Question: Seperates vs. Reciever

sk1939

Branching off from another thread, I'm curious as to why everyone favors separates over a good receiver for 2 channel audio. Now by receiver I'm not talking about an AVR here, I'm talking about a good old fashioned classic from the makes of Marantz, Luxman, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sanyo, Harmon Kardon, McIntosh etc....

In my opinion, a solid Luxman receiver will still sound better than comparatively priced separates (amp, preamp, etc), just because of the engineering put into it. Originally, separates were devised because most receivers could only drive about 30-80wpc, and that wasn't enough for some speakers, so they devised separate power amps. Now it turns out there was a solid market for separate components for some reason, be it mix and match (Marantz tuner, Luxman preamp, McIntosh amp) or just because you could get better quality audio out of high ended separate components ( at considerable additional cost), I don't know, but that seemed to be where it ended up.

I don't know, for me it seems like we've begun focusing too much on the gear, rather than what sounds good to us. I don't know, maybe this is a call to go back to basics.

I'm interested in hearing what the veterans of the forum have to say about this...please, feel free to chime in.

dudeinaroom

Well, not to much of a Vet. here. But I have had some exp. I have borrowed a few Vintage receiver just too "see" what it would do with the SDAs. The best I heard was an older Marantz, The Pio,Kenwood,and sony all sounded worse than MY current AVR The harmon Kardon was between My Denon AVR and the Marantz. None of them could touch the ADCOM separates I had.

sk1939

dudeinaroom wrote: »

Well, not to much of a Vet. here. But I have had some exp. I have borrowed a few Vintage receiver just too "see" what it would do with the SDAs. The best I heard was an older Marantz, The Pio,Kenwood,and sony all sounded worse than MY current AVR The harmon Kardon was between My Denon AVR and the Marantz. None of them could touch the ADCOM separates I had.

Technology does change after all. I wonder how something like a vintage Luxman or McIntosh would compare though (that kind of gear was super costly back when it was new). I'm curious what others might way in, I think it's an interesting topic :cool:

thuffman03

I would say I am always trying to make my system sound better by trying different amps, cd players, preamps, subs and speakers.

I don't think we are ignoring the sound by looking at the equipment we are buying. I think most of us are trying to get the best sound for the money we have to spend.

As for reciever vs seperates I think it all depends on what type of speakers you are trying to power and how you like to listen to music. I like the sound of ribbon speakers but that requires lots of power. Plus I like to play my music pretty loud. Some like efficent speakers and use them as background while they are reading a book or what not.

So IMO it really depends on your needs. Most recievers will not drive my ALIII's very well but my Sunfire amps would be an overkill for someone who likes to have music in the background.

dudeinaroom

thuffman03 wrote: »

I would say I am always trying to make my system sound better by trying different amps, cd players, preamps, subs and speakers.

I don't think we are ignoring the sound by looking at the equipment we are buying. I think most of us are trying to get the best sound for the money we have to spend.

As for reciever vs seperates I think it all depends on what type of speakers you are trying to power and how you like to listen to music. I like the sound of ribbon speakers but that requires lots of power. Plus I like to play my music pretty loud. Some like efficent speakers and use them as background while they are reading a book or what not.

So IMO it really depends on your needs. Most recievers will not drive my ALIII's very well but my Sunfire amps would be an overkill for someone who likes to have music in the background.

Good points all they way around.

vc69

I had a Luxman L-11 integrated back in the day that I am still trying to equal. That thing sounded amazing. Maybe it's just my tastes these days, but listening to music on my Onkyo AVR is just, well... not good enough.
The vintage Marantz, Sansui, Pioneers, and some Yamaha's are a different story. Some of them sounded excellent!

BlueFox

sk1939 wrote: »

In my opinion, a solid Luxman receiver will still sound better than comparatively priced separates (amp, preamp, etc), just because of the engineering put into it.

Being an engineer, I would be interested in knowing if your opinion has any data to support it. If it does then what, and where, is the data.

heiney9

Seperates all the way...............hands down, no comparison.

H9

anhchungdoan

sk1939 wrote: »

Branching off from another thread, I'm curious as to why everyone favors separates over a good receiver for 2 channel audio. Now by receiver I'm not talking about an AVR here, I'm talking about a good old fashioned classic from the makes of Marantz, Luxman, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sanyo, Harmon Kardon, McIntosh etc....

In my opinion, a solid Luxman receiver will still sound better than comparatively priced separates (amp, preamp, etc), just because of the engineering put into it. Originally, separates were devised because most receivers could only drive about 30-80wpc, and that wasn't enough for some speakers, so they devised separate power amps. Now it turns out there was a solid market for separate components for some reason, be it mix and match (Marantz tuner, Luxman preamp, McIntosh amp) or just because you could get better quality audio out of high ended separate components ( at considerable additional cost), I don't know, but that seemed to be where it ended up.

I don't know, for me it seems like we've begun focusing too much on the gear, rather than what sounds good to us. I don't know, maybe this is a call to go back to basics.

I'm interested in hearing what the veterans of the forum have to say about this...please, feel free to chime in.

To certain extend, your are correct but it depends on which separated pre/amp we are talking abt.

I would prefer you add the "IMO" to your statement since it's all subjective and bias when we are talking abt audio.

phuz

There were some recievers and/or integrateds back in the day that will still blow current model seperates out of the water. We're talking 70's, or early 80's recievers. They don't make 'em like that anymore which is probably why most folks go with seperates these days. Vintage gear isn't as popular as new stuff, although some don't know what they're missing.

I'm relatively young but I remember the stuff my family and friends had back in the day, and it was good. Some of the old timers here will say the same I'm sure.

heiney9

Most Vintage receivers are overrated.

Give me a Nak CA5 and Adcom GFA535 and a good set of I/C's and speaker cables for a total used cost of <$350 and I'll take that everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over any vintage receiver or integrated. No contest

H9

sk1939

BlueFox wrote: »

Being an engineer, I would be interested in knowing if your opinion has any data to support it. If it does then what, and where, is the data.

I'd compare specs of recievers but they're hard to find, so I'll compare a more vintage like amp with a more modern amp.

Luxman M-117

200X2 @ 8ohms
700X1 @ 8ohms
Dynamic power: 300 @ 8, 550 @ 4, 820 @ 2
THD at rated power: 0.03%
IM distortion (SMPTE) @ 200w: 0.007%
Peak short circuit current: 150 amps
Slew rate: 20v/uSec
Damping factor: 130
>60,000uf capacitance

Marantz SM-11S1

Number of Channels 2
Output Power/Channel (20Hz - 20kHz) Stereo Mode: 110W x2 (8 ohms), 220W x2 (4 ohms), BTL Mode: 420W (8 ohms)
HDAM HDAM-SA3
Power Transformer Very Large Capacity Toroidal w/Shielded Case
Discrete Amplifier Stage Current Feedback Amplifier Stage
Individual Level Adjust Balanced / Unbalanced Individual Gain Setting (-6dB/0dB/+6dB)
THD (20Hz - 20kHz) 0.02% (8 ohms)
Input Sensitivity/Impeance Balanced: 2V/22k ohms, Unbalanced: 2V/22k ohms
Frequency Response 5Hz - 120kHz (1W, 8 ohms)
S/N Ratio Balanced: 101dB, Unbalanced: 101dB (IHF-A network, 1W, 8O)

heiney9

Specs really don't mean a thing relating to how something sounds or the synergy it has with other gear.

If you are relying on specs to make a decision; you're missing a great part of the entire picture. I have never bought a piece based on specs.

H9

dudeinaroom

heiney9 wrote: »

Specs really don't mean a thing relating to how something sounds or the synergy it has with other gear.

If you are relying on specs to make a decision; you're missing a great part of the entire picture. I have never bought a piece based on specs.

H9

Thank you for posting what I was thinking as I was reading that post

sk1939

heiney9 wrote: »

Specs really don't mean a thing relating to how something sounds or the synergy it has with other gear.

If you are relying on specs to make a decision; you're missing a great part of the entire picture. I have never bought a piece based on specs.

H9

Thats true. But if your going based solely upon measurable numbers (what BlueFox wanted), this is what you get. Audio does indeed tend to be subjective, and I do agree that some vintage audio is overrated, but there are some, like vintage Luxman, Nakamichi, and McIntosh that will blow modern stuff clean away. Some of the gear, when new, was more than some peoples mortgage payments. Even the low end R-1030 would have cost $1230 according to the CPI.

dudeinaroom

sk1939 wrote: »

...I do agree that some vintage audio is overrated, but there are some, like vintage Luxman, Nakamichi, and McIntosh that will blow modern stuff clean away. Some of the gear, when new, was more than some peoples mortgage payments. Even the low end R-1030 would have cost $1230 according to the CPI.

Now compare that to the stuff now that would cost more than your mortgage.

sk1939

dudeinaroom wrote: »

Now compare that to the stuff now that would cost more than your mortgage.

Point taken, all things are relative..I guess in the end, it all just depends on what sounds good to you, be it separates, a receiver, or an AVR...

cnh

I think for 2 channel sound you'd be hard pressed to find almost anyone on this site who will not tell you separates are the way to go..

Then you'd get into arguments about class A solid state amps or amps with a A/A/B step up....and the venerable 'warmth' and power of the TUBE amp.

The construction of a receiver makes it very difficult to achieve SIMPLICITY of signal transmission--you want as lilttle interference between your source and your amplification as possible and that is almost impossible in the construction of most receivers?

cnh

dorokusai

Vintage gear is hit or miss, even with the venerable lineage of manufacturers like McIntosh, Luxman, Phase Linear, etc. Not every piece was a winner but some of them are extremely nice to listen to in their own right. That being said, some have many more GOOD examples than bad and Luxman had some dogs in the later years....since you mention them in particular. If you know what to look for, it's a used market goldmine for vintage gear.

Blow away modern electronics? I don't know about that unless you're just being general. Is there more junk today than back then? Sure. Is stuff more reliable now? Absolutely.

I enjoy finding really nice examples of vintage gear, checking them out and moving on but I wouldn't say I've ever found something that has actually replaced what gear I run on a permanent basis.

turbopantera

My personal preference is for seperates. The basic reason, to prevent the high current drain of the main amp from effecting the preamp circuits. But that being said, there were some very good vintage receivers. One of the best I have found is the Sansui G9000. One thing that made it and other Sansuis sound good was the frequency response. The big Sansuis had amp sections rated DC to 300, 400 and in some cases 600khz. Why is this important when you can only hear 20K? Because the higher the frequency response, the better the amp can replicate rapid transient signals. Another spec seldom shown is slew rate. The higher the better. As far as new equipment, none of the retail store stuff is worth bringing home. They just dont have the power supplies to provide adequate power output and the circuits are a comprimize. I recently aquired an NAD T763 and was plesantly surprised in the quality of the sound. Very strong bass and smooth clear highs.

So to answer your question, it is possible to get quality sound from a receiver. But you have more choices with seperates.

cfrizz

Welcome to Club Polk Turbo.

Ron-P

I too prefer separates. I had a good rig set up with the Adcoms, an Outlaw 950 and an the Outlaw ICBM.

When I made the jump to HD-DVD / Blu-ray I needed an HDMI pre/pro, being that those were more then I could justify I went with the Onkyo 805. I played around with it for sometime but never really set-it up, dialed it in without the Adcoms and took the time with it. Doing so now, the quality exceeded my expectations, and for my small theater room, it's more then enough.

At some point, like Doro suggested in my thread is to go with matching Onkyo amps for the fronts and using the avr for the surrounds. This way all the amp technology is matched.

bluecomet

I have three Luxman M-117 amps and love them. I tend to lean to seperates staying in the Luxman family or vintage Yamaha serperates like the MX-1000 amp and a C85 pre amp for music. The only receiver that blew me away was the Luxman R-117 model. It has 160 watts per channel at 8 ohms, the headroom is also huge on this model. I have owned monster receivers like the kenwood KR9600 which is also good with high watt ratings. The tuner on both of these models is outstanding. Very few recievers can match the power of a good power amp like Luxman, Carver, Yamaha and when you are driving SDA SRS 1.2tl's or something similar, the more power the better.

heiney9

Yamaha is way over rated as is Luxman and Kenwood.

I've owned and sold at retail level a lot of Yamaha gear during their supposed heydey and I'd be glad to use the stuff for boat anchors. I have not understood the following Yamaha has had because their gear is about as sterile as a Eunuch.

The old Trio Kenwood stuff was alright but again having owned and sold most of their "high end" Basic line..........I'd rate it the same as Yamaha.....boring and sterile.

The Luxman hybrid integrateds were OK for the day and a unique product.

This is all IMHO however, and each likes their own type of sound and performance. Just once I'd like someone to explain to me why Yamaha is so praised when it has never even caused me to give it a second glance and I have tried to like it.

H9

P.s. I'll add I have a good friend on this board who has built a vintage Yammy rig mostly for nostalgia so I'm not trying to "crap" on anyone's gear choice............just stating my view and trying to understand the rabinous like for Yammy.

TNRabbit

Separates USUALLY afford you more flexibility in setup.

sk1939

bluecomet wrote: »

I have three Luxman M-117 amps and love them. I tend to lean to seperates staying in the Luxman family or vintage Yamaha serperates like the MX-1000 amp and a C85 pre amp for music. The only receiver that blew me away was the Luxman R-117 model. It has 160 watts per channel at 8 ohms, the headroom is also huge on this model. I have owned monster receivers like the kenwood KR9600 which is also good with high watt ratings. The tuner on both of these models is outstanding. Very few recievers can match the power of a good power amp like Luxman, Carver, Yamaha and when you are driving SDA SRS 1.2tl's or something similar, the more power the better.

I get the power rating thing, although I think current affects the power more than watt rating....a high current amp at 200W will probably be louder at the same level than another amp at 200W.

I just noticed....Jessup huh....that means your close to Scranton if I do recall...

bluecomet

All I can say about the vintage Yamaha seperates in the 80's, there was a high end electronic store here in town and we got to try out all of the high end popular brands of the day and a lot of us liked the sound of the Yamaha's the best. I know on this forum alot of guys like Onkyo or Marantz which are very good also but to each his own. I am not going to say I would use Onkyo or Marantz equipment as boat anchors. If your gear makes you smile when you listen to it, I don't care what the brand it is sit back and enjoy. Just my opinion.

sk1939

TNRabbit wrote: »

Separates USUALLY afford you more flexibility in setup.

So I take it that it's not a definite thing....

sk1939

turbopantera wrote: »

My personal preference is for seperates. The basic reason, to prevent the high current drain of the main amp from effecting the preamp circuits. But that being said, there were some very good vintage receivers. One of the best I have found is the Sansui G9000. One thing that made it and other Sansuis sound good was the frequency response. The big Sansuis had amp sections rated DC to 300, 400 and in some cases 600khz. Why is this important when you can only hear 20K? Because the higher the frequency response, the better the amp can replicate rapid transient signals. Another spec seldom shown is slew rate. The higher the better. As far as new equipment, none of the retail store stuff is worth bringing home. They just dont have the power supplies to provide adequate power output and the circuits are a comprimize. I recently aquired an NAD T763 and was plesantly surprised in the quality of the sound. Very strong bass and smooth clear highs.

So to answer your question, it is possible to get quality sound from a receiver. But you have more choices with seperates.

So how does that apply to some of the now-vintage monster receivers by Sanyo, Onkyo, or even a Nakimichi 2.

turbopantera

I dont have experience with all brands of receivers. My personal opinion was that Sansui was among the best. Marantz had some good stuff. They had a slightly different sound but did make an amazing 350 wpc receiver model 2700. The Pioneer 1980 with 270 wpc (which I have one of) does not hold a candle to the Sansui. Very dark sounding. The Onkyos were pretty good. I have a TX-8500 MkII and it has a good sound. Kenwoods had a variety of quality.

As for the specs, I only really know the specs of the Sansuis but from listening and measuring various brands with test equipment, I can state that higher slew rate equals better sound. So specs to some extend apply to any brand and can be tested even when not listed.

Most receivers have power supplies that are too weak to handle demanding speakers like the Polk SDAa. My first HT receiver was a sony and it would trip out on a set of SDA 1s. And the sound was muffled even compared to a vintage 45 watt amp. But some of the vintage as well as a few higher end receivers do have adequate power supplies to handle quality sound. As an example, the Onkyo TX-8500 MkII is a dual monoblock amp with tuner and preamp in the same case. Most newer receiver makers might make One model at the upper end that has the quality amp circuits and power supply for true audiophile sound but anything less just doesnt cut it.

cnh

I would agree with heiney9 above on that Kenwood. That unit had lots of power but I never could get it to sound the way I wanted....there was always something 'missing'. To this day I can't put my finger on it.

And BTW this has been a rather tame discussion for CP...Imagine people actually touting receivers? Where have all the tube guys gone? No input from them here?

It's almost unthinkable...but 'civil'?

cnh