Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers (Read 4574 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

tl;dr
Does it really matter which AV receiver I buy and will it sound worse than my current bread & butter stereo amp? I think not, but I'm confused.

The setup
I am planning to extend my 2.1 setup to 5.1 and am therefore looking for a fitting AV receiver (AVR). Browsing through various forums some common topics always come up, on which I'd like to hear your opinion.
  • An AVR "taints" the sound in a manner which regular stereo amplifiers do not. Simply put: AVRs sound worse than stereo amplifiers. You need to spend absurd amounts of money on high-end AVRs to lessen this tainting. (But even then...)
  • You need excessive amounts of power, especially for movies.
  • Whenever someone asks if model x is OK, someone will suggest the next higher model x+1. This is regardless of x. x+1 always sounds better than x.

I would apply the following
The art of building transparent power amplifiers has been mastered and is available at moderate prices. I'm assuming that transparent power amplifiers are available even in the cheapest products of well known manufacturers (Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, Onkyo, etc...); i.e. the amplifier stage will sound the same from the cheapest to the most expensive product, regardless of the number of channels.

Granted, movie soundtracks usually have a high dynamic range. However going from 100W to 200W will only yield 3dB more perceived volume. Moreover most manufacturers seem to offer very similar wattage across a wide range of products. Onkyo's three 7.2 AVRs go from 160W to 180W. In Pioneer's 7.x range, four of five products are rated at 150W, the fifth at 130W. (Whatever those numbers are, they don't seem to be RMS). The 150W devices all load your wall socket with 550W max. Three of the four 150W devices also weigh essentially the same. I conclude that they use the same power amplifiers and the same transformer, which in the end cuts costs and also means that these three a) sound the same and b) output the same amount of power. I assume other manufacturers apply similar principles. The above-mentioned Onkyo may be artificially limiting the 170W and 160W devices compared to the 180W version. Usually higher end models don't have significantly more Watts, they have more channels.

Comparing the DSP features in the product line-up of one manufacturer leads me to believe that they reuse the same DSP components and algorithms across multiple models. Higher-end models may have additional features (various forms of image/sound improvement) or replace features (frequency and volume EQing using one or multiple measurements). Basic features stay the same.

Response to the above claims
  • AVRs have no reason to sound worse than a stereo amp and can deliver transparent performance at reasonable prices. The whole product range of one manufacturer can be clustered into a small number of groups which will also measure the same (e.g. low-, mid-, high-end).
  • The power output per channel across the whole product range is actually quite limited and the resulting volume differences are not very significant. More so with a constricted budget. One should be aware that the transformers usually do not allow to continuously and simultaneously exploit the max. power of the individual channels.
  • See 1. Model x+1 will likely sound the same as model x unless you use the additional DSP features of x+1.

Consequences
You can buy pretty much any AVR and don't have to worry that you are missing out on sound quality improvements regarding basic components on higher end models. You can base your purchasing decision on things like number of audio channels, number of HDMI in/out, other I/O and desired DSP features. Higher end models will give you more of those in addition to sleeker looks, nicer displays and a satisfying knob-turning experience. Units with less output-power might actually spare you noisy fans.

Am I talking sense? Do the cost restraints of low- and mid-range AVRs mean that the analog stages are bad because they need so many of them and thus they must be ultra-cheap? Do they carelessly slap together inferior DSP chips?

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #1 –
I've always used an AVR for stereo listening. Admitedly it's a reasonably high end one, but it was bought second hand from ebay so didn't cost too much and has AVR features that I wanted. You need to base your decision on what features you want. Do a listening test and see.

It has a 'Direct' mode for stereo listening if you want which turns off all the video processing trickery....not that I think I could hear any difference anyways

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #2 –
I have stereo amp, but I had for few months friend's 5.1 receiver (can't remember model, brand was Yamaha, as the amp I have), which had so many connectors at the back it was kind of funny to look at all of them...
It had some sound enhancers which could be turned on for stereo sound, which I didn't bother to test - but for me, it sounded the same as my stereo amplifier (which is on the lower end, by the way...) I think it's bull**** that 5.1 sounds worse. Granted, if the build quality is bad and amp is of unknown quality, it could sound bad, but not all of them all the time.
TAPE LOADING ERROR

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #3 –
I haven't been looking in a few years, not since everything switched to HD video, but a few points:
Weight: depends on design style as well as power rating.  Switching supplies are featherweight compared to big iron transformers running at line frequency (50-60 Hz).
Heat sinks are another area of weight difference.  Thick extruded aluminum vs sheet metal.  The amount of heat sinking also depends on the amp design as well as power.

Full power capability on all channels is good, but do movies ever run full power to all channels at once?

AVR's takes care of running the subwoofer in the bass management settings, but many will not do that in straight stereo mode.  You have to be using a DSP mode (pro logic, Dolby digital, or some ambient concert hall setting.)

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #4 –
My tak on that list:

Quote from: Gecko on
  • An AVR "taints" the sound in a manner which regular stereo amplifiers do not. Simply put: AVRs sound worse than stereo amplifiers. You need to spend absurd amounts of money on high-end AVRs to lessen this tainting. (But even then...)


Nonsense.

Quote
  • You need excessive amounts of power, especially for movies.


Maybe if you're planning to listen at 'reference level', which I doubt.  And even then, if you have a subwoofer, that is handling the bulk of the power-requiring output.

Quote
  • Whenever someone asks if model x is OK, someone will suggest the next higher model x+1. This is regardless of x. x+1 always sounds better than x.


Absent blind listening evidence, this is nonsense, except in the sense that the x+1 model might have more/better features.

Take your room size, your speaker sensitivity, and your preferred listening volumes into power consideration.  Chances are, any decent AVR nowadays meets your requirements for delivering enough power without audible clipping.  If that's true for your setup, it means you should buy based mainly on features that might interest you -- such as connectivity (what kind and how many connectors),  room correction DSP, and 2.0 -->5.1 upmixing schemes.


Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #5 –
Thanks for confirming my thoughts.

probedb: would you mind sharing your make and model?

hlloyge: Personally I'm guessing that no manufacturer can afford to offer an inferior product which doesn't meet basic sound quality requirements (Freq. response, THD, etc.) under the regular brand name. And yes, the connectivity of these beasts is intimidating.

DonP: You make very relevant points about weight. I do think that in the presented case of Pioneer -- 3 AVRs with matching power rating, output power and weight -- it is reasonable to assume that the amplification stage & transformer is at least very similar across all three models. I now see that the higher end model is rated at 103dB SNR whereas the other two are specified at 100dB, so maybe I'm wrong. However it would surprise me, if manufacturers wouldn't take the chance to offer models which are basically identical in hardware but have a different firmware with different feature sets, maybe slap on a nicer display and a bezel for the front connectors.
Also thanks for pointing out the subwoofer utilization. My current stereo amp has a subwoofer out (not sure if it's just a summed signal or if it is also lowpassed) and I would have thought that an AVR would work the same. Maybe this varies by brand/model? I will keep an eye out.

krabapple: Regarding power: my thoughts exactly! However movie folk will argue that big sound events like explosions may exhaust all channels. Even if you let the sub do the work below 80Hz, there's still plenty of low frequency energy left for the satellites. But I'm not sure I want 5 speakers (and a sub) screaming into my ears at ca. 105dB each (assuming a sensitivity of 85dB and 150W for each speaker.)

I guess what this all means is that I will start looking at the bottom of the product lines and work my way up until I have all the features I want.

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Gecko on
probedb: would you mind sharing your make and model?


Certainly, it's a Denon AVR-2805. Rather old now but still sounds fine to me. Has a 7.1 channel ext in so I can plug my BR player in for the new audio formats without upgrading too. The only feature it doesn't have but which is more down to a stupidly encoded BR is not being able to apply any processing to the ext-in. Then again I don't think most AVRs do this.

I just remembered, the audio mode is called 'Pure Direct'....as I say I doubt I can actually hear any difference to be honest.

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #7 –
Quote from: probedb on
Certainly, it's a Denon AVR-2805. Rather old now but still sounds fine to me. Has a 7.1 channel ext in so I can plug my BR player in for the new audio formats without upgrading too. The only feature it doesn't have but which is more down to a stupidly encoded BR is not being able to apply any processing to the ext-in. Then again I don't think most AVRs do this.
Right, most AVRs don't do A-D conversion for the multichannel inputs. But what's the problem with this BR?

Quote
I just remembered, the audio mode is called 'Pure Direct'....as I say I doubt I can actually hear any difference to be honest.

Usually these "pure direct" modes disable processing, and most likely the processing they disable is room correction like Audyssey or MCACC. Since you're using the analog 7.1 inputs, it probably doesn't make a difference cause the DSP doesn't work on them.

Pioneer has two of these, one is just "Direct" which doesn't disable the MCACC room correction, but disables any matrixing such as DPLIIx or other processing like that, and "Pure Direct" which disables everything. "Direct" mode is useful when you're using HDMI and have sources that keep changing number of channels.

Common (mis?)conceptions regarding AV receivers

Reply #8 –
Quote from: andy o on
Right, most AVRs don't do A-D conversion for the multichannel inputs. But what's the problem with this BR?

Well the main track is a 2.0 DTS-MA but the DTS core has been encoded with DTS 5.1 but only the front left/right channels active. Normally I would use the core track for a 2.0 or 2.1 track so I can get DPL processing as the BR player doesn't do this. But because it's 5.1 I can't use this mode on my receiver. I end up using a Matrix mode that just dumps any input over the 5 channels. As it's the only BR I have with this I'm not upgrading my receiver just yet