 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.205.66.216
A good stereo amplifier for the same money will do much better than an AV receiver. Most entry AV receivers have DC/DC converters to compensate for a smaller and cheaper transformer. In the more expensive AV receivers they use a linear power supply with a big transformer. Any one who has an other option?
Follow Ups:
I believe it was Mr. Hanson, from Ayre (I could be wrong) stated that the weakest point of most multichannel receivers is the volume control. Good volume potentiometers or resistor ladders, etc. are extremely expensive so only the cheapest models can be economically employed in multichannel devices where a lot of such devices are needed.
I have a headphone amp that uses as its volume control an Alps RK50 volume pot (4 gang). I know a friend who tried to buy that same pot from a supplier and was told he had to purchase at least 25, at about $800 for a single pot. I know that this is an extreme example, but, any decent pot will not be cheap.
Volume control is indeed very expensive. Look for example how Accuphase it does with his revolutionary AAVA volume control in the E-460 and other models.
Question: why are there no $499 surround processors ?
Answer: because sales of those expensive processors and > $1200 receivers would drop like a boat anchor tossed in a pool (ie, profits --> toilet).
If you're serious about Home Theater, you get a surround processor and pair it with high quality multichannel and/or stereo amplification, not a surround receiver, to power your speakers. For $499, you can get a surround receiver with three 32-bit processors that will decode all of the audio formats for movies, do bass management, time alignment, blah blah blah, etc for a 7.1 system and provide seven channels of amplification. If they'd ditch the amplification and instead provide pre-amp outputs with an improved analog stage (making it a surround processor ), there'd be little to no need for expensive surround receivers. Supplying your own amplification, using high quality amps, you'd be better off and a lot happier than someone spending far too much money on an expensive surround receiver.
But it won't happen. Why? Because the manufacturers have us by the balls (read the second line again!).
I have from DGG 2DVD Mauritzo Pollini piano concertos from Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms with audio tracks in LPCM stereo 48kHz/16 bits and DTS 5.1 surround. DTS on DVD is bitstream with 754.5 kbit/s, DTS no longer retains audio transparency and that is why LPCM 48kHz/16 bits sound better. Sorry for home theatre surround system.
Edits: 01/21/11 01/21/11
DTS is a lossy format that does well for DVD's surround sound option. For transparency and higher quality, PCM 2.0 is the better option. You just can't put 6 channels of PCM on a DVD and expect to put video on it as well.
I'd buy a good AV controller and a separate multichannel amp. A couple years ago I bought a new Integra AV controller and a used Parasound 5 channel amp for around $2000 total.
"A good stereo amplifier for the same money will do much better than an AV receiver. "
A stereo amp has 2 channels of amplification and no provision for decoding bitstream digital signals, no DAC for converting the PCM signal obtained from the decoded bitstream to analog, no video processing facilities, no automated setup process, no room EQ, and it also doesn't have 5 or more channels of amplification.
Add all of the things that an AVR has and a stereo amplifier doesn't to a stereo amp and you're faced with 2 choices: keep the same price and reduce the quality of everything or keep the same quality and increase the price of the product. You have to do one or the other. You can't add all of those extra channels of sound, the additional processing functions, and deliver the same sound quality that your stereo amp has without either increasing the price if you're going to maintain sound quality or reducing sound quality if you're going to maintain the same price.
Simple fact of life.
David Aiken
The functionality is not a real cost issue since they use large scale ASIC's which are not so expensive in high volume. The analog components are much more expensive. A large transformer and buffer capacitors are very expensive. A rule of thumb is that an AV receiver 7.1 channel cost about three times more than a stereo amplifier. The Arcam AVR-600 receiver delivers good performance but cost more than $3000.
If your rule of thumb is that "an AV receiver 7.1 channel cost about three times more than a stereo amplifier", why are you surprised/upset/concerned (hard to say why you were asking the question) that an AV receiver will not sound as good as a stereo amp of the same cost, whether that be under $3000 or not?
Your rule of thumb gives you the answer, and makes exactly the same point I made.
David Aiken
As all I know is my all tube stereo pre-amp cost 3 times more than the Arcam AVR-600 reciever.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Edits: 01/20/11
An AV receiver is a 7.1 channel amplifier and is about three times more than a stereo amplifier. The Arcam AVR-600 is a solid-state amplifier. Tube amplifiers are tad more expensive.
.
Accuphase has in his program multi channel Home Theatre pre-amplifiers and power amplifiers which are very expensive. So the rule only applies to solid-state amplifiers in a midrange budget.
.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
