|   Why CAN'T a receiver sound good for music? | caldera
Jul 26, 2002 9:22 AM | | I keep reading htis all the time, that receivers especially HT models, are not good for music. Especially stereo music. How come? I can see where a $150 cheapie that wieghs 10lbs could really suck with music, but what about a $1000 Denon or Pioneer elite? (in Denons big models they even put the digital stuff in a metal box to shield the amp.) Thanks.
__/C\__ |
| re: Why CAN'T a receiver sound good for music? | wanderingbob
Jul 26, 2002 10:07 AM | | I wouldn't say that HT receivers can't be acceptable for music listening. However, in the process of incorporating a preamplifier, tuner, several channels of amplification, and DD/DTS decoders into one chassis for a HT receiver, certain compromises are usually made. So, IMO, it's easier to manufacture a two-channel receiver or preamplifier / amplifer combination that reproduces quality sound than to manufacture a 5.1 HT receiver that reproduces the same quality sound for the same price. A number of manufacturers (Denon is one I would name) make HT recievers that are certainly acceptable for music listening, but two-channel receivers or separates are available that are even better.
Bob Gardner
wanderingbob@yahoo.com |
| Put music through a Marantz reciever and prove them wrong! | midfiman
Jul 26, 2002 10:22 AM | | Listen to two channel through almost any Marantz reciever, and listen to how beautiful music sounds. I also love Denon, but found it better than the Maratanz in HT, but not in music. IMO, the Marantz seemed much more detailed in music with the same speakers. The denon seemed to do a better job of "seemlessly blending" all five speakers in HT mode.
Again, just my opinion... |
| I might add... | Keith from Canada
Jul 26, 2002 12:43 PM | | You should have a listen to the receivers being put out by NAD, Rotel and Nakamichi as well. They may not be as good as the more popular brands (e.g. Denon, Yammy, Marantz etc) in HT but they sound MUCH better in 2 channel stereo IMO. Of course, I personally own a Denon which, for me, sounds great in 2 channel stereo and kicks butt in HT. Besides, much of my music listening is in 5 channel stereo now so it's a moot point. |
| I'll second that | the hand of boredom
Jul 26, 2002 2:08 PM | | Marantz's entry level receiver (sr4200) did an amazing job in 2 channnel with my Studio 40s. Warm, great detail and dynamics. Much better performance in 2 channel, IMO, than the similarly priced NAD C350 integrated amp. I recently upgraded to an ANTHEM MCA20 amplifier for the 40s, because my standards for 2 channel performance exceded what the 4200 could give me. |
| I'll second that | JimM
Jul 28, 2002 12:42 PM | | I also have the Marantz SR4200 which is a gem of an entry level home theater receiver. I am very happy with its sound for music. I am not sure why, but the Marantz SR4200 is big imporvement over the Denon AVR 1600 I upgraded from - primairly in the ability to produce bass which the denon lacked. |
| They can. | A
Jul 26, 2002 11:24 AM | | There is a lot of prejudice and misinformation in audio. This accounts for a lot of the comments that you have heard. If they have not properly conducted a double blind test, then their report of what they heard is about as good as the reports people make of what they see in Loch Ness; for more on this, see:
<a href="/crforum?14@@.ef875dd">A "Explanation of Double Blind Test" 3/30/02 2:46pm</a>
Still, if one is comparing something that is two channel with something else that is 5 channel at the same cost (NOT the same cost per channel), one would naturally expect that, if both are an equally good value (which often is NOT the case), then the two channel equipment would be better for two channel use, because all of the money is spent on those two channels instead of some of it being spent on the other three channels. Keep in mind that many dollars can be spent on things that have absolutely no effect on the sound, but look impressive, and are therefore more likely to be viewed favorably (e.g., machined aluminum knobs instead of plastic knobs). |
| Simple crap goes in crap comes out | pinetop
Jul 26, 2002 1:25 PM | | That should answer your question aka (lousy recordings)Brittney Spears etc etc. bob d |
| And i don't care if it's a $30.000 system. n-t | pinetop
Jul 26, 2002 1:29 PM | | |
| Only one 't' in Britney... | the hand of boredom
Jul 26, 2002 1:41 PM | | an amazing package to a lousy product. |
| Yeap the other T is for TIT n-t | pinetop
Jul 26, 2002 2:04 PM | | |
| re: Why CAN'T a receiver sound good for music? | AVMASTER
Jul 26, 2002 1:45 PM | | check out nakamichi AV-10, one of the few A/V receivers modestly priced that handles music exceptionally well |
| They can and <i>do</i>. | Slosh
Jul 26, 2002 2:25 PM | | Although I still use my integrated stereo amp for music, I could easily live with my Marantz SR5200 as my only amp if I didn't happen to have something a little better. This biggest difference I hear between the two isn't in the amp-section, but rather with the analog pre-amps. This kind of surprised me at first because my integrated weights about as much as the A/V receiver. In source-direct mode they sound about the same. When you think about it, it make sense: the power supply in the receiver is built to drive six channels and is just loafing along in stereo mode.
The pre-amp OTOH is much better on the integrated. With the tone controls set to flat I can't hear any difference with source-direct turned on or off, which means I don't pay a sonic penalty if I want to bump the bass up a few dB. With the receiver however, the sound gets a little compressed (in terms of both top end clarity and the soundstage in general) with source-direct turned off (but still sounds damned good). I can understand this with analog inputs because (I'm assuming) it runs through the AD/DA chain, but this is no less true with digital inputs.
I agree, for the same amount of money the two-channel gear usually sounds better, but there are many fine sounding A/V receivers out there. |
| re: Why CAN'T a receiver sound good for music? | Woochifer
Jul 26, 2002 4:29 PM | | I think that depends on what your definition of "good for music" is. For the price, you'll probably get better performance with straight stereo with a two-channel than with a multichannel setup. Then again, you're looking at a very different market segment and performance goal. Home theatre receivers are basically computers that are asked to perform a wide variety of tasks, from digital decoding to video switching and multichannel effect processing. Stereo receivers are much simpler in terms of what they're asked to do. They typically have almost all analog circuitry (aside from the tuner) and the internal layout is simpler. For the cost of a $1,000 HT receiver, you can get stereo separates.
The HT receivers you named will deliver decent performance and have a multitude of decoding and multichannel capabilities that weren't possible 10 years ago or would have cost thousands of dollars just five years ago. Meanwhile, those stereo separates for the same cost aren't asked to do any digital decoding or multichannel functions. The signal remains analog and there are only two channels to focus on. With everything dedicated to two channels and minimal other functions, I guess that's why I've yet to hear a HT receiver outperform equivalent priced stereo separates. So, what I have in my room? A $600 HT receiver -- yes, I know that a $600 stereo receiver will probably outperform my unit for two-channel, but since I want multichannel decoding and output, I deemed the compromise with two-channel performance worthwhile. |
| re: Why CAN'T a receiver sound good for music? | mtrycrafts
Jul 26, 2002 10:08 PM | | You need to realize that the audio marketplace is not immune from hype, bs, mythology, voodoo.
As was mentioned by A, you need a bias controlled comparison to have any meaningfule comparisons. Unfortunately only one magazine uses such evaluations. So, you have no idea about the quality of the reviews in the others, or testimonials from consumers.
But, to answer you question, you can. |
| Any receiver worth it's salt can but i doubt | pinetop
Jul 27, 2002 4:41 AM | | it will sound as good as Nicks Proton combo. bob d |
| The Answer is NO, it won't (LOL) :) (nt) | nick4433
Jul 27, 2002 6:21 AM | | |
| I hear ya loud and clear agree n-t | pinetop
Jul 27, 2002 6:45 AM | | |
| Thanks for all the good info everybody (nt) | caldera
Jul 29, 2002 8:03 AM | | |
| Stereo Improvment with HT setup... | Orpheo
Jul 29, 2002 9:17 AM | | Hi there,
Just to give another story :0
I am mainly a stereo listener, and upgrading to an HT setup, I was minded to loose some Stereo quality...
However, I must say that with the HT setup I have now, the stereo presentation is better than it was before... And HT is really nice too, so it is possible to upgrade and find pleasure in that. Clear enough, If all the money I have put in the HT setup would have been invested in stereo mode, the sound may have been even better, but as it is now, I have a really excellent Stereo setup..
I have upgraded from :
Nad C370 / Cable monsters / interconnects Monsters
To
Audio REfinement by YBA Pre-2 and Multi-5 / Cables Cardas crosslinks / interconnects Audio Cambridge
I am using the new setup through my JMlabs Chorus 725 (LCR center and 710 surround).
This is offering me an excellent definition of the sound, with a realisitc transparency, really wide stage.
Transparency also in the HT mode... Good all around system !
Try Audio Refinement, you're gonna love it :) |
| |
