Home Theater sound -vs-audiophile system

[LordOfTRings]

I personally don't think HT receivers do stereo very well. Unless you start with separates where you can be very discrete about the signal and its purity. I just don't trust the modern HT circuitry to fully get bypassed when using a receiver. I feel like the receiver is still trying to add some HT "balance" to the sound. Even in full range stereo, my Onks never sounded as good as a true stereo amp.

I think HT amps from the pre-digital age are better because stereo was still more prevalent. My Pioneer VSX-53 handles stereo VERY well.

Interesting, because I personally believe that some AV receivers do stereo very well.

...My older Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Rotel, Onkyo AV receivers.

And there is a right AV receiver to match with your speakers; in my case it was my older Yamaha one. ...Built like a tank, with a huge main transformer, and very decent overall total storage capacitance (75,000ufD+ | primary mains = 71V). ...High dumping factor (helps at controlling my bass), and very constant output impedance all across the entire audio spectrum. ...Plus high dynamic headroom. ...And very good with speakers of lower impedance loads (4 Ohms).

My ex-Onkyo (55 pounds) wasn't too shabby either. ...THX Ultra2 Plus certification. ...Four quality (Toshiba triple-diffused devices) output transistors per each channel (for all seven discrete power amp channels).

Some AV receivers have what's required to drive tough loads, and with verve (power and quality sound). ...And more so than many integrated amps, and/or separate power amplifiers.

It's all about guts!

 

[LordOfTRings]

...And implementation, of course.

* I also forgot my ex-Pioneer AV receiver with Mosfet transistors. ...That was a real smoothie that one (very sweet to the soul), and with real power (250 RMS watts into 4-Ohm loads) that spurred all over.
** My Marantz AV receiver; 112,000uF of main capacitance (two huge caps). ...Plus more smaller ones. ...And the sound! ...Marantz sound; where music matters!

 

[charles 1973]

I think to some extent it comes down to getting what you pay for from reputable brands. I wouldn't expect a $500 5.1 Channel AVR to sound as good as a $600 Integrated Amp from the same brand. However, I do believe some of the $1,000 AVR's might do a fine job with Stereo. While I run 2 systems, I wouldn't hesitate to recomend an AVR like my Onkyo 575x that I could be quite happy with for playing both music and HT.

You have to check the reviews on each AVR. Some are better than others in terms of SQ, but may not be as good overal when Video options and quality come into play. I have been most impressed with my 2001 Onky 575x AVR for Stereo Performance. I',ve heard Higher end Pioneer Elite AVR's that give up nothing to decent vintage Amps and Recievers for stereo music, and mid-fi Stereo Amps today. But something more reasonably priced like these might do the trick.

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CA551R

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MASR6008

I'm guessing at about this price we are getting into AVR's that are capable of some serious Stereo Music reproduction too. Pehaps even their next model down would do the job.

 

[LordOfTRings]

Some of them AV receivers are $5,000-6,000+

* One Denon one (AVR-5805CI) weights 97 pounds!

 

[AVService]

It seems interesting to me here that many are positioning a Receiver for AV vs an Audiophile system for 2 channel?

Certainly not many would suggest that most receiver based systems are an audiophile system would they?

Clearly if you take a serious approach to either system and use higher end gear at every position in the system you can get a lot closer to similar levels of performance from each type of system.

Likewise I know of a very limited number of receiver based systems that I would characterize as Audiophile.

The difference will often boil down to every HT system being DSP based and sounding like it is where an Audiophile system need not be at all DSP based and thus sound like only an Analog system really can.

I hope it is clear that I mean the Audiophile system might have Digital sources like all HT systems will too just to be clear.

Like I said earlier,I have done a lot of systems in 35 years and many really pricey "Reference" systems of both types and I rarely hear an HT system that I want to live with.
No matter how nice they are there is just something about any theatre system that is Veiled to me for music no matter how expensive or well appointed it may be.

It may seem ironic too that an HT system is tasked with decoding and presenting minute details and spatial likeness to the screen and this info is hard encoded into the source material.

At the same time the sense of micro dynamics and air present in many music recordings seems tougher for many HT systems to convey to me.

I also listen maybe 1/2 the time to music DVD of actual live performances but not through an HT system.
I am a lot more involved in the music when I am watching it and I play these DVDs which are mostly recorded in both 5.1 and 2.0 on every system that I install and compare them to my main system.

Everything I have said about the contrast in system types is my learned experience so Your Mileage may Vary as they say.

Ed

 

[charles 1973]

Considering both CD's and LP's are encoded for Stereo Playback. When using the AVR in Stereo Mode it operates much the same as a Stereo Amp, and may have Higher Quality Amps than it's Stereo Amp Counterpart, resulting in at least equal sound Quality. The thing is you need much more real estate to house 5 - 7 powerfull Amps, and a Proportionally Large Power Supply with Class A/B Amps, Not so much with Class D Amps. The Cost too Increase Signicantly when adding in Video and Surround Sound Audio Processing, which Must Be Isolated from the Audio section.

There is no Technical Reason we can't make a Big, Heavy 7 Channel class A/B AVR (like my friends 130 wpc Pioneer Elite TOTL unit) that performs superbly with all 7 channels operating through its 7.1 Channel Analog or Stereo Inputs with No Digital Sound Processing. But I think at this level, I would go with 2 systems. A decent Stereo Amp (perhaps a Marantz 8004), and their 6008 AVR I pointed out in post 48. A Speaker Input switch would have to used with the front Speakers and Sub (if required) though. I still think the Marantz 6008 AVR (or perhaps another Brand's similer Model) alone would be a very good value for both HT and Stereo Music while keeping things simple.

Also while listening to a Stereo source, whether it be CD, LP or DVD's in SS mode, While creating an interesting effect that when I'm in the mode, I might enjoy, the DSP while creating the other 3 - 5 channels of sound also seems to muddy up the sound with less detail, and the Imaging/Soundstage are diminished L to R. When listening to my DD 5.1 Encoded DVD's however, the results for both Music and Video make having at least one Decent HT system a high priority for me.

 

[Pandovski]

An Audiophile system by default is very focused, it is ascetic. It is devoted in producing quality stereo sound for music. If you decided to spend your 800$ on an AV because it gives more features, you are spending some of that sum on the features and not on the sound.

 

[sb01]

I also believe that the term "audiophile system" is a very relative term- at what point would you consider a system venturing into the realm of audiophile vs. audio enthusiast? And is it a price point issue, build quality issue, or combination of both??
Do we all believe in the law of diminishing returns? That a $5000 system properly set up can and will sound every bit as good as a $20,000 system? I know I will never describe myself as an audiophile for this very reason--I KNOW I would be unable to tell the difference in quality (overall tonality of sound maybe, but not QUALITY of sound.)
If you have $100,000 to spend on a complete Mark Levinson setup and a piar of Wilson Grand Slamms then go for it, and I don't think anyone would argue you have an audiophile system. But what of us who don't have more than $5000 to spend on the whole setup, and therefore have to compromise in some places? Does that automatically make our systems non-audiophile??

 

[LordOfTRings]

It seems interesting to me here that many are positioning a Receiver for AV vs an Audiophile system for 2 channel?

Certainly not many would suggest that most receiver based systems are an audiophile system would they?

Clearly if you take a serious approach to either system and use higher end gear at every position in the system you can get a lot closer to similar levels of performance from each type of system.

Likewise I know of a very limited number of receiver based systems that I would characterize as Audiophile.

The difference will often boil down to every HT system being DSP based and sounding like it is where an Audiophile system need not be at all DSP based and thus sound like only an Analog system really can.

I hope it is clear that I mean the Audiophile system might have Digital sources like all HT systems will too just to be clear.

Like I said earlier,I have done a lot of systems in 35 years and many really pricey "Reference" systems of both types and I rarely hear an HT system that I want to live with.
No matter how nice they are there is just something about any theatre system that is Veiled to me for music no matter how expensive or well appointed it may be.

It may seem ironic too that an HT system is tasked with decoding and presenting minute details and spatial likeness to the screen and this info is hard encoded into the source material.

At the same time the sense of micro dynamics and air present in many music recordings seems tougher for many HT systems to convey to me.

I also listen maybe 1/2 the time to music DVD of actual live performances but not through an HT system.
I am a lot more involved in the music when I am watching it and I play these DVDs which are mostly recorded in both 5.1 and 2.0 on every system that I install and compare them to my main system.

Everything I have said about the contrast in system types is my learned experience so Your Mileage may Vary as they say.

Ed

Well Ed, I had few AV receivers in the past which beat the crap out of many separates! ...Flagship models from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, ...

Perhaps your own exposure to such systems wasn't adequate enough on dialing everything perfectly. ...Or that you are more bias for reason of personal preference.

Anyway, your opinion is fully valid, because it is your own opinion indeed.
Mine is simply and slightly different. ...Perhaps more objective and convoluted; I just don't know for sure.

Hey, don't get me wrong; I'm using separates right now. Not because they are better, but because I can. ...And the type of music I am listening is what it's all about first. ...And movies too.

 

[LordOfTRings]

I also believe that the term "audiophile system" is a very relative term- at what point would you consider a system venturing into the realm of audiophile vs. audio enthusiast? And is it a price point issue, build quality issue, or combination of both??
Do we all believe in the law of diminishing returns? That a $5000 system properly set up can and will sound every bit as good as a $20,000 system? I know I will never describe myself as an audiophile for this very reason--I KNOW I would be unable to tell the difference in quality (overall tonality of sound maybe, but not QUALITY of sound.)
If you have $100,000 to spend on a complete Mark Levinson setup and a piar of Wilson Grand Slamms then go for it, and I don't think anyone would argue you have an audiophile system. But what of us who don't have more than $5000 to spend on the whole setup, and therefore have to compromise in some places? Does that automatically make our systems non-audiophile??

If you love music, hi-fi audio, good sound, and you strive to improve your hearing with more joy in your life; you are definitely an audiophile.

It's all about the Music. ...The Love. ...The Passion. :thmbsp:

 

[AVService]

Well Ed, I had few AV receivers in the past which beat the crap out of many separates! ...Flagship models from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, ...

Perhaps your own exposure to such systems wasn't adequate enough on dialing everything perfectly. ...Or that you are more bias for reason of personal preference.

Anyway, your opinion is fully valid, because it is your own opinion indeed.
Mine is simply and slightly different. ...Perhaps more objective and convoluted; I just don't know for sure.

Hey, don't get me wrong; I'm using separates right now. Not because they are better, but because I can. ...And the type of music I am listening is what it's all about first. ...And movies too.

All I can tell you for certain is that it is not a lack of adequate exposure to such systems or in dialing them in properly.

Dialing them in properly is exactly what I do for a living and have been for a long time.

I am not disparaging or judging anyone else and we each clearly have our own opinions about what sounds right to us,I don't know why some people seem threatened by someone else's experience?

I am saying that even if all else is identical,say using the same speakers and source equipment that I have not experienced an HT system that will outrun a non-HT system regardless of the money spent.

I have installed and listened extensively to many if not most of the top of the line gear of both types and this is just my take in general on this particular debate.

I prefer the sound overall of a much more simple,less processed non-HT system and usually these systems have much less computer and are much more simple in the signal path.

The giant top of the line receivers and component HT systems are great at what they do.
I f you prefer that great,I am happy to install it for you but I listen to Stereo speakers and as simple a system as I can at home.

Ed

 

[Gang-Twanger]

I'm a 2-channel STEREO audiophile (I'm definitely an audiophile because I worry about the quality of the music @ LP/CD-pressings as much as sound of the gear). I don't have the cash to get the kind of sound I want from home-theater. I wish I could somehow incorporate my 2-channel sound into my hometheater.... PROPERLY.... What I need is a 3-channel receiver or amp that gives me what I need on the 2-channel stuff. I could easily use one of my W60's as a center-channel speaker, but I'd need something 3-channel that'll work well with my Wharfedales. I don't go that high with the volume on DVD/blu-ray type stuff because I don't feel like blowing out one of the midranges or tweeters in my W90's. In DVD's and especially blu-rays/HD-DVD's, they put a lot in that center-channel, and a good center-channel speaker lightens the load off of your mains, and being able to do that would give me a really-nice-sounding 2-ch hi-fi/3-ch home-theater system. I don't want surround. It's never been my thing, but I DO ultimately-want a 3-ch setup.

 

[LordOfTRings]

...,I don't know why some people seem threatened by someone else's experience?

Do I truly sound threatened by your expertise?

I am saying that even if all else is identical,say using the same speakers and source equipment that I have not experienced an HT system that will outrun a non-HT system regardless of the money spent.

That's because they are two absolute different entities. ...Different overall goals.
- Have you checked a hi-end multichannel music system (SACD & DVD-Audio)?

I have installed and listened extensively to many if not most of the top of the line gear of both types and this is just my take in general on this particular debate.

I have no doubt.

I prefer the sound overall of a much more simple,less processed non-HT system and usually these systems have much less computer and are much more simple in the signal path.

The giant top of the line receivers and component HT systems are great at what they do.
I f you prefer that great,I am happy to install it for you but I listen to Stereo speakers and as simple a system as I can at home.

Ed

I love stereo/multichannel music equally. And same for movies.

 

[AVService]

Do I truly sound threatened by your expertise?



That's because they are two absolute different entities. ...Different overall goals.
- Have you checked a hi-end multichannel music system (SACD & DVD-Audio)?



I have no doubt.



I love stereo/multichannel music equally. And same for movies.

I was not referring to you specifically in this reply.

I also love Stereo/Multichannel music equally and movies too for that matter.

I just don't think they sound equally real at any level,quality wise HT systems always take the back seat to me.

Anyway ultimately this is why this hobby is such a great way to waste/spend some time,something for everyone.

I imagine if I didn't have to do some of this I might be a little more into it too?

Its a Job and an Adventure!