. I have always wanted an HK 930, actually. I have a 430 somewhere, it sounded pretty nice for a smaller receiver and was really nice looking, too.

 

[just dave]

At normal listening levels, it doesn't sound any louder- what it does is have noted lack of compression to the sound. Which, actually, makes it kind of sound LESS loud, in comparison to my smaller amps, with its amount of headroom allowing unrestricted and very quick changes in volume to be quite surprising and unrestricted. Its a bit counter-intuitive, and that affect is carried through regardless of volume.

Going down to 2ohms doesn't mean it sounds better, but it is rather unaffected by impedance swings and sounds really nice on my Quad ESLs, which I wouldn't put my Sansui 9090db on, as much as I like that receiver. It could probably handle them but were they to trip them, the protection circuit on the ESLs could very easily knock out the 9090db, whereas the Levinson pictured would play right through it or at worst, just shut off. So, yes, it would sound better in that it would still make sound. It would also play speakers like my friend's Apogees which are noted amp killers.

But the differences aren't night and day- they're just differences. I have always wanted an HK 930, actually. I have a 430 somewhere, it sounded pretty nice for a smaller receiver and was really nice looking, too.

That is something I wouldn't think to listen for! How do you know it's your amp and not your speakers? Did you swap em out with another amp?

 

[62caddy]

Going down to 2ohms doesn't mean it sounds better, but it is rather unaffected by impedance swings...

Interesting point about a unit's ability to drive low resistance loads. This is one of the reasons I chose the particular receiver I did. According to a McIntosh expert on AK, this receiver (the MAC 4300) can drive it's rated power into 2 ohms indefinitely. Granted, this is not typical of most receivers. Despite this I chose to add an additional amplifier for the rear speakers for two reasons: To enable volume level adjustment of the rears independently due to their location and also to be able to have a minimum of 50-60 watts available to any one speaker. The power amp is a MC 2505 with autoformers which ensure full power output regardless of load. You are quite correct JohnVF, about the effect of load variance on the final result and it is often overlooked in many serious discussions of sound reproduction. I also noted a few posters' feelings of slight annoyance at some of the exchange that has taken place through the course of this thread. Let me assure everyone that this was not my intention in the slightest. Instead it was intended to promote intellectual discourse on what constitutes audiophile grade equipment in the minds a grouping of relatively knowledgeable individuals for whom sound reproduction ranks relatively high in their field of interests. I thought it an excellent topic in view of my recent experience in which this subject arose originally. I appreciate the many thoughtful insights of the many informed AK members on this somewhat controversial subject. Now does anybody care to debate whether integrated amps and tuner/preamps are audiophile grade or not and if they are really separates? Just kidding.
-Eric

 

[rcspkramp]

ASR, darTZeel, Sim Audio, Krell, Rega ( the Osirus ), Audio Research, Ayre, BAT and Levinson make integrated amps that certainly quality as audiophile grade.

 

[JohnVF]

ASR, darTZeel, Sim Audio, Krell, Rega ( the Osirus ), Audio Research, Ayre, BAT and Levinson make integrated amps that certainly quality as audiophile grade.

I remember this Musical Fidelity integrated that I almost bought- it had a separate power supply that was as big as some receivers. It was the Tri-vista 300 or something like that. 340wpc, and using some little long-life military tube in the preamp. I wanted it because it was so ridiculous, but it was ugly- and with a separate power supply, it really brings up the question- why not just do separates? The feet also turned purple or something when it was on, which was the deal breaker. A lot of amp for the used price, though.

Luxman and Accuphase still make really nice integrated amps as well. And many others do, too. The day of the receiver may have passed but 2-channel integrated amps are alive and well.

That is something I wouldn't think to listen for! How do you know it's your amp and not your speakers? Did you swap em out with another amp?

I switch gear around a lot and have gotten pretty used to what is making a particular change in the sound. The Levinson works great on the ESLs, but so does a 30 year old Luxman amp (m12), which is what is driving them now. The Levinson is loafing along with my Sony SS-m7s, which can show off the dynamics of that amp a bit more, though they're an easy load and sound good on just about anything. My little vintage Sony TA-n86b sounds better on my Harbeths than the Levinson- its more open and spacious sounding on those speakers for some reason.

I really would like to find a place for my 9090db. I'd take it to work but its too big.

Interesting point about a unit's ability to drive low resistance loads. This is one of the reasons I chose the particular receiver I did. According to a McIntosh expert on AK, this receiver (the MAC 4300) can drive it's rated power into 2 ohms indefinitely.

I think its a smart thing to buy gear like that. You might not need that ability right now, but who knows what you'll have in the future? When I bought the Levinson, I had nothing that needed that kind of amplification. But it allowed me to buy Quad ESL 63s without a second thought (even though they weren't quite as unfriendly to amps as I had imagined), and I also have always wanted big Infinites or Apogees. Same thing with your MAC receiver- you're pretty open for future growth if it can drive a load like that indefinitely.

 

[SoCal Sam]

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.

I think you have identified the boundary between subjective and objective realms. True, even scientifically run subjective tests are as you say. However, I think this is where the square wave test is of value. From an objective standpoint, no amp can hide from this test. Over the years, my tech friend did about a dozen SW tests and I was able to listen to the amp later on to correlate the traces with the sound. I can now see a trace and tell you what the amp will sound like...assuming the speakers are not Infinity Kappa 9's.

Depending on the boutique amp and the receiver, It could be an easy blind test if the units were attached to certain Acoustats or Infinity Kappa 9s. It would go like this:

sound. (switch) sound-pop (switch) sound (switch) silence. (switch) sound (switch) silence (switch) etc. etc. etc.

No power, no play! Not many receivers generate more power into 4 ohm while most good seps are power doublers, at least the ones I like. Another good point to be made is there is a strong correlation between power and speed such that separate amps are in general faster and more accurate than receiver amps. Of course, power means excessive reserves available which means less sagging and so on.

 

[SoCal Sam]

Nice lookin amp there John.And I'm sure that it'll beat the pants off most receivers but at less than ear-splitting volume say 10 to 20 watts would you be able to tell the difference? And does going down to 2ohms means it sounds better?

IIRC, the square wave test is run at 1 watt and there are noticeable differences in the traces between amps and receivers. These differences are audible at less than 90 dB so IMO, power amps are ALWAYS objectively more accurate than receivers at any power output.

The other part of your question is subjective. If you like the coloration that can be seen as rounding, sloped attack and decay, tilting, ringing, etc. then you have your answer.

 

[js1138]

Interesting that one of these features

20 Sanken output transistors (10 per channel), which amplify current, NOT voltage

Just an odd thing to brag about, considering that's what power transistors do and always have done.

 

[reggaenaut]

The other part of your question is subjective. If you like the coloration that can be seen as rounding, sloped attack and decay, tilting, ringing, etc. then you have your answer.

Here is the crux of the arguments. Especially in a hobby where it is reasonable to assume a lot of the enthusiasts are losing their earing.

 

[DougMac]

...it is reasonable to assume a lot of the enthusiasts are losing their earing.

:yes:

OK, here's my take, FWIW. I have had a modest NAD separates system since the early '80's. I like the convenience of upgrading. I bought an additional amp and bridged the two. The system sounded better when pressed. Ten years ago I bought a NAD T-762. It is not only a receiver, but also it is an A/V receiver. It sounds very close to, if not as good as my separates. My newish Onkyo TX-NR 808 sounds better than either.

If I had a good receiver and came across an extra thousand or so to spend on upgrading my system, I think I could hear a more significant improvement if I upgraded speakers instead of buying separates.

 

[JohnVF]

:yes:

OK, here's my take, FWIW. I have had a modest NAD separates system since the early '80's. I like the convenience of upgrading. I bought an additional amp and bridged the two. The system sounded better when pressed. Ten years ago I bought a NAD T-762. It is not only a receiver, but also it is an A/V receiver. It sounds very close to, if not as good as my separates. My newish Onkyo TX-NR 808 sounds better than either.

If I had a good receiver and came across an extra thousand or so to spend on upgrading my system, I think I could hear a more significant improvement if I upgraded speakers instead of buying separates.

But then once you upgrade speakers, the more you might notice differences in the amplification that's driving them, so differences that sounded similar before- might not anymore. And thus the hobby becomes a money pit. Because once you upgrade the speakers and amp, you can hear all those lovely differences in CD players and turntables. The next thing you know, you're unhappy because all you hear are the problems.