Reciever Vs. Seperates. Side by Side?

[Rolyasm]

I am curious how many people have done side-by-side comparisons between a descent reciever and seperates? How many of gone from seperates to a receiver and been just as happy? How many have gone the opposite, from a receiver to seperates and think they where on cloud nine? I would make this a poll, if I knew how, but all responses are appreciated. I think that part of the problem is that when you go out and spend twice as much, or more, on seperates, you almost feel that it has to sound better. Kind of like when I get my oil changed and I think my car is faster, or buy new shoes and think I can run faster or jump higher. I am mostly looking for responses from people who have actually done comparisons, hopefully side-by-side.
Thanks
Roly

[CombatWombat]

I have never done a side by side (too many cabels to plug un plug for me to want to do that) But I have a Yahmaha RX-V1 cost me $6k a while back and Rotel seperates...I could never go back to The Reciever and I mean that never
Things just sound right as they are a lot better than with the Yahamah

[SteveCallas]

I have done a side by side blind, level matched test with a few other participants.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=680019

As long as you are keeping the amplification the same between the processors and aren't using any post processing EQ, we found we couldn't confidently pick up on any differences. Knowing which unit is playing when and knowing which costs more, as you mentioned, will play a HUGE role in what you think you hear.

[Aussie Geoff]

Steve,

Probably a good point to emphasise for others from reading your thread is that you used a separate amplifier for 2 channel so the receiver was only processing... In my experience this make a big difference - adding a good separate amp to most receivers just opens the sound right up. The amps in most receivers just aren't up to driving demanding speakers well and the quality is what varies the most between different price ranges and brands of reeivers (cheaper = lesser quality amp).

Also I notice you used a (relatively) low cost DVD player for the CD listening. Again in my experience these are pretty "low fi" for CD reproduction anyway - so for better differences between receivers and processors I found a higher quality CD player showed up more the differences... Though that wasn't double blind - but I did have both at once in my house for some time...

As with anything more money generally equals better quality - so higher end recievers can sound better than lower end ones as can amps. Though how important the differences are varies hugely from person to person.

Geoff

[Chris D]

I went from a Yamaha RX-V2095 to Parasound separates, a C1 processor with A52 and A21 amplifiers. I am a big believer in the concept that when you upgrade, make a QUANTUM improvement in performance to get your money's worth. So for me, yes, there was a vast improvement in performance with that upgrade. Not how much of it was simply receiver to separates, and how much was additional fidelity, quality, amplification, etc, I really don't know.

All I know is, I'm never going back to a receiver for my main setup, no matter how great it is.

[gross30]

Rolyasm, I still use my Yamaha RX-Z9 just for HT processing. It used to be the cornerstone of the entire setup. Once I started going to seperates, ie: monoblocks for mains, 3-channel amp for c/l/r etc. I could not be happier with the results. The performance, sound, and build quality should have me enjoying sound for some time to come. I will admit that I was a big Yamaha fan since the late 80's, and they provided some great memories and sounds through the years. I still have all my old equipment in boxes that I just can't let go. Oh well, crazy hobby. My vote would be for seperates. i.m.h.o.

[SteveCallas]

Also I notice you used a (relatively) low cost DVD player for the CD listening. Again in my experience these are pretty "low fi" for CD reproduction anyway

We were using the digital output though, not analog output, so unless the dvd player was somehow defective at reading the discs, it wouldn't make any difference.

[Aussie Geoff]

We were using the digital output though, not analog output, so unless the dvd player was somehow defective at reading the discs, it wouldn't make any difference.

I used to believe this too - for several years... Then I tried a really good CD player and (for no reason I can be really sure of) the difference is night and day. I still have both. I can put the same Cd (I have two of some demos) on both my Denon 1910 and My Rotel RCD-1072 on digital and (identical levels) switch A-B the same song. Anyone can hear the difference and it is like night and day - with extra detail and clarity on the CD player... Who knows why - jitter, magic, whatever - even my teenage son now will only play CDs on the "proper CD player"...

When I have music loving friends come round (who like I used to think ones and zeros are ones and zeros) I often show them the difference... Most go out and buy a good CD player... Even the Denon DVD-1910 on CDs sounds noticably better than my previous Sony DVD player. Go figure (and again I had them both connected for a while).

Geoff

[Rolyasm]

Thanks for the replies. I am looking to either go seperates or use a receiver as a processor only. Tough call as many of the receivers are rated (THD, SNR, etc.) very similarly to the pres I am looking at (SN, Parasound, Adcom, Sherbourn, Arcam) and have things like XM, Ipod and other bells and whistles, which I am not really interested in. However, if they sound similar, it is nice to have those features. I also feel that the processors I am looking at are all several years old. I don't think any of them are less than a year old, except maybe the Sherbourn (which is an Emotiva/Sunfire platform, I think). I am betting a whole new batch of processors is coming soon and almost hate to buy, but will anyway.
Gross30. I see you have the Yam RX-Z9. It has prescence or side axis speakers like the Sherbourn. If you know anything about those channels, could you post on my thread under the Home Theater section. Thanks.
Roly

[SteveCallas]

Aussie, it would be interesting to test such a scenario using the same input on your processor and switching between each unit, just to eliminate as many variables as possible. Also, and more importantly, to conduct such a test with the equipment hidden from view with someone else doing the switching. Knowing which is which is so suggestive to the subconscious that I'd have to think you would hear differences even if there really weren't any.

Perhaps something I may try in the future.

[aud19]

I don't think it's a question of revceivers vs seperates being inherently better than eachother. I think it's about the quality of the components. For example a $5000 receiver should sound better than a $2000 set of seperates but there's no way a $500 receiver can come close to touching a decent $3000+ set of seperates. That said, if I was spending $5000, I wouldn't spend it on a receiver

In general though (from my experience) you'll get better amplification in particular and generally better/cleaner 2-ch performance with seperates. HT performance tends to be a less dramatic difference in all but the most demanding material from what I've experienced. Another bennefit of seperates is a better, more affordable upgrade path as well as generally better resale value. Receivers, particularly mass market brands, tend to have newer/more features/DSP modes etc... personally I prefer sound quality over bells and whistles and if the feature is valuable enough it will be in pre's soon enough, you just have to have a little patience (and/or deep pockets :lol: )

[Rolyasm]

I agree that a $5,000 reciever should sound better than a $2,000 set of seperates. Question is, does it? Doesn't seem like a lot of people have really compared it in blind comparisons. Amplification is another area. I will be getting a nice amp to keep for awhile. As far as the affordable upgrade path though. I could get a new receiver every year for three years and be at the same price point of a processor. If using a receiver as a pre, you can get the model that has the same specs but less Watts/PC. So I am not sure the affordable upgrade path is a valid arguement, though I do appreciate your response. And I am not trying to sound difficult, these are just the problems I am facing with my decision. I know everyone has been here. thanks.
roly

[aud19]

Yes but you wouldn't get the same level of performance out of those three receivers as you would if If you spent the same amount of money on a receiver or seperates The seperates are a better, more affordable upgrade path as you don't have to pay to replace the amp when new sound formats, connections etc come out and you replace JUST the pre

[SteveCallas]

Rolyasm, you're on the right path. The only thing you really need to worry about is having enough power while keeping the amplifier operating in its linear range. Use a peak spl calculator like this and see what it takes for your speakers to reach 105db peaks - then base your amp purchase off that. Pro amps sound just as good as "hi fi" amps. Base your processor purchase on features, inputs/outputs, navigation, remote, etc., not price or the brand status.

Aud, if he keeps the discrete amplification and only replaces the receiver being used for processing, it would be more cost effective than seperates. And since new technology makes its way into receivers before pre/pros due to economies of scale, he can stay more up to date.

[Glen B]

I went from multichannel separates to an Onkyo receiver a few years ago and have been quite happy up to this point.

[Carl V]

Interesting discussion.
Obvious things to consider is overall cost (s) as has been mentioned
No fair looking at < $1,000 Recv'r against +$2K combos...yadda, yadda.

I offer two anecdotal stories. I sold an older Yamaha Z1 to a friend.
It was fine. His speakers were paradigm Ref. 60s, 450 & ADP 450
and the Ref 15 sub. He then 'upgraded' to Acurus A200 then onto
Aragon 3 Ch 8008BB. He felt the Acurus route was a lateral move.
Maybe a slight upgrade when relieving the Yammy of LCR duties.
But you had to push the SPL up to hear this. Not Nite-n-day on
most program material at wife approved SPL levels.
The Aragon was an upgrade. I would agree but the $$ difference
moves it into apples & oranges. He continued to use the internal
amps for the surrounds. He used the acurus for the surrounds but
could not hear a difference...with DVD, DVD-A, SACD or CD.
He sold
the Acurus for $100 less than he bought it for
and cleaned up his cluttered rack.
He 'improved ' his source & got BPT (better bang for the buck).

Next aquaintance had a Big Denon Rec'vr. His speakers were Intially PSB Stratus line.
He then added a Big Parasound 2205THX. He was quite pleased.
He too bought it on the 2nd hand market. He got sucked into
the DIY vortex & we built NorthCreek Rhythm & Borealis...then Okara.
Speaker change was his 1st epiphiny on Hi-Fi quality parts, design & construction.
He got into tubes & bought Sonic Frontier Tubes amps. So he's gone from
"OK" rec'vr amp's to big parasound Amp (cost was equal to the Denon)
to much more expensive (when New) Sonic Frontier Tubes.
He finally fullfilled his wish list
with an Anthem Pre-pro. He was very happy. He sent his Anthem back
for repair/upgrade re-inserted the Denon & thought
wait a minute....I can't really tell the difference on some material....
maybe we could claim a step down
on some 'critical' material....but who knows. He then "upgraded" to the
newwer bigger Anthem and felt all was right in the HT universe.
But look how much he spent to get an improvement....
and it wasn't nite-n-day.

Doing side By side A/B is next to impossible with HT, MC music
& pushing the envelope with experimental error with elaborate 2Ch Music systems.

Getting a decent rec'vr is a wise choice especially if it has preouts & ins....
if you want to upgrade, consider outboard amplification 2-3 5-6 Channels
as your Money allows. And nice Tube amps can bring a lot more to the
table than some might believe...and not just Distortion.

[Stev]

This is a really interesting thread and says a lot about our hobby. Everyone wants "better" more expensive gear to sound superior. A lot of guys buy this stuff after reading positve reviews online from various sources - player x blows away player y for slam, dynamics, etc - you know the blurb. Where the hobby splits into two camps is the guys that are objective enough to be honest with themselves let alone anyone else and the guys that want to justify their purchase because of the cost. appearance or prestige of a particular product. Its not confined to Hi-Fi but it sure is prevalent in it !

[Vinny]

For the basics they are still processing signal for pre and amplification on the signal on the amp while reciever put them togther. If they are equally good I don't think you will have better/worse switching these 2 unless you have really crappy interconnect between pre/amp. However it is always much easier to upgrade with seperate with lower cost, no doubt there. A flagship reciever maybe 5k but if you want a new pro that support the new format in the future you have to buy a whole new pro and amp for the set(or you can do 7.1 direct thru reciever, but still a waste) compare to you can sell the old pro and get a new one.
I might be wrong but I would be happy to see some companies concentrate on the processing signal and some companies work on the ampflication in the future as the signal/format is going like rocket science nowadays. Of course matching flawlessly is the ultimate goal, too :T

[SteveCallas]

Everyone wants "better" more expensive gear to sound superior.

Yes, I think the notion that the sound can always be made better as long as you are willing to spend more money on electronics is actually comforting to some. But when your gear is accurately reading the data from a disc, decoding it to match the original within 99.99%, and pumped through an amp with a ruler flat frequency response that is being driven well, well, below its limits, what excatly can you improve? Efforts should be concentrated on speakers and the room, the electronics is the easy part.

[Boombox]

...But when your gear is accurately reading the data from a disc, decoding it to match the original within 99.99%, and pumped through an amp with a ruler flat frequency response that is being driven well, well, below its limits, what excatly can you improve? Efforts should be concentrated on speakers and the room, the electronics is the easy part....

Can't argue with that....!! No way one can bring hi-fi into HT discussion. Comparing DVD player with CD player is just criminal and should be banned in any discussion.

The cost issue is hard to swollow. A receiver will cost you a third of the price the pre/amp combo would. In this whole discussion, interconnects are left out and these can add a substantial amount to your expenditure. Not to mention the electricity usage...That said, I do consider the HT equipment in the same light as my laptop. Next year it is so outdated..... :cry:

Finally......I liked the qoute "....at wife approved SPL levels...." by Carl V. This consideration is never calculated in. I watch most of my movies in 2 channel stereo and after 90min of +/-110dB SPL my body is completely exhausted + I have 7 missed calls and 3 SMSs on my mobile. This is obviously done alone...but when the girlfriend is also watching, we hoover around the 50-60dB SPL level. It adds more frustration than anything else as one feels the whole expenditure was a complete and utter waste of money.....one then starts to reevaluate your relationship with your partner..... :evil:

[Kobus]

one then starts to reevaluate your relationship with your partner..... :evil:

that being your HT or the girlfriend ?

[Boombox]

its pretty obvious..... :B ....girlfriend....

.......soon to be wife... :T ........hmmmm..... 8O

[Rolyasm]

You gotta get you both some ear plugs. She wears them during your movie sessions, you wear them the rest of the time....
roly

[Ovation]

When I first got into HT, I bought a Denon AVR1600. It fit my budget, I'd had good experience with other Denon gear and it was sufficient for my needs. However, it did not have DTS, it did not have pre-outs for all channels and it did not have component video switching. So after three years, I sold it to my brother in law and upgraded. I gave some thought to going the separates route but budgetary constraints prevented that option. However, I did ensure that my next receiver (Integra DTR 6.4) had the features I wanted (DTS, component video switching and full pre-outs) as I came to the conclusion that I'd want to add outboard amps before upgrading my processing. Moreover, the pre/pro portion of my receiver works very well and I'm of the opinion that the best upgrade path is the receiver as pre/pro for HT, as long as the receiver has a decent "pure audio" mode (as mine currently does) so when I upgrade my universal player for audio purposes, it can shine.

[Brandon B]

when the girlfriend is also watching, we hoover around the 50-60dB SPL level.

That's some loud hoovering.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

BB

[Chris D]

You gotta get you both some ear plugs. She wears them during your movie sessions, you wear them the rest of the time....
roly

:rofl: :T

[Ade]

Finally......I liked the qoute "....at wife approved SPL levels...." by Carl V. This consideration is never calculated in. I watch most of my movies in 2 channel stereo and after 90min of +/-110dB SPL my body is completely exhausted + I have 7 missed calls and 3 SMSs on my mobile.

Of course, you realize I suppose that too much of that and you won't be capable of enjoying any sort of HT or music...or, at the very least, your ability to appreciate it will be severely hampered.

[Ade]

Yes, I think the notion that the sound can always be made better as long as you are willing to spend more money on electronics is actually comforting to some. But when your gear is accurately reading the data from a disc, decoding it to match the original within 99.99%, and pumped through an amp with a ruler flat frequency response that is being driven well, well, below its limits, what excatly can you improve? Efforts should be concentrated on speakers and the room, the electronics is the easy part.

Hi Steve,

I've read your posts over on AVS with some interest a while ago and I've referred to them a number of times since during my, uh, discussions with "believers". Good stuff. :T

And yes, the money thing, people usually forget that economies of scale tend to dictate that large mass producing companies like Denon, Yamaha, Sony, etc can put together a piece of electronics far cheaper than a small specialized company producing an equivalent piece of hardware using the same parts. Then there's the brand/designer label markup in addition which my guess is far higher on a McIntosh or Krell than a Denon.

That's not to say that these extremely expensive bits of kit aren't fantastic at what they do as I'm sure they are but the price on these things far, far exceeds what should be normal manufacturing and markup costs. I mean, seriously, you can buy a car for the price of some of these amps. :E And, compared to an amp that costs half as much or a lot less, are they going to sound any better when driving the average 8 or 4 ohm speaker with a sensitivity of 90dB? I sincerely doubt that given the many well performed and reliable tests I’ve read, including yours.

I real niggle with me is this idea that if you buy very expensive speakers then they just aren’t going to sound their best unless you drive them with amplification that costs at least as much. Now how silly is that?

[NoHype]

Rolyasm & SteveCallas ,
I've read a few read a few of your posts and it seems we share some of the same ideas when it comes to audio/HT .
I'm new around here but i do have about 6k worth of posts over at another forums i call home. I made the move to a seperate amp to power my front speakers in my dedicated HT . The main reason I made this move was because not long ago I made the move to a front projector . After installing the projector I moved my gear to a closet behind my couch . Going this route forced me to run what i consider very long speaker wire runs to my mains . By adding the amp I was able to place the seperate amp between my front speakers , so I went from 38ft (per speaker) of speaker wire down to about 6ft .

In making all these changes I was able to do some really good A/B tests , receiver vs seperate amp . I also had a chance to demo 2 other brands of amps against my receiver . With all the testing and changes I feel that I have a very grounded and honest idea of what kind of gaines can be had by going to seperates.

[SteveCallas]

Did you compare the receiver to the seperates using the receiver's own amplification?

[---k---]

Pro amps sound just as good as "hi fi" amps.

Steve,
I haven't done the testing myself, but tend to agree with you. But, did you see in a recent amp thread in the DIY section where Chuck (Chasw98) said that he switched from using a Behringer EP2500 to an Earthquake (??) amp for his mains, because he could hear a differance? IIRC, it was signal to noise.

[SteveCallas]

Correction, since building my WWMT's, I have purchased an Earthquake Cinenova X 3 for L/C/R and I can hear a difference in SQ from using the EP2500 previously to the Earthquake now. I am still using an Ep2500 for sub and 2 EP1500's for surround duty.

I'm sure he does hear a difference, just as I'm sure everyone would when switching a 35lb pro amp for a 100lb hifi amp and knowing which is playing when.

However, do a blind, level matched test, with the amps being the only variable piece of equipment, using a song clip that the listeners are already familiar with, and play back multiple samples in one sitting over a relatively short period of time at moderate to spirited levels, and I wonder how much of a difference the findings would show exists. Well, I don't have to wonder, I already did that :B

The first thing that sticks out in my mind is the fact that the Behringer has loud fan noise. Now I know Chuck has modded his fans, but I believe he never got the noise lower than ~62db at 1" from the front faceplate. That's loud. Multiply that by two (one amp for mains, one for the center), and you're at 68db. That's a lot of fan noise. Insert the Earthquake, which is silent, and there will absolutely be audible differences, as that fan noise is noise distortion. However, eliminate the fan noise entirely, like Jon and I did, and you're back to a blind test of comparing the amplification sound quality. I don't know what efforts Chuck went to to do any such comparison, if any at all.

Now if the Behringer's somewhat low sensitivity results in the need to significantly boost the processor's channel levels, that could potentially result in clipped peaks and distortion from the pre outs. Conversely, if the Behringer has a significantly higher natural noise floor, that could also result in some issues. I can't find the sensitivity rating of the Earthquake though and I don't have any experience with the Behringer. I doubt those would be significant issues though. The main issue is probably fan noise.

[---k---]

How did you and Jon totally eliminate the fan noise. Did you disconnect your fan completely?

[SteveCallas]

Yeah, we just unplugged the fan. Fan noise is something one will have to take into consideration in deciding what solution they want to go with, but in terms of comparing the sound quality due to amplification, it should not be part of the equation. That said, when I decided to use multiples of the Carvin amps, I knew I would have to mod the fans. I did, and now fan noise is nonexistant at my seat.

[peterS]

ive compsaired different recievers side by side and along with others heard a distinct differnce

[peterS]

I used to believe this too - for several years... Then I tried a really good CD player and (for no reason I can be really sure of) the difference is night and day. I still have both. I can put the same Cd (I have two of some demos) on both my Denon 1910 and My Rotel RCD-1072 on digital and (identical levels) switch A-B the same song. Anyone can hear the difference and it is like night and day - with extra detail and clarity on the CD player... Who knows why - jitter, magic, whatever - even my teenage son now will only play CDs on the "proper CD player"...

When I have music loving friends come round (who like I used to think ones and zeros are ones and zeros) I often show them the difference... Most go out and buy a good CD player... Even the Denon DVD-1910 on CDs sounds noticably better than my previous Sony DVD player. Go figure (and again I had them both connected for a while).

Geoff

the denon is hardly on par
when i owned both the rotel and denon 2910 there was no difference
having owned the 1920 too i can tell you its sq sucks

[---k---]

Preface: I'm only speaking of good to excellent quatily mid-level gear here (so no HITB, low end Sony crap, or at the opposite end no $10,000 processors and amps):

I think that if you take the amplification out of the equation, like Steve did, the differances starts to become very small and hard to identify.

I used to own a midlevel Denon receiver and recently pruchased a Pioneer 1015. I didn't do any side-by-side comparisions, but from my piss-poor memory, I beleive that they sound differnt, with the Denon being better. But, I also beleive that this likely comes down to the amplifiers in each unit. If I hooked both up to external amps, I doubt I would hear a significant differance - and if they were solely going to be used as a processor and not a receiver, the differance is probably not enough to justify FOR ME the differance in cost.

So, I think the general consensous is that an external amp of any kind is worth it, unless you are spending major dollars on a receiver. And Steve's point, which I tend to agree with, is that if you are buying an external amp that your front end to that amp doesn't have much impact, proportionally, on SQ, so buy based on features.

[SteveCallas]

If I hooked both up to external amps, I doubt I would hear a significant differance - and if they were solely going to be used as a processor and not a receiver, the differance is probably not enough to justify FOR ME the differance in cost.

This is all assuming there is a difference - we found no difference to exist. Yet here in the last two weeks I've read posts from a few people stating how wonderful the SQ on the Audio Refinement Pre-2DSP is and how it easily bests other processors out there in regards to pure sound quality based only on a swap.....go figure. When I read stuff like that, I really don't like to associate myself with this hobby :B Anyone with the most basic understanding of psychology or logic could see through 90% of the claims made in this hobby.

is that if you are buying an external amp that your front end to that amp doesn't have much impact, proportionally, on SQ, so buy based on features.

Due to my recent "adventures" in trying to find a suitable rceiver, I'd expand that list, and in this order:

1. Ease of commanding the receiver to do what you want it to do (functions of on screen menu navigatability, remote control layout, and receiver display)

2. Power supply - even if I won't be using the receiver to power my front three, I want a CLEAN power supply. This means no annoying hisses, no high noise floor, and definitely no causing magnetic intereference on tvs when in proximity.

3. Inputs/outputs - the main function of a receiver is to process audio, so a low number of digital audio inputs not only baffles me, it gets me angry

4. Quality - a well manufactured unit that doesn't have any bugs and will last a lifetime.

5. Features - not as big an issue as I thought it would be. I found I don't need or want any fancy stuff like auto setup, autoEQ, video upconversion, independent crossovers, etc. Just give me ProLogic IIx and I'm happy.

[wolfgang]

I find this thread very interesting indeed. 6 years ago I wanted to switch from a long term stereo system to 5.1 HT set up. Unfortunately, after listening to a few receivers around that time I was convinced Separates would be the only solution to achieve the nice sound I was used to. Then again never knew all this thing about 'levels matching' back then.

I am now wondering if the present batch of receivers have caught up or simple my previous comparison was not careful enough.

[Joey_V]

HK330 vs RB1070, side by side into BW703.

BIG difference.

HK330 vs RB1070, side by side into Polk LSi9.

BIG difference.

The difference was so apparent, that my brothers who are not audiophiles could pick out the differences without even having to A/B back and forth.

[SteveCallas]

The difference was so apparent, that my brothers who are not audiophiles could pick out the differences without even having to A/B back and forth.

That's a classic, ain't it?