Is there a disadvantage to using an old AV Receiver for only stereo sound?
Options
Auxient
Posts: 15
I am currently using a Pioneer VSX-516 AV Receiver @100wpc x5ch to power my 5jr+ speakers. They sound okay using this amp but I feel like my older Technics @45wpc sounded better. Anyways, I have the opportunity to pick up a Denon AVR-2500 along with BRT 10 band EQ for $50 locally. Apparently, these are rated at 85wpc for stereo and I just want to know if there is anything wrong with using an AV Receiver for the sole purpose of powering these speakers in stereo. I won't be using it for anything else.
Comments
-
Your older Technics is still going to sound better. If you want to improve upon that look for a nice integrated amp or separates. AVR's are for HT, not 2 channel music.Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
Nothing wrong, but you could do better. The Denon should have a beefier power supply than the pioneer, but it's full potential can't ever be reached.
If it's a dedicated 2 channel rig you're after, look for a 2 channel amp instead. -
There are no absolutes in audio but from my experience, AVR's were built for home theater and they do it well. While they will play in stereo, it is not what they are best at. There is still something, processing, DSP, filtering, EQ, something that is getting in the way of simple stereo signal. Now you would most likely never notice it unless you swapped in a stereo preamp to compare against. This is exactly what I found when taking out a McIntosh AVR and putting in a simple 2 channel pre. There was simply more there, more bass, more dynamic range. To me it just sounded better. YMMV
-
We've already "discussed" harmonic distortion -- believe it or not "power" specifications are similar. In theory, per a US regulation (Federal Trade Commission), there are
standards for power reporting for domestic (for home use), stereo (two channel) hifi audio amplifiers and receivers. The original version of the FTC regs required advertising power output levels as minimum power in "RMS watts" (a misnomer -- but the meaning is "continous power output" in watts) at a specified level of harmonic distortion (THD) over a specified range of frequencies. A severe preconditioning period was also required prior to the rating test.
Multi channel receivers, "pro" and car components were/are exempt from the regulations.
Plus, the regulations have been amended in the ensuing 45 years, primarily (I think) in terms of the preconditioning period. The original FTC regs required operation of the amp or receiver at 1/3 of rated power continuously for 60 minutes with a 1000 Hz sine wave input signal prior to the measurement of output power. This is a severe test for most components.
All of this notwithstanding, the absolute power specification has little to do in most cases with sound quality, and at any rate is only half of the equation. The sensitivity and load characteristics (impedance curve) of the loudspeakers one uses will have a bearing on how well, or poorly, one amp at a given power output capability (say, 100 watts per channel) will work with a given pair of speakers, compared to some other 100 wpc amplifier.
The OP has already experienced this.
-
If the OP (or anyone else) is interested in the 1974 FTC regulations, see, e.g., the article by Larry Klein starting on page 79 of https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1974-11.pdf
Google will turn up info on revisions of the regs.
See, e.g., https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/amplifier-rule -
I just went through this little experiment myself. I connected my Marantz AVR in place of my dedicated preamp + stereo amplifier and, to me and my wife, the Marantz (even in Direct or Pure Direct) was unlistenable for the sole purpose of music reproduction.
As stated above, the Marantz does a good job at what it is designed to do - HT. Stereo music simply isn't the best purpose for which it is suited. However, someone who hasn't become accustomed to a set of separate components and the sound quality they are capable of producing might think the AVR does a great job at music playback. I used to love my vintage Onkyo TX-830 stereo receiver but, now, I don't think I'd put it back in the mix as I prefer the sound of separates. I've never owned an integrated stereo amplifier but I know a lot of people like them quite a bit for stereo use.Audio: Polk S15 * Polk S35 * Polk S10 * SVS SB-1000 Pro
HT: Samsung QN90B * Marantz NR1510 * Panasonic DMP-BDT220 * Roku Ultra LT * APC H10 -
I just went through this little experiment myself. I connected my Marantz AVR in place of my dedicated preamp + stereo amplifier and, to me and my wife, the Marantz (even in Direct or Pure Direct) was unlistenable for the sole purpose of music reproduction.
As stated above, the Marantz does a good job at what it is designed to do - HT. Stereo music simply isn't the best purpose for which it is suited. However, someone who hasn't become accustomed to a set of separate components and the sound quality they are capable of producing might think the AVR does a great job at music playback. I used to love my vintage Onkyo TX-830 stereo receiver but, now, I don't think I'd put it back in the mix as I prefer the sound of separates. I've never owned an integrated stereo amplifier but I know a lot of people like them quite a bit for stereo use.
What’s strange is that in my setup (out of necessity with one setup area available - 2ch and HT) I have a Marantz being used as a preamp only for the 2ch setup and it’s decently neutral. I experimented with this recently on my acquisition of the CA CXN and bypassed the Marantz and went directly from the CXN to the Linn Monoblocks
Now powering the speakers from the Marantz, that’s a whole different story. No where near the imaging and performance of the Linn’s
-
I had compared my Denon AVR-888, which is a made in Japan model with a pretty beefy power supply to my old Denon DRA-835R for 2-ch. This was driving my RTA-11TL's. No contest, the DRA-835R was the winner.Stan
Main 2ch:
Polk LSi15 (DB840 upgrade), Parasound: P/LD-1100, HCA-1000A; Denon: DVD-2910, DRM-800A; Benchmark DAC1, Monster HTS3600-MKII, Grado SR-225i; Technics SL-J2, Parasound PPH-100.
HT:
Marantz SR7010, Polk: RTA11TL (RDO198-1, XO and Damping Upgrades), S4, CS250, PSW110 , Marantz UD5005, Pioneer PL-530, Panasonic TC-P42S60
Other stuff:
Denon: DRA-835R, AVR-888, DCD-660, DRM-700A, DRR-780; Polk: S8, Monitor 5A, 5B, TSi100, RM7, PSW10 (DXi104 upgrade); Pioneer: CT-6R; Onkyo CP-1046F; Ortofon OM5E, Marantz: PM5004, CD5004, CDR-615; Parasound C/PT-600, HCA-800ii, Sony CDP-650ESD, Technics SA 5070, B&W DM601 -
Early in my 'stereo life' I began with a receiver (budget issue), but quickly moved to an amp & pre-amp. Have never looked back. While in the ensuing years I have changed out the pre-amp to a pre-pro, due to all the digital and multi-speaker options... I still think separating the power amp from all the 'signal calls/routing' is a very good thang. Even if you are 'strictly' two channel, 'separation of powers' is always a good thing, whether talking democracy or stereo stuff...2.3TL's - Living Room
CRS+'s (4.1 TL's) - Office
SDA1C's - Famdamly Rm
SDA1C's - Master Bedroom -
Gotta agree. Out of the receivers, pre/pros, and strictly 2ch separates I’ve owned, the 2ch separates are noticeably better by a large margin. Even cheaper older separates.
