AVR vs Integrated amps for 2 channel playback general consensus?

Dyslexia I'm afraid!

 

You're not alone, I am as well! It's worse with alphabet soup like that! I read real slow to offset it .

 

Count me in too. SC-LX76 | Pioneer

 

I was aware of your point both of the article and the functionality.

The comparison with an integrated for someone else, be it reviewer or whoever isn't relevant for me. I was the one that did the comparison and found the 818 better. That's the one that counted, not whether Andrew Everard, or anyone else really, thought it better or not against a stereo integrated. I did.

As for the functionality, the only things I haven't used on the amp are the extra channels. The network capability, DSD, FLAC, digital inputs, Audyssey, etc, have all come into play. Integrateds were off the pace at the time, around 2013, limited for my needs and using multiple boxes wasn't an option. I gained form and functionality and never looked back.

I need to change now as my living circumstances have changed and will likely look at actives with an onboard DAC and preamp. Quad 9as a strong possibility.

 

I'm using an Onkyo TX-SR805 as a dedicated power-amp to great effect. Patched my tube preamp into the direct-inputs & bingo, incredible performance. 3-stage Darlington inverted circuit based on dual 'push-pull' amplification, can draw nearly 10 amps out of the wall, capable of 60 amps of instantaneous current, and tips the scales at a beefy 50-pounds. It seems to be the perfect combination of fidelity & power. I've since tried many other 2-channel power amps but the monster Onkyo simply wipes the floor with them. Not all AVR's are created equal...

 

So after much lively debate I decided to find out for myself and purchased several different units and tested each out for a few weeks.

I decided to take a chance on this unit (RX-A1060) and found it quite adequate. I wouldn't expect it to meet your A-S1100 by any means, (and I envy you greatly!) but in Pure Direct mode its a pretty decent 2 channel amp with way more features and no glaring compromises. (sure there are SOME but they are minor given the price) I plan on using it in the future as a pre-amp and get a separate amp for the mains but realistically... a $1,000 or less integrated amp is probably NOT going to sound any better than this unit currently does.

Others mentioned the Onkyo A-9070 being a more affordable 2 channel amp with better performance. Well I can say I currently use it's predecessor, the A-9555 which was a highly rated a few years back at Stereophille and had an MSRP of $800 and can say without a doubt unless the A-9070 is a massive upgrade from the A-9555 its going to sound way less revealing than a decent $1,000ish AVR. Those sub $1,000 amps certainly don't sound BAD by any means (they sound good and are a good value) but I have yet to find one that sounds overall better than a slightly higher priced "top model" AVR. I've loved my A-9555 for many years but the Yamaha AVR was way better in *MOST* respects...

It seems to me once you consider spending $1,400 or more on an integrated amp that's when you start to see a bigger divide between AVR and 2 channel.

That said, no one will ever argue that a $500 AVR will do 2 channel as well as a $500 integrated. In such cases you're already scraping the bottom of the barrel as it is...

thoughts?

 

I often see these kind of comments, but let me tell you that from inside engineering and manufacturing, the biggest cost factor is NOT how much stuff is packed in, it is how many you make, albeit exponentially. That is, doubling your sales quantity will reduce cost but just somewhat. Selling 10 times or 100 times as much, THAT seriously brings costs down. A very generalized statement but generally very true for nearly all types of mass-produced products (stuff that is hand-made in tiny quantities operate on different economics).

I haven't seen data in a long time, but AVRs used to wildly outsell stereo integrateds (I wonder under today's fads if this is still true). So the same money bought you less rated power-even less real power, perhaps. Used just for stereo, the multichannel AVR could be loafing as it rested 3 or 5 channels.

AVRs do have a lot more costs for licensing and DSP chips, and one area where they fall short is they all "droop" their power into more channels. So I would guess this is an area where robust integrateds could excel.

However, integrateds almost NEVER provide a way to CORRECTLY (i.e. high passed) connect a subwoofer. Why is a mystery, but true. So that is a notable problem unless you are running true fullrange speakers. Room correction and such in AVRs can also render big improvements though it depend on your system and room.

Anyway, once upon a time I would have said at modest prices the AVR used as stereo was probably better than the standalone. I'm not so sure that is true any more, since there are what appear to be some nice several hundred dollar integrateds, and since I suspect at the $1000+ mark the more focused integrated *could* have a better amp section. In the end, we have to listen and compare, unfortunately not often possible.

I don't know that they are all "mediocre"-I find my Denon sounds neutral* to me which is exactly what I want. But I was never too fond of Sony or Panasonic, not that I ever got to do any kind of A/B.



*Then again, I no longer have video running through it, which someone's testing showed CAN corrupt the sound. I suspect this could be a significant issue for some folks perception of the sound of AVRs. Also quite possibly (certainly if you are talking about older AVRs) not the greatest implementations of the various digital functions. Old receivers did not have a lot of bit depth and also less sophisticated processing algorithms. It also depends on the source-back-in-the-day decoding of, say, Dolby Digital wouldn't have the same quality as something great at an analog input. OR, if the analog inputs were used with time correction etc, the A/D technology was not as good as what *could* be achieved today (but IS IT?!? I've never seen that tested. OH, how I wish Stereophile would get off their high horse and test some AVRs and tell us! If you've seen any other spot do such testing please let us know.

 

I started with an AVR (Yamaha RX-V1800, good reviews, paid about $1100 new) and it sounded quite nice.

I then went with the external amp to up my 'game' - got a decent bump in front amplification/resolution.

Looked at the rabbit hole and decided to go in with an integrated amp - that was a quantum step up in sq.

My experience is that you need to frog leap to too high a price point with an AVR (or pre/pro) to get equivalent sq as an integrated.

Integration of sub was tricky, but I wouldn't sacrifice the sq I get just to get bass management - I'd rather 'suffer' and do it myself.

 

Onkyo recently started selling a two channel amp with HDMI inputs. It would be interesting to compare its sq to a similarly priced 5 or 7 channel avr.

 

I usually find myself in agreement with your posts but in this case I'm going to have to disagree. I have a Sony AVR (HDMI equipped capable of 7.1, I don't recall the model number) and against my Rega Brio using the same sources and speakers the Sony sounds weak and hollow. They cost approximately the same. The Sony is more than adequate for movies and tv, for music not so much.

 

AVRs have improved considerably since their inception. Major companies like Marantz/Denon have heavy R&D since this arena is very competitive. They have to put out a solid product at an attractive price. Higher end units have tone defeat/source direct/pure audio bypass features that disengage unwanted signal processing. That being said, AVRs are all about features, and if you don't want or use them, probably better off with an intergrated. The problem is that market only exists primarily in higher end circles, at least purchasing new.

 

Onkyo have consistently impressed me with their approach in the last decade. Really embraced what the technology can do but very much with music in mind.

 

I think this is the area that gives AVRs an advantage. I have mainly run Denon receivers and the current lower end models have many of the features of last year's top end models, so I don't really know how you can hit the same price points with integrated setups that don't have nearly as much money of R&D inside (i.e. Economies of Scale). I would think it would cost more to be in a one off situation with low # sells as the backbone.

Personally, I think some of the preference comes down to your room. I saw huge increases in SQ when Audyssey MultEQ XT32 came along. I run my Denon to a couple Emotiva mono blocks for the front two channels and I am happy with the sound for the money spent.

As a side note, I believe the "pure" audio settings bypass the room correction software, so I think "stereo" often sounds better for that reason. Before MultEQ 32 came along, I preferred the pure audio mode. In fact, I used an outboard DAC and ran to pure audio back then. I tested the outboard DAC in the MultEQ setup and it just did not sound as good as feeding the receiver a digital signal and letting it handle the processing.

I see a lot of people say this isn't "popular opinion" around here. I am sure it isn't, but just because something is common thought or a function of monolithic groupthink doesn't make it correct. Not saying it is wrong either, but popular thought really isn't evidence. It is more about common knowledge that developed when AVR HTIBs (home theater in a box) started getting popular. That doesn't mean that current AVRs fit that particular paradigm anymore.

 

Um, if you read my post where I'm not too fond of Sony, I'd say actually we agree. Though again, I have not A/B'd anything like that. A friend plans to buy a Cambridge Audio amp, and the I definitely want to run level-matched A/B comparisons. He felt there was a noticeable difference between the integrated he first looked at and their next cheaper model-unfortunately, I missed that part of the listening session due to a phone call from my wife.

 

Yes I read that. I think the biggest issue with my original statement is it represents a generalization that can be disproven by finding a really good AVR and squaring off against a not so strong Integrated Amp (IA). But all things being equal the IA should out perform the AVR at the same price point generally speaking.

 

Can only give my experience that showed the opposite, where the Onkyo TX-NR818 showed Exposure and Leema the door.

 

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"). -Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

I think their Network Players are great, very versatile and their sound is excellent.

 

I say, take a $1K integrated amp and the same price AVR. Open both up and look at the power supply, caps and everything else.

Then, without listening to either, which one are you gonna take home with you for a stereo application?

Substitute different models, and at different price points, but keeping the two that are being compared at the same price point.

I bet that I will pick the right amp to take home with me, every time.

Do you have 4-ohm speakers? It seems that most of these AVR's don't fair well in that department.


Not really an AVR, but you get the idea...


Oh, and is this what you wanted to be paying for?


Or, would you rather be paying for what is on the inside?

 

For strictly listening to music I'd take the Rogue all day long over the Denon. No comparison at all IMO.

Products_sphinx.htm

 

For me it's about practicality, as I don't have a separate listening room. I'm not going to play my TV audio through a 2-channel amp and sacrifice surround sound. I'm not going to have 2 different amps, a 7.1 AVR for TV and a 2-channel for my vinyl. I considered it, but then I'd have to swap the speakers out each time I listened to a different source. Or do you have 2 pairs of front speakers in your living room? One for HT and one for vinyl? Not sure my wife will approve 2 amps and 4 front speakers, because I don't think an AVR sounds as good for music.

 

Not my experience at all. My $250 (closeout price) Yamaha A-S500 wiped the floor with my father's 7 channel, $1000 plus Yamaha AVR. They were similar in overall tone, but the AVR was clearly lacking in power, dynamics, and resolution, despite driving some easy-load Klipsch Cornwalls. I think you'd be surprised if you tried one of their newer integrateds.

 

A way around that is if you have a preamp or integrated amp that has HT Bypass. Best of both worlds using your current front speakers then add a center, surrounds and a sub.

 

The A-S500 looks like a real nice amp for $250!

A-S500 - Integrated Amplifiers - Hi-Fi Components - Audio & Visual - Products - Yamaha United States

 

It is a steal, 90% as good as my Parasound Halo integrated.