 
|
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
In Reply to: RE: What do you expect? posted by David Aiken on January 20, 2011 at 12:31:37
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.
Follow Ups:
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 ]
