The reason why receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction

newrival

pearsall001 wrote: »

Total hogwash that a receiver can't perform stellar in a two channel system. Where the hell is that spelled out in the audiophile handbook???? Off the charts BS.

While a little stronger words than I would use, I totally agree.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Nobody ever said that a receiver cannot sound good(or stellar) in two channel.

john, look at the title of the thread.

Also affirmed here by h9:

heiney9 wrote: »

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Try a better receiver and you'll get better results.

Not likely. In fact no.

H9

leroyjr1

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Nobody ever said that a receiver cannot sound good(or stellar) in two channel. What is being said is that a low end to mid level AVR may not be the best choice for two channel listening, and I would have to agree. I have my Pioneer SC-37 set up as a pre and power coming from a Sunfire Sig 425/5, and it performs well in both two channel and surround.

Two channel gear of old tends to be romantisized a bit to much, BUT there are some notable exceptions out there... the Sansui G33000 and the AU 20000 were simply in a class by themselves back in the day, and I would have no trouble putting them up against some of the best today. The Pioneer SX 1980 is another that was head and shoulders above the rest that could compete favourably with some of today's best. With all the examples above however, you are looking at well north of 2 grand to find one that has been maintained at a level where they perform their best. for that kind of coin, there is plenty of more modern gear to be had that is just as good.



Times to infinity and beyond... Separates trounce a receiver every single time.

The titles doesn't say anything about high or low receivers. He made a blanket statement as if it applied to all receivers, but it doesn't. Also the rest of the gear comes into play. Some speakers can sound very good ran off receivers while other can't.

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

john, look at the title of the thread.

Yeah... I got the title. :cool:

I almost walked away from listening to music when I was running a lower end Yamaha AVR, expecting it to do everything right. It was good with the HT stuff, and flat out sucked for music. Then I discovered separate amps, and it made a huge difference, then I went separates and never looked beck. The bottom line for me is that HT and two channel listening are very different animals, and wherever possible, need to be approached differently and kept separate from each other. Most people(myself included) cannot do this, so if you like two channel music build your system around that first. HT can then be added to a solid two channel base and end up sounding very good for both.

I find it very difficult to take a dedicated HT rig and get it to sound right for music.

Toolfan66

Face wrote: »

Try some quality separates for music, you'll never go back.

Agreed!! The day I tried a pre was the day Receivers will never be looked at again... In short "Receivers Suck :loneranger:




Well I do love my SC-07 in my HT but it's never used for music listening..:razz:

leroyjr1

There's very good double duty speakers out there.

gdb

I hope they (AVRs) have a slow, miserable death !!!!

pearsall001

Face wrote: »

Try some quality separates for music, you'll never go back.

I've already been down that road. I bought into the separates hype that they are automatically better than an AVR for 2 channel simply because they are "Separates". It's a shame that such blanket statements are held as gospel around here. I bought it hook, line & sinker. My first listening test was with a Conrad Johnson PV14L tube pre with HT bypass. It sounded wonderful...but so did my NAD AVR. I simply couldn't justify it based on what I heard & sold it off. The NAD is a tough cookie. Next up was a Krell KAV 250P SS pre with HT bypass. It too sounded wonderful but didn't earn the right to replace my NAD. It too was sold off. So please cut me a break with these ridiculuos blanket statements. They simply don't apply.

tonyb

I'm just so excited, another post that we can split hairs over and argue for 10 pages. Woohoo !!

Trey, that is a pretty blanket statement. How about asking how you can get better sound rather than calling out receivers as turds.

gdb

"please cut me a break with these ridiculuos blanket statements"

They do seem to be in "great suppy" !

newrival

gdb wrote: »

"please cut me a break with these ridiculuos blanket statements"

They do seem to be in "great suppy" !

indeed they do

62caddy

To say seperates will always outperform a receiver is false.

To say a receiver will always outperform seperates is also false.

There are great receivers, lousy seperates; great seperates, lousy receivers- and everything between.

Generally speaking, manufacturers tend to put their best efforts into seperates for obvious reasons, however there have been some very well executed receivers whose performance has rivalved some very fine seperates. Unfortunately the number of offerings of true high quality 2-channel receivers is very small today compared to what had been at one time.

Point being that for the listener with low to medium power requirements, a quality receiver can provide excellent results.

**EDIT** To suggest that receivers cannot work well for two-channel sound reproduction is not only patently untrue, but an affront to anyone who uses one as a cornerstone of their hi-fi.

Erik Tracy

For a given price point, I would say, in general, that separates will outperform an AVR - cuz an AVR is a swiss army knife of features and cost/quality compromises for that price point: video circuitry, audio circuitry, licensing for the audio codecs, massive array of connectors, etc et al.

So, I would agree, that depending on the budget, you could get an AVR (aka "receiver") that may best separates or dedicate 2-channel components, but you'd be at a price point where, again, if you had the budget, you'd do better getting separates.

I've yet to drink the koolaid that says I *must* have room eq (in the digital domain) to have a pretty freq graph to look at as proof of being 'better'.

And that would defeat getting analog/tube components just to pass them off to an AVR to do a A/D, room eq, D/A....what would be the point???

newrival

62caddy wrote: »

To say seperates will always outperform a receiver is false.

To say a receiver will always outperform seperates is also false.

There are great receivers, lousy seperates; great seperates, lousy receivers- and everything between.

Generally speaking, manufacturers tend to put their best efforts into seperates for obvious reasons, however there have been some very well executed receivers whose performance has rivalved some very fine seperates. Unfortunately the number of offerings of true high quality 2-channel receivers is very small today compared to what had been at one time.

Point being that for the listener with low to medium power requirements, a quality receiver can provide excellent results.

**EDIT** To suggest that receivers cannot work well for two-channel sound reproduction is not only patently untrue, but an affront to anyone who uses one as a cornerstone of their hi-fi.

Thanks for the input, but im sorry, the rules are that you list what you have and then say that it is the best and everything else is crap.

I'm with you 100%

newrival

Erik Tracy wrote: »

For a given price point, I would say, in general, that separates will outperform an AVR - cuz an AVR is a swiss army knife of features and cost/quality compromises for that price point: video circuitry, audio circuitry, licensing for the audio codecs, massive array of connectors, etc et al.

So, I would agree, that depending on the budget, you could get an AVR (aka "receiver") that may best separates or dedicate 2-channel components, but you'd be at a price point where, again, if you had the budget, you'd do better getting separates.

Exactly right. it's a function of resources devoted to a certain task.

newrival

btw, does your name refer to a 1962 caddy, or the earlier series 62 caddies of the 50's? either way, sweet cars.

62caddy

Dang, newrivival, great question! I've got a 1962 Coupe deVille- not the Series 62 Coupe.

reeltrouble1

tonyb wrote: »

I'm just so excited, another post that we can split hairs over and argue for 10 pages. Woohoo !!

Exactly and on topic that has been covered over the past 10 years and continues ad naseum, the old adage of trusting your ears still holds. I prefer to use components designed to do just one thing, however, they need to do it well and work together for a quality system and music experience. It still comes down to the circuit design and then the use of electronic parts to pass a signal within that design. For those who need to use an AVR for music I would suggest using a tube buffer to up the SQ a bit, since many use an AVR to an amp I would put the buffer in between those two components.

I would say those who use separates are on a good path for getting deep into the music.

RT1

newrival

62caddy wrote: »

Dang, newrivival, great question! I've got a 1962 Coupe deVille- not the Series 62 Coupe.

BEAUTIFUL!!!
That steel looks great!

I'm a Caddy guy and had to know. I drive a contemporary deville, but aspire to own a '55 ElDorado (series 62)
Generally speaking, I'm a Ford guy, but Caddy is my favorite car maker. Ahem, excuse me, motorcoach maker. Thanks for sharing!

nooshinjohn

62caddy...

Please read the forum rules regarding the posting of pornographic images here at CP.:cheesygrin:

That car is sick man... just sick. I hade a 1963 Riviera that I would kill to have back in my garage... beautiful car sir.

I would love to get my hands on a 1941 Fleetwood 60 Special and a 1957 Eldo Brougham.

62caddy

Thanks for the kind words gentlemen.

Since you guys appreciate Caddys, here's my other "child" that I got last year. 1959 Coupe deVille, 46,000 miles all original unrestored w/air. '62 has 51,000 miles unrestored except 1 refinish 5 years ago. Goal is to add '60 & '61 Coupe deVilles, black & b/w interior for the set of my fav years- the "rocketships".

The cars you mention, '55 Eldo, '41 60 Special and esp 57/58 Eldo Brougham are all true standard bearers of the marque.

nooshinjohn

Why stop there man... you need the first Caddy with fins, the 1948 '60 coupe.

gdb

I'm shopping for a 72 Cadillac conv. every time I go to Carlisle ! Mine has to be red with white top & interior !

62caddy

Beautiful '48 Coupe. Just beautiful. Yours nooshinjohn? (btw- Series 62 coupe- fender shields front and rear; S 61 had rears only)

Believe me, if I had the money- I'd have 'em all!

gdp- There was a gorgeous '73 CdV- Red, white/white on the 'bay while back. If you come to Fall Hershey, we'll have to meet up.

nooshinjohn

lol... not yet it ain't. I have not had an old girl in the garage now for more than 5 years. This was mine.

And not a day goes buy that I don't miss that car. It has NASA heritage, having belonged to an egress and recovery engineer that worked Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo. Everyone from Allan Sheppard to Neil Armstrong had been in that car. I pray someday to have it back, but if not I guess I will have to settle for that 550 Maranello the wife promised me I could have in a few years.

newrival

Nice '59! king of the fins! holy crap, they are beautiful. And it's not often that you see these with steel that straight! you've got quite the family forming there.

As much as I love the early 70's caddys, the convertibles always make me laugh as they were THE pimp car of choice in the black exploitation movies of the decade. They are beautiful to be sure. And absolutely HUGE

gdb

62caddy wrote: »

Beautiful '48 Coupe. Just beautiful. Yours nooshinjohn? (btw- Series 62 coupe- fender shields front and rear; S 61 had rears only)

Believe me, if I had the money- I'd have 'em all!

gdp- There was a gorgeous '73 CdV- Red, white/white on the 'bay while back. If you come to Fall Hershey, we'll have to meet up.

I need to go to Hershey to find homes for 1937-1938 & 1940 Chevy 1.5 ton trucks I have "in my care" . There was a beaut of a CdV nearby but.......my wife yanked the purse strings closed on that one ! :<( If I drag something home from Carlisle well............

gdb

newrival wrote: »

Nice '59! king of the fins! holy crap, they are beautiful. And it's not often that you see these with steel that straight! you've got quite the family forming there.

As much as I love the early 70's caddys, the convertibles always make me laugh as they were THE pimp car of choice in the black exploitation movies of the decade. They are beautiful to be sure. And absolutely HUGE

The Eldos were Pimp Wagons Not the classic CdVs !!

BlueFox

Nice thread hijack. Time to go listen to the surround sound system with it's AVR pre/pro, and try to remember why I cannot enjoy it. :rolleyes:

F1nut

Stellar two channel and receiver in the same sentence.......hilarious!

This place is going down the toliet, fast.