The reason why receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction

brgman

Huh?

erniejade

SDA1C wrote: »

I am wondering if anybody can hear the music over all this arguing?

Now thats funny!

heiney9

SDA1C wrote: »

I am wondering if anybody can hear the music over all this arguing?

You call it arguing, I call it discussing. That's why certain people in these threads get all bent out of shape. It's about perspective and if you one looks at it as arguing that's a negative vs. having a discussion which is certainly a more positive way to look at it.

H9

steveinaz

[HTML][/HTML]I'm never a big fan of threads where topics of subjectivity are spoken as if they're fact. Expectations and perceptions. It all depends on how deep you want to dig. Some people want good sound, but don't want to spend a ton of money getting there--others want audio to the 'nth degree. There's nothing wrong with either approach.

I think to say that "receivers can't work for 2 channel reproduction" is a silly statement. It all depends on the level of commitment the listener has to the hobby. Not everybody wants to re-create the recording studio, and to ignore this concept tends to exclude the casual listeners.

thsmith

Let me add my 2 cents to this discussion, if it sounds good to you go with it.

I have owned speakers that were perfectly suited for an AVR or receiver and would not have benifited at all with seperates.

BlueFox

These AVRs will most likely give stellar sound. Of course, they cost more than the usual $399, and require an amp.

http://bryston.com/products/digital_audio/SP2.html
http://bryston.com/products/digital_audio/SP3.html
http://www.caryaudio.com/products/cinema/cinema12.html

BlueFox

Here is an integrated amp (receiver minus the tuner) with the digital bells and whistles of an AVR applied to the two-channel world.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/harman-kardon-hk-990-integrated-amplifier

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

These AVRs will most likely give stellar sound. Of course, they cost more than the usual $399, and require an amp.

http://bryston.com/products/digital_audio/SP2.html
http://bryston.com/products/digital_audio/SP3.html
http://www.caryaudio.com/products/cinema/cinema12.html

If they require an amp, they how can they be all that stellar? I see you mis-posted, these aren't AVR's (audio video receivers) but rather pre-amps with processing capability.

You should get the termonology correct because it causes confusion when you start calling pre-amp's AVR's.

H9

disneyjoe7

Even with an amp feed off the avr, I feel the pre amp in that avr colors the sound vs. a pre amp.

heiney9

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

Even with an amp feed off the avr, I feel the pre amp in that avr colors the sound vs. a pre amp.

Exactly, moreso in many instances than a dedicated 2 channel pre whose singular function is to pass the musical signal as unmolested as possible. Using an AVR specifically for this purpose will almost always be a compromise and many times a pretty significant compromise.

Since we have a lot of people on here that jump to conclusions based on misinterpretation and read way TOO much into a response, I took the liberty of highlighting the words that give my response a very specific meaning.

Oh yes, even though it should be assumed for almost all repsonses I'll add, In My Opinion and actual use.

H9

F1nut

mantis wrote: »

I was holding the door open for you.

So, you've graduated from box cutter to doorman, congrats!

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

If they require an amp, they how can they be all that stellar? I see you mis-posted, these aren't AVR's (audio video receivers) but rather pre-amps with processing capability.

Yes, and no. This thread is all over the place. The title says receiver, yet most interpret it as about AVRs. The gist of the AVR brouhaha is that it distorts the sound. So far little, if anything, has been said about the AVR amp section. The point being the fault of AVRs appears to be due to their ability to handle multi-channel functionality. Somehow, this ability degrades their two-channel ability. This all takes place in the 'pre-amp' section. So, I listed some pre-amps that have full AVR pre/pro processing ability, and suggested, since I have not heard them, that they sound 'stellar' (I like that word) in stereo. Maybe so, maybe not.

dkg999

I was listening on Saturday evening to a Marantz 2270 receiver driving a pair of B&O S45-2 speakers. I didn't feel the music or presentation of the music was compromised at all. My enjoyment factor was just as high as when listening to my system with separate pre/amp. I really miss the day when audio was all about buying a BAR (Big A$$ed Receiver), a turntable, and a couple of speakers!

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

If they require an amp, they how can they be all that stellar?

So now you're saying an amp is a requirement for "stellar" sound, and that pre/pros are inferior to receivers? This is getting crazy.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

So now you're saying an amp is a requirement for "stellar" sound, and that pre/pros are inferior to receivers? This is getting crazy.

That IS NOT what I stated at all. He posted the links stating they were AVR's. I commented, (based on what he wrote) and THEN looked at one of the links and realzied he had mislabeled them as AVR's when they were in fact pre-amps with built in processors.

My comment you quoted above was because he stated they were AVR's AND needed an amp. But after looking at the links I realized they were pre-pro's. I added add'l comments and when I went back to delete the first sentence (the one you selectively quoted) I couldn't edit any longer.

H9

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes, and no. This thread is all over the place. The title says receiver, yet most interpret it as about AVRs. The gist of the AVR brouhaha is that it distorts the sound. So far little, if anything, has been said about the AVR amp section. The point being the fault of AVRs appears to be due to their ability to handle multi-channel functionality. Somehow, this ability degrades their two-channel ability. This all takes place in the 'pre-amp' section. So, I listed some pre-amps that have full AVR pre/pro processing ability, and suggested, since I have not heard them, that they sound 'stellar' (I like that word) in stereo. Maybe so, maybe not.

Wrong a pre-amp is NOT an AVR and you shouldn't go around using your own labels for things. The links you posted were for pre-amplifiers, not AVR's. They are completely different.

H9

heiney9

BlueFox wrote: »

The title says receiver, yet most interpret it as about AVRs.

Read the OP's post, he was using a Pioneer AVR, so there was no mis-interpretation, it was stated explicitly by the creater of this thread.

H9

leroyjr1

VR3 wrote: »

All the freaking processing and adjustments and room correction BS is a musical tone sucker...

Listening to music on the Pioneer Elite at the helm is like taking a serrated blade to my ears... and this is even using pure direct settings
Went straight to the Parasound from the Squeezebox and it was night and day - not saying it was awesome but definitely a huge improvement.

heiney9 wrote: »

Wrong a pre-amp is NOT an AVR and you shouldn't go around using your own labels for things. The links you posted were for pre-amplifiers, not AVR's. They are completely different.

H9

Read his first sentence. Processors, adjustments and room correction is BS. Not only does avr's have these but pre pros do also.

nooshinjohn

heiney9 wrote: »

Read the OP's post, he was using a Pioneer AVR, so there was no mis-interpretation, it was stated explicitly by the creater of this trainwreck.

H9

Editted for clarity...

There is nothing inherently wrong with using an AVR as a pre, and the better the AVR, the better the functions of the pre section will be. I always run pure-direct when listening to two channel, and the sound is very good. Is it as good as my Sunfire Stereo Tube pre... no, but it is good enough that I am thinking of selling it for now and getting another pre when I can separate the rigs once again.

heiney9

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Not only does avr's have these but pre pros do also.

Please quote where I said they didn't? I have no idea what your point is here :question:

My point was Bluefox seems to think an AVR and pre-amp w/processing are the same thing, they aren't. Just like a truck and a car aren't the same thing even though a car can haul stuff.

This whole discussion is getting beyond ridiculous as people push it farther and farther out from it's original intent. It's become quite wacky actually, as people are so desperate for their opinion to be the correct answer.

H9

heiney9

leroyjr1 wrote: »

Read his first sentence. Processors, adjustments and room correction is BS. Not only does avr's have these but pre pros do also.

read the second sentence at the end.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

That IS NOT what I stated at all. He posted the links stating they were AVR's. I commented, (based on what he wrote) and THEN looked at one of the links and realzied he had mislabeled them as AVR's when they were in fact pre-amps with built in processors.

My comment you quoted above was because he stated they were AVR's AND needed an amp. But after looking at the links I realized they were pre-pro's. I added add'l comments and when I went back to delete the first sentence (the one you selectively quoted) I couldn't edit any longer.

H9

I see. that makes sense. continue on

BlueFox

LOL at the convoluted attempts to rationalize.

gdb

Must be a real M F'er to know everything, but then, lose track of what's what !

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

Wrong a pre-amp is NOT an AVR and you shouldn't go around using your own labels for things. The links you posted were for pre-amplifiers, not AVR's. They are completely different.

H9

You are right that a preamp is not an AVR, but Pre/Pros should not be excluded from the conversation for this reason. First, the title of the thread set the premise: "receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction" and stated that the thread would discuss "the reason why." Then the reason cited in the first post was that "All the freaking processing and adjustments and room correction BS is a musical tone sucker..." which, despite your assertions, is the very heart of the preamp/processor section of the receiver, towhit the AVR. He gave no other reason that they can't be used. Moreover, he said "THE reason," excluding the possibility that any other reason could exist. This establishes the point of contention as the pre/pro section, and by extension, to pre/pros themselves, as " the freaking processing and adjustments and room correction BS" are the heart of the argument.

h9, do you propose HT pre/pros cannot achieve the levels of stereo preamps?

newrival

BlueFox wrote: »

LOL at the convoluted attempts to rationalize.

im willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

h9, do you propose HT pre/pros cannot achieve the levels of stereo preamps?

First of all, I never said that and the way you phrase the question makes it sound like I did. My comments to Bluefox were based firmly from the perspective that an AVR and pre-amp/processor are NOT the same thing. That's all I said, infer whatever you want.

Compared to an AVR they certainly have a better chance to compete, depends. I'm sure some can and some can't. Pretty broad question. One would have to look at those and compare to whatever 2-ch pre one is running. I think certain higher end pre-pro's can sound as good for 2ch or at least come close enough to satisfy.

Something like a Krell Evolution certainly would do better at 2 channel than the Emotiva UMC-1, see where I'm going here.

newrival

heiney9 wrote: »

First of all, I never said that and the way you phrase the question makes it sound like I did. My comments to Bluefox were based firmly from the perspective that an AVR and pre-amp/processor are NOT the same thing. That's all I said, infer whatever you want.

I know. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I just wanted to give better direction to this argument, that is all.

Compared to an AVR they certainly have a better chance to compete, depends. I'm sure some can and some can't. Pretty broad question. One would have to look at those and compare to whatever 2-ch pre one is running. I think certain higher end pre-pro's can sound as good for 2ch or at least come close enough to satisfy.

Something like a Krell Evolution certainly would do better at 2 channel than the Emotiva UMC-1, see where I'm going here.

I do, which is a far more reasonable response than saying "receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction," as Trey did, or you stating that better AVRs would not produce better results than what Trey experienced. And so it seems you agree with many of us here in that Treys reasoning for saying receivers cant work for two channel music reproduction is incorrect. As far as AVRs go for great 2 channel performance, I would direct your attention to my previous examples of the Sunfire Ultimate receivers, as well as the B&K 707, and the Pio Elite sc-57.

heiney9

newrival wrote: »

or you stating that better AVRs would not produce better results than what Trey experienced.

I don't recall saying that. I can't think of an AVR that would be better than a comparable 2ch pre-amp. I think we have to work on the assumption that the products are comparable on some level even if it's not 100% apples to apples. But I certainly wouldn't expect and Adcom GTP-500 pre-amp to sound better than say the NAD top of the line AVR when used as a pre-amp. I assumed everyone was going to keep things somewhat in perspective and not hitch their argument at the extremes.

Those of you who have hitched your argument to working at the extremes, should know better than that. If I had $1500 to spend on an AVR or 2ch pre-amp for 2channel listening I'd choose a 2 channel pre-amp over the AVR and I am certain I would get better 2 channel performance.

The other caveat that I don't think is worth mentioning because it also a given, is there are exceptions out there that you run across. IMO, not many but it is possible that there is a combo out there of an AVR or 2ch pre that are comparable where the AVR might be preferred by someone.

When I am discussing things you all should know 3 things 1) IMO 2) thing should be comparable and not at either end of the extremes 3) there are always a few exceptions possible. I am not that narrow minded to not figure in numbers 2 and 3. I hope the same goes for the rest of you.

H9

Drenis

newrival wrote: »

I would direct your attention to my previous examples of the Sunfire Ultimate receivers, as well as the B&K 707, and the Pio Elite sc-57.

Those aren't exactly comparable to a VSX-23. Not even in price. Not even close.

I understood what VR3 meant and understand from first hand experience at some of the aspects he experienced. That's not to say that you can't get a better offering for 2-channel enjoyment from an AVR, but did I notice and applaud the change when I went from my AVR as a pre/pro to a dedicated pre-amp? Yes. The Pioneer still sounds better then many other contenders for the price. Now that I've experienced what I have now, I'm hooked.

What a ridiculous thread this turned out to be.