Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Video Asylum

What do you expect?

123.211.221.125

David Aiken

In Reply to: RE: Why sound AV receiver less than $3000 rubbish posted by JohanV on January 20, 2011 at 02:11:29

"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

Follow Ups:

RE: What do you expect? - JohanV 13:57:30 01/20/11 (6)
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.
- OK� - David Aiken 12:03:46 01/21/11 (0)
  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
- I'm not sure if your rule of thumb is accurate..... - kootenay 15:37:33 01/20/11 (4)
  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
  - RE: I'm not sure if your rule of thumb is accurate..... - JohanV 16:36:53 01/20/11 (3)
    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.
    - How much for a 7.1 tubed Receiver ? :) nt - oscar 09:28:52 01/27/11 (1)
      .
      - RE: Are there any 7.1 tubed receivers? :) nt - JohanV 09:38:56 01/27/11 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: How much for a 7.1 tubed Receiver ? :) nt posted by oscar on January 27, 2011 at 09:28:52
        
        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.
    - OK..... nt - kootenay 16:54:09 01/20/11 (0)
      .
      If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
      (Proverb)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: